**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | IB Docket No. 00-203         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| FWCC Request for Declaratory     | ) | RM-9649                      |
| Ruling on                        | * |                              |
|                                  | * | SAT-PDR-19990910-00091       |
| Partial-Band Licensing of Earth  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Stations in the Fixed-Satellite  | * |                              |
| Service                          | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| That Share Terrestrial Spectrum  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| FWCC Petition for Rulemaking to  | * |                              |
| Set                              | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Loading Standards for Earth      | * |                              |
| Stations                         | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| In the Fixed-Satellite Service   | * |                              |
| that                             | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Share Terrestrial Spectrum       | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Onsat Petition for Declaratory   |   |                              |
| Order that Blanket Licensing     | * |                              |
| Pursuant to Rule 25.115 (c) is   | * |                              |
| Available for Very Small         | ) |                              |
| Aperture Terminal Satellite      | * |                              |
| Network Operations at C-Band     | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Onsat Petition for Waiver of     | * |                              |
| Rule 25.212(d) to the Extent     | * |                              |
| Necessary to Permit Routine      | ) |                              |
| Licensing of 3.7 Meter Transmit  | * |                              |
| and Receive Stations at C-Band   | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| *Ex parte* Letter Concerning     | * |                              |
| Deployment of Geostationary      | * |                              |
| Orbit FSS Earth Stations in the  | ) |                              |
| Shared Portion of the Ka-band    | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: October 13, 2000 Released: October 24, 2000**

**Comment Date: \[45 days following publication in the Federal
Register\]**

**Reply Comment Date: \[75 days following publication in the Federal
Register\]**

By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a statement

**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

**Paragraph**

I.  **INTRODUCTION 1**

II. **EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4**

III. **BACKGROUND OF FWCC AND ONSAT PETITIONS 16**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  

**IV. DISCUSSION OF FWCC PROPOSALS 25**

1.  **General Considerations 26**

2.  **Demonstrating "Actual Need" 32**

3.  **Demonstrating "Use" 45**

> **4. Interference Coordination 62**

**V. DISCUSSION OF ONSAT PROPOSAL 81**

1.  **General Considerations 84**

2.  **Regulatory and Licensing Issues 87**

3.  **Conclusion 97**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
VI. **DISCUSSION OF HUGHES PROPOSAL 98**

VII. **PROCEDURAL MATTERS 100**

VIII. **ORDERING CLAUSES 108**

**Appendix A: Comments in FWCC Proceeding**

**Appendix B: Comments in Onsat Proceeding**

**Appendix C: Proposed Rules**

**Appendix D: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

# INTRODUCTION

1.  The Commission herein considers a series of filings concerning the
    application of our Part 25 rules to Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS)
    earth stations in bands shared on a primary basis with the
    terrestrial Fixed Service (FS). The filings of Onsat Network
    Communications, Inc. (Onsat) relate specifically to operations in
    the C-band. The Hughes filing relates specifically to operations in
    the Ka-band. The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC)
    petitions for a declaratory ruling regarding partial-band licensing
    of FSS earth stations and a rulemaking to amend Part 25 of the
    Commission's Rules to set loading requirements.[^1] Onsat petitions
    for a declaratory order that our Part 25 rules permit the licensing,
    under a single authorization, of small aperture terminal satellite
    earth station networks in the C-band.[^2] Hughes seeks consideration
    of its proposal to deploy geostationary orbit FSS earth stations in
    the shared portion of the Ka-band.[^3] We defer taking action on
    Onsat's petition for waiver of Section 25.212(d) regarding routine
    licensing of 3.7 meter transmit and receive earth stations at
    C-band.[^4]

2.  In response to the FWCC filings, we hereby deny FWCC's request for a
    declaratory ruling requiring partial-band licensing of FSS earth
    stations. We propose, however, to adopt rules directed at addressing
    FWCC's concerns about effective and equitable use of spectrum in
    bands shared by the FS and FSS. In response to the Onsat filing, we
    deny Onsat's petition for declaratory order, but propose to amend
    our rules to permit the licensing, under a single authorization and
    with prior coordination, of a limited class of small aperture
    terminal earth station networks in the C-band to communicate with
    geostationary satellites. We will issue a separate licensing
    decision on the specific application for the Onsat system that Onsat
    filed several months after its Petition for Declaratory Order. We
    believe that these proposed rules will promote more efficient and
    equitable use of spectrum in bands shared by the FS and FSS. We also
    believe the proposal contemplated by this Notice, to permit the
    licensing of small aperture terminal earth station networks in the
    C-band, under a single authorization and with prior coordination,
    will provide for rapid delivery of earth station services, including
    broadband access, to rural Americans.

