Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, 43462-43476 [2023-13503]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43462
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the first page of this document after
publication in the Federal Register.
9. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Office of the Secretary,
Reference Information Center, shall
send a copy of the Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
and Order, including the associated
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023–13502 Filed 7–7–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 27, and 101
[GN Docket No. 22–253; FCC 23–36; FR ID
149901]
Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2–
12.7 GHz Band
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final report and order.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) finds that it is not
in the public interest to add a mobile
allocation to permit a two-way
terrestrial 5G service in the 12.2 GHz
band based on the current record.
DATES: The report and order is effective
on July 10, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madelaine Maior of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau,
Broadband Division, at
madelaine.maior@fcc.gov or 202–418–
1466; Simon Banyai of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at
simon.banyai@fcc.gov or (202) 418–
1443; or Nick Oros of the Office of
Engineering and Technology, at
nicholas.oros@fcc.gov or (202) 418–
2099.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order (R&O) in WT Docket No. 20–
443 included in the Report and Order
and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order, FCC 23–36,
adopted on May 18, 2023 and released
May 19, 2023. The full text of this
document is available at https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC23-36A1.pdf. The R&O and the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WT
Docket No. 20–443), and the Notice of
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Proposed Rulemaking and the Order
(GN Docket No. 22–352), i.e., the four
FCC actions in FCC 23–36, are
published separately in the Rules and
Regulations and the Proposed Rules
sections, as applicable, of this issue of
the Federal Register.
People with Disabilities: 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).
Regulatory Flexibility Act: The
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), requires that an agency
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
for notice-and-comment rulemakings,
unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule
will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.’’ In
the Report and Order, the Commission
declines to adopt rule changes and,
therefore a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis has not been performed.
Congressional Review Act: The
Commission will not send a copy of the
Report and Order to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A),
because it does not adopt any rule as
defined in the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding 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. In
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
proceedings governed by § 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). 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
§ 1.1206(b). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Synopsis
I. Report and Order
A. Background
1. In this R&O, the Commission takes
steps to ensure current and future
satellite services relied upon by millions
of people across the country are
preserved and protected in the 12.2–
12.7 GHz band (12.2 GHz band) 1 The
Commission finds that authorizing twoway, high-powered terrestrial mobile
service in the 12.2 GHz band would
impose a significant risk of harmful
interference to existing and emergent
services in the band, including satellite
services. Such interference could
undermine investments made by
incumbent licensees and jeopardize
their potential to provide new services
to underserved communities, including
rural communities. The 12.2 GHz band
is allocated on a primary basis for nonFederal use for Broadcasting Satellite
Service (BSS) (referred to domestically
as Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)),
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) (space-toEarth) limited to non-geostationary orbit
systems (NGSO FSS), and Fixed
Service.2 While the three services are
1 In order to distinguish references to the bands
in this item, the Commission refers to the 12.2–12.7
GHz band as the 12.2 GHz band throughout. See
Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band,
WT Docket Nos. 20–443 et al., Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 36 FCC Rcd 606 (2021), (86 FR 13266
(March 8, 2021)) (12.2 NPRM).
2 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 (revised as 47 CFR 2.106(b)(487)(i),
at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023, effective July 7, 2023),
which provides additional allocations including in
Region 2 as follows ‘‘[The 12.2–12.7 GHz is]
allocated to the fixed-satellite service (space-toEarth) on a primary basis, limited to nongeostationary systems and subject to application of
the provisions of [International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) Radio Regulations] No. 9.12 for
coordination with other non-geostationary-satellite
systems in the fixed-satellite service. Non-
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
co-primary, NGSO FSS and Fixed
Service are allocated on a non-harmful
interference basis to DBS.3 Currently
there are three services operating in the
band: DBS providers operating under
the primary BSS allocation, NGSO FSS
licensees operating under the coprimary NGSO FSS allocation, and
Multi-Channel Video and Data
Distribution Service (MVDDS) licensees
operating under the co-primary Fixed
Service allocation.4
2. While DBS service began in 1994,
and NGSO FSS systems were authorized
in the early 2000s, the Commission
permitted MVDDS to operate in the 12.2
GHz band starting in 2004 under
technical rules to ensure that MVDDS
stations do not cause harmful
interference to DBS or earlier-in-time
NGSO FSS fixed subscriber receivers.5
geostationary-satellite systems in the fixed-satellite
service shall not claim protection from
geostationary-satellite networks in the broadcastingsatellite 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 nongeostationary-satellite systems in the fixed-satellite
service and of the complete coordination or
notification information, as appropriate, for the
geostationary-satellite networks, and [ITU
Regulations] No. 5.43A does not apply. Nongeostationary-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 (n.5.487A revised as 47
CFR 2.106(b)(487)(i), at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023,
effective July 7, 2023). 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).
3 See 47 CFR 2.106, n.5.490 (International
Footnote) (n.5.490 revised as 47 CFR 2.106(b)(490),
at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023, effective July 7, 2023).
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). See also Annex to the Constitution of
the ITU, 1003 (defining harmful interference).
4 47 CFR 101.147(a) n.31.
5 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 Report and Order and
FNPRM).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
43463
To that end, MVDDS service was
limited to a relatively low power, oneway, digital fixed non-broadcast service,
including one-way direct-to-home/office
wireless service with each proposed
transmitter subject to detailed prior
coordination requirements.6 In April
2016, a coalition of MVDDS licensees
filed a Petition for Rulemaking
requesting reforms to the 12.2 GHz band
rules, including permitting MVDDS
licensees to use the band for two-way
mobile broadband services.7
3. Later in 2016, the International
Bureau opened a processing round to
accept NGSO FSS applications and
petitions for market access in several
frequency bands 8 and the Commission
reformed its NGSO FSS rules.9 In 2017,
the Commission granted the first of the
new generation NGSO FSS requests—a
petition for market access by WorldVu
Satellites Limited (OneWeb) for a
planned Low Earth Orbit (LEO) NGSO
FSS satellite system of 720 satellites
authorized by the United Kingdom in
the 10.7–12.7 GHz Band (in addition to
several other bands).10 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.’’ 11 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.12 The
Commission also agreed with comments
of the MVDDS 5G Coalition that
MVDDS should not have to protect any
NGSO FSS earth stations in motion
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.13 The
NGSO FSS Report and Order adopted,
among other things, spectrum sharing
rules and a more flexible milestone
schedule for NGSO FSS systems.14 The
Commission subsequently granted five
additional NGSO FSS requests to use
bands that include the 12.2 GHz band
(among others).15
4. NGSO FSS systems have continued
to deploy. In particular, SpaceX
received modified authority for its first
generation (Gen 1) system to decrease
the altitude from the 1,100–1,300 km to
the 540–570 km range for 2,814
satellites as well as approval of its
updated orbital debris mitigation plan.16
To date, SpaceX has deployed
6 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 (D.C. Cir. 2005)).
7 Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition for
Rulemaking, RM–11768, at 17–18 (filed Apr. 26,
2016), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/
60001658886/1 (MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition). See
also Petition for Rulemakings Filed, Public Notice,
Report No. 3042, at 8, 17–18 (May 9, 2016) (Petition
Public Notice).
8 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).
9 In September 2017, the Commission adopted the
NGSO FSS Report and Order, updating several rules
and policies governing NGSO FSS systems. See
Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning NonGeostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and
Related Matters, Report and Order (82 FR 59972
(Dec. 18, 2017)) and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (82 FR 52869 (Nov. 15, 20217)), 32 FCC
Rcd 7809 (2017) (NGSO FSS Report and Order).
10 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).
11 Id. at 5369, para. 6.
12 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.’’).
13 Id. at 5370, para. 8.
14 See NGSO FSS Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd
at 7821–31, paras. 37–68.
15 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).
16 Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for
Modification of the Authorization for the SpaceX
NGSO Satellite System, Order and Authorization,
36 FCC Rcd 7995 (2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
43464
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
approximately 4,000 satellites.17 The
Commission also recently issued a
partial grant to SpaceX to begin
deploying its second generation (Gen 2)
system, with a grant approving up to
7,500 satellites to operate in the Ka- and
Ku-frequency bands.18 OneWeb also
recently received modified authority for
its constellation 19 and, to date, it has
deployed over 580 satellites.20 On June
30, 2022, the International Bureau
authorized SpaceX and Kepler to serve
earth stations in motion (ESIMs) in the
12.2 GHz band on an unprotected, nonharmful interference basis.21
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
17 See,
e.g., Mike Wall, SpaceX launches 56
Starlink satellites, lands rocket at sea, space.com
(‘‘SpaceX has now lofted more than 4,200 Starlink
satellites overall, according to astrophysicist and
satellite tracker Jonathan McDowell.’’) (Mar. 29,
2023), https://www.space.com/spacex-starlinkgroup-5-10-launch#:∼:
text=SpaceX%20launched%20
another%20big%20batch,
p.m.%20EDT%20(2001%20GMT).
18 Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for
Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the
SpaceX Gen2 NGSO Satellite System, IBFS File No.
SAT–LOA–20200526–00055 and SAT–AMD–
20210818–00105, Order and Authorization, FCC
22–91, 2022 WL 17413767, at *54, para. 135(ii)
(Dec. 1, 2022) (SpaceX Gen2 Order) (stating that the
‘‘authorization is subject to modification to bring it
into conformance with any rules or policies
adopted by the Commission in the future. [And,
that] . . . any investments made toward operations
in the bands authorized [by the] Order by SpaceX
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 . . . [including, but not limited to] . . . any
conditions or requirements resulting from any
action in the proceedings associated with. . .WTB
Docket 20–443. . .’’).
19 WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for
Declaratory Ruling to Modify the U.S. Market
Access Grant for the OneWeb Ku-band and Ka-Band
NGSO FSS System, Order and Declaratory Ruling,
DA 22–970 (IB, rel. Sept. 16, 2022) (petition to
modify grant of U.S. market access granted in part
and deferred in part to approve minor adjustments
to number of satellites per plane without exceeding
previously-approved total of 720 satellites).
20 See, e.g., Letter from Kimberly M. Baum, Vice
President, Spectrum Engineering & Strategy,
WorldVu Satellites Limited, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 20–443 et al. at 1
(filed Mar. 20, 2023); https://oneweb.net/resources/
oneweb-confirms-successful-deployment-40satellites-launched-spacex-1 (‘‘OneWeb confirms
successful deployment of 40 satellites launched
with SpaceX. Launch 17 brings the total OneWeb
constellation to 582 satellites. Third launch with
SpaceX makes penultimate mission to achieving
global coverage.’’).
21 SpaceX Services, Inc. Application for Blanket
Authorization of Next- Generation Ku-Band Earth
Stations in Motion et al.; Kepler Communications
Inc. Application for Blanket Authorization of KuBand Earth Stations on Vessels, Order and
Authorization, DA 22–695 (IB June 30, 2022)
(ESIMs Authorizations). DISH and RS Access had
argued that granting these applications would
constrain the Commission’s decision-making in the
instant 12.2 GHz band rulemaking proceeding by
injecting new ESIM encumbrances into the 12.2
GHz band. ESIMs Authorizations at 11–12, para. 22.
DISH and RS Access also argued that authorizing
ESIMs in the band on an unprotected basis would
likely result in primary users in the band being
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
5. On January 15, 2021, the
Commission released a notice of
proposed rulemaking (12.2 NPRM) to
allow interested parties to address
whether it could add a mobile allocation
and make other changes to expand
terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band
without causing harmful interference to
incumbent licensees and, if so, whether
such action would promote or hinder
the delivery of next-generation services
in the 12.2 GHz band given the existing
and emergent services offered by
incumbent licensees.22
B. 5G Use of the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band
6. By this R&O, the Commission finds
that it is not in the public interest to add
a mobile allocation to permit a two-way
terrestrial 5G service in the 12.2 GHz
band based on the current record.23 The
Commission finds that a new ubiquitous
terrestrial 5G service introduced
throughout the band would create a
significant risk of harmful interference
to Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) and
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) (space-toEarth) limited to non-geostationary orbit
systems (NGSO FSS) operators.
Although the Commission declines to
authorize two-way, high-powered
terrestrial mobile use, the Commission
seeks further comment in its related
further notice of proposed rulemaking
in WT Docket No. 20–443 (see FCC 23–
36, paras. 48–57) (FR 2023–13501),
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, on how best to
maximize use of this 500 megahertz of
mid-band spectrum. The Commission
required to assume the costs to prevent service
interruptions to SpaceX customers. Id. at 11, para.
18. The International Bureau found that granting
the applications served the public interest but also
recognized that the introduction of a potentially
significant number of additional end users in
motion could affect the 12 GHz spectrum
environment. Therefore the Bureau imposed
conditions to ensure grant of those applications
would not materially impact the outcome of the 12
GHz rulemaking proceeding. ESIMs Authorizations
at 12–13, paras. 23–27. The Bureau imposed
conditions on the grants related to the 12.2 GHz
band including: (1) requiring operations to be on a
non-interference basis; (2) subjecting the operations
to the outcome of any future rulemaking including
the instant 12.2 GHz band GHz proceeding, with the
understanding that the presence of ESIMs is not
anticipated to materially affect the analysis therein,
and subject to modification to conform to any rules
or policies adopted, including in the instant 12.2
GHz band proceeding, and assumption of this risk;
(3) subjecting the grant to the applicants’
representations, including that their NGSO systems
have been engineered to achieve a high degree of
flexibility to facilitate spectrum sharing with other
authorized satellite and terrestrial systems. Id. In
addition, the Bureau explained that its case-by-case
analysis was limited to the applications before it
and have no broader applicability. See id.
22 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 614, para. 2.
23 In this R&O, record references and citations
refer to WT Docket No. 20–443, unless otherwise
noted.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
takes these actions with respect to the
12.2–12.7 GHz band in conjunction with
its related action to issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking in GN Docket No.
22–352 (see FCC 23–36, paras. 58–142)
(FR 2023–13500), published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register,
proposing to expand the use of the 12.7–
13.25 GHz band for mobile broadband
or other expanded use.
7. In April 2016, the MVDDS 5G
Coalition, which included eleven of the
twelve Multi-Channel Video and Data
Distribution Service (MVDDS) licensees
at that time, filed a Petition for
Rulemaking requesting reforms to the
12.2 GHz band rules, including
permitting MVDDS licensees to use the
band for two-way mobile 5G broadband
services.24 In support of the Petition, the
Coalition also provided two Coexistence
Studies that it claimed illustrated that a
new 5G service could coexist with DBS
operators in the band but would be
incompatible with NGSO FSS.25
Subsequently, however, some members
of the MVDDS 5G Coalition suggested
the possibility of 5G terrestrial use and
NGSO FSS sharing in the band.26
8. On January 15, 2021, the
Commission released its 12.2 NPRM to
allow interested parties to address
whether it could add a mobile allocation
and make other changes to expand
terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band
without causing harmful interference to
incumbent licensees and, if so, whether
such action would promote or hinder
the delivery of next-generation services
in the 12.2 GHz band given the existing
and emergent services offered by
incumbent licensees.27 In the 12.2
NPRM, the Commission stated that it
would proceed mindful of the
24 For brevity and convenience, the Commission
refers to terrestrial, 2-way, high-power mobile
operations herein as ‘‘5G.’’
25 MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice
Comments, Attach. 1, MVDDS 12.2–12.7 GHz CoPrimary Service Coexistence (Coexistence 1) and
MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Reply,
Appx. A, MVDDS 12.2–12.7 GHZ Co-Primary
Service Coexistence II (Coexistence 2) (collectively,
Coexistence Studies).
26 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); Letter from Jeffrey Blum,
Executive Vice President, External and Legislative
Affairs, DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
Docket No. RM–11768, at 4 (filed Nov. 12, 2020)
(DISH Nov. 12, 2020 Ex Parte) (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.’’).
27 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 614, para. 2.
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
significant investments made by
incumbents and that it valued 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 initiated
the instant 12.2 GHz band proceeding to
allow interested parties to address
whether additional operations can be
accommodated in the band while
protecting incumbent operations from
harmful interference and to provide an
opportunity for the Commission to
assess the public interest considerations
associated with adding a new mobile
allocation.28 In particular, the
Commission sought information on the
status of technologies that have been
developed or are currently in
development that would allow for twoway mobile communications in the 12.2
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 12.2 GHz band; and the
impact (if any) on international rights
for U.S.-licensed systems that might be
affected as a result of the U.S. providing
for expanded shared use of the band.29
Comments were due May 7, 2021, reply
comments were due July 7, 2021, and
interested parties have added many ex
parte filings to the rulemaking dockets
since the comment deadlines.30
9. In response to the 12.2 NPRM,
several of the MVDDS licensees, and
one DBS provider that is also a major
MVDDS licensee, contend that 5G
terrestrial and incumbent services can
28 See, e.g., id. Additionally, the Commission
explained 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.’’
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.
29 See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 21,
n.67 (citing 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)).
30 See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2–12.7
GHz Band, et al., WT Docket No. 20–443, et. al.,
Order, 36 FCC Rcd 6534 (WTB 2021); Expanding
Flexible Use of the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band, et. al., WT
Docket No. 20–443, et. al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 9531
(WTB 2021); see generally WT Docket No. 20–443
and GN Docket 17–183.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
coexist in the band, the other DBS
provider and the NGSO FSS
commenters contend that such
coexistence is not yet technically
feasible. Multiple technical analyses
were submitted into the record that
purport to model the potential
interference between a new 5G mobile
terrestrial service and incumbent
satellite services in the band.31 These
models rely on various technical
assumptions about which the parties
greatly disagree.
10. Based on the record in this
proceeding, the Commission finds that a
new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial mobile
service cannot coexist with DBS
operations in the band without a
significant increase in the risk of
harmful interference. The Commission
is not persuaded by the assurances of
one of the two nationwide DBS
providers that DBS will be protected,32
particularly given that the other
nationwide DBS provider raises
significant concerns.33 The Commission
31 RS Access Comment, Appendix A, Assessment
of Feasibility of Coexistence between NGSO FSS
Earth Stations and 5G Operations in the 12.2–12.7
GHz Band, at 6 (filed May 7, 2021) (RS Access
Comment RKF Study I); Letter from Noah Campbell,
CEO, RS Access, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 20–443, Attach. A, The Effect
of 5G Deployment on NGSO FSS Downlink
Operations in the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band (filed May
19, 2022) (RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II);
Letter from David Goldman, Senior Director,
Satellite Policy, Space Exploration Technologies
Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket No. 20–443, Attach. A, SpaceX Analysis of
the Effect of Terrestrial Mobile Deployment on
NGSO FSS Earth Stations and 5G Operations in the
12.2–12.7 GHz Band (filed June 21, 2022) (SpaceX
June 21, 2022 Analysis); Letter from V. Noah
Campbell, CEO, RS Access, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20–443, Attach. A,
Analysis of Starlink Submission Regarding the
Effect of 5G Deployment on NGSO FSS (filed July
15, 2022) (RS Access July 15, 2022 RKF Response
Study); Letter from Stacy Fuller, Senior Vice
President, External Affairs, DIRECTV, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20–443,
Attach. A, 12 GHz Co-Frequency Interference from
Terrestrial Mobile into DBS (filed July 18, 2022)
(DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis); Letter from
Kimberly M. Baum, Vice President, Spectrum
Engineering & Strategy, WorldVu Satellites Limited,
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket
No. 20–443, Annex, Monte Carlo Analyses of the
Potential Impact of an Expanded Terrestrial Service
on NGSO FSS Systems in the 12 GHz Band (filed
July 11, 2022) (OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses);
Letter from David Goldman, Senior Director,
Satellite Policy, Space Exploration Technologies
Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket No. 20–443, Exh. A, Evaluation of SpaceX
Study Related to 12 GHz Interference from
Terrestrial Mobile into Starlink (filed Oct. 4, 2022)
(SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report).
32 DISH states that the presence of higher-power
two-way mobile and fixed services at 12 GHz are
possible and fully consistent with protecting DBS
in the band. See DISH Comment at 1.
33 AT&T has argued on behalf of DirecTV that
RKF has not established that expanded terrestrial
mobile operations could be added without causing
harmful interference to DBS operations—a service
which RKF’s Study completely ignores, and a factor
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43465
finds that the study submitted by the 5G
advocates is based on unsupported
assumptions that undermine its
reliability. As explained below, the 5G
proponents have not demonstrated that
a new 5G service will be able to meet
the Equivalent Power Flux Density
(EPFD) limits required to protect DBS
receivers in the 12.2 GHz band. Also,
the Commission finds that the 5G
proponents have not adequately
addressed the issues raised both in the
12.2 NPRM and by commenters
regarding the applicability of burdenshifting protection obligations, lower
earth-station elevation angles, power
limits, EPFD limits and receiver location
information.
11. Further, the Commission also
finds that ubiquitous two-way mobile
broadband 5G service is likely to create
a significant risk of harmful interference
to ubiquitous NGSO FSS operations.
The 5G terrestrial advocates’ analysis
rests on the speculative assumption that
5G and NGSO FSS operations will not
be geographically near each other (i.e.,
5G advocates offer studies that assume
NGSO FSS will largely serve rural areas,
and 5G will serve urban/suburban
markets) without pointing to any basis
for this assumption. The Commission
finds that this unsupported assumption,
which is not in line with current
deployment practices and plans, renders
the technical studies offered by the 5G
advocates unpersuasive, and therefore
such studies cannot serve as a basis on
which to conclude that the public
interest would be best served by
allowing a new, ubiquitous 5G service
into the band at this time. The
Commission specifically asked whether
geographic sharing could allow higherpower terrestrial operations in certain
areas, and if so, how such geographic
sharing should be structured.34 But
apart from studies based on nonbinding, hypothetical assumptions, the
Commission notes that 5G proponents
did not offer any rules to limit their
proposed 5G operations to less than all
of the geographic areas authorized by
their MVDDS licenses.
1. 5G Interference to DBS
12. As a threshold matter, the
Commission finds that a new ubiquitous
which alone, it argues, should nullify the study. See
AT&T Reply at 14. AT&T asserts exclusion and/or
coordination zones are neither practical nor feasible
in the 12 GHz band as a means of protecting DBS
because millions of DBS receivers are spread
throughout the U.S. and are constantly being added,
moved, or relocated. See id. at 26. AT&T states its
concerns are not lessened just because DISH is not
concerned about the possibility of harmful
interference posed by terrestrial mobile operations.
See id. at 22.
34 See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 43.
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
43466
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
5G terrestrial mobile service cannot
coexist with DBS operations in the band
without a significant increase in the risk
of harmful interference. As noted above,
pursuant to the Table of Allocations,
both terrestrial and NGSO FSS services
are obligated to protect DBS from
harmful interference.35 The Commission
has long recognized the public interest
benefits that incumbent DBS services
provide to millions of subscribers, and
has required the other co-primary
services in 12.2 GHz band to operate on
a non-harmful interference basis with
respect to DBS.36 Congress, too, sought
to ensure that DBS would not be subject
to harmful interference from any new
terrestrial service by requiring that the
Commission ‘‘provide for an
independent technical demonstration of
any terrestrial service technology
proposed by any entity that has filed an
application to provide terrestrial service
in the direct broadcast satellite
frequency band to determine whether
the terrestrial service technology
proposed to be provided by that entity
will cause harmful interference to any
direct broadcast satellite service.’’ 37 The
Commission ultimately adopted rules
for MVDDS based on the extensive
record of a multi-year rulemaking
proceeding,38 which included the
statutory mandates to avoid harmful
interference to DBS 39 and an
independent analysis 40 of potential
MVDDS interference to DBS.41 These
rules include detailed frequency
coordination procedures that require an
MVDDS licensee to ensure that the
EPFD 42 from a proposed transmitting
antenna does not exceed the applicable
35 See
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
36 See
supra para. 1 & n.3.
generally MVDDS Second Report and
Order.
37 See Prevention of Interference to Direct
Broadcast Satellite Services, Public Law 106–553,
App. B., Title. X, 1012, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–128,
2762A–141 (2000) (LOCAL TV Act 1012); see also
Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, Public Law 106–
113, App. I., Title II, sec. 2002, 113 Stat. 1501,
1501A–544 (1999). 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.
38 See ET Docket No. 98–206.
39 See LOCAL TV Act 1012(a).
40 Id.
41 See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17
FCC Rcd at 9635, para. 56 (citing MITRE
Corporation, ‘‘Analysis of Potential MVDDS
Interference to DBS in the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band’’
(Apr. 18, 2001) (MITRE Report)).
42 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. See 47 CFR
101.105(a)(4)(ii)(A).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
EPFD limit 43 at any DBS receiving
antenna of a ‘‘customer of record.’’ 44
The MVDDS rules also include other
limitations on signal emissions,
transmitter power levels, and
transmitter locations.45 When an
MVDDS licensee proposes a new
station, coordination with DBS is
necessary to demonstrate that the
relevant EPFD limit will not be
exceeded at the DBS antenna of any
DBS subscriber of record.46 Once an
MVDDS station has been successfully
coordinated, however, the burden to
ensure that DBS subscribers do not
suffer interference from that MVDDS
station shifts to the DBS operator—
immediately for new subscribers 47 and
43 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 and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9691, para. 197.
44 See 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(ii) (referencing the
procedures listed in 47 CFR 101.1440). Among
other things, an MVDDS licensee 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 the introduction of its MVDDS service and must
coordinate with DBS. See 47 CFR 101.1440(a)–(d).
45 See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report and 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); 101.103; 101.105; 101.111;
101.113; 101.129; 101.1409; 101.1440. Notably, the
rules limit the EIRP for MVDDS stations to 14 dBm
per 24 megahertz. See 47 CFR 101.113(a) note 11;
101.147(p). In the MVDDS Second Report and
Order, the Commission explained that ‘‘placing a
limit on MVDDS EIRP will ensure that DBS entities
are not unduly hindered in their ability to acquire
customers in areas in close proximity to MVDDS
transmit facilities. Thus, we are not permitting
higher powers over areas containing mountain
ridges or over presently unpopulated regions
because the higher power may cause too great of an
exclusion zone for future DBS and NGSO FSS
subscribers. The Commission recognizes that a
higher power benefit for MVDDS providers would
not offset the potential constraints placed on other
service subscribers in the 12 GHz band. MVDDS
Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9691–92,
para. 198.’’
See also id. at 9653, para. 88 (discussing the EIRP
limit as a factor in adopting DBS mitigation
obligations because ‘‘this power limit will not
inhibit the introduction of new DBS customers
[near] the MVDDS transmitting system, i.e., laterinstalled DBS receive antennas can be properly
sited and shielded from the MVDDS signal’’).
46 ‘‘DBS customers of record are those who had
their DBS receive antennas installed prior to or
within the 30 day period after notification to the
DBS operator by the MVDDS licensee of the
proposed MVDDS transmitting antenna site.’’ 47
CFR 101.1440(a).
47 ‘‘DBS licensees are responsible for providing
information they deem necessary for those entities
who install all future DBS receive antennas on its
system to take into account the presence of MVDDS
operations so that these DBS receive antennas can
be located in such a way as to avoid the MVDDS
signal. These later installed DBS receive antennas
shall have no further rights of complaint against the
notified MVDDS transmitting antenna(s).’’ 47 CFR
101.1440(e).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
after one year for customers of record.48
The Commission determined that
shifting this burden to DBS from
MVDDS—only after successful
coordination by the MVDDS operator in
the first instance—was reasonable in
light of the one-way, relatively lowpower limit on MVDDS. In doing so, the
Commission did not alter its previous
finding that allowing two-way MVDDS
operations in the band ‘‘would
unnecessarily complicate the sharing
scenario’’ and ‘‘significantly raise the
potential for instances of interference
among the operations’’ sharing the
band.49
13. In its 2016 Petition for
Rulemaking, the MVDDS 5G Coalition
proposed that a new 5G mobile
terrestrial service could also share with
existing DBS in the 12.2 GHz band.50
The Coalition provided two Coexistence
studies that—through careful selection
of mobile deployment areas,
adjustments to radio frequency design
parameters, use of geographic
separation, clutter loss, and transmitter
power constraints on terrestrial
operations—purported to show that
sharing with DBS would be possible.51
In the first Coexistence Study, which
studied three potential 5G use cases
including point-to-point
communications, mobile broadband,
and indoor mobile use, the Coalition
asserted that these potential uses could
be engineered such that terrestrial users
would not exceed the existing EPFD
limit for MVDDS.52 In its subsequent
Coexistence 2 study, the Coalition
studied a different building
environment to show that even in a
‘‘more challenging’’ sharing
environment, a new 5G service could
protect DBS up to the level it ‘‘enjoys
48 Once the new MVDDS station is coordinated
and begins operating, the MVDDS licensee must
satisfy all complaints of interference to DBS
customers of record received during a one-year
period. 47 CFR 101.1440(g).
49 MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd
at 9668, para. 137.
50 See supra para. 7.
51 See, e.g., Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Executive
Vice President, External and Legislative Affairs,
DISH, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket
No. RM–11768, at 3 (filed Sept. 22, 2020) (DISH
Sept. 22, 2020 Letter). See also Coexistence 1 at 35
(finding that ‘‘coexistence between MVDDS 5G
operations and DBS receivers is possible with
modest adjustments to MVDDS site locations and
radiofrequency design parameters’’); Coexistence 2
(revalidating the original coexistence study in
different topological use-cases); Petition of MVDDS
5G Coalition for Petition to Deny, WT Docket No.
10–112, Exh. 1, MVDDS 12.2–12.7 GHz NGSO
Coexistence Study (filed Aug. 15, 2016), https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10816077623256/1
(Coexistence 3 Aug. 15, 2016 Study).
52 MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice
Comments at 4–6.
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
today from MVDDS licensees.’’ 53 In the
12.2 NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether the approach
proposed by the MVDDS 5G Coalition in
the 2016 Coexistence studies was
feasible and the costs and benefits of
such an approach.54 The Commission
sought comment on whether, and to
what extent, the MVDDS 5G Coalition’s
proposals to license two-way, mobile
operations in the band, and to eliminate
the equivalent isotropic radiated power
(EIRP) limit, would substantially
redefine the scope of DBS operators’
obligations and potential burdens under
the current regime.55 Additionally, the
Commission asked how other factors—
such as geographic separation,
transmitter power constraints on
terrestrial operations, and other siting
parameters for flexible-use base
stations—could minimize the risk of
interference to DBS users.56
14. The advocates for a new 5G
service in the band did not directly
address the 12.2 NPRM questions but
instead continued to rely on the 2016
Coexistence studies. Specifically, DISH
stated that ‘‘the feasibility of sharing
between DBS and 5G is demonstrated by
two studies commissioned by the
MVDDS 5G Coalition and prepared by
[an] expert satellite engineer.’’ 57
Similarly, RS Access stated that, ‘‘the
coexistence studies submitted in the
petition for rulemaking proceeding
demonstrated that coexistence between
DBS and terrestrial 5G is possible, even
under a worst-case scenario.’’ 58
15. Opponents of the Coalition’s
proposals responded to the 12.2 NPRM
by criticizing the Coexistence studies.
AT&T, which owned DIRECTV, the only
current DBS operator that does not hold
MVDDS licenses, argued that the 2016
Coexistence studies, ‘‘too narrowly and
simplistically defined the areas in
which a DBS receiver could establish a
direct line-of-sight path with DBS
satellite orbital locations.’’ 59 Moreover,
AT&T argued that ‘‘these studies made
inaccurate baseline assumptions
regarding the nature of deployments and
relied upon cherry-picked use cases that
are not representative of real-world
deployments.’’ 60 Subsequently,
DIRECTV, which AT&T spun off in
53 MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice
Reply at 8–9.
54 See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616–617, para.
24.
55 See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 23.
56 See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 23.
57 DISH Comment at 3.
58 RS Access Comment at 45.
59 AT&T Reply at 11.
60 AT&T Comment at 8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
2021,61 argued that the 2016
Coexistence studies are ‘‘outdated or
irrelevant, and thus do not accurately
reflect the characteristics of either a
ubiquitous, modern, high-power
terrestrial mobile service or DIRECTV’s
DBS service.’’ 62 Moreover, SAVID LLC
(SAVID), an engineering firm that
DIRECTV hired to analyze 5G–DBS
coexistence, found that, even if it made
favorable assumptions of the terrestrial
mobile systems, 5G service in the band
would ‘‘cause extensive harmful
interference to DIRECTV receivers,
exceeding the limits currently in place
to protect DBS customers by a factor of
100 to 100,000 over areas extending
well beyond the intended coverage area
of the mobile base stations.’’ 63
16. Based on the record in this
proceeding, the Commission finds that a
new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial mobile
service cannot coexist with DBS
operations in the band without a
significant increase in the risk of
harmful interference to the DBS
operations. In particular, 5G advocates
have not shown how such new mobile
operations could meet or exceed the
metric upon which the Commission
based regional EPFD limits (ranging
from ¥172.1 to ¥168.4 dBW/m2/4kHz)
that the FCC adopted to protect DBS
from a fixed, lower power MVDDS
service at every existing DBS
subscriber’s dish. In addition, because
MVDDS is a fixed service, the rules
were able to take advantage of the
discrimination between southern facing
DBS antennas and MVDDS antennas; a
mobile service does not provide for such
accommodations and results in a much
more challenging interference
environment than MVDDS. Moreover, to
meet the existing EPFD limits, it appears
that a mobile terrestrial service would
need to be restricted to such low power
levels that it is unlikely that any given
base station could provide substantial
geographic coverage or significant 5G
service.64 According to the Coexistence
61 See AT&T, AT&T & TPG Close DIRECTV
Transaction (Aug. 2, 2021), https://about.att.com/
story/2021/att_directv.html; AT&T, AT&T
Completes Acquisition of DIRECTV (July 24, 2015),
https://about.att.com/story/att_completes_
acquisition_of_directv.html.
62 DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
63 DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
64 See, e.g., DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis
at 6. Largely to protect DBS receivers installed after
an MVDDS transmitter is successfully coordinated
with DBS, the MVDDS transmit power limit is 14
dBm/24 MHz (or 20 dBm/100 MHz). By
comparison, the 2016 MVDDS 5G Coalition
coexistence study assumed two-way terrestrial
operations at 48 dBm/100 MHz, and the most recent
RKF Study assumed a new 5G system would
operate at 65 dBm/100 MHz, however, 5G advocates
have not proposed any rules regarding power limits
that they would deem reasonable to provide 5G
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43467
1 study, 5G services could meet these
EPFD limits only when using ‘‘newly
available spectrum planning tools, and
careful engineering of MVDDS systems’’
to isolate them from DBS receivers,
either through geographic separation or
terrain blocking.65 Given the careful and
exacting engineering that would be
needed to meet these conditions, it is
not apparent that terrestrial mobile
systems, if installed, could be expanded
by adding new base station locations in
the future to meet increased consumer
demands without significantly
impacting DBS service. It is not
reasonable to assume that ubiquitous
two-way 5G mobile terrestrial service
would meet these conditions
consistently with respect to ubiquitous
DBS which serves millions of customers
in all areas of the United States where
the location of 5G mobile units could be
anywhere in the operator’s service area,
including right next to the DBS
antenna.66
17. When DIRECTV commissioned a
study from SAVID using what it deemed
more reasonable assumptions than those
of the 5G advocates, that study found
that at power levels of 69 dBm/100
MHz 67 ‘‘mobile operations in the band
would cause extensive and harmful
interference to DIRECTV receivers.’’ 68
DISH raises several criticisms of the
SAVID study,69 but even the MVDDS 5G
Coalition’s own study found that at 48
dBm/100 MHz in certain small areas
actual harmful interference could occur
if a DBS receive antenna were present.70
The Commission notes that the power
levels used in the Coexistence studies
service while still protecting incumbent DBS
subscribers. The Commission notes that a 28–45dB
higher transmit power for the proposed 5G service
would make meeting the regional EPFD limits to
existing DBS subscribers much more challenging
and would significantly increase the burden on DBS
operators to protect new or modified DBS
subscriber receivers.
65 MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice
Comments at 4–6.
66 See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1
(the assumptions made by the Coexistence Studies
‘‘do not accurately reflect the characteristics of
either an ubiquitous, modern, high-power terrestrial
mobile service or DIRECTV’s DBS service.’’).
67 The base station EIRP is 75 dBm/100 MHz but
the base station EIRP density is reduced by the base
station TDD activity factor of 75% to 69dBm/100
MHz. See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at
4–5.
68 DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
69 See Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos,
Counsel, DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 20–443, at 2–3 (filed August
8, 2022) (DISH Aug. 8, 2022 Letter). Among other
things, DISH questioned SAVID’s assumptions
about 5G transmit power and DBS dish location; its
decision to ‘‘ignore’’ the potential for horizon
nulling and time variability; and its failure to use
LIDAR data to accurately account for clutter loss.
Id. at 2–3.
70 Coexistence 1 at 21.
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
43468
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
are substantially lower than the 62
dBm/MHz (82 dBm/100 MHz) generally
permitted in most other terrestrial
mobile bands which operate at lower
frequencies with more favorable
propagation characteristics and even
less than the maximum 47 dBm/10 MHz
(57 dBm/100 MHz) permitted in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service
(CBRS) service designed specifically for
small cell coverage. While the
Coexistence studies and the SAVID
study do not reach identical conclusions
due to differing assumptions,
collectively they illustrate that two-way
mobile terrestrial 5G operations could
not ubiquitously meet the regional EPFD
limits that the FCC adopted to protect
DBS. As DBS receivers may be located
anywhere (and can be either roofmounted or installed on the ground),
and as the Coalition’s own Coexistence
studies shows the potential for harmful
interference from 5G into DBS in some
instances, the Commission finds that a
new 5G service cannot adequately
protect incumbent DBS operators in the
band from a significant risk of harmful
interference. Moreover, the Commission
notes that DISH and other 5G advocates
have not proposed or agreed to rules or
limits on 5G operations (such as horizon
nulling) that DISH suggests might
reduce some risk of harmful interference
into DBS. However, even if the 5G
advocates agreed to use advanced
techniques for interference mitigation,
that would not solve the underlying
problem that a new ubiquitous 5G
terrestrial service poses a significant risk
of harmful interference to DBS given the
ubiquitous nature of both the existing
DBS service and the proposed 5G
service.
18. The 5G advocates do not address
the increased coordination and DBS
interference mitigation burdens that
would be placed on DIRECTV and its
tens of millions of subscribers if the
Commission was to permit mobile 5G
operations in the 12.2 GHz band.71 The
original Coexistence study proposed to
eliminate the MVDDS EIRP limit as
duplicative of the EPFD limits,
suggesting that keeping terrestrial
signals below the applicable EPFD limit
at all DBS antenna locations generally
71 See Letter from Michael P. Goggin, Assistant
Vice President—Senior Legal Counsel, AT&T, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–
11768, Appx. A, AT&T Response to the MVDDS 5G
Coalition Technical Studies, at 4 (filed June 14,
2018) (AT&T June 14, 2018 Ex Parte) (arguing that
eliminating the EIRP limit would render the EPFD
analysis impossible to model and have the effect of
shifting the burden of interference mitigation from
MVDDS licensees to DBS licensees because the
EIRP limits were established specifically to mitigate
the potential impact of MVDDS operations on
future DBS customers).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
could avoid harmful interference to
existing DBS subscribers regardless of
the EIRP or whether the terrestrial
operations were fixed or mobile, or oneor two-way.72 However, the proposal to
eliminate the EIRP limit would
substantially redefine the scope of the
burden on DBS operators, particularly
for the deployment of additional DBS
antennas in the future. While the
current rules place the burden to ensure
that new DBS subscribers do not suffer
interference from previously
coordinated MVDDS stations on DBS
operators, the Commission is not
convinced that similarly shifting this
burden from 5G to DBS, going forward,
would be reasonable because protecting
DBS receivers installed in the future
from previously coordinated higherpower, two-way, 5G base and mobile
stations would be significantly more
burdensome—and in some scenarios
impossible—than protecting new DBS
receivers from previously coordinated,
one-way, low-power, fixed MVDDS
transmitters. Due to the mobile nature of
the proposed 5G service, the location of
devices cannot be determined and
therefore cannot be avoided through
coordination. Also, a two-way service
requires the DBS operator to consider
both incoming and outgoing signals.
Finally, at higher powers, even using
advanced techniques, a DBS receiver
might not be able to coordinate
operation near a 5G base station.
19. Additionally, given that all DBS
earth stations look toward the southern
sky for communication with
geostationary orbit (GSO) space stations
orbiting at the equatorial plane, and
given that high-gain antennas are
necessary for base stations, the 12.2
NPRM sought comment on whether base
station location or antenna orientation
can be adjusted to provide greater
protection to DBS earth stations.73 The
5G advocates did not address this issue
in their comments, replies, or additional
studies, though DIRECTV, in its SAVID
study, pointed out that lower earthstation elevation angles generally
increase the potential for harmful
interference from line-of-sight terrestrial
72 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 of 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.
73 See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 617, para. 25.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
transmitters while higher angles
generally result in off-axis attenuation.74
5G terrestrial advocates did not address
how DBS subscribers in the far northern
U.S. could be protected from 5G
interference, given the relatively low
elevation angles required for subscriber
dishes in these regions to point at DBS
GSO satellites over the equator. For
example, to point a dish in Fairbanks,
AK, at a DIRECTV satellite at 95.1° W,
an elevation angle of 6.47° is required.
Even if the Commission excluded
Alaska (as it did in addressing the 3.7
GHz band), an elevation angle of 12.21°
is required to point a customer’s dish in
Bangor, ME, at a DISH satellite at 129°
W, and an elevation angle of 17.67° is
required in Seattle, WA, to point at a
DISH satellite at 72.7° W. That failure of
the 5G advocates to acknowledge or
address the challenge of adequately
protecting DBS customers whose
location may render them uniquely
susceptible to interference from 5G adds
weight to the Commission’s conclusion
that the record does not support a
finding that 5G can coexist with
ubiquitous DBS dishes.
20. RS Access and DISH contend that
concerns about interference to DBS
should be given little weight because
DISH is one of the country’s two DBS
providers and one of the advocates of a
new 5G terrestrial service in the band.
As such, RS Access and DISH state,
‘‘DISH would not join a proposal that
endangers its own service to about 14
million households.’’ 75 Admittedly,
DISH expresses willingness to accept
any resultant increase in coordination
and DBS interference mitigation
burdens in return for new authority to
use its 82 MVDDS licenses for two-way
mobile broadband.76 This is not a case,
74 See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 6
(noting SAVID’s Study assumed that all DBS
antennas were pointed toward DIRECTV’s central
orbital location at 101° W.L.—an assumption that
ensures high elevation angles and does not, like the
Peters Studies, seek out the worst possible angle
over the full range of DBS orbital locations
available); see also DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS
Analysis at 3 (noting its deployments were modeled
at Orlando, FL, which has high elevation angles to
DBS satellites, adding conservatism to the analysis
by tending to reduce indicated interference levels).
75 MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 4.
76 AT&T June 14, 2018 Ex Parte at 5–6 (arguing
that because DISH holds MVDDS licenses in most
of the major markets and has developed an
alternative means of video distribution that does
not require DBS capabilities, DISH may have less
incentive to protect DBS operations than it once
did). ‘‘At a minimum, DISH would now balance the
impact of the Coalition’s proposals on its existing
and future DBS subscriber base against the
advantages—arguably very profitable ones for
existing MVDDS licensees—that would flow to its
other services if the request is granted.’’ Id. at 6. The
Coalition responds that ‘‘DISH would have never
been member of the Coalition if 5G terrestrial
mobile services posed a meaningful risk of harmful
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
however, where the Commission can
conclude—as with DISH’s position as
the sole licensee with respect to both
services in connection with Advanced
Wireless Services (AWS)-4 service—that
the concerns about harmful interference
are capable of resolution by one party.
Here, as previously noted, DISH is not
the only DBS provider in the band.77
DISH’s support for a new 5G service in
the band does not address the potential
for harmful interference to DIRECTV’s
tens of millions of subscribers. For
instance, the Commission notes that
DISH and DIRECTV dishes may not
have an equal susceptibility to harmful
interference in any given locale, because
their respective subscribers may use
different types of dishes (e.g., varying in
size) aimed at one or several satellites at
different orbital slots in the GSO arc. In
short, DISH’s DBS system architecture
and structure, not to mention its
motivations and business plans, may be
very different from DIRECTV’s. Thus,
DISH’s lack of concern about and/or
willingness to work around potential
harmful interference from 5G service in
the band cannot be viewed as probative
of the question of likely interference to
DBS service.78
21. Finally, DISH argues that
DIRECTV does not use the 12.2 GHz
band extensively and mostly relies on
other spectrum bands to provide service
to its customers. Specifically, DISH
claims that ‘‘[a] review of DIRECTV’s
satellites and orbital slots suggests that
DIRECTV has more bandwidth outside
the 12 GHz band than DISH has in the
12 GHz band.’’ 79 DISH goes on to claim
that DIRECTV serves its customers
interference to its DBS operations.’’ Letter from
MVDDS 5G Coalition to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–11768, at 3–4 (filed
Aug. 29, 2018) (MVDDS 5G Coalition Aug. 29, 2018
Ex Parte).
77 In the 12.2 GHz band, as one of two DBS
providers, DISH is in a different position than in the
2000–2020 and 2180–2200 GHz bands, where in
2011 it became the only Mobile Satellite Service
(MSS) authorization holder. See Service Rules for
Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000–2020 MHz
and 2180–2200 MHz Bands, WT Docket 12–70,
Report and Order and Order of Proposed
Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 16109–16110,
para. 14 (2012). In that context, despite concerns
that multiple satellite and terrestrial operators
could not coexist in the same frequency band
without interference, the Commission granted DISH
authorization to use the 2 GHz MSS bands for
terrestrial mobile operations, reasoning that a single
operator could manage potential interference
between two different systems in the band. See id.
at 16165–16167, paras. 164–168.
78 See AT&T Reply at 22 (‘‘the fact that DISH may
not worry about harmful interference from
terrestrial, mobile, flexible-use operations does not
lessen AT&T’s concerns.’’).
79 Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel,
DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket No. 20–443, at 1 (filed Apr. 4, 2022); DISH
Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
mainly using the Ka-band and Reverse
Band working Broadcasting-Satellite
Service payloads on its satellites at 99°,
101°, and 103° W.L. slots.80 DIRECTV
responds to this claim by pointing out
that it ‘‘continues to rely heavily on the
12 GHz band’’ for delivery of its video
service to a majority of its DBS
customers throughout all fifty states,
including customers receiving services
on aircraft, boats and RVs, as well as
through set-top boxes.81 The record
reflects that DIRECTV continues to use
the 12.2 GHz band, having deployed a
‘‘12 GHz payload on a relatively new
T16 satellite at 101° W.L.’’ 82 Similarly,
the Commission finds DISH’s arguments
about the recent decline of DBS
subscribers—both DISH and DIRECTV—
unavailing.83 Regardless of overall
subscription trends, each DBS operator
continues to add new subscribers that
can be located anywhere in the United
States, and there continue to be millions
of existing DBS customers whose
service is entitled to protection from
harmful interference.
2. 5G Interference to NGSO FSS
22. The Commission also finds that
ubiquitous two-way mobile broadband
5G service is likely to create a
significant risk of harmful interference
to ubiquitous and increasing NGSO FSS
operations.84 While deployment of
NGSO FSS service in the 12.2 GHz band
is still developing, terrestrial 5G service
in the band is hypothetical. For this
reason, the 5G advocates supported
their arguments by submitting Monte
Carlo simulation analyses that attempt
to model the coexistence of the two
services.85 However, 5G advocates did
not then use the assumptions
underlying their models as a basis for
proposing specific rules that would
Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 7.
from Stacy Fuller, Senior Vice President,
External Affairs, DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20–443, at 2 (filed
May 3, 2022).
82 DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 8.
83 DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 6–7.
84 See OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 2
(‘‘Regardless of the assumptions made with respect
to NGSO FSS and two-way terrestrial deployments,
harmful interference from the proposed terrestrial
service will not only exceed the existing
interference envelope for MVDDS in the 12 GHz
band, but will cause additional harmful
interference’’); See also SpaceX June 21, 2022
Analysis at 2 (‘‘Yet even with . . . favorable
assumptions, SpaceX customers could expect to
experience harmful interference in the 12 GHz band
the vast majority of the time, which would
essentially preclude a consumer-oriented
commercial satellite service in the band’’).
85 A Monte Carlo (probabilistic) analysis is a
simulation that uses random sampling and
statistical modeling to estimate mathematical
functions and mimic the operations of complex
systems. RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 3, n.8
(citation omitted).
PO 00000
80 DISH
81 Letter
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43469
enable coexistence. NGSO FSS
operators responded by submitting their
own Monte Carlo analyses which sought
to correct various assumptions they
claim to be erroneous. While the studies
provided by the opposing sides contain
many contradictory assumptions,
ultimately they all agree on the
fundamental point that there will be a
significant risk of harmful interference
to NGSO FSS operations without some
geographic separation between a new
two-way mobile broadband 5G service
and NGSO FSS. The 5G advocates,
however, do not propose to limit such
new 5G terrestrial service
geographically, nor is it clear how such
limitations could be consistent with the
nature of the 5G service for which they
seek authorization. Neither are the
authorizations granted to existing NGSO
FSS operators limited to specific
geographic areas. The Commission
therefore finds it would not be in the
public interest to allow for a new 5G
service in the band as it would cause a
significant risk of harmful interference
to NGSO FSS where these services are
deployed ubiquitously.
23. Significantly, the Commission
notes that initially, the MVDDS 5G
Coalition (i.e., the petitioners for a new
5G service in the 12.2 GHz band) argued
that coexistence with NGSO FSS was
not possible. Specifically, the
Coexistence studies concluded that 5G
terrestrial operations and NGSO FSS
operations could not co-exist in the 12.2
GHz band and therefore, the MVDDS 5G
Coalition Petition proposed to delete or
demote the NGSO FSS allocation to a
lower regulatory status with respect to
5G.86 5G advocates subsequently shifted
their argument to claim that coexistence is possible with the new
generation of NGSO FSS systems.87
When the Commission issued the 12.2
Notice in response to the Petition, it
noted the public interest in protecting
the significant investments made by
NGSO FSS operators in the band. To
determine whether NGSO FSS
operations could coexist with a new 5G
service, the 12.2 Notice sought comment
on what technical criteria would be
necessary to protect NGSO FSS from
harmful interference from highpowered, two-way mobile operations.88
86 The earlier MVDDS 5G Coalition studies found
‘‘MVDDS and NGSO [FSS] cannot effectively share
the [12] GHz band, either under the current rules
or under any new rules that may be added in
response to the Coalition’s petition.’’ See
Coexistence 3 Aug. 15, 2016 Study at 18.
87 See supra paras. 3–4 for a discussion of NGSO
FSS systems authorized by the Commission in
recent years.
88 See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 619–620, para.
30.
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
43470
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Specifically, the 12.2 NPRM asked
which maximum power levels could be
granted to new terrestrial operations
within a framework of service-rule
sharing that would still protect
incumbents from harmful
interference.89 The 12.2 NPRM further
inquired as to whether applying the
existing MVDDS interference criteria 90
to new terrestrial systems would be
sufficient to protect NGSO FSS
operations.91 Notably, it specifically
inquired about whether subscribers of
satellite services were typically located
in more rural areas, the propagation
characteristics and cell coverage areas
that could be expected from 5G base
stations in the band, and whether
smaller-sized cells could mitigate
potential interference from terrestrial
services into DBS and NGSO FSS
services.92
24. In response to the questions raised
in the 12.2 NPRM, RS Access
commissioned RKF, a systems
engineering firm, to conduct a
nationwide simulation of how NGSO
FSS and terrestrial 5G systems might
interact.93 Ultimately, RKF provided
two studies, both probabilistic Monte
Carlo analyses meant to show that
terrestrial 5G can coexist with NGSO
FSS. In its first study, submitted in May
2021, RKF used the 406 Partial
Economic Area (PEA) geographic
license areas 94 in the contiguous United
States (‘‘CONUS’’) to define where the
5G network will be deployed, and broke
these into urban, suburban, and rural
based on their population density
thresholds.95 Because the May 2021
RKF Monte Carlo analysis assumed the
new 12.2 GHz terrestrial 5G service was
likely to be deployed in the most
densely populated areas with high
demand for broadband service, RKF
modeled deployment of 5G in census
tracts with a population density greater
than 7,500 people per square mile in
each PEA. It explained, however, that if
deployment in these ‘‘urban’’ density
89 See
12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 42.
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).
91 See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 619–620, para.
30.
92 See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 43.
93 RS Access Comment at 33.
94 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Provides Details About Partial Economic Areas, GN
Docket No. 12–268, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 6491
(2014).
95 Urban has a population more than 7,500,
suburban between 7,500 and 600, and rural fewer
than 600. RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 6.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
90 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
census tracts did not result in
deployment to areas that encompassed
10% of a market’s population, it added
the most densely populated census
tracts in each PEA until the area of
deployment covered 10% of the market
population.96 RKF’s terrestrial model
assumed a 5G network of 49,997
terrestrial macro-cell base stations,97
89,970 fixed small-cell base stations,98
1,949,760 simultaneously active mobile
devices 99 and 6,999 point-to-point
backhaul links across CONUS.100
25. RKF then modeled the
distribution of only SpaceX’s NGSO FSS
satellite terminals, although there are
multiple NGSO FSS operators in the
band. RKF’s satellite model assumed
SpaceX would deploy 2,500,000
satellite user terminals in both urban
and rural areas,101 but for this model, it
used a different definition of rural and
urban areas than it did for modeling
terrestrial 5G operations.102 RKF
assumed the majority of NGSO FSS
systems, or 1.65 million Starlink user
terminals, would be dropped in random
Access Comment RKF Study I at 26–27.
Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 13.
Macro cells were deployed by multiplying the
capped total of almost 50,000 macro cells by the
ratio of the high population density area in a given
PEA divided by the total such population in 12.2
GHz eligible areas in all PEAS—i.e., each PEA got
a percentage of Macro-cell base stations equal to its
proportion of the high population density areas
across CONUS. Id. at 31. The model deployed
Macro-cell base stations in three consecutive waves
of decreasing inter site distances between them
ranging from 500 meters to 200 meters between base
stations for urban areas and 1732 meters between
base stations for rural areas. Id. at 32.
98 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 34. Small
cell base stations were deployed in the same
manner as the macro cell base stations but with
smaller distances between these and other smallcell base stations and or macro-cell base stations.
See id. at 34–35.
99 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 38. The
mobile devices were dropped uniformly but
randomly within the base stations’ coverage areas,
and 80% of the mobile devices were assigned as
indoor and 20% as outdoor. Id. at 37. Outdoor
mobile devices were assumed to have a height
above ground level (HAGL) of 1.5m. Id. at 37.
100 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 39. The
Study estimated that there were a total of 2,500
macro-cell base stations and 4,499 small-cell base
stations without fiber access and required
microwave backhaul via the 12.2 GHz band, for a
total of 6,999 links. See id. at 39. The Study
assumed that in 2025, less than 5% of the cell-sites
will use microwave backhaul in the 7 GHz to 40
GHz band and hence it distributed such use so that
5% of rural macro-cell base stations, 5% of other
macro-cell base stations and 5% of small-cell base
stations all use microwave backhaul. See id. at 38–
39.
101 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 16–17.
102 Compare RS Access Comment RKF Study I at
6 with id. at 8. RKF adopted the Census Bureau’s
definition of metropolitan areas as ‘‘urban areas’’
which include both cities and surrounding suburbs
and it assumed and weighted deployment of
satellite terminals to whatever was not metropolitan
but instead a ‘‘rural’’ area. RS Access Comment RKF
Study I at 8.
PO 00000
96 RS
97 RS
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
locations in non-metropolitan Rural
Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF)
blocks 103 either won by Starlink or won
by another bidder,104 and that the
remaining 850,000 Starlink terminals
would be deployed in non-RDOF but
also ‘rural areas.’ 105 Starlink terminals
were allowed to be within 5 meters of
5G base stations, and the possibility
technically exists that RKF’s modeling
could place NGSO FSS user terminals
near 5G terrestrial base stations.106
However, such proximity appears
unlikely because the study endeavored
to separate terrestrial 5G and satellite
equipment.
26. In RKF’s study, the potential for
harmful interference to NGSO FSS from
multiple elements of 5G systems is
aggregated.107 With respect to each of
103 RDOF blocks are census blocks made available
by the Commission’s Rural Digital Opportunity
Fund auction where no provider is offering, or has
committed to offer service of at least 25/3 Mbps. See
FCC, Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction
Information, Fact Sheet, https://www.fcc.gov/
auction/904#:∼:text=The%20Rural%20
Digital%20Opportunity%20Fund%20
will%20ensure%20that%20networks%20stand,
applications%20as%20well%20as%20today’s.
104 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 17. RKF
states that for purposes of this analysis, the study
assumes that SpaceX would have a penetration rate
of 60% in non-metropolitan RDOF areas (or 327,511
terminals) in which they won funding. Id. Likewise,
the study assumes a 30% penetration rate in nonmetropolitan RDOF areas (or 1.3 million Starlink
terminals) where another auction participant won
funding. Id. For those metropolitan RDOF areas that
SpaceX won, the study assumes a penetration rate
of 15%, which amounts to an assumed 14,600 total
Starlink terminals. Id. These assumptions, along
with metropolitan RDOF areas that SpaceX did not
win, resulted in an assumed 1.65 million Starlink
terminal deployments. Id.
105 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 18. In this
case of NGSO FSS terminals dropped over ‘‘nonRDOF’’ rural areas, ‘rural’ is defined for NGSO FSS
operations the same as for 5G terrestrial
deployments—less than 600 people per square mile.
Id. at 17. NGSO FSS terminals are placed using the
Gridded Population of the World (GPW) population
density database in proportion to the population
density in more populous rural areas, which is
similar to how the model sites 12 GHz terrestrial
base stations. Id. In other words, the model’s siting
methodology for Starlink terminals in non-RDOF
regions is more likely to place terminals in the more
populous census tracts in rural areas, where they
are deployed in proportion to the population
therein using a population density database similar
to the method used for siting terrestrial 5G
equipment. Id. at 17–18, n.39.
106 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 18. 5G
terrestrial base stations and NGSO FSS user
terminals could be near each other, for example if
the latter were placed in ‘non-urban’ areas from a
Census Bureau perspective but if these areas still
had populations greater than 7,500 persons and
were ‘‘urban’’ under RKF’s standards and therefore
also receiving terrestrial 5G equipment. Id. at 11.
107 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 13. Each
macro-cell base station beamforms a narrow beam
toward each mobile device, and 5G transmissions
are assumed to operate in time-division-duplex
(TDD) mode with all the base stations coordinated
such that uplink and downlink transmissions are
synchronized. Id. The study assumes 5G backhaul
operates in frequency-division-duplex (FDD) mode,
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the NGSO FSS terminals modeled, RKF
computed the aggregate interference
power from all 5G emitters within 50
km, and compared the result to the
interference-to-noise ratio (I/N)
threshold to determine the extent to
which the threshold would be
exceeded.108 RKF asserted the objective
of the simulation was to model a large
number of statistically significant
interference paths to evaluate the risk of
interference to the Starlink terminals.109
Initially, RKF found that about 0.888%
of Starlink user terminals over CONUS
could experience an event that exceeded
a nominal ITU threshold of ¥8.5 dB.110
27. NGSO FSS operators, especially
SpaceX, criticized many of the
assumptions underlying RKF’s 2021
study. As a result, in May 2022, RS
Access submitted a revised study from
RKF that modified certain parameters
and specific assumptions to respond to
the criticism.111 RKF’s revised study
still relied heavily on geographic
separation to find that a new 5G service
could avoid causing harmful
interference to incumbent NGSO FSS
operations. The study still assumed that
new 12.2 GHz 5G deployment and
satellite terminals would have limited
geographic overlap due to RKF’s
assessment of their respective usecases—namely, that 12.2 GHz 5G
services will be deployed most heavily
in denser population centers, while
satellite services are most useful in
lower density population centers.112
RKF’s second study modeled the same
number of base stations, mobile devices
and point-to-point links,113 and reached
the conclusion that there would be no
impact to 99.85% of NGSO FSS
terminals by the terrestrial deployment
it modeled. In particular, it asserted its
study now found that only 0.15% of
Starlink terminals which might
hypothetically be deployed in the future
throughout CONUS experienced an
exceedance of the ITU’s I/N threshold of
¥8.5 dB I/N from 5G operations in the
12.2–12.7 GHz portion of the NGSO FSS
downlink band.114 RKF asserted that
several other factors contributed to the
‘‘highly favorable environment’’ for the
coexistence of NGSO FSS and 5G
systems, including the large antenna
discrimination resulting from NGSO
FSS antennas pointing with high
elevation angle and the 5G base stations
down tilted; interference mitigation
achieved through 5G base station
sidelobe suppression and antenna
nulling toward the horizon; and,
relatively localized 5G coverage due to
the 12.2 GHz band’s propagation
characteristics.115
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
112 RS
and both uplink and downlink paths transmit
continuously. Id. The base station antenna has 256
elements with a peak gain of 27.7 dBi which
beamforms toward each mobile device but is
constrained by the minimum antenna down tilt
levels designed so that the gain directed toward a
mobile device at 1.5m HAGL at the edge of coverage
of the cell is 10 dB below the peak gain—allowing
service at the edge of coverage; smalls cells have a
peak gain of 15 dBi. RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF
Study II at 11. Starlink terminal selects a random
pointing direction from the distribution of
simulated pointing directions. RS Access Comment
RKF Study I at 13. Then the aggregate interference
from all simultaneously active macro base station
beams and small-cells on the downlink or all active
mobile devices on the uplink, as well as the pointto-point backhaul uplink and downlink
transmissions to each of the Starlink terminal
receivers within 50 kilometers is computed. Id. RKF
states the model calculates the emissions from
macro-cell base stations as they beamform a
transmission path toward each mobile device
within the coverage area of each base station. Smallcell emissions are also calculated; these emissions
are not beamformed to specific mobile devices, but
are instead transmitted omnidirectionally with
fixed down tilt and nulling. RS Access May 19,
2022 RKF Study II at 9. Then the model performs
two separate aggregate interference power
calculations: (1) from all simultaneously active
macro base station beams, all small cells on the
downlink, and all point-to-point backhaul
transmissions, which continually transmit in FDD
mode in both directions; and (2) from all active
mobile devices on the uplink and all point-to-point
backhaul transmissions. Id. at 9–10.
108 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 9–
10.
109 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 10.
110 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 2.
111 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
113 RS
Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at iii.
Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 2–
3.
114 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 25.
RKF asserts that the exceedance threshold of ¥12.2
dB, suggested by some critics, would not materially
affect this study’s findings. Id. at 26. Furthermore,
it noted that any exceedance event that might occur
would also affect no more than two of the up to
eight available 250-megahertz Ku-band NGSO FSS
channels at 10.7–12.7 GHz. Id. at 5, 25.
115 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 7.
There are several additional differences from the
May 2021 and 2022 RKF Studies, albeit RKF
emphasized three. First, whereas in its 2021 Study,
RKF assumed Starlink terminals would point at
satellites with look angles or elevation angels
between 55° and 85°, in response to Starlink
criticism, it assumes terminals will more frequently
employ a lower elevation angle closer to the
minimum authorized angle of 25°. Id. at 19. Second,
RKF has changed the height above ground level for
Starlink terminals from 20% sited at 4.5 meters and
80% at 1.5 meters, instead to 55% at 4.5 meters and
45% at 1.5 meters, in response to claims by Starlink
that most users install their terminals ‘‘as high as
possible.’’ Id. at 20. Third, in response to a Starlink
claim, a maximum off-axis antenna gain pattern
from an European Telecommunications Standards
Institute (ETSI) standard for user terminals is used
even though RKF asserts no party expressly claims
that Starlink terminals perform at this standard and
ETSI formulas results in a larger assumed off-axis
gain, which in turn makes Starlink terminals more
prone to exceedance events. Id. at 21–22. Other
differences between the two studies include
changes in the macro-cell and small-cell base
station antenna patterns used, the peak EIRP of the
macro cells decreased from 75 dBm/100 MHz to 65
dBm/100 MHz with gain of 27.7 dBi (small-cell base
stations likewise increased their EIRP from 45 to 48
dBm/100 MHz but with an increased gain of 18 dBi
and not 15 dBi which is accomplished through
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43471
28. Both SpaceX and OneWeb
submitted Monte Carlo analyses in
response to the May 2022 RKF study
commissioned by RS Access. SpaceX’s
Monte Carlo study modified certain key
assumptions including basing buildout
in an actual SpaceX market area in Las
Vegas, Nevada upon its own asserted
user data,116 and buildout requirement
for terrestrial mobile services of 70
percent of population, among other
assertions.117 SpaceX asserted its study
showed an impact from interference
from terrestrial mobile service that
would degrade service to SpaceX’s
Starlink broadband terminals operating
in the 12.2 GHz band more than 77
percent of the time, resulting in full
outages 74 percent of the time.118
Furthermore, SpaceX stated its study
showed the impact of this harmful
interference would extend at least 21
km (more than 13 miles) from the macro
base station in unobstructed conditions
even for best-case far-sidelobe-to-farsidelobe coupling.119 SpaceX used an
antenna receiver pattern based upon the
applicable ETSI standard (ETSI_EN_
303_981 Class B WBES),120 and the
SpaceX analysis is based on seven 240
megahertz channels with 250 megahertz
spacing from 10.95–12.7 GHz.121
OneWeb’s study similarly concluded
that NGSO FSS user terminals cannot be
deployed within the coverage area of a
suburban macro-cell base station
deployment without suffering from very
high probability of harmful
interference.122
29. While the analyses submitted by
SpaceX and OneWeb have very little
accord with the RKF analyses, all of
these analyses agree, on some level, on
one point: NGSO FSS user terminals
will suffer harmful interference if they
are operating in close proximity to 5G
transmissions in the 12.2 GHz band. The
RKF analyses come to this conclusion
tacitly because rather than providing a
calculation of the separation distance
that would be necessary to protect
NGSO FSS terminals from harmful
emissions from 5G transmitters, these
RKF analyses simply assume that in
most situations 5G and NGSO FSS
services will not be used by consumers
including horizon nulling and beamforming
technologies), and the application of end-point
clutter loss at the user equipment (UEs) with an
HAGL of less than 3m and at small-cell base
stations (typically deployed on poles in the vicinity
of buildings), incorporating horizon nulling into
macro cell base stations. Id. at 2.
116 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 3.
117 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 4.
118 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 2.
119 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 3.
120 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
121 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.
122 See OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 8–9.
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
43472
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
in the same locations. Specifically, the
RKF studies assume that 5G will most
likely operate only in denser, more
urban markets and NGSO FSS services
will most likely serve only more rural
subscribers. Satellite operators, and
other parties in the record, have
provided more express analyses than
RKF of the potential for harmful
interference to NGSO FSS operations
from 5G operations in close proximity.
For example, Google noted in its reply
comments that although RKF’s report
did not separately present the potential
interfering impact of a single UE
(handset) located in the vicinity of a
satellite terminal—because it assumed it
was unlikely a handset would be near
a satellite terminal—Google’s
calculations showed that when such a
situation inevitably occurs, harmful
interference can be expected out to a
distance of as much as 0.2–1 km under
realistic propagation assumptions, and
as far as 3 km under worst-case
conditions.123 For its part, SpaceX
asserted that satellite user terminals
would be subjected to significant
interference whenever located in the
line of sight of a 5G base station.
Further, SpaceX states that even for
best-case far-sidelobe-to-far-sidelobe
coupling, the effect of harmful
interference (I/N > ¥12.2dB) between
these two operations will extend up to
21.4 km (more than 13 miles) from the
macro base station in unobstructed
conditions.124 According to SpaceX, its
satellite user terminal is about 16 dB
more sensitive to the interfering signal
coming into its far sidelobes than the
mobile UE is for its desired signal.125 As
a result, if a SpaceX user terminal is
located in an area where a mobile
device can receive a signal from the base
station, the interfering signal its
terminal receives will be much stronger
than the desired signal received by the
user device.126 Because of their
sensitivity, SpaceX states that even if its
123 Google
Reply at 14.
June 21, 2022 Analysis at 11. SpaceX
used RKF’s assumption that the macro base station
has an input power of 41.3 dBW per 100 MHz per
user and that the SpaceX user terminal has a ¥2
dBi far sidelobe gain and 200 K system noise
temperature. SpaceX also assumed that the far
sidelobe level of the macro base station is ¥2.3 dBi.
RKF assumed a ¥30 dBi sidelobe performance for
macro base stations. And, in its later Monte Carlo
simulation, SpaceX used the same ¥30 dBi
sidelobe floor for an individual sector antenna
pattern, although SpaceX states this value is highly
optimistic. Id.
125 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.
126 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13. SpaceX
argues that even for a mobile UE with a very modest
signal-to-noise ratio of only 0 dB (i.e., at the UE
noise floor), for the SpaceX user terminal, this
mobile signal becomes an interferer that is 16 dB
above the noise floor of the user terminal (I/N = 16
dB) and completely wipes out the desired signal. Id.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
124 SpaceX
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
satellite terminal antennas are pointing
only at high elevation angles so that
terrestrial mobile signals are only
received at large off-axis angles,
interference will be overwhelming
within the coverage area of a terrestrial
base station.127 SpaceX asserts that RKF
recognized this point when it admitted
that ‘‘Starlink terminals within the 5G
coverage area typically suffered an
exceedance.’’ 128
30. Although RKF did not provide
specific analysis of the separation
distances necessary to protect NGSO
FSS user terminals from 5G
transmissions, it argued that there
would be a natural geographic
separation between the two services,
based on constraints on the number of
user terminals an NGSO FSS system can
deploy to one area. For example, the
RKF study asserted that while an NGSO
FSS licensee can deploy terminals in
metropolitan areas, such as New York
City or Los Angeles, satellite capacity
constraints limit the total number of
terminals NGSO FSS licensees can
support in any one of these densely
populated zones.129 To illustrate this
point, RKF has pointed to statements by
Starlink’s CEO that its service is not
well suited to urban areas.130 SpaceX
does not directly address RKF’s capacity
argument but it responds that in the
very few areas where RKF does consider
terrestrial and NGSO FSS systems
operating in close proximity, its model
finds I/N ratios of 50 dB or more.131
Furthermore, SpaceX argues that, by
assuming only 1.07 percent of SpaceX
user terminals would be deployed in
urban areas, RKF significantly
underestimated the effect of the
proposed system on the existing
Starlink customers.132 OneWeb agrees
that terrestrial separation of NGSO FSS
and 5G terminals is an unrealistic
June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.
June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13–14
(citing Letter from V. Noah Campbell, CEO, RS
Access, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket No. 20–443, Attach. A, Bringing 5G to the
12 GHz Band, at 11 (filed June 1, 2022)).
129 RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 8.
130 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 25,
n.65 (citing Jon Brodkin, Elon Musk: Starlink
latency will be good enough for competitive gaming,
Ars Technica (Mar. 10, 2020), https://bit.ly/
3dUrbbu (quoting Elon Musk: ‘‘The challenge for
anything that is space-based is that the size of the
cell is gigantic . . . it’s not good for high-density
situations. We’ll have some small number of
customers in LA. But we can’t do a lot of customers
in LA because the bandwidth per cell is simply not
high enough.’’)).
131 SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF
Report at 3, n.9 (citing RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF
Study II at 27 and Fig. 3–3).
132 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9. SpaceX
argues its actual distribution as based on the Las
Vegas PEA is places 17% in urban areas, 37% in
suburban areas and 46% in rural areas. Id.
PO 00000
127 SpaceX
128 SpaceX
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
assumption,133 and states that it intends
to focus its initial service on enterprise,
government, and mobile network
operator customers, which will require
connectivity across metropolitan,
suburban, and rural areas.134
31. The Commission finds that the 5G
proponents’ arguments that a new 5G
service could adequately protect NGSO
FSS operations from harmful
interference rely too heavily on the
unsupported assumption that there will
be geographic separation between the
services. Neither the FCC’s rules
governing NGSO FSS operations in the
band nor the authorizations that the
FCC has granted to NGSO FSS operators
place any limitations of the sort
assumed by 5G proponents on where
these NGSO FSS services may
operate.135 NGSO FSS systems are not
restricted to rural areas; indeed, SpaceX
is currently authorized to deploy
satellites throughout CONUS and for an
unlimited number of its secondgeneration user terminals anywhere
within the United States.136 At this
time, satellite operators’ plans for, and
rollout of service using, this band are
still in the early stages, and operators
have stated their intentions to serve
urban and suburban areas.137 Based on
the current record, and the
Commission’s experience, the
Commission concludes that authorizing
separate, ubiquitous satellite and
terrestrial mobile systems in the same
band would be significantly likely to
result in harmful interference. Although
the technical analyses that 5G advocates
submitted made a number of
133 OneWeb has argued that suburban macro-cell
base station deployments will result in harmful
interference to NGSO FSS User Terminals when
considering real world deployment scenarios. Letter
from Brian D. Weimer, Counsel, OneWeb, to
Marlene H. Dortch, WT Docket No. 20–443, Attach.
B, 12 GHz NGSO FSS Earth station and Terrestrial
Study, at 10 (filed Oct. 7, 2022). See also OneWeb
July 11, 2022 Analyses at 3 (notes omitted) (‘‘The
principle defect of the [RKF Study attached to
Comments of] RS Access] is the assumption of
geographical separation: that NGSO FSS user
terminals will be deployed with a heavy bias
towards rural areas while mobile base stations and
devices will be heavily skewed towards urban
areas. There is no real world justification for this
bias.’’).
134 OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 3, n.8.
135 See, e.g., 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 (NGSO FSS Report and
Order).
136 See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC,
Application For Approval for Orbital Deployment
and Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO
Satellite System, et al., Memorandum Opinion and
Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 3391, para.
1 (2018); SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 14, n.41
(citing Radio Station Authorization, Call Sign
E210127 (issued Nov. 10, 2021)).
137 See, e.g., supra para. 30.
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
hypothetical assumptions about how
both a new 5G service and NGSO FSS
service would be deployed, including
5G operating parameters that could
reduce or mitigate interference, 5G
proponents did not propose or agree to
be bound by any specific rules to codify
these assumptions. Given the
Commission’s conclusion that NGSO
FSS terminals will experience harmful
interference if placed in close proximity
to terrestrial 5G deployment, and the
lack of apparent disagreement by 5G
advocates, the Commission declines to
authorize a new terrestrial 5G service in
the 12.2 GHz band based on the current
record.
32. As noted, the Monte Carlo
analyses provided by the 5G advocates
incorporate a set of assumed operating
parameters intended, in addition to
geographic separation, to reduce the
possibility of harmful interference to
NGSO FSS user terminals. These
assumptions have become objects of
criticism from NGSO FSS interests who
argue that their adjustment can skew the
interference picture away from showing
the significant risk of harmful
interference NGSO FSS systems would
suffer. Below, the Commission discusses
some of the major disagreements on
assumptions the parties have raised in
the record. The Commission cautions,
however, that these assumptions do not
change the Commission’s bottom-line
decision declining to permit 5G
operations in the 12.2 GHz band, due to
the risks of harmful interference into
NGSO FSS user terminals when the two
services are in close proximity.
Accordingly, other than in a few
instances where the Commission has
pointed out that certain debates about
assumptions may be missing critical
information, the Commission declines
to weigh in concerning the relative
merits of particular assumptions.
33. Ignoring Access to Other Bands
and Other NGSO Deployments. The
RKF study assumed that Starlink is
assigned eight 250 MHz channels from
10.7–12.7 GHz.138 SpaceX argues its
model did not incorporate use of the
10.7–10.95 GHz portion of the band due
to regulatory constraints imposed to
protect Radio Astronomy activity in the
adjacent 10.6–10.7 GHz band.139
Accordingly, the SpaceX analysis is
based on seven 240 MHz channels with
250 MHz spacing from 10.95–12.7 GHz,
whereas RKF appears to assume access
to all bands. RS Access argues SpaceX’s
failure to incorporate the entire 10.7–
12.7 GHz range into its calculations, and
its use of only the 12.2–12.7 band for
downlink increases the probability of
interference exceedance experienced by
Starlink terminals by a factor of four. RS
Access finds this one of the most critical
assumptions causing SpaceX’s
interference results to differ from its
own. Furthermore, SpaceX argues RKF
only models SpaceX terminal
deployments and omits studies of any
interference created by deployment of
other NGSO FSS operations.140
34. Height of Fixed Subscriber
Antennas. The height at which users
mount their SpaceX user terminals has
a dramatic effect on the interference to
which they are subject—higher
placement also means that they are
more likely to receive more direct
interference from mobile system base
stations and UEs.141 The May 2021 RKF
Study assumed a distribution of NGSO
FSS fixed subscriber terminals more
heavily weighted toward ground
installations—80% of Starlink terminals
would have an HAGL at 1.5m, and 20%
would have an HAGL of 4.5m. RKF’s
May 2022 study modified this
assumption and instead assumed that
45% of Starlink terminals would be
installed near ground level with an
HAGL of 1.5m, and 55% of Starlink
terminals would be installed on rooftops
with an HAGL of 4.5m.142 In response,
SpaceX argued this modification still
failed to reflect that the majority of
SpaceX’s customers deployed their
antennas on rooftops to avoid
obstructions, which significantly
increases the likelihood of an
unobstructed path for interference from
a mobile service base station.143 SpaceX
argued its own informal customer
surveys showed that most consumers
mounted their antennas on a roof, and
accordingly, SpaceX argued that 10% of
its user terminals would be deployed at
a height of 1.5m and 90% would be
deployed at a height of 4.5m.144
OneWeb agrees most NGSO FSS user
terminals are expected to be deployed
on rooftops and that such installation
practices are consistent with decades of
satellite infrastructure deployments.145
35. Number of Macro Cells Deployed.
RKF’s May 2022 study models 49,997
5G macro base stations throughout
CONUS, distributed in the most densely
populated areas of each PEA,
comprising at least 10% of the
140 SpaceX
June 21, 2022 Analysis at 4.
June 21, 2022 Analysis at 7.
142 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 20.
143 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
144 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
145 OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5.
141 SpaceX
138 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 11.
Thus, a ‘‘fully loaded’’ 12 GHz sector can serve a
maximum of 20 mobile devices simultaneously. Id.
139 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43473
population of the PEA.146 SpaceX has
criticized RKF’s 10% coverage,
contending that RKF’s 10% minimum
buildout assumption falls far below the
70% to 80% population coverage
requirement the Commission has
routinely applied to other recently
allocated flexible use spectrum, and it
asserts the lower percentage buildout
results in less interference, thus skewing
the results of RKF’s study.147 SpaceX
assumed 3,215 macro base stations in
the Las Vegas market in its study,148
which RKF criticized as being a vast
overestimation of typical 5G
deployment.149 However, SAVID, which
SpaceX hired to review the RKF studies,
later argued that the number of macro
base stations assumed in the SpaceX
analysis did not have a material impact
on the interference analysis results.150
The Commission notes that looking at
the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service (UMFUS) requirements for
bands such as 24 GHz and above,
licensees may fulfill their performance
requirements in various ways, including
providing mobile service to 40% of the
population of the license area or by
demonstrating coverage of at least 25%
of their license’s geographic area, or by
showing the presence of equipment
transmitting or receiving on the licensed
spectrum in at least 25% of census
146 RS
Access Comment RKF Study I at 9.
June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF
Report at 2. SpaceX has argued RKF’s 10% buildout
is also inconsistent with the economic study
submitted by terrestrial mobile proponents, which
‘‘assume the terrestrial mobile operations in the 12
GHz band will be available ubiquitously’’[. . .]and
is also inconsistent with the public interests
claimed by members of its coalition that mobile
services in 12 GHz band be required to serve rural
customers, left behind by other 5G deployments.’’
SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 11 (notes
omitted).
148 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 15.
149 See RS Access July 15, 2022 RKF Response
Study at 9–10 (‘‘If a 5G operator sought to meet
Starlink’s assumptions and built-out a nationwide
5G network that scaled the 540 POPs per cell
Starlink modeled, the operator would have to
deploy 610,000 base stations. By contrast, AT&T
uses approximately 75,000 towers . . . to support
a fully nationwide network . . . .’’). However, RKF
also modeled 89,970 fixed small-cell base stations.
RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 34. OneWeb
notes that 12 GHz terrestrial mobile deployments,
should they be allowed, would mostly be on smallcell base stations like the C-band and Ka-band
flexible-use deployments for in-fill where more
capacity is desired, and according to CTIA, up to
800,000 small cells could be deployed within the
next 5 years. See OneWeb Reply at 19–20. OneWeb
states that even if half of these projected small cells
included the 12 GHz band, it would represent a
five-fold increase over the RKF study’s small-cell
deployment assumptions, and the number of
affected Starlink terminals could be 9 times higher
than predicted for the small-cell base stations. Id.
at 20–21.
150 SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 12.
147 SpaceX
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
43474
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
tracts within the license area.151
Accordingly, the relevant percentage
buildout that would be required at 12
GHz may be different than either side’s
assumptions.152
36. Technical Advancements. SpaceX
argues that the RKF studies
incorporated unreasonable technical
advancements into their models of 5G
handsets, lowering the estimated
interference received. For example, the
May 2022 RKF study incorporated
horizon nulling into the performance of
5G macro-cell base stations whereby 5G
antennas can null the gain pattern at the
horizon at all azimuth angles to mitigate
ground-based interference to NGSO FSS
terminals.153 SpaceX argued ‘‘[this] is a
neat trick when the terrestrial operator
does not know where the NGSO FSS
antennas are located.’’ 154
151 See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For
Mobile Radio Services, et al., Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC
Rcd 8014, 8088, para. 206 (2016) (stating that a
licensee providing mobile service must provide
coverage to 40 percent of the population of the
license area); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz
For Mobile Radio Services, et al., Third Report and
Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC
Rcd 5576, 5580, para. 8 (2018) (stating that
licensees may fulfill the requirements of [the
geographic area performance] metric either by
demonstrating mobile or point-to-multipoint
coverage of at least 25% of their license’s
geographic area, or by showing the presence of
equipment transmitting or receiving on the licensed
spectrum in at least 25% of census tracts within the
license area . . . maintain[ing] parity with the 40%
population coverage metric.).
152 See, e.g., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at
section V.C.6 (Performance Requirements) (seeking
comment on the appropriate coverage percentages
for the 12.7 GHz band) in associated GN Docket No.
22–352 (FCC 23–36).
153 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12.
154 SpaceX argues RKF assumptions about nulling
technology rely on letters from NOKIA, Ericsson,
and Samsung, but it states that first none of these
materials refer to any specific level of sidelobe
suppression capability from nulling and only
Samsung mentions nulling at all, and only as a
means of avoiding interference to other mobile user
equipment. SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to
Revised RKF Report at 5, n.23 (discussing RS
Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12, n.40
(citing Letter from Jeffrey Marks, Vice President,
Nokia, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN
Docket No. 18–122 (filed Sept. 21, 2021); Letter
from Mark Racek, Sr. Director of Spectrum Policy,
Ericsson, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN
Docket No. 18–122 (filed Sept. 13, 2021); Letter
from Robert Kubik, Sr. Director, Samsung, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No.
18–122 (filed Sept. 20, 2021)). Second, SpaceX
argues these letters were filed in the C-band
proceeding and that RKF provides no explanation
to justify its approach to scaling for the much
higher frequencies at 12 GHz. SpaceX June 3, 2022
Response to Revised RKF Report at 5. Furthermore,
SpaceX notes there is no 12 GHz equipment and no
ITU, 3GPP, or other performance standard for 12
GHz and RKF does not explain how it came up with
its assumptions for this band. Id. Third, SpaceX
argues the letters from Ericsson and Samsung
mention grating lobes, but RKF does not consider
their effects in its model. Id. Fourth, even if nulling
were feasible in the 12 GHz band, SpaceX argues
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
37. Transmitter Power and Path Loss.
As noted previously, RKF changed its
transmitter power from 75 dBm to 65
dBm in its second study.155 SpaceX has
supplied its own engineering report
arguing that ITU WP 5D which studied
terrestrial mobile in the 10–11 GHz
bands also assumes 72.6 dBm/100 MHz
as a typical base station EIRP value,
making 75 dBm the more likely
number.156 OneWeb agrees that 75
dBm/100 MHz is more realistic.157
Furthermore, the OneWeb study uses
the probabilistic clutter model found in
Recommendation ITU–R P.2108, which
provides a clutter assumption that is
expected to be greater than predicted in
10% of the cases, and applies clutter
only at the user terminals and only for
those terminals deployed at ground
level (as opposed to those presumed to
be clutter-free on rooftops). Tailored in
this manner, OneWeb can temper the
recommendation’s potentially overly
aggressive prediction of clutter losses,
yet model expected clutter losses at a
range of geographic locations.158
38. Furthermore, both the RKF and
SpaceX analyses model path loss using
3rd Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Specification 38.901, applying
the Urban Macro-Cell model for both
urban and suburban macro-cells at 30
meters to 1 km distance, the Rural
Macro-Cell model for rural macro-cells
at 30 meters to 5 km, and the Micro-Cell
(‘‘Umi’’) model for small-cells at 30
meter to 1 km distance.159 However,
SpaceX argues, RKF subtly understates
the high interference line of sight cases
in the 3GPP 38.901 model by using a
single weighted average between NLOS
(non-line of sight) and LOS (line of
it is expensive technology that operators are
unlikely to deploy voluntarily—yet no one has
proposed to make such technology a regulatory
requirement, making RKF’s assumption that it will
be deployed facially unreasonable. Id. And SpaceX
argues that, fifth, RKF assumes that the macro base
stations use a 256-element antenna, while both
Nokia and Ericsson indicate that they contemplated
the use of much smaller 96-element antennas,
which would result in lower gain, wider beam
width, worse sidelobes, and reduced nulling ability.
Id.
155 RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12.
156 SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 4 (citing
Report on the 38th meeting of Working Party 5D (eMeeting 7–18 June 2021), Annex 4.4 to Document
5D/716–E, https://www.itu.int/dms_ties/itu-r/md/
19/wp5d/c/R19-WP5D-C-0716!H4-N4.04!MSWE.docx, Table 3–1 entry 4.5 applicable to the 10–
11 GHz band refers to Table 10 entry 1.9 which
defines the typical values for antenna element input
power of 22 dBm. Using the array parameters in
Table 10 results in a typical BS EIRP of 72.6 dBm
(in 100 MHz) which is comparable to the 75 dBm/
100 MHz maximum EIRP density used in this
analysis based on the FCC limit defined in 47 CFR
30.202(a)).
157 OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 6.
158 OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5–6.
159 SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9–10.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
sight) path loss to represent both
cases.160 SpaceX argues RKF’s approach
of employing a weighted average to
represent two distinctly different cases
dramatically understates the line of
sight cases that would actually occur
under the 3GPP 38.901 model.161
SAVID asserts that while the parties
debate either ¥8.5 dBm or ¥12.2 dBm
I/N, an alternative interference
protection criterion based on the Power
Flux Density (PFD) limit set by 47 CFR
101.105(a)(4)15 should be
considered.162 In this regard, SAVID
points out that the FCC specifically set
the maximum PFD limit from an
MVDDS service transmitting antenna in
NGSO FSS stations at 12.2–12.7 GHz at
¥135 dBW/m2 in 4 kHz at 3 km, which
is the equivalent of an I/N threshold of
¥10.8 dB.163 SAVID asserts this means
that even for Starlink terminals in the
most favorable location in the BS
antenna pattern, there must be at least
25.5 dB of clutter loss to meet the FCC
MVDDS PFD limit at 3 km
separation.164
39. The parties’ disagreements about
the above assumptions underlying how
two-way 5G mobile broadband and
NGSO FSS user terminals should be
modeled does not change the
Commission’s fundamental conclusion
that there will be a significant risk of
harmful interference to NGSO FSS
where these services are deployed
without adequate geographic separation.
Even if the parties could agree about the
values that should be assigned to each
of the models’ more minor assumptions,
it would not change the models’ more
fundamental flawed assumption that the
5G and NGSO FSS services will be
geographically separated. Rather, these
disagreements present even more
evidence of the difference in opinion
between the parties as to the envisioned
technical specifications of their
respective operations. NGSO FSS
continues to evolve and there is not
enough data in the record on how these
systems are currently configured and
how the technical parameters will
change over time as NGSO FSS systems
add additional subscribers and continue
to refine satellite technology.
160 SpaceX
June 21, 2022 Analysis at 10.
June 21, 2022 Analysis at 10.
162 SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 5–6.
163 SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 6.
164 SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 6.
OneWeb stated its OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses
uses the probabilistic clutter model found in
Recommendation ITU–R P.2108, which provides a
clutter assumption that is expected to be greater
than predicted in 10% of the cases, and applies
clutter only at the user terminals and only for those
terminals deployed at ground level (as opposed to
those presumed to be clutter-free on rooftops).
OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5–6.
161 SpaceX
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Furthermore, this band is not
internationally harmonized for
terrestrial 5G use and there is significant
disagreement about what an operable 5G
system would look like in this band. 5G
terrestrial advocates have not
demonstrated that it is in the public
interest to restrict or impact NGSO FSS
operations in urban/suburban markets—
especially given that NGSO FSS systems
are already serving customers. At this
time, the Commission does not see a
path forward for adding a terrestrial
mobile allocation to the band that
adequately protects the incumbent
satellite operators.
C. MVDDS Construction Filings
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40. While the Commission declines to
adopt service rules to allow 5G
terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band as
originally proposed by the MVDDS
coalition, the Commission recognizes
that many of the MVDDS licensees in
the band have filed the required
buildout showings for the licenses they
hold under the current framework. In
the accompanying further notice of
proposed rulemaking (WT Docket No.
20–443) (FR 2023–13501) in FCC 23–36,
the Commission seeks comment, among
other things, on the possibility of
changes to the existing framework. The
Commission finds it’s appropriate at
this juncture to address any uncertainty
as to the status of the existing MVDDS
licenses under the current rules.
41. Eight companies (10 legal entities)
hold 191 MVDDS licenses: two DISH
subsidiaries hold 82 licenses; RS
Access, a subsidiary of a Dell
investment fund, holds 60 licenses; two
Go Long Wireless entities hold a total of
25 licenses; and five smaller companies
hold a total of 24 licenses.165 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.166 The
Commission is aware of only one
current commercial MVDDS
165 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 Section 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 2018), recons.
pending. See also Blumenthal DTV LLC, Call Sign
WQAR709 (Terminated July 26, 2014).
166 47 CFR 101.1413.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
deployment,167 and most MVDDS
licensees received two extensions of the
MVDDS buildout requirement, which
resulted in final deadlines in 2019.168
All of the existing licensees have had
buildout showings pending since 2019
for each of their licenses, which are
available to view in the Commission’s
Universal Licensing System (ULS).169 In
the 191 pending filings, each licensee
reports that it met the 2019 buildout
requirement for each license, mostly by
satisfying the safe harbor that the
Commission established for MVDDS in
2002 of operating at least four
transmitters per one million pops in
each license area.170 The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau staff’s
preliminary review of these
construction filings is that they likely
meet the safe harbor standard.
Accordingly, the Commission directs
the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau to finalize the determination of
whether the construction filings meet
the safer harbor standard and if so to
accept each of the pending MVDDS
construction filings subject to the
following condition: the Commission
reserves the right to adopt additional
buildout requirements for MVDDS if
appropriate based on any revisions to
the MVDDS rules adopted in response
to the further notice of proposed
rulemaking.
42. The Commission further directs
the Bureau to reconsider its denials of
2016 requests to extend buildout
167 The licensee uses one station that transmits
towards the relatively distant urban market and
surrounding suburbs from a unique site,
geographically and topographically, that allowed
the Commission to waive certain technical rules
without increasing harmful interference to DBS or
significantly increasing the area in which future
NGSO FSS receivers would be precluded by this
MVDDS transmitter. See MDS Operations Inc.,
Request for Waiver of Certain Multichannel Video
Distribution and Data Service Technical Rules for
One Station in Sandia Part, New Mexico, Order, 25
FCC Rcd 7963, 7968–69, paras. 13–14 (WTB 2010).
From 2011 to 2013, a former MVDDS licensee
offered fixed wireless broadband and voice service
in Florida’s Broward and Palm Beach counties. See,
e.g., https://www.multichannel.com/news/finance/
cablevision-completes-omgfast-shutdown/271409.
168 See, e.g., Requests of Ten Licensees of 191
Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data
Distribution Service for Waiver of the Five-Year
Deadline for Providing Substantial Service, Order,
25 FCC Rcd 10097 (WTB 2010).
169 See https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/
ApplicationSearch/searchAppl.jsp. Click on
‘‘Advanced Application Search’’ and select the
following: Radio Service Code: ‘‘DV,’’ Status: ‘‘2Pending,’’ Purpose: ‘‘NT.’’ Scroll to bottom of page,
Customize Your Results, and click on ‘‘Search.’’
Ninety-five of the 191 filings were amended in
2020.
170 See id. See also MVDDS Second Report and
Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9684, para. 177.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43475
deadlines for 22 MVDDS licenses, and
to extend the buildout deadlines for
these licenses for 18 months from the
effective date of this item, subject to the
same condition above.171 The
Commission believes that the unique
circumstances of this proceeding,
namely the uncertainty created by the
MVDDS 5G Coalition’s request for 5G
terrestrial use, makes strict application
of the buildout deadlines contrary to the
public interest.172 Eliminating the
uncertainty over these 22 MVDDS
licenses will best serve the public
interest by promoting fuller
participation in the record to be
developed in response to the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as well
as by providing additional certainty
regarding the status of these MVDDS
licenses.
II. Ordering Clauses
43. It is ordered that, pursuant to
sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 301, 302, 303, 304,
307, 309, 310, and 316 of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
151, 152, 154, 155, 301, 302a, 303, 304,
307, 309, 310, 316, and § 1.411 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.411, the
Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order in the
captioned dockets is adopted.
44. The inquiry in Expanding Flexible
Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between
3.7–24 GHz, GN Docket No. 17–183, is
terminated as to the mid-band spectrum
between 12.2 GHz and 13.25 GHz.
45. It is further ordered that, pursuant
to applicable procedures set forth in
§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comment on the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT
Docket No. 20–443 and the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No.
22–352 on or before the number of days
shown on the first page of this
document after publication in the
Federal Register, and reply comment on
or before the number of days shown on
the first page of this document after
publication in the Federal Register.
171 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 Section 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 2018), recons.
pending.
172 See 47 CFR 1.925(b)(3)(ii).
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
43476
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
46. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Office of the Secretary,
Reference Information Center, shall
send a copy of the Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Order, including the associated Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023–13503 Filed 7–7–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\10JYR1.SGM
10JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43462-43476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13503]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 27, and 101
[GN Docket No. 22-253; FCC 23-36; FR ID 149901]
Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final report and order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) finds that it is not in the public interest to add
a mobile allocation to permit a two-way terrestrial 5G service in the
12.2 GHz band based on the current record.
DATES: The report and order is effective on July 10, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madelaine Maior of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at
[email protected] or 202-418-1466; Simon Banyai of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-1443;
or Nick Oros of the Office of Engineering and Technology, at
[email protected] or (202) 418-2099.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order (R&O) in WT Docket No. 20-443 included in the Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order, FCC 23-36, adopted on May 18, 2023 and released
May 19, 2023. The full text of this document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-36A1.pdf. The R&O and the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WT Docket No. 20-443), and the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the Order (GN Docket No. 22-352),
i.e., the four FCC actions in FCC 23-36, are published separately in
the Rules and Regulations and the Proposed Rules sections, as
applicable, of this issue of the Federal Register.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio
recordings), please send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Government 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 an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' In the Report and Order, the Commission declines to adopt
rule changes and, therefore a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has
not been performed.
Congressional Review Act: The Commission will not send a copy of
the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A), because it does not adopt any rule as defined in the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding 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. In proceedings governed by Sec. 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). 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 Sec. 1.1206(b). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
Synopsis
I. Report and Order
A. Background
1. In this R&O, the Commission takes steps to ensure current and
future satellite services relied upon by millions of people across the
country are preserved and protected in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band (12.2 GHz
band) \1\ The Commission finds that authorizing two-way, high-powered
terrestrial mobile service in the 12.2 GHz band would impose a
significant risk of harmful interference to existing and emergent
services in the band, including satellite services. Such interference
could undermine investments made by incumbent licensees and jeopardize
their potential to provide new services to underserved communities,
including rural communities. The 12.2 GHz band is allocated on a
primary basis for non-Federal use for Broadcasting Satellite Service
(BSS) (referred to domestically as Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)),
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) (space-to-Earth) limited to non-
geostationary orbit systems (NGSO FSS), and Fixed Service.\2\ While the
three services are
[[Page 43463]]
co-primary, NGSO FSS and Fixed Service are allocated on a non-harmful
interference basis to DBS.\3\ Currently there are three services
operating in the band: DBS providers operating under the primary BSS
allocation, NGSO FSS licensees operating under the co-primary NGSO FSS
allocation, and Multi-Channel Video and Data Distribution Service
(MVDDS) licensees operating under the co-primary Fixed Service
allocation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to distinguish references to the bands in this
item, the Commission refers to the 12.2-12.7 GHz band as the 12.2
GHz band throughout. See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz
Band, WT Docket Nos. 20-443 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
36 FCC Rcd 606 (2021), (86 FR 13266 (March 8, 2021)) (12.2 NPRM).
\2\ 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 (revised as 47 CFR 2.106(b)(487)(i), at 88 FR 37318,
June 7, 2023, effective July 7, 2023), 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 [International Telecommunication
Union (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 [ITU Regulations] 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 (n.5.487A revised as 47 CFR
2.106(b)(487)(i), at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023, effective July 7,
2023). 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).
\3\ See 47 CFR 2.106, n.5.490 (International Footnote) (n.5.490
revised as 47 CFR 2.106(b)(490), at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023,
effective July 7, 2023). 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). See also Annex to the
Constitution of the ITU, 1003 (defining harmful interference).
\4\ 47 CFR 101.147(a) n.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. While DBS service began in 1994, and NGSO FSS systems were
authorized in the early 2000s, the Commission permitted MVDDS to
operate in the 12.2 GHz band starting in 2004 under technical rules to
ensure that MVDDS stations do not cause harmful interference to DBS or
earlier-in-time NGSO FSS fixed subscriber receivers.\5\ To that end,
MVDDS service was limited to a relatively low power, one-way, digital
fixed non-broadcast service, including one-way direct-to-home/office
wireless service with each proposed transmitter subject to detailed
prior coordination requirements.\6\ In April 2016, a coalition of MVDDS
licensees filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting reforms to the
12.2 GHz band rules, including permitting MVDDS licensees to use the
band for two-way mobile broadband services.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 Report and Order and FNPRM).
\6\ 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 (D.C.
Cir. 2005)).
\7\ Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition for Rulemaking, RM-
11768, at 17-18 (filed Apr. 26, 2016), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/60001658886/1 (MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition). See also
Petition for Rulemakings Filed, Public Notice, Report No. 3042, at
8, 17-18 (May 9, 2016) (Petition Public Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Later in 2016, the International Bureau opened a processing
round to accept NGSO FSS applications and petitions for market access
in several frequency bands \8\ and the Commission reformed its NGSO FSS
rules.\9\ In 2017, the Commission granted the first of the new
generation NGSO FSS requests--a petition for market access by WorldVu
Satellites Limited (OneWeb) for a planned Low Earth Orbit (LEO) NGSO
FSS satellite system of 720 satellites authorized by the United Kingdom
in the 10.7-12.7 GHz Band (in addition to several other bands).\10\ 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.'' \11\ 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.\12\ The Commission also agreed with comments
of the MVDDS 5G Coalition that MVDDS should not have to protect any
NGSO FSS earth stations in motion 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.\13\ The
NGSO FSS Report and Order adopted, among other things, spectrum sharing
rules and a more flexible milestone schedule for NGSO FSS systems.\14\
The Commission subsequently granted five additional NGSO FSS requests
to use bands that include the 12.2 GHz band (among others).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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).
\9\ In September 2017, the Commission adopted the NGSO FSS
Report and Order, updating several rules and policies governing NGSO
FSS systems. See Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-
Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters,
Report and Order (82 FR 59972 (Dec. 18, 2017)) and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (82 FR 52869 (Nov. 15, 20217)), 32 FCC Rcd 7809
(2017) (NGSO FSS Report and Order).
\10\ 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).
\11\ Id. at 5369, para. 6.
\12\ 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.'').
\13\ Id. at 5370, para. 8.
\14\ See NGSO FSS Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7821-31,
paras. 37-68.
\15\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NGSO FSS systems have continued to deploy. In particular, SpaceX
received modified authority for its first generation (Gen 1) system to
decrease the altitude from the 1,100-1,300 km to the 540-570 km range
for 2,814 satellites as well as approval of its updated orbital debris
mitigation plan.\16\ To date, SpaceX has deployed
[[Page 43464]]
approximately 4,000 satellites.\17\ The Commission also recently issued
a partial grant to SpaceX to begin deploying its second generation (Gen
2) system, with a grant approving up to 7,500 satellites to operate in
the Ka- and Ku-frequency bands.\18\ OneWeb also recently received
modified authority for its constellation \19\ and, to date, it has
deployed over 580 satellites.\20\ On June 30, 2022, the International
Bureau authorized SpaceX and Kepler to serve earth stations in motion
(ESIMs) in the 12.2 GHz band on an unprotected, non-harmful
interference basis.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Modification
of the Authorization for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, Order and
Authorization, 36 FCC Rcd 7995 (2021).
\17\ See, e.g., Mike Wall, SpaceX launches 56 Starlink
satellites, lands rocket at sea, space.com (``SpaceX has now lofted
more than 4,200 Starlink satellites overall, according to
astrophysicist and satellite tracker Jonathan McDowell.'') (Mar. 29,
2023), https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-group-5-10-
launch#:~:text=SpaceX%20launched%20another%20big%20batch,p.m.%20EDT%2
0(2001%20GMT).
\18\ Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Orbital
Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO
Satellite System, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20200526-00055 and SAT-AMD-
20210818-00105, Order and Authorization, FCC 22-91, 2022 WL
17413767, at *54, para. 135(ii) (Dec. 1, 2022) (SpaceX Gen2 Order)
(stating that the ``authorization is subject to modification to
bring it into conformance with any rules or policies adopted by the
Commission in the future. [And, that] . . . any investments made
toward operations in the bands authorized [by the] Order by SpaceX
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 . . . [including, but not limited to] . . . any
conditions or requirements resulting from any action in the
proceedings associated with. . .WTB Docket 20-443. . .'').
\19\ WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for Declaratory Ruling
to Modify the U.S. Market Access Grant for the OneWeb Ku-band and
Ka-Band NGSO FSS System, Order and Declaratory Ruling, DA 22-970
(IB, rel. Sept. 16, 2022) (petition to modify grant of U.S. market
access granted in part and deferred in part to approve minor
adjustments to number of satellites per plane without exceeding
previously-approved total of 720 satellites).
\20\ See, e.g., Letter from Kimberly M. Baum, Vice President,
Spectrum Engineering & Strategy, WorldVu Satellites Limited, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 20-443 et al. at 1
(filed Mar. 20, 2023); https://oneweb.net/resources/oneweb-confirms-successful-deployment-40-satellites-launched-spacex-1 (``OneWeb
confirms successful deployment of 40 satellites launched with
SpaceX. Launch 17 brings the total OneWeb constellation to 582
satellites. Third launch with SpaceX makes penultimate mission to
achieving global coverage.'').
\21\ SpaceX Services, Inc. Application for Blanket Authorization
of Next- Generation Ku-Band Earth Stations in Motion et al.; Kepler
Communications Inc. Application for Blanket Authorization of Ku-Band
Earth Stations on Vessels, Order and Authorization, DA 22-695 (IB
June 30, 2022) (ESIMs Authorizations). DISH and RS Access had argued
that granting these applications would constrain the Commission's
decision-making in the instant 12.2 GHz band rulemaking proceeding
by injecting new ESIM encumbrances into the 12.2 GHz band. ESIMs
Authorizations at 11-12, para. 22. DISH and RS Access also argued
that authorizing ESIMs in the band on an unprotected basis would
likely result in primary users in the band being required to assume
the costs to prevent service interruptions to SpaceX customers. Id.
at 11, para. 18. The International Bureau found that granting the
applications served the public interest but also recognized that the
introduction of a potentially significant number of additional end
users in motion could affect the 12 GHz spectrum environment.
Therefore the Bureau imposed conditions to ensure grant of those
applications would not materially impact the outcome of the 12 GHz
rulemaking proceeding. ESIMs Authorizations at 12-13, paras. 23-27.
The Bureau imposed conditions on the grants related to the 12.2 GHz
band including: (1) requiring operations to be on a non-interference
basis; (2) subjecting the operations to the outcome of any future
rulemaking including the instant 12.2 GHz band GHz proceeding, with
the understanding that the presence of ESIMs is not anticipated to
materially affect the analysis therein, and subject to modification
to conform to any rules or policies adopted, including in the
instant 12.2 GHz band proceeding, and assumption of this risk; (3)
subjecting the grant to the applicants' representations, including
that their NGSO systems have been engineered to achieve a high
degree of flexibility to facilitate spectrum sharing with other
authorized satellite and terrestrial systems. Id. In addition, the
Bureau explained that its case-by-case analysis was limited to the
applications before it and have no broader applicability. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released a notice of
proposed rulemaking (12.2 NPRM) to allow interested parties to address
whether it could add a mobile allocation and make other changes to
expand terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band without causing harmful
interference to incumbent licensees and, if so, whether such action
would promote or hinder the delivery of next-generation services in the
12.2 GHz band given the existing and emergent services offered by
incumbent licensees.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 614, para. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 5G Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band
6. By this R&O, the Commission finds that it is not in the public
interest to add a mobile allocation to permit a two-way terrestrial 5G
service in the 12.2 GHz band based on the current record.\23\ The
Commission finds that a new ubiquitous terrestrial 5G service
introduced throughout the band would create a significant risk of
harmful interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) and Fixed
Satellite Service (FSS) (space-to-Earth) limited to non-geostationary
orbit systems (NGSO FSS) operators. Although the Commission declines to
authorize two-way, high-powered terrestrial mobile use, the Commission
seeks further comment in its related further notice of proposed
rulemaking in WT Docket No. 20-443 (see FCC 23-36, paras. 48-57) (FR
2023-13501), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
on how best to maximize use of this 500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum.
The Commission takes these actions with respect to the 12.2-12.7 GHz
band in conjunction with its related action to issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking in GN Docket No. 22-352 (see FCC 23-36, paras. 58-
142) (FR 2023-13500), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, proposing to expand the use of the 12.7-13.25 GHz band for
mobile broadband or other expanded use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In this R&O, record references and citations refer to WT
Docket No. 20-443, unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. In April 2016, the MVDDS 5G Coalition, which included eleven of
the twelve Multi-Channel Video and Data Distribution Service (MVDDS)
licensees at that time, filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting
reforms to the 12.2 GHz band rules, including permitting MVDDS
licensees to use the band for two-way mobile 5G broadband services.\24\
In support of the Petition, the Coalition also provided two Coexistence
Studies that it claimed illustrated that a new 5G service could coexist
with DBS operators in the band but would be incompatible with NGSO
FSS.\25\ Subsequently, however, some members of the MVDDS 5G Coalition
suggested the possibility of 5G terrestrial use and NGSO FSS sharing in
the band.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ For brevity and convenience, the Commission refers to
terrestrial, 2-way, high-power mobile operations herein as ``5G.''
\25\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments, Attach.
1, MVDDS 12.2-12.7 GHz Co-Primary Service Coexistence (Coexistence
1) and MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Reply, Appx. A,
MVDDS 12.2-12.7 GHZ Co-Primary Service Coexistence II (Coexistence
2) (collectively, Coexistence Studies).
\26\ 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); Letter from Jeffrey
Blum, Executive Vice President, External and Legislative Affairs,
DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at
4 (filed Nov. 12, 2020) (DISH Nov. 12, 2020 Ex Parte) (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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released its 12.2 NPRM to
allow interested parties to address whether it could add a mobile
allocation and make other changes to expand terrestrial use of the 12.2
GHz band without causing harmful interference to incumbent licensees
and, if so, whether such action would promote or hinder the delivery of
next-generation services in the 12.2 GHz band given the existing and
emergent services offered by incumbent licensees.\27\ In the 12.2 NPRM,
the Commission stated that it would proceed mindful of the
[[Page 43465]]
significant investments made by incumbents and that it valued 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 initiated the instant 12.2 GHz band
proceeding to allow interested parties to address whether additional
operations can be accommodated in the band while protecting incumbent
operations from harmful interference and to provide an opportunity for
the Commission to assess the public interest considerations associated
with adding a new mobile allocation.\28\ In particular, the Commission
sought 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 12.2 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 12.2 GHz band; and
the impact (if any) on international rights for U.S.-licensed systems
that might be affected as a result of the U.S. providing for expanded
shared use of the band.\29\ Comments were due May 7, 2021, reply
comments were due July 7, 2021, and interested parties have added many
ex parte filings to the rulemaking dockets since the comment
deadlines.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 614, para. 2.
\28\ See, e.g., id. Additionally, the Commission explained 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.'' 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.
\29\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 21, n.67 (citing
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)).
\30\ See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, et
al., WT Docket No. 20-443, et. al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 6534 (WTB
2021); Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, et. al., WT
Docket No. 20-443, et. al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 9531 (WTB 2021); see
generally WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket 17-183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. In response to the 12.2 NPRM, several of the MVDDS licensees,
and one DBS provider that is also a major MVDDS licensee, contend that
5G terrestrial and incumbent services can coexist in the band, the
other DBS provider and the NGSO FSS commenters contend that such
coexistence is not yet technically feasible. Multiple technical
analyses were submitted into the record that purport to model the
potential interference between a new 5G mobile terrestrial service and
incumbent satellite services in the band.\31\ These models rely on
various technical assumptions about which the parties greatly disagree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ RS Access Comment, Appendix A, Assessment of Feasibility of
Coexistence between NGSO FSS Earth Stations and 5G Operations in the
12.2-12.7 GHz Band, at 6 (filed May 7, 2021) (RS Access Comment RKF
Study I); Letter from Noah Campbell, CEO, RS Access, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, The Effect
of 5G Deployment on NGSO FSS Downlink Operations in the 12.2-12.7
GHz Band (filed May 19, 2022) (RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II);
Letter from David Goldman, Senior Director, Satellite Policy, Space
Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, SpaceX Analysis of the Effect
of Terrestrial Mobile Deployment on NGSO FSS Earth Stations and 5G
Operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band (filed June 21, 2022) (SpaceX
June 21, 2022 Analysis); Letter from V. Noah Campbell, CEO, RS
Access, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443,
Attach. A, Analysis of Starlink Submission Regarding the Effect of
5G Deployment on NGSO FSS (filed July 15, 2022) (RS Access July 15,
2022 RKF Response Study); Letter from Stacy Fuller, Senior Vice
President, External Affairs, DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, 12 GHz Co-Frequency
Interference from Terrestrial Mobile into DBS (filed July 18, 2022)
(DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis); Letter from Kimberly M. Baum,
Vice President, Spectrum Engineering & Strategy, WorldVu Satellites
Limited, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443,
Annex, Monte Carlo Analyses of the Potential Impact of an Expanded
Terrestrial Service on NGSO FSS Systems in the 12 GHz Band (filed
July 11, 2022) (OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses); Letter from David
Goldman, Senior Director, Satellite Policy, Space Exploration
Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket
No. 20-443, Exh. A, Evaluation of SpaceX Study Related to 12 GHz
Interference from Terrestrial Mobile into Starlink (filed Oct. 4,
2022) (SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission finds
that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial mobile service cannot coexist with
DBS operations in the band without a significant increase in the risk
of harmful interference. The Commission is not persuaded by the
assurances of one of the two nationwide DBS providers that DBS will be
protected,\32\ particularly given that the other nationwide DBS
provider raises significant concerns.\33\ The Commission finds that the
study submitted by the 5G advocates is based on unsupported assumptions
that undermine its reliability. As explained below, the 5G proponents
have not demonstrated that a new 5G service will be able to meet the
Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits required to protect DBS
receivers in the 12.2 GHz band. Also, the Commission finds that the 5G
proponents have not adequately addressed the issues raised both in the
12.2 NPRM and by commenters regarding the applicability of burden-
shifting protection obligations, lower earth-station elevation angles,
power limits, EPFD limits and receiver location information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ DISH states that the presence of higher-power two-way
mobile and fixed services at 12 GHz are possible and fully
consistent with protecting DBS in the band. See DISH Comment at 1.
\33\ AT&T has argued on behalf of DirecTV that RKF has not
established that expanded terrestrial mobile operations could be
added without causing harmful interference to DBS operations--a
service which RKF's Study completely ignores, and a factor which
alone, it argues, should nullify the study. See AT&T Reply at 14.
AT&T asserts exclusion and/or coordination zones are neither
practical nor feasible in the 12 GHz band as a means of protecting
DBS because millions of DBS receivers are spread throughout the U.S.
and are constantly being added, moved, or relocated. See id. at 26.
AT&T states its concerns are not lessened just because DISH is not
concerned about the possibility of harmful interference posed by
terrestrial mobile operations. See id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Further, the Commission also finds that ubiquitous two-way
mobile broadband 5G service is likely to create a significant risk of
harmful interference to ubiquitous NGSO FSS operations. The 5G
terrestrial advocates' analysis rests on the speculative assumption
that 5G and NGSO FSS operations will not be geographically near each
other (i.e., 5G advocates offer studies that assume NGSO FSS will
largely serve rural areas, and 5G will serve urban/suburban markets)
without pointing to any basis for this assumption. The Commission finds
that this unsupported assumption, which is not in line with current
deployment practices and plans, renders the technical studies offered
by the 5G advocates unpersuasive, and therefore such studies cannot
serve as a basis on which to conclude that the public interest would be
best served by allowing a new, ubiquitous 5G service into the band at
this time. The Commission specifically asked whether geographic sharing
could allow higher-power terrestrial operations in certain areas, and
if so, how such geographic sharing should be structured.\34\ But apart
from studies based on non-binding, hypothetical assumptions, the
Commission notes that 5G proponents did not offer any rules to limit
their proposed 5G operations to less than all of the geographic areas
authorized by their MVDDS licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 5G Interference to DBS
12. As a threshold matter, the Commission finds that a new
ubiquitous
[[Page 43466]]
5G terrestrial mobile service cannot coexist with DBS operations in the
band without a significant increase in the risk of harmful
interference. As noted above, pursuant to the Table of Allocations,
both terrestrial and NGSO FSS services are obligated to protect DBS
from harmful interference.\35\ The Commission has long recognized the
public interest benefits that incumbent DBS services provide to
millions of subscribers, and has required the other co-primary services
in 12.2 GHz band to operate on a non-harmful interference basis with
respect to DBS.\36\ Congress, too, sought to ensure that DBS would not
be subject to harmful interference from any new terrestrial service by
requiring that the Commission ``provide for an independent technical
demonstration of any terrestrial service technology proposed by any
entity that has filed an application to provide terrestrial service in
the direct broadcast satellite frequency band to determine whether the
terrestrial service technology proposed to be provided by that entity
will cause harmful interference to any direct broadcast satellite
service.'' \37\ The Commission ultimately adopted rules for MVDDS based
on the extensive record of a multi-year rulemaking proceeding,\38\
which included the statutory mandates to avoid harmful interference to
DBS \39\ and an independent analysis \40\ of potential MVDDS
interference to DBS.\41\ These rules include detailed frequency
coordination procedures that require an MVDDS licensee to ensure that
the EPFD \42\ from a proposed transmitting antenna does not exceed the
applicable EPFD limit \43\ at any DBS receiving antenna of a ``customer
of record.'' \44\ The MVDDS rules also include other limitations on
signal emissions, transmitter power levels, and transmitter
locations.\45\ When an MVDDS licensee proposes a new station,
coordination with DBS is necessary to demonstrate that the relevant
EPFD limit will not be exceeded at the DBS antenna of any DBS
subscriber of record.\46\ Once an MVDDS station has been successfully
coordinated, however, the burden to ensure that DBS subscribers do not
suffer interference from that MVDDS station shifts to the DBS
operator--immediately for new subscribers \47\ and after one year for
customers of record.\48\ The Commission determined that shifting this
burden to DBS from MVDDS--only after successful coordination by the
MVDDS operator in the first instance--was reasonable in light of the
one-way, relatively low-power limit on MVDDS. In doing so, the
Commission did not alter its previous finding that allowing two-way
MVDDS operations in the band ``would unnecessarily complicate the
sharing scenario'' and ``significantly raise the potential for
instances of interference among the operations'' sharing the band.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See supra para. 1 & n.3.
\36\ See generally MVDDS Second Report and Order.
\37\ See Prevention of Interference to Direct Broadcast
Satellite Services, Public Law 106-553, App. B., Title. X, 1012, 114
Stat. 2762, 2762A-128, 2762A-141 (2000) (LOCAL TV Act 1012); see
also Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, Public Law 106-113, App. I.,
Title II, sec. 2002, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-544 (1999). 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.
\38\ See ET Docket No. 98-206.
\39\ See LOCAL TV Act 1012(a).
\40\ Id.
\41\ See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at
9635, para. 56 (citing MITRE Corporation, ``Analysis of Potential
MVDDS Interference to DBS in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band'' (Apr. 18,
2001) (MITRE Report)).
\42\ 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. See 47 CFR
101.105(a)(4)(ii)(A).
\43\ 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 and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9691, para. 197.
\44\ See 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(ii) (referencing the procedures
listed in 47 CFR 101.1440). Among other things, an MVDDS licensee
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 the introduction of its
MVDDS service and must coordinate with DBS. See 47 CFR 101.1440(a)-
(d).
\45\ See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report and 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); 101.103;
101.105; 101.111; 101.113; 101.129; 101.1409; 101.1440. Notably, the
rules limit the EIRP for MVDDS stations to 14 dBm per 24 megahertz.
See 47 CFR 101.113(a) note 11; 101.147(p). In the MVDDS Second
Report and Order, the Commission explained that ``placing a limit on
MVDDS EIRP will ensure that DBS entities are not unduly hindered in
their ability to acquire customers in areas in close proximity to
MVDDS transmit facilities. Thus, we are not permitting higher powers
over areas containing mountain ridges or over presently unpopulated
regions because the higher power may cause too great of an exclusion
zone for future DBS and NGSO FSS subscribers. The Commission
recognizes that a higher power benefit for MVDDS providers would not
offset the potential constraints placed on other service subscribers
in the 12 GHz band. MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at
9691-92, para. 198.''
See also id. at 9653, para. 88 (discussing the EIRP limit as a
factor in adopting DBS mitigation obligations because ``this power
limit will not inhibit the introduction of new DBS customers [near]
the MVDDS transmitting system, i.e., later-installed DBS receive
antennas can be properly sited and shielded from the MVDDS
signal'').
\46\ ``DBS customers of record are those who had their DBS
receive antennas installed prior to or within the 30 day period
after notification to the DBS operator by the MVDDS licensee of the
proposed MVDDS transmitting antenna site.'' 47 CFR 101.1440(a).
\47\ ``DBS licensees are responsible for providing information
they deem necessary for those entities who install all future DBS
receive antennas on its system to take into account the presence of
MVDDS operations so that these DBS receive antennas can be located
in such a way as to avoid the MVDDS signal. These later installed
DBS receive antennas shall have no further rights of complaint
against the notified MVDDS transmitting antenna(s).'' 47 CFR
101.1440(e).
\48\ Once the new MVDDS station is coordinated and begins
operating, the MVDDS licensee must satisfy all complaints of
interference to DBS customers of record received during a one-year
period. 47 CFR 101.1440(g).
\49\ MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9668, para.
137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. In its 2016 Petition for Rulemaking, the MVDDS 5G Coalition
proposed that a new 5G mobile terrestrial service could also share with
existing DBS in the 12.2 GHz band.\50\ The Coalition provided two
Coexistence studies that--through careful selection of mobile
deployment areas, adjustments to radio frequency design parameters, use
of geographic separation, clutter loss, and transmitter power
constraints on terrestrial operations--purported to show that sharing
with DBS would be possible.\51\ In the first Coexistence Study, which
studied three potential 5G use cases including point-to-point
communications, mobile broadband, and indoor mobile use, the Coalition
asserted that these potential uses could be engineered such that
terrestrial users would not exceed the existing EPFD limit for
MVDDS.\52\ In its subsequent Coexistence 2 study, the Coalition studied
a different building environment to show that even in a ``more
challenging'' sharing environment, a new 5G service could protect DBS
up to the level it ``enjoys
[[Page 43467]]
today from MVDDS licensees.'' \53\ In the 12.2 NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on whether the approach proposed by the MVDDS 5G
Coalition in the 2016 Coexistence studies was feasible and the costs
and benefits of such an approach.\54\ The Commission sought comment on
whether, and to what extent, the MVDDS 5G Coalition's proposals to
license two-way, mobile operations in the band, and to eliminate the
equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) limit, would substantially
redefine the scope of DBS operators' obligations and potential burdens
under the current regime.\55\ Additionally, the Commission asked how
other factors--such as geographic separation, transmitter power
constraints on terrestrial operations, and other siting parameters for
flexible-use base stations--could minimize the risk of interference to
DBS users.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See supra para. 7.
\51\ See, e.g., Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Executive Vice
President, External and Legislative Affairs, DISH, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 3 (filed Sept. 22,
2020) (DISH Sept. 22, 2020 Letter). See also Coexistence 1 at 35
(finding that ``coexistence between MVDDS 5G operations and DBS
receivers is possible with modest adjustments to MVDDS site
locations and radiofrequency design parameters''); Coexistence 2
(revalidating the original coexistence study in different
topological use-cases); Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition for Petition
to Deny, WT Docket No. 10-112, Exh. 1, MVDDS 12.2-12.7 GHz NGSO
Coexistence Study (filed Aug. 15, 2016), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10816077623256/1 (Coexistence 3 Aug. 15, 2016 Study).
\52\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments at 4-6.
\53\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Reply at 8-9.
\54\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616-617, para. 24.
\55\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 23.
\56\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The advocates for a new 5G service in the band did not directly
address the 12.2 NPRM questions but instead continued to rely on the
2016 Coexistence studies. Specifically, DISH stated that ``the
feasibility of sharing between DBS and 5G is demonstrated by two
studies commissioned by the MVDDS 5G Coalition and prepared by [an]
expert satellite engineer.'' \57\ Similarly, RS Access stated that,
``the coexistence studies submitted in the petition for rulemaking
proceeding demonstrated that coexistence between DBS and terrestrial 5G
is possible, even under a worst-case scenario.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ DISH Comment at 3.
\58\ RS Access Comment at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Opponents of the Coalition's proposals responded to the 12.2
NPRM by criticizing the Coexistence studies. AT&T, which owned DIRECTV,
the only current DBS operator that does not hold MVDDS licenses, argued
that the 2016 Coexistence studies, ``too narrowly and simplistically
defined the areas in which a DBS receiver could establish a direct
line-of-sight path with DBS satellite orbital locations.'' \59\
Moreover, AT&T argued that ``these studies made inaccurate baseline
assumptions regarding the nature of deployments and relied upon cherry-
picked use cases that are not representative of real-world
deployments.'' \60\ Subsequently, DIRECTV, which AT&T spun off in
2021,\61\ argued that the 2016 Coexistence studies are ``outdated or
irrelevant, and thus do not accurately reflect the characteristics of
either a ubiquitous, modern, high-power terrestrial mobile service or
DIRECTV's DBS service.'' \62\ Moreover, SAVID LLC (SAVID), an
engineering firm that DIRECTV hired to analyze 5G-DBS coexistence,
found that, even if it made favorable assumptions of the terrestrial
mobile systems, 5G service in the band would ``cause extensive harmful
interference to DIRECTV receivers, exceeding the limits currently in
place to protect DBS customers by a factor of 100 to 100,000 over areas
extending well beyond the intended coverage area of the mobile base
stations.'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ AT&T Reply at 11.
\60\ AT&T Comment at 8.
\61\ See AT&T, AT&T & TPG Close DIRECTV Transaction (Aug. 2,
2021), https://about.att.com/story/2021/att_directv.html; AT&T, AT&T
Completes Acquisition of DIRECTV (July 24, 2015), https://about.att.com/story/att_completes_acquisition_of_directv.html.
\62\ DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
\63\ DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission finds
that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial mobile service cannot coexist with
DBS operations in the band without a significant increase in the risk
of harmful interference to the DBS operations. In particular, 5G
advocates have not shown how such new mobile operations could meet or
exceed the metric upon which the Commission based regional EPFD limits
(ranging from -172.1 to -168.4 dBW/m\2\/4kHz) that the FCC adopted to
protect DBS from a fixed, lower power MVDDS service at every existing
DBS subscriber's dish. In addition, because MVDDS is a fixed service,
the rules were able to take advantage of the discrimination between
southern facing DBS antennas and MVDDS antennas; a mobile service does
not provide for such accommodations and results in a much more
challenging interference environment than MVDDS. Moreover, to meet the
existing EPFD limits, it appears that a mobile terrestrial service
would need to be restricted to such low power levels that it is
unlikely that any given base station could provide substantial
geographic coverage or significant 5G service.\64\ According to the
Coexistence 1 study, 5G services could meet these EPFD limits only when
using ``newly available spectrum planning tools, and careful
engineering of MVDDS systems'' to isolate them from DBS receivers,
either through geographic separation or terrain blocking.\65\ Given the
careful and exacting engineering that would be needed to meet these
conditions, it is not apparent that terrestrial mobile systems, if
installed, could be expanded by adding new base station locations in
the future to meet increased consumer demands without significantly
impacting DBS service. It is not reasonable to assume that ubiquitous
two-way 5G mobile terrestrial service would meet these conditions
consistently with respect to ubiquitous DBS which serves millions of
customers in all areas of the United States where the location of 5G
mobile units could be anywhere in the operator's service area,
including right next to the DBS antenna.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See, e.g., DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 6. Largely
to protect DBS receivers installed after an MVDDS transmitter is
successfully coordinated with DBS, the MVDDS transmit power limit is
14 dBm/24 MHz (or 20 dBm/100 MHz). By comparison, the 2016 MVDDS 5G
Coalition coexistence study assumed two-way terrestrial operations
at 48 dBm/100 MHz, and the most recent RKF Study assumed a new 5G
system would operate at 65 dBm/100 MHz, however, 5G advocates have
not proposed any rules regarding power limits that they would deem
reasonable to provide 5G service while still protecting incumbent
DBS subscribers. The Commission notes that a 28-45dB higher transmit
power for the proposed 5G service would make meeting the regional
EPFD limits to existing DBS subscribers much more challenging and
would significantly increase the burden on DBS operators to protect
new or modified DBS subscriber receivers.
\65\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments at 4-6.
\66\ See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1 (the
assumptions made by the Coexistence Studies ``do not accurately
reflect the characteristics of either an ubiquitous, modern, high-
power terrestrial mobile service or DIRECTV's DBS service.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. When DIRECTV commissioned a study from SAVID using what it
deemed more reasonable assumptions than those of the 5G advocates, that
study found that at power levels of 69 dBm/100 MHz \67\ ``mobile
operations in the band would cause extensive and harmful interference
to DIRECTV receivers.'' \68\ DISH raises several criticisms of the
SAVID study,\69\ but even the MVDDS 5G Coalition's own study found that
at 48 dBm/100 MHz in certain small areas actual harmful interference
could occur if a DBS receive antenna were present.\70\ The Commission
notes that the power levels used in the Coexistence studies
[[Page 43468]]
are substantially lower than the 62 dBm/MHz (82 dBm/100 MHz) generally
permitted in most other terrestrial mobile bands which operate at lower
frequencies with more favorable propagation characteristics and even
less than the maximum 47 dBm/10 MHz (57 dBm/100 MHz) permitted in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) service designed specifically
for small cell coverage. While the Coexistence studies and the SAVID
study do not reach identical conclusions due to differing assumptions,
collectively they illustrate that two-way mobile terrestrial 5G
operations could not ubiquitously meet the regional EPFD limits that
the FCC adopted to protect DBS. As DBS receivers may be located
anywhere (and can be either roof-mounted or installed on the ground),
and as the Coalition's own Coexistence studies shows the potential for
harmful interference from 5G into DBS in some instances, the Commission
finds that a new 5G service cannot adequately protect incumbent DBS
operators in the band from a significant risk of harmful interference.
Moreover, the Commission notes that DISH and other 5G advocates have
not proposed or agreed to rules or limits on 5G operations (such as
horizon nulling) that DISH suggests might reduce some risk of harmful
interference into DBS. However, even if the 5G advocates agreed to use
advanced techniques for interference mitigation, that would not solve
the underlying problem that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial service
poses a significant risk of harmful interference to DBS given the
ubiquitous nature of both the existing DBS service and the proposed 5G
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ The base station EIRP is 75 dBm/100 MHz but the base
station EIRP density is reduced by the base station TDD activity
factor of 75% to 69dBm/100 MHz. See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS
Analysis at 4-5.
\68\ DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
\69\ See Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel, DISH, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, at 2-3
(filed August 8, 2022) (DISH Aug. 8, 2022 Letter). Among other
things, DISH questioned SAVID's assumptions about 5G transmit power
and DBS dish location; its decision to ``ignore'' the potential for
horizon nulling and time variability; and its failure to use LIDAR
data to accurately account for clutter loss. Id. at 2-3.
\70\ Coexistence 1 at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The 5G advocates do not address the increased coordination and
DBS interference mitigation burdens that would be placed on DIRECTV and
its tens of millions of subscribers if the Commission was to permit
mobile 5G operations in the 12.2 GHz band.\71\ The original Coexistence
study proposed to eliminate the MVDDS EIRP limit as duplicative of the
EPFD limits, suggesting 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 terrestrial operations were fixed or mobile, or
one- or two-way.\72\ However, the proposal to eliminate the EIRP limit
would substantially redefine the scope of the burden on DBS operators,
particularly for the deployment of additional DBS antennas in the
future. While the current rules place the burden to ensure that new DBS
subscribers do not suffer interference from previously coordinated
MVDDS stations on DBS operators, the Commission is not convinced that
similarly shifting this burden from 5G to DBS, going forward, would be
reasonable because protecting DBS receivers installed in the future
from previously coordinated higher-power, two-way, 5G base and mobile
stations would be significantly more burdensome--and in some scenarios
impossible--than protecting new DBS receivers from previously
coordinated, one-way, low-power, fixed MVDDS transmitters. Due to the
mobile nature of the proposed 5G service, the location of devices
cannot be determined and therefore cannot be avoided through
coordination. Also, a two-way service requires the DBS operator to
consider both incoming and outgoing signals. Finally, at higher powers,
even using advanced techniques, a DBS receiver might not be able to
coordinate operation near a 5G base station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See Letter from Michael P. Goggin, Assistant Vice
President--Senior Legal Counsel, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, Appx. A, AT&T Response to the
MVDDS 5G Coalition Technical Studies, at 4 (filed June 14, 2018)
(AT&T June 14, 2018 Ex Parte) (arguing that eliminating the EIRP
limit would render the EPFD analysis impossible to model and have
the effect of shifting the burden of interference mitigation from
MVDDS licensees to DBS licensees because the EIRP limits were
established specifically to mitigate the potential impact of MVDDS
operations on future DBS customers).
\72\ 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 of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Additionally, given that all DBS earth stations look toward the
southern sky for communication with geostationary orbit (GSO) space
stations orbiting at the equatorial plane, and given that high-gain
antennas are necessary for base stations, the 12.2 NPRM sought comment
on whether base station location or antenna orientation can be adjusted
to provide greater protection to DBS earth stations.\73\ The 5G
advocates did not address this issue in their comments, replies, or
additional studies, though DIRECTV, in its SAVID study, pointed out
that lower earth-station elevation angles generally increase the
potential for harmful interference from line-of-sight terrestrial
transmitters while higher angles generally result in off-axis
attenuation.\74\ 5G terrestrial advocates did not address how DBS
subscribers in the far northern U.S. could be protected from 5G
interference, given the relatively low elevation angles required for
subscriber dishes in these regions to point at DBS GSO satellites over
the equator. For example, to point a dish in Fairbanks, AK, at a
DIRECTV satellite at 95.1[deg] W, an elevation angle of 6.47[deg] is
required. Even if the Commission excluded Alaska (as it did in
addressing the 3.7 GHz band), an elevation angle of 12.21[deg] is
required to point a customer's dish in Bangor, ME, at a DISH satellite
at 129[deg] W, and an elevation angle of 17.67[deg] is required in
Seattle, WA, to point at a DISH satellite at 72.7[deg] W. That failure
of the 5G advocates to acknowledge or address the challenge of
adequately protecting DBS customers whose location may render them
uniquely susceptible to interference from 5G adds weight to the
Commission's conclusion that the record does not support a finding that
5G can coexist with ubiquitous DBS dishes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 617, para. 25.
\74\ See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 6 (noting SAVID's
Study assumed that all DBS antennas were pointed toward DIRECTV's
central orbital location at 101[deg] W.L.--an assumption that
ensures high elevation angles and does not, like the Peters Studies,
seek out the worst possible angle over the full range of DBS orbital
locations available); see also DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at
3 (noting its deployments were modeled at Orlando, FL, which has
high elevation angles to DBS satellites, adding conservatism to the
analysis by tending to reduce indicated interference levels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. RS Access and DISH contend that concerns about interference to
DBS should be given little weight because DISH is one of the country's
two DBS providers and one of the advocates of a new 5G terrestrial
service in the band. As such, RS Access and DISH state, ``DISH would
not join a proposal that endangers its own service to about 14 million
households.'' \75\ Admittedly, DISH expresses willingness to accept any
resultant increase in coordination and DBS interference mitigation
burdens in return for new authority to use its 82 MVDDS licenses for
two-way mobile broadband.\76\ This is not a case,
[[Page 43469]]
however, where the Commission can conclude--as with DISH's position as
the sole licensee with respect to both services in connection with
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)-4 service--that the concerns about
harmful interference are capable of resolution by one party. Here, as
previously noted, DISH is not the only DBS provider in the band.\77\
DISH's support for a new 5G service in the band does not address the
potential for harmful interference to DIRECTV's tens of millions of
subscribers. For instance, the Commission notes that DISH and DIRECTV
dishes may not have an equal susceptibility to harmful interference in
any given locale, because their respective subscribers may use
different types of dishes (e.g., varying in size) aimed at one or
several satellites at different orbital slots in the GSO arc. In short,
DISH's DBS system architecture and structure, not to mention its
motivations and business plans, may be very different from DIRECTV's.
Thus, DISH's lack of concern about and/or willingness to work around
potential harmful interference from 5G service in the band cannot be
viewed as probative of the question of likely interference to DBS
service.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 4.
\76\ AT&T June 14, 2018 Ex Parte at 5-6 (arguing that because
DISH holds MVDDS licenses in most of the major markets and has
developed an alternative means of video distribution that does not
require DBS capabilities, DISH may have less incentive to protect
DBS operations than it once did). ``At a minimum, DISH would now
balance the impact of the Coalition's proposals on its existing and
future DBS subscriber base against the advantages--arguably very
profitable ones for existing MVDDS licensees--that would flow to its
other services if the request is granted.'' Id. at 6. The Coalition
responds that ``DISH would have never been member of the Coalition
if 5G terrestrial mobile services posed a meaningful risk of harmful
interference to its DBS operations.'' Letter from MVDDS 5G Coalition
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 3-4
(filed Aug. 29, 2018) (MVDDS 5G Coalition Aug. 29, 2018 Ex Parte).
\77\ In the 12.2 GHz band, as one of two DBS providers, DISH is
in a different position than in the 2000-2020 and 2180-2200 GHz
bands, where in 2011 it became the only Mobile Satellite Service
(MSS) authorization holder. See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, WT Docket 12-
70, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd
16102, 16109-16110, para. 14 (2012). In that context, despite
concerns that multiple satellite and terrestrial operators could not
coexist in the same frequency band without interference, the
Commission granted DISH authorization to use the 2 GHz MSS bands for
terrestrial mobile operations, reasoning that a single operator
could manage potential interference between two different systems in
the band. See id. at 16165-16167, paras. 164-168.
\78\ See AT&T Reply at 22 (``the fact that DISH may not worry
about harmful interference from terrestrial, mobile, flexible-use
operations does not lessen AT&T's concerns.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Finally, DISH argues that DIRECTV does not use the 12.2 GHz
band extensively and mostly relies on other spectrum bands to provide
service to its customers. Specifically, DISH claims that ``[a] review
of DIRECTV's satellites and orbital slots suggests that DIRECTV has
more bandwidth outside the 12 GHz band than DISH has in the 12 GHz
band.'' \79\ DISH goes on to claim that DIRECTV serves its customers
mainly using the Ka-band and Reverse Band working Broadcasting-
Satellite Service payloads on its satellites at 99[deg], 101[deg], and
103[deg] W.L. slots.\80\ DIRECTV responds to this claim by pointing out
that it ``continues to rely heavily on the 12 GHz band'' for delivery
of its video service to a majority of its DBS customers throughout all
fifty states, including customers receiving services on aircraft, boats
and RVs, as well as through set-top boxes.\81\ The record reflects that
DIRECTV continues to use the 12.2 GHz band, having deployed a ``12 GHz
payload on a relatively new T16 satellite at 101[deg] W.L.'' \82\
Similarly, the Commission finds DISH's arguments about the recent
decline of DBS subscribers--both DISH and DIRECTV--unavailing.\83\
Regardless of overall subscription trends, each DBS operator continues
to add new subscribers that can be located anywhere in the United
States, and there continue to be millions of existing DBS customers
whose service is entitled to protection from harmful interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel, DISH, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, at 1 (filed
Apr. 4, 2022); DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 7.
\80\ DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 7.
\81\ Letter from Stacy Fuller, Senior Vice President, External
Affairs, DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket
No. 20-443, at 2 (filed May 3, 2022).
\82\ DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 8.
\83\ DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 5G Interference to NGSO FSS
22. The Commission also finds that ubiquitous two-way mobile
broadband 5G service is likely to create a significant risk of harmful
interference to ubiquitous and increasing NGSO FSS operations.\84\
While deployment of NGSO FSS service in the 12.2 GHz band is still
developing, terrestrial 5G service in the band is hypothetical. For
this reason, the 5G advocates supported their arguments by submitting
Monte Carlo simulation analyses that attempt to model the coexistence
of the two services.\85\ However, 5G advocates did not then use the
assumptions underlying their models as a basis for proposing specific
rules that would enable coexistence. NGSO FSS operators responded by
submitting their own Monte Carlo analyses which sought to correct
various assumptions they claim to be erroneous. While the studies
provided by the opposing sides contain many contradictory assumptions,
ultimately they all agree on the fundamental point that there will be a
significant risk of harmful interference to NGSO FSS operations without
some geographic separation between a new two-way mobile broadband 5G
service and NGSO FSS. The 5G advocates, however, do not propose to
limit such new 5G terrestrial service geographically, nor is it clear
how such limitations could be consistent with the nature of the 5G
service for which they seek authorization. Neither are the
authorizations granted to existing NGSO FSS operators limited to
specific geographic areas. The Commission therefore finds it would not
be in the public interest to allow for a new 5G service in the band as
it would cause a significant risk of harmful interference to NGSO FSS
where these services are deployed ubiquitously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 2 (``Regardless of the
assumptions made with respect to NGSO FSS and two-way terrestrial
deployments, harmful interference from the proposed terrestrial
service will not only exceed the existing interference envelope for
MVDDS in the 12 GHz band, but will cause additional harmful
interference''); See also SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 2 (``Yet
even with . . . favorable assumptions, SpaceX customers could expect
to experience harmful interference in the 12 GHz band the vast
majority of the time, which would essentially preclude a consumer-
oriented commercial satellite service in the band'').
\85\ A Monte Carlo (probabilistic) analysis is a simulation that
uses random sampling and statistical modeling to estimate
mathematical functions and mimic the operations of complex systems.
RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 3, n.8 (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Significantly, the Commission notes that initially, the MVDDS
5G Coalition (i.e., the petitioners for a new 5G service in the 12.2
GHz band) argued that coexistence with NGSO FSS was not possible.
Specifically, the Coexistence studies concluded that 5G terrestrial
operations and NGSO FSS operations could not co-exist in the 12.2 GHz
band and therefore, the MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition proposed to delete
or demote the NGSO FSS allocation to a lower regulatory status with
respect to 5G.\86\ 5G advocates subsequently shifted their argument to
claim that co-existence is possible with the new generation of NGSO FSS
systems.\87\ When the Commission issued the 12.2 Notice in response to
the Petition, it noted the public interest in protecting the
significant investments made by NGSO FSS operators in the band. To
determine whether NGSO FSS operations could coexist with a new 5G
service, the 12.2 Notice sought comment on what technical criteria
would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS from harmful interference from
high-powered, two-way mobile operations.\88\
[[Page 43470]]
Specifically, the 12.2 NPRM asked which maximum power levels could be
granted to new terrestrial operations within a framework of service-
rule sharing that would still protect incumbents from harmful
interference.\89\ The 12.2 NPRM further inquired as to whether applying
the existing MVDDS interference criteria \90\ to new terrestrial
systems would be sufficient to protect NGSO FSS operations.\91\
Notably, it specifically inquired about whether subscribers of
satellite services were typically located in more rural areas, the
propagation characteristics and cell coverage areas that could be
expected from 5G base stations in the band, and whether smaller-sized
cells could mitigate potential interference from terrestrial services
into DBS and NGSO FSS services.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ The earlier MVDDS 5G Coalition studies found ``MVDDS and
NGSO [FSS] cannot effectively share the [12] GHz band, either under
the current rules or under any new rules that may be added in
response to the Coalition's petition.'' See Coexistence 3 Aug. 15,
2016 Study at 18.
\87\ See supra paras. 3-4 for a discussion of NGSO FSS systems
authorized by the Commission in recent years.
\88\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 619-620, para. 30.
\89\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 42.
\90\ 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).
\91\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 619-620, para. 30.
\92\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. In response to the questions raised in the 12.2 NPRM, RS Access
commissioned RKF, a systems engineering firm, to conduct a nationwide
simulation of how NGSO FSS and terrestrial 5G systems might
interact.\93\ Ultimately, RKF provided two studies, both probabilistic
Monte Carlo analyses meant to show that terrestrial 5G can coexist with
NGSO FSS. In its first study, submitted in May 2021, RKF used the 406
Partial Economic Area (PEA) geographic license areas \94\ in the
contiguous United States (``CONUS'') to define where the 5G network
will be deployed, and broke these into urban, suburban, and rural based
on their population density thresholds.\95\ Because the May 2021 RKF
Monte Carlo analysis assumed the new 12.2 GHz terrestrial 5G service
was likely to be deployed in the most densely populated areas with high
demand for broadband service, RKF modeled deployment of 5G in census
tracts with a population density greater than 7,500 people per square
mile in each PEA. It explained, however, that if deployment in these
``urban'' density census tracts did not result in deployment to areas
that encompassed 10% of a market's population, it added the most
densely populated census tracts in each PEA until the area of
deployment covered 10% of the market population.\96\ RKF's terrestrial
model assumed a 5G network of 49,997 terrestrial macro-cell base
stations,\97\ 89,970 fixed small-cell base stations,\98\ 1,949,760
simultaneously active mobile devices \99\ and 6,999 point-to-point
backhaul links across CONUS.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ RS Access Comment at 33.
\94\ See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details
About Partial Economic Areas, GN Docket No. 12-268, Public Notice,
29 FCC Rcd 6491 (2014).
\95\ Urban has a population more than 7,500, suburban between
7,500 and 600, and rural fewer than 600. RS Access Comment RKF Study
I at 6.
\96\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 26-27.
\97\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 13. Macro cells were
deployed by multiplying the capped total of almost 50,000 macro
cells by the ratio of the high population density area in a given
PEA divided by the total such population in 12.2 GHz eligible areas
in all PEAS--i.e., each PEA got a percentage of Macro-cell base
stations equal to its proportion of the high population density
areas across CONUS. Id. at 31. The model deployed Macro-cell base
stations in three consecutive waves of decreasing inter site
distances between them ranging from 500 meters to 200 meters between
base stations for urban areas and 1732 meters between base stations
for rural areas. Id. at 32.
\98\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 34. Small cell base
stations were deployed in the same manner as the macro cell base
stations but with smaller distances between these and other small-
cell base stations and or macro-cell base stations. See id. at 34-
35.
\99\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 38. The mobile devices
were dropped uniformly but randomly within the base stations'
coverage areas, and 80% of the mobile devices were assigned as
indoor and 20% as outdoor. Id. at 37. Outdoor mobile devices were
assumed to have a height above ground level (HAGL) of 1.5m. Id. at
37.
\100\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 39. The Study
estimated that there were a total of 2,500 macro-cell base stations
and 4,499 small-cell base stations without fiber access and required
microwave backhaul via the 12.2 GHz band, for a total of 6,999
links. See id. at 39. The Study assumed that in 2025, less than 5%
of the cell-sites will use microwave backhaul in the 7 GHz to 40 GHz
band and hence it distributed such use so that 5% of rural macro-
cell base stations, 5% of other macro-cell base stations and 5% of
small-cell base stations all use microwave backhaul. See id. at 38-
39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. RKF then modeled the distribution of only SpaceX's NGSO FSS
satellite terminals, although there are multiple NGSO FSS operators in
the band. RKF's satellite model assumed SpaceX would deploy 2,500,000
satellite user terminals in both urban and rural areas,\101\ but for
this model, it used a different definition of rural and urban areas
than it did for modeling terrestrial 5G operations.\102\ RKF assumed
the majority of NGSO FSS systems, or 1.65 million Starlink user
terminals, would be dropped in random locations in non-metropolitan
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) blocks \103\ either won by
Starlink or won by another bidder,\104\ and that the remaining 850,000
Starlink terminals would be deployed in non-RDOF but also `rural
areas.' \105\ Starlink terminals were allowed to be within 5 meters of
5G base stations, and the possibility technically exists that RKF's
modeling could place NGSO FSS user terminals near 5G terrestrial base
stations.\106\ However, such proximity appears unlikely because the
study endeavored to separate terrestrial 5G and satellite equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 16-17.
\102\ Compare RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 6 with id. at 8.
RKF adopted the Census Bureau's definition of metropolitan areas as
``urban areas'' which include both cities and surrounding suburbs
and it assumed and weighted deployment of satellite terminals to
whatever was not metropolitan but instead a ``rural'' area. RS
Access Comment RKF Study I at 8.
\103\ RDOF blocks are census blocks made available by the
Commission's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction where no
provider is offering, or has committed to offer service of at least
25/3 Mbps. See FCC, Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction
Information, Fact Sheet, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/
904#:~:text=The%20Rural%20Digital%20Opportunity%20Fund%20will%20ensur
e%20that%20networks%20stand,applications%20as%20well%20as%20today's.
\104\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 17. RKF states that for
purposes of this analysis, the study assumes that SpaceX would have
a penetration rate of 60% in non-metropolitan RDOF areas (or 327,511
terminals) in which they won funding. Id. Likewise, the study
assumes a 30% penetration rate in non-metropolitan RDOF areas (or
1.3 million Starlink terminals) where another auction participant
won funding. Id. For those metropolitan RDOF areas that SpaceX won,
the study assumes a penetration rate of 15%, which amounts to an
assumed 14,600 total Starlink terminals. Id. These assumptions,
along with metropolitan RDOF areas that SpaceX did not win, resulted
in an assumed 1.65 million Starlink terminal deployments. Id.
\105\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 18. In this case of NGSO
FSS terminals dropped over ``non-RDOF'' rural areas, `rural' is
defined for NGSO FSS operations the same as for 5G terrestrial
deployments--less than 600 people per square mile. Id. at 17. NGSO
FSS terminals are placed using the Gridded Population of the World
(GPW) population density database in proportion to the population
density in more populous rural areas, which is similar to how the
model sites 12 GHz terrestrial base stations. Id. In other words,
the model's siting methodology for Starlink terminals in non-RDOF
regions is more likely to place terminals in the more populous
census tracts in rural areas, where they are deployed in proportion
to the population therein using a population density database
similar to the method used for siting terrestrial 5G equipment. Id.
at 17-18, n.39.
\106\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 18. 5G terrestrial base
stations and NGSO FSS user terminals could be near each other, for
example if the latter were placed in `non-urban' areas from a Census
Bureau perspective but if these areas still had populations greater
than 7,500 persons and were ``urban'' under RKF's standards and
therefore also receiving terrestrial 5G equipment. Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. In RKF's study, the potential for harmful interference to NGSO
FSS from multiple elements of 5G systems is aggregated.\107\ With
respect to each of
[[Page 43471]]
the NGSO FSS terminals modeled, RKF computed the aggregate interference
power from all 5G emitters within 50 km, and compared the result to the
interference-to-noise ratio (I/N) threshold to determine the extent to
which the threshold would be exceeded.\108\ RKF asserted the objective
of the simulation was to model a large number of statistically
significant interference paths to evaluate the risk of interference to
the Starlink terminals.\109\ Initially, RKF found that about 0.888% of
Starlink user terminals over CONUS could experience an event that
exceeded a nominal ITU threshold of -8.5 dB.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 13. Each macro-cell base
station beamforms a narrow beam toward each mobile device, and 5G
transmissions are assumed to operate in time-division-duplex (TDD)
mode with all the base stations coordinated such that uplink and
downlink transmissions are synchronized. Id. The study assumes 5G
backhaul operates in frequency-division-duplex (FDD) mode, and both
uplink and downlink paths transmit continuously. Id. The base
station antenna has 256 elements with a peak gain of 27.7 dBi which
beamforms toward each mobile device but is constrained by the
minimum antenna down tilt levels designed so that the gain directed
toward a mobile device at 1.5m HAGL at the edge of coverage of the
cell is 10 dB below the peak gain--allowing service at the edge of
coverage; smalls cells have a peak gain of 15 dBi. RS Access May 19,
2022 RKF Study II at 11. Starlink terminal selects a random pointing
direction from the distribution of simulated pointing directions. RS
Access Comment RKF Study I at 13. Then the aggregate interference
from all simultaneously active macro base station beams and small-
cells on the downlink or all active mobile devices on the uplink, as
well as the point-to-point backhaul uplink and downlink
transmissions to each of the Starlink terminal receivers within 50
kilometers is computed. Id. RKF states the model calculates the
emissions from macro-cell base stations as they beamform a
transmission path toward each mobile device within the coverage area
of each base station. Small-cell emissions are also calculated;
these emissions are not beamformed to specific mobile devices, but
are instead transmitted omnidirectionally with fixed down tilt and
nulling. RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 9. Then the model
performs two separate aggregate interference power calculations: (1)
from all simultaneously active macro base station beams, all small
cells on the downlink, and all point-to-point backhaul
transmissions, which continually transmit in FDD mode in both
directions; and (2) from all active mobile devices on the uplink and
all point-to-point backhaul transmissions. Id. at 9-10.
\108\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 9-10.
\109\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 10.
\110\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. NGSO FSS operators, especially SpaceX, criticized many of the
assumptions underlying RKF's 2021 study. As a result, in May 2022, RS
Access submitted a revised study from RKF that modified certain
parameters and specific assumptions to respond to the criticism.\111\
RKF's revised study still relied heavily on geographic separation to
find that a new 5G service could avoid causing harmful interference to
incumbent NGSO FSS operations. The study still assumed that new 12.2
GHz 5G deployment and satellite terminals would have limited geographic
overlap due to RKF's assessment of their respective use-cases--namely,
that 12.2 GHz 5G services will be deployed most heavily in denser
population centers, while satellite services are most useful in lower
density population centers.\112\ RKF's second study modeled the same
number of base stations, mobile devices and point-to-point links,\113\
and reached the conclusion that there would be no impact to 99.85% of
NGSO FSS terminals by the terrestrial deployment it modeled. In
particular, it asserted its study now found that only 0.15% of Starlink
terminals which might hypothetically be deployed in the future
throughout CONUS experienced an exceedance of the ITU's I/N threshold
of -8.5 dB I/N from 5G operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz portion of the
NGSO FSS downlink band.\114\ RKF asserted that several other factors
contributed to the ``highly favorable environment'' for the coexistence
of NGSO FSS and 5G systems, including the large antenna discrimination
resulting from NGSO FSS antennas pointing with high elevation angle and
the 5G base stations down tilted; interference mitigation achieved
through 5G base station sidelobe suppression and antenna nulling toward
the horizon; and, relatively localized 5G coverage due to the 12.2 GHz
band's propagation characteristics.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 6.
\112\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at iii.
\113\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 2-3.
\114\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 25. RKF asserts
that the exceedance threshold of -12.2 dB, suggested by some
critics, would not materially affect this study's findings. Id. at
26. Furthermore, it noted that any exceedance event that might occur
would also affect no more than two of the up to eight available 250-
megahertz Ku-band NGSO FSS channels at 10.7-12.7 GHz. Id. at 5, 25.
\115\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 7. There are
several additional differences from the May 2021 and 2022 RKF
Studies, albeit RKF emphasized three. First, whereas in its 2021
Study, RKF assumed Starlink terminals would point at satellites with
look angles or elevation angels between 55[deg] and 85[deg], in
response to Starlink criticism, it assumes terminals will more
frequently employ a lower elevation angle closer to the minimum
authorized angle of 25[deg]. Id. at 19. Second, RKF has changed the
height above ground level for Starlink terminals from 20% sited at
4.5 meters and 80% at 1.5 meters, instead to 55% at 4.5 meters and
45% at 1.5 meters, in response to claims by Starlink that most users
install their terminals ``as high as possible.'' Id. at 20. Third,
in response to a Starlink claim, a maximum off-axis antenna gain
pattern from an European Telecommunications Standards Institute
(ETSI) standard for user terminals is used even though RKF asserts
no party expressly claims that Starlink terminals perform at this
standard and ETSI formulas results in a larger assumed off-axis
gain, which in turn makes Starlink terminals more prone to
exceedance events. Id. at 21-22. Other differences between the two
studies include changes in the macro-cell and small-cell base
station antenna patterns used, the peak EIRP of the macro cells
decreased from 75 dBm/100 MHz to 65 dBm/100 MHz with gain of 27.7
dBi (small-cell base stations likewise increased their EIRP from 45
to 48 dBm/100 MHz but with an increased gain of 18 dBi and not 15
dBi which is accomplished through including horizon nulling and
beamforming technologies), and the application of end-point clutter
loss at the user equipment (UEs) with an HAGL of less than 3m and at
small-cell base stations (typically deployed on poles in the
vicinity of buildings), incorporating horizon nulling into macro
cell base stations. Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Both SpaceX and OneWeb submitted Monte Carlo analyses in
response to the May 2022 RKF study commissioned by RS Access. SpaceX's
Monte Carlo study modified certain key assumptions including basing
buildout in an actual SpaceX market area in Las Vegas, Nevada upon its
own asserted user data,\116\ and buildout requirement for terrestrial
mobile services of 70 percent of population, among other
assertions.\117\ SpaceX asserted its study showed an impact from
interference from terrestrial mobile service that would degrade service
to SpaceX's Starlink broadband terminals operating in the 12.2 GHz band
more than 77 percent of the time, resulting in full outages 74 percent
of the time.\118\ Furthermore, SpaceX stated its study showed the
impact of this harmful interference would extend at least 21 km (more
than 13 miles) from the macro base station in unobstructed conditions
even for best-case far-sidelobe-to-far-sidelobe coupling.\119\ SpaceX
used an antenna receiver pattern based upon the applicable ETSI
standard (ETSI_EN_303_981 Class B WBES),\120\ and the SpaceX analysis
is based on seven 240 megahertz channels with 250 megahertz spacing
from 10.95-12.7 GHz.\121\ OneWeb's study similarly concluded that NGSO
FSS user terminals cannot be deployed within the coverage area of a
suburban macro-cell base station deployment without suffering from very
high probability of harmful interference.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 3.
\117\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 4.
\118\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 2.
\119\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 3.
\120\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
\121\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.
\122\ See OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. While the analyses submitted by SpaceX and OneWeb have very
little accord with the RKF analyses, all of these analyses agree, on
some level, on one point: NGSO FSS user terminals will suffer harmful
interference if they are operating in close proximity to 5G
transmissions in the 12.2 GHz band. The RKF analyses come to this
conclusion tacitly because rather than providing a calculation of the
separation distance that would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS
terminals from harmful emissions from 5G transmitters, these RKF
analyses simply assume that in most situations 5G and NGSO FSS services
will not be used by consumers
[[Page 43472]]
in the same locations. Specifically, the RKF studies assume that 5G
will most likely operate only in denser, more urban markets and NGSO
FSS services will most likely serve only more rural subscribers.
Satellite operators, and other parties in the record, have provided
more express analyses than RKF of the potential for harmful
interference to NGSO FSS operations from 5G operations in close
proximity. For example, Google noted in its reply comments that
although RKF's report did not separately present the potential
interfering impact of a single UE (handset) located in the vicinity of
a satellite terminal--because it assumed it was unlikely a handset
would be near a satellite terminal--Google's calculations showed that
when such a situation inevitably occurs, harmful interference can be
expected out to a distance of as much as 0.2-1 km under realistic
propagation assumptions, and as far as 3 km under worst-case
conditions.\123\ For its part, SpaceX asserted that satellite user
terminals would be subjected to significant interference whenever
located in the line of sight of a 5G base station. Further, SpaceX
states that even for best-case far-sidelobe-to-far-sidelobe coupling,
the effect of harmful interference (I/N > -12.2dB) between these two
operations will extend up to 21.4 km (more than 13 miles) from the
macro base station in unobstructed conditions.\124\ According to
SpaceX, its satellite user terminal is about 16 dB more sensitive to
the interfering signal coming into its far sidelobes than the mobile UE
is for its desired signal.\125\ As a result, if a SpaceX user terminal
is located in an area where a mobile device can receive a signal from
the base station, the interfering signal its terminal receives will be
much stronger than the desired signal received by the user device.\126\
Because of their sensitivity, SpaceX states that even if its satellite
terminal antennas are pointing only at high elevation angles so that
terrestrial mobile signals are only received at large off-axis angles,
interference will be overwhelming within the coverage area of a
terrestrial base station.\127\ SpaceX asserts that RKF recognized this
point when it admitted that ``Starlink terminals within the 5G coverage
area typically suffered an exceedance.'' \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Google Reply at 14.
\124\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 11. SpaceX used RKF's
assumption that the macro base station has an input power of 41.3
dBW per 100 MHz per user and that the SpaceX user terminal has a -2
dBi far sidelobe gain and 200 K system noise temperature. SpaceX
also assumed that the far sidelobe level of the macro base station
is -2.3 dBi. RKF assumed a -30 dBi sidelobe performance for macro
base stations. And, in its later Monte Carlo simulation, SpaceX used
the same -30 dBi sidelobe floor for an individual sector antenna
pattern, although SpaceX states this value is highly optimistic. Id.
\125\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.
\126\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13. SpaceX argues that
even for a mobile UE with a very modest signal-to-noise ratio of
only 0 dB (i.e., at the UE noise floor), for the SpaceX user
terminal, this mobile signal becomes an interferer that is 16 dB
above the noise floor of the user terminal (I/N = 16 dB) and
completely wipes out the desired signal. Id.
\127\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.
\128\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13-14 (citing Letter from
V. Noah Campbell, CEO, RS Access, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, Bringing 5G to the 12 GHz
Band, at 11 (filed June 1, 2022)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Although RKF did not provide specific analysis of the
separation distances necessary to protect NGSO FSS user terminals from
5G transmissions, it argued that there would be a natural geographic
separation between the two services, based on constraints on the number
of user terminals an NGSO FSS system can deploy to one area. For
example, the RKF study asserted that while an NGSO FSS licensee can
deploy terminals in metropolitan areas, such as New York City or Los
Angeles, satellite capacity constraints limit the total number of
terminals NGSO FSS licensees can support in any one of these densely
populated zones.\129\ To illustrate this point, RKF has pointed to
statements by Starlink's CEO that its service is not well suited to
urban areas.\130\ SpaceX does not directly address RKF's capacity
argument but it responds that in the very few areas where RKF does
consider terrestrial and NGSO FSS systems operating in close proximity,
its model finds I/N ratios of 50 dB or more.\131\ Furthermore, SpaceX
argues that, by assuming only 1.07 percent of SpaceX user terminals
would be deployed in urban areas, RKF significantly underestimated the
effect of the proposed system on the existing Starlink customers.\132\
OneWeb agrees that terrestrial separation of NGSO FSS and 5G terminals
is an unrealistic assumption,\133\ and states that it intends to focus
its initial service on enterprise, government, and mobile network
operator customers, which will require connectivity across
metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 8.
\130\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 25, n.65 (citing
Jon Brodkin, Elon Musk: Starlink latency will be good enough for
competitive gaming, Ars Technica (Mar. 10, 2020), https://bit.ly/3dUrbbu (quoting Elon Musk: ``The challenge for anything that is
space-based is that the size of the cell is gigantic . . . it's not
good for high-density situations. We'll have some small number of
customers in LA. But we can't do a lot of customers in LA because
the bandwidth per cell is simply not high enough.'')).
\131\ SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 3,
n.9 (citing RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 27 and Fig. 3-3).
\132\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9. SpaceX argues its
actual distribution as based on the Las Vegas PEA is places 17% in
urban areas, 37% in suburban areas and 46% in rural areas. Id.
\133\ OneWeb has argued that suburban macro-cell base station
deployments will result in harmful interference to NGSO FSS User
Terminals when considering real world deployment scenarios. Letter
from Brian D. Weimer, Counsel, OneWeb, to Marlene H. Dortch, WT
Docket No. 20-443, Attach. B, 12 GHz NGSO FSS Earth station and
Terrestrial Study, at 10 (filed Oct. 7, 2022). See also OneWeb July
11, 2022 Analyses at 3 (notes omitted) (``The principle defect of
the [RKF Study attached to Comments of] RS Access] is the assumption
of geographical separation: that NGSO FSS user terminals will be
deployed with a heavy bias towards rural areas while mobile base
stations and devices will be heavily skewed towards urban areas.
There is no real world justification for this bias.'').
\134\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 3, n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. The Commission finds that the 5G proponents' arguments that a
new 5G service could adequately protect NGSO FSS operations from
harmful interference rely too heavily on the unsupported assumption
that there will be geographic separation between the services. Neither
the FCC's rules governing NGSO FSS operations in the band nor the
authorizations that the FCC has granted to NGSO FSS operators place any
limitations of the sort assumed by 5G proponents on where these NGSO
FSS services may operate.\135\ NGSO FSS systems are not restricted to
rural areas; indeed, SpaceX is currently authorized to deploy
satellites throughout CONUS and for an unlimited number of its second-
generation user terminals anywhere within the United States.\136\ At
this time, satellite operators' plans for, and rollout of service
using, this band are still in the early stages, and operators have
stated their intentions to serve urban and suburban areas.\137\ Based
on the current record, and the Commission's experience, the Commission
concludes that authorizing separate, ubiquitous satellite and
terrestrial mobile systems in the same band would be significantly
likely to result in harmful interference. Although the technical
analyses that 5G advocates submitted made a number of
[[Page 43473]]
hypothetical assumptions about how both a new 5G service and NGSO FSS
service would be deployed, including 5G operating parameters that could
reduce or mitigate interference, 5G proponents did not propose or agree
to be bound by any specific rules to codify these assumptions. Given
the Commission's conclusion that NGSO FSS terminals will experience
harmful interference if placed in close proximity to terrestrial 5G
deployment, and the lack of apparent disagreement by 5G advocates, the
Commission declines to authorize a new terrestrial 5G service in the
12.2 GHz band based on the current record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ See, e.g., 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 (NGSO FSS Report and Order).
\136\ See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application For
Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the
SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order
and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 3391, para. 1 (2018); SpaceX June 21,
2022 Analysis at 14, n.41 (citing Radio Station Authorization, Call
Sign E210127 (issued Nov. 10, 2021)).
\137\ See, e.g., supra para. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. As noted, the Monte Carlo analyses provided by the 5G advocates
incorporate a set of assumed operating parameters intended, in addition
to geographic separation, to reduce the possibility of harmful
interference to NGSO FSS user terminals. These assumptions have become
objects of criticism from NGSO FSS interests who argue that their
adjustment can skew the interference picture away from showing the
significant risk of harmful interference NGSO FSS systems would suffer.
Below, the Commission discusses some of the major disagreements on
assumptions the parties have raised in the record. The Commission
cautions, however, that these assumptions do not change the
Commission's bottom-line decision declining to permit 5G operations in
the 12.2 GHz band, due to the risks of harmful interference into NGSO
FSS user terminals when the two services are in close proximity.
Accordingly, other than in a few instances where the Commission has
pointed out that certain debates about assumptions may be missing
critical information, the Commission declines to weigh in concerning
the relative merits of particular assumptions.
33. Ignoring Access to Other Bands and Other NGSO Deployments. The
RKF study assumed that Starlink is assigned eight 250 MHz channels from
10.7-12.7 GHz.\138\ SpaceX argues its model did not incorporate use of
the 10.7-10.95 GHz portion of the band due to regulatory constraints
imposed to protect Radio Astronomy activity in the adjacent 10.6-10.7
GHz band.\139\ Accordingly, the SpaceX analysis is based on seven 240
MHz channels with 250 MHz spacing from 10.95-12.7 GHz, whereas RKF
appears to assume access to all bands. RS Access argues SpaceX's
failure to incorporate the entire 10.7-12.7 GHz range into its
calculations, and its use of only the 12.2-12.7 band for downlink
increases the probability of interference exceedance experienced by
Starlink terminals by a factor of four. RS Access finds this one of the
most critical assumptions causing SpaceX's interference results to
differ from its own. Furthermore, SpaceX argues RKF only models SpaceX
terminal deployments and omits studies of any interference created by
deployment of other NGSO FSS operations.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 11. Thus, a ``fully
loaded'' 12 GHz sector can serve a maximum of 20 mobile devices
simultaneously. Id.
\139\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.
\140\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Height of Fixed Subscriber Antennas. The height at which users
mount their SpaceX user terminals has a dramatic effect on the
interference to which they are subject--higher placement also means
that they are more likely to receive more direct interference from
mobile system base stations and UEs.\141\ The May 2021 RKF Study
assumed a distribution of NGSO FSS fixed subscriber terminals more
heavily weighted toward ground installations--80% of Starlink terminals
would have an HAGL at 1.5m, and 20% would have an HAGL of 4.5m. RKF's
May 2022 study modified this assumption and instead assumed that 45% of
Starlink terminals would be installed near ground level with an HAGL of
1.5m, and 55% of Starlink terminals would be installed on rooftops with
an HAGL of 4.5m.\142\ In response, SpaceX argued this modification
still failed to reflect that the majority of SpaceX's customers
deployed their antennas on rooftops to avoid obstructions, which
significantly increases the likelihood of an unobstructed path for
interference from a mobile service base station.\143\ SpaceX argued its
own informal customer surveys showed that most consumers mounted their
antennas on a roof, and accordingly, SpaceX argued that 10% of its user
terminals would be deployed at a height of 1.5m and 90% would be
deployed at a height of 4.5m.\144\ OneWeb agrees most NGSO FSS user
terminals are expected to be deployed on rooftops and that such
installation practices are consistent with decades of satellite
infrastructure deployments.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 7.
\142\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 20.
\143\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
\144\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
\145\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Number of Macro Cells Deployed. RKF's May 2022 study models
49,997 5G macro base stations throughout CONUS, distributed in the most
densely populated areas of each PEA, comprising at least 10% of the
population of the PEA.\146\ SpaceX has criticized RKF's 10% coverage,
contending that RKF's 10% minimum buildout assumption falls far below
the 70% to 80% population coverage requirement the Commission has
routinely applied to other recently allocated flexible use spectrum,
and it asserts the lower percentage buildout results in less
interference, thus skewing the results of RKF's study.\147\ SpaceX
assumed 3,215 macro base stations in the Las Vegas market in its
study,\148\ which RKF criticized as being a vast overestimation of
typical 5G deployment.\149\ However, SAVID, which SpaceX hired to
review the RKF studies, later argued that the number of macro base
stations assumed in the SpaceX analysis did not have a material impact
on the interference analysis results.\150\ The Commission notes that
looking at the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS)
requirements for bands such as 24 GHz and above, licensees may fulfill
their performance requirements in various ways, including providing
mobile service to 40% of the population of the license area or by
demonstrating coverage of at least 25% of their license's geographic
area, or by showing the presence of equipment transmitting or receiving
on the licensed spectrum in at least 25% of census
[[Page 43474]]
tracts within the license area.\151\ Accordingly, the relevant
percentage buildout that would be required at 12 GHz may be different
than either side's assumptions.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 9.
\147\ SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 2.
SpaceX has argued RKF's 10% buildout is also inconsistent with the
economic study submitted by terrestrial mobile proponents, which
``assume the terrestrial mobile operations in the 12 GHz band will
be available ubiquitously''[. . .]and is also inconsistent with the
public interests claimed by members of its coalition that mobile
services in 12 GHz band be required to serve rural customers, left
behind by other 5G deployments.'' SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at
11 (notes omitted).
\148\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 15.
\149\ See RS Access July 15, 2022 RKF Response Study at 9-10
(``If a 5G operator sought to meet Starlink's assumptions and built-
out a nationwide 5G network that scaled the 540 POPs per cell
Starlink modeled, the operator would have to deploy 610,000 base
stations. By contrast, AT&T uses approximately 75,000 towers . . .
to support a fully nationwide network . . . .''). However, RKF also
modeled 89,970 fixed small-cell base stations. RS Access Comment RKF
Study I at 34. OneWeb notes that 12 GHz terrestrial mobile
deployments, should they be allowed, would mostly be on small-cell
base stations like the C-band and Ka-band flexible-use deployments
for in-fill where more capacity is desired, and according to CTIA,
up to 800,000 small cells could be deployed within the next 5 years.
See OneWeb Reply at 19-20. OneWeb states that even if half of these
projected small cells included the 12 GHz band, it would represent a
five-fold increase over the RKF study's small-cell deployment
assumptions, and the number of affected Starlink terminals could be
9 times higher than predicted for the small-cell base stations. Id.
at 20-21.
\150\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 12.
\151\ See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio
Services, et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014, 8088, para. 206 (2016) (stating that a
licensee providing mobile service must provide coverage to 40
percent of the population of the license area); Use of Spectrum
Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al., Third Report
and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Third Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 5576, 5580, para. 8 (2018) (stating
that licensees may fulfill the requirements of [the geographic area
performance] metric either by demonstrating mobile or point-to-
multipoint coverage of at least 25% of their license's geographic
area, or by showing the presence of equipment transmitting or
receiving on the licensed spectrum in at least 25% of census tracts
within the license area . . . maintain[ing] parity with the 40%
population coverage metric.).
\152\ See, e.g., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at section V.C.6
(Performance Requirements) (seeking comment on the appropriate
coverage percentages for the 12.7 GHz band) in associated GN Docket
No. 22-352 (FCC 23-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. Technical Advancements. SpaceX argues that the RKF studies
incorporated unreasonable technical advancements into their models of
5G handsets, lowering the estimated interference received. For example,
the May 2022 RKF study incorporated horizon nulling into the
performance of 5G macro-cell base stations whereby 5G antennas can null
the gain pattern at the horizon at all azimuth angles to mitigate
ground-based interference to NGSO FSS terminals.\153\ SpaceX argued
``[this] is a neat trick when the terrestrial operator does not know
where the NGSO FSS antennas are located.'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12.
\154\ SpaceX argues RKF assumptions about nulling technology
rely on letters from NOKIA, Ericsson, and Samsung, but it states
that first none of these materials refer to any specific level of
sidelobe suppression capability from nulling and only Samsung
mentions nulling at all, and only as a means of avoiding
interference to other mobile user equipment. SpaceX June 3, 2022
Response to Revised RKF Report at 5, n.23 (discussing RS Access May
19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12, n.40 (citing Letter from Jeffrey Marks,
Vice President, Nokia, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN
Docket No. 18-122 (filed Sept. 21, 2021); Letter from Mark Racek,
Sr. Director of Spectrum Policy, Ericsson, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 18-122 (filed Sept. 13, 2021); Letter
from Robert Kubik, Sr. Director, Samsung, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 18-122 (filed Sept. 20, 2021)).
Second, SpaceX argues these letters were filed in the C-band
proceeding and that RKF provides no explanation to justify its
approach to scaling for the much higher frequencies at 12 GHz.
SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 5.
Furthermore, SpaceX notes there is no 12 GHz equipment and no ITU,
3GPP, or other performance standard for 12 GHz and RKF does not
explain how it came up with its assumptions for this band. Id.
Third, SpaceX argues the letters from Ericsson and Samsung mention
grating lobes, but RKF does not consider their effects in its model.
Id. Fourth, even if nulling were feasible in the 12 GHz band, SpaceX
argues it is expensive technology that operators are unlikely to
deploy voluntarily--yet no one has proposed to make such technology
a regulatory requirement, making RKF's assumption that it will be
deployed facially unreasonable. Id. And SpaceX argues that, fifth,
RKF assumes that the macro base stations use a 256-element antenna,
while both Nokia and Ericsson indicate that they contemplated the
use of much smaller 96-element antennas, which would result in lower
gain, wider beam width, worse sidelobes, and reduced nulling
ability. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. Transmitter Power and Path Loss. As noted previously, RKF
changed its transmitter power from 75 dBm to 65 dBm in its second
study.\155\ SpaceX has supplied its own engineering report arguing that
ITU WP 5D which studied terrestrial mobile in the 10-11 GHz bands also
assumes 72.6 dBm/100 MHz as a typical base station EIRP value, making
75 dBm the more likely number.\156\ OneWeb agrees that 75 dBm/100 MHz
is more realistic.\157\ Furthermore, the OneWeb study uses the
probabilistic clutter model found in Recommendation ITU-R P.2108, which
provides a clutter assumption that is expected to be greater than
predicted in 10% of the cases, and applies clutter only at the user
terminals and only for those terminals deployed at ground level (as
opposed to those presumed to be clutter-free on rooftops). Tailored in
this manner, OneWeb can temper the recommendation's potentially overly
aggressive prediction of clutter losses, yet model expected clutter
losses at a range of geographic locations.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12.
\156\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 4 (citing Report on
the 38th meeting of Working Party 5D (e-Meeting 7-18 June 2021),
Annex 4.4 to Document 5D/716-E, https://www.itu.int/dms_ties/itu-r/md/19/wp5d/c/R19-WP5D-C-0716!H4-N4.04!MSW-E.docx, Table 3-1 entry
4.5 applicable to the 10-11 GHz band refers to Table 10 entry 1.9
which defines the typical values for antenna element input power of
22 dBm. Using the array parameters in Table 10 results in a typical
BS EIRP of 72.6 dBm (in 100 MHz) which is comparable to the 75 dBm/
100 MHz maximum EIRP density used in this analysis based on the FCC
limit defined in 47 CFR 30.202(a)).
\157\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 6.
\158\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Furthermore, both the RKF and SpaceX analyses model path loss
using 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Specification 38.901,
applying the Urban Macro-Cell model for both urban and suburban macro-
cells at 30 meters to 1 km distance, the Rural Macro-Cell model for
rural macro-cells at 30 meters to 5 km, and the Micro-Cell (``Umi'')
model for small-cells at 30 meter to 1 km distance.\159\ However,
SpaceX argues, RKF subtly understates the high interference line of
sight cases in the 3GPP 38.901 model by using a single weighted average
between NLOS (non-line of sight) and LOS (line of sight) path loss to
represent both cases.\160\ SpaceX argues RKF's approach of employing a
weighted average to represent two distinctly different cases
dramatically understates the line of sight cases that would actually
occur under the 3GPP 38.901 model.\161\ SAVID asserts that while the
parties debate either -8.5 dBm or -12.2 dBm I/N, an alternative
interference protection criterion based on the Power Flux Density (PFD)
limit set by 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)15 should be considered.\162\ In this
regard, SAVID points out that the FCC specifically set the maximum PFD
limit from an MVDDS service transmitting antenna in NGSO FSS stations
at 12.2-12.7 GHz at -135 dBW/m2 in 4 kHz at 3 km, which is the
equivalent of an I/N threshold of -10.8 dB.\163\ SAVID asserts this
means that even for Starlink terminals in the most favorable location
in the BS antenna pattern, there must be at least 25.5 dB of clutter
loss to meet the FCC MVDDS PFD limit at 3 km separation.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9-10.
\160\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 10.
\161\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 10.
\162\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 5-6.
\163\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 6.
\164\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 6. OneWeb stated its
OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses uses the probabilistic clutter model
found in Recommendation ITU-R P.2108, which provides a clutter
assumption that is expected to be greater than predicted in 10% of
the cases, and applies clutter only at the user terminals and only
for those terminals deployed at ground level (as opposed to those
presumed to be clutter-free on rooftops). OneWeb July 11, 2022
Analyses at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. The parties' disagreements about the above assumptions
underlying how two-way 5G mobile broadband and NGSO FSS user terminals
should be modeled does not change the Commission's fundamental
conclusion that there will be a significant risk of harmful
interference to NGSO FSS where these services are deployed without
adequate geographic separation. Even if the parties could agree about
the values that should be assigned to each of the models' more minor
assumptions, it would not change the models' more fundamental flawed
assumption that the 5G and NGSO FSS services will be geographically
separated. Rather, these disagreements present even more evidence of
the difference in opinion between the parties as to the envisioned
technical specifications of their respective operations. NGSO FSS
continues to evolve and there is not enough data in the record on how
these systems are currently configured and how the technical parameters
will change over time as NGSO FSS systems add additional subscribers
and continue to refine satellite technology.
[[Page 43475]]
Furthermore, this band is not internationally harmonized for
terrestrial 5G use and there is significant disagreement about what an
operable 5G system would look like in this band. 5G terrestrial
advocates have not demonstrated that it is in the public interest to
restrict or impact NGSO FSS operations in urban/suburban markets--
especially given that NGSO FSS systems are already serving customers.
At this time, the Commission does not see a path forward for adding a
terrestrial mobile allocation to the band that adequately protects the
incumbent satellite operators.
C. MVDDS Construction Filings
40. While the Commission declines to adopt service rules to allow
5G terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band as originally proposed by the
MVDDS coalition, the Commission recognizes that many of the MVDDS
licensees in the band have filed the required buildout showings for the
licenses they hold under the current framework. In the accompanying
further notice of proposed rulemaking (WT Docket No. 20-443) (FR 2023-
13501) in FCC 23-36, the Commission seeks comment, among other things,
on the possibility of changes to the existing framework. The Commission
finds it's appropriate at this juncture to address any uncertainty as
to the status of the existing MVDDS licenses under the current rules.
41. Eight companies (10 legal entities) hold 191 MVDDS licenses:
two DISH subsidiaries hold 82 licenses; RS Access, a subsidiary of a
Dell investment fund, holds 60 licenses; two Go Long Wireless entities
hold a total of 25 licenses; and five smaller companies hold a total of
24 licenses.\165\ 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.\166\ The
Commission is aware of only one current commercial MVDDS
deployment,\167\ and most MVDDS licensees received two extensions of
the MVDDS buildout requirement, which resulted in final deadlines in
2019.\168\ All of the existing licensees have had buildout showings
pending since 2019 for each of their licenses, which are available to
view in the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS).\169\ In the
191 pending filings, each licensee reports that it met the 2019
buildout requirement for each license, mostly by satisfying the safe
harbor that the Commission established for MVDDS in 2002 of operating
at least four transmitters per one million pops in each license
area.\170\ The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff's preliminary
review of these construction filings is that they likely meet the safe
harbor standard. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau to finalize the determination of whether the
construction filings meet the safer harbor standard and if so to accept
each of the pending MVDDS construction filings subject to the following
condition: the Commission reserves the right to adopt additional
buildout requirements for MVDDS if appropriate based on any revisions
to the MVDDS rules adopted in response to the further notice of
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ 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 Section
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 2018), recons.
pending. See also Blumenthal DTV LLC, Call Sign WQAR709 (Terminated
July 26, 2014).
\166\ 47 CFR 101.1413.
\167\ The licensee uses one station that transmits towards the
relatively distant urban market and surrounding suburbs from a
unique site, geographically and topographically, that allowed the
Commission to waive certain technical rules without increasing
harmful interference to DBS or significantly increasing the area in
which future NGSO FSS receivers would be precluded by this MVDDS
transmitter. See MDS Operations Inc., Request for Waiver of Certain
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Technical Rules for
One Station in Sandia Part, New Mexico, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 7963,
7968-69, paras. 13-14 (WTB 2010). From 2011 to 2013, a former MVDDS
licensee offered fixed wireless broadband and voice service in
Florida's Broward and Palm Beach counties. See, e.g., https://www.multichannel.com/news/finance/cablevision-completes-omgfast-shutdown/271409.
\168\ See, e.g., Requests of Ten Licensees of 191 Licenses in
the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service for Waiver of
the Five-Year Deadline for Providing Substantial Service, Order, 25
FCC Rcd 10097 (WTB 2010).
\169\ See https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/searchAppl.jsp. Click on ``Advanced Application Search'' and select
the following: Radio Service Code: ``DV,'' Status: ``2-Pending,''
Purpose: ``NT.'' Scroll to bottom of page, Customize Your Results,
and click on ``Search.'' Ninety-five of the 191 filings were amended
in 2020.
\170\ See id. See also MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd
at 9684, para. 177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. The Commission further directs the Bureau to reconsider its
denials of 2016 requests to extend buildout deadlines for 22 MVDDS
licenses, and to extend the buildout deadlines for these licenses for
18 months from the effective date of this item, subject to the same
condition above.\171\ The Commission believes that the unique
circumstances of this proceeding, namely the uncertainty created by the
MVDDS 5G Coalition's request for 5G terrestrial use, makes strict
application of the buildout deadlines contrary to the public
interest.\172\ Eliminating the uncertainty over these 22 MVDDS licenses
will best serve the public interest by promoting fuller participation
in the record to be developed in response to the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking as well as by providing additional certainty
regarding the status of these MVDDS licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ 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 Section 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 2018), recons. pending.
\172\ See 47 CFR 1.925(b)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Ordering Clauses
43. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 301, 302,
303, 304, 307, 309, 310, and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 155, 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, and
Sec. 1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411, the Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order in the captioned dockets is adopted.
44. The inquiry in Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum
Between 3.7-24 GHz, GN Docket No. 17-183, is terminated as to the mid-
band spectrum between 12.2 GHz and 13.25 GHz.
45. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comment on the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 20-443 and the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 22-352 on or before the number of
days shown on the first page of this document after publication in the
Federal Register, and reply comment on or before the number of days
shown on the first page of this document after publication in the
Federal Register.
[[Page 43476]]
46. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, including the associated Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13503 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