3.  We seek comment on the recent *ex parte* pleading[^5] filed by
    Hughes in the *18 GHz Proceeding,* concerning the proposed
    deployment of earth stations for geostationary satellite orbit (GSO)
    FSS systems in the shared portion of the Ka-band without individual
    site-by-site licensing.[^6] . We also invite alternative proposals
    to achieve the objectives of the Hughes proposal, within the scope
    and overall objectives of this proceeding.

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4.  ***The FWCC Petitions**.* On May 5, 1999, FWCC[^7] filed a Request
    for Declaratory Ruling and Petition for Rulemaking (together, "FWCC
    Petitions") asking the Commission to impose various conditions on
    FSS earth stations in bands that are shared on a co-primary basis
    with FS operations.[^8] FWCC states that its proposals seek to
    maximize efficient use of the radio spectrum for both satellite and
    point-to-point terrestrial fixed operations.

5.  FWCC avers that, while Parts 25 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    provide for sharing on a co-primary basis in certain radio spectrum
    bands by the FSS and FS, in reality sharing has not occurred on an
    equitable basis. Rather, FWCC contends that, in actual practice,
    band sharing has been on terms disadvantageous to the FS.[^9] Thus,
    FWCC requests a declaratory ruling that would require FSS operators
    to demonstrate "actual need" for the spectrum requested at the time
    of licensing. Specifically, FWCC proposes that the Commission change
    its policy of authorizing earth stations to use the entire pertinent
    frequency bands and instead require that an FSS earth station using
    spectrum shared with point-to-point terrestrial services be licensed
    to use no more than twice the amount of spectrum for which it is
    able to demonstrate "actual need."[^10] FWCC also petitions,
    pursuant to Section 1.401 of the Commission's Rules, for amendments
    to Part 25 of the Commission's Rules that would require FSS earth
    stations licensed for more than minimal amounts of spectrum shared
    with FS operators to meet minimum loading standards. Further, FWCC
    proposes to require all FSS earth stations to accept interference
    from new terrestrial facilities on the same basis as they accept any
    interference in the initial coordination. FWCC states that the
    objective of these rule changes would be the adoption of spectrum
    management standards that would achieve in practice the "co-equal"
    sharing specified in Parts 25 and 101 of the Commission's
    Rules.[^11]

6.  Numerous satellite and earth station licensees, users of these
    services, and industry associations representing the satellite
    industry oppose the FWCC Petitions. The Fixed Point-to-Point Section
    of the Wireless Communications Division of the Telecommunications
    Industry Association (TIA FS/WCD) filed reply comments supporting
    FWCC's requests. Appendix A lists the entities commenting in this
    proceeding.

7.  Upon review of the record, we conclude that FWCC raises issues
    meriting further consideration. We propose specific rules to address
    the concerns of the Fixed Service community, and we seek comment as
    to whether the evolving requirements of both satellite and
    terrestrial systems necessitate a further revision of our current
    policies and rules to ensure efficient and equitable use of the
    radio spectrum in bands shared on a co-primary basis by the FSS and
    FS. We seek comment on the extent of the FS and FSS sharing problem
    and propose rules on the issues of loading and interference
    coordination. On the issue of demonstrating actual need, we deny
    FWCC's request for a declaratory ruling and its parallel request to
    amend Section 25.130 to limit the amount of spectrum the Commission
    would license to FSS earth stations to no more than twice the amount
    of spectrum for which the licensee has demonstrated "actual need."
    We do, however, incorporate into the proposed rules the related
    concept of a "demonstrated use" requirement triggered by the denial
    by an FSS operator of an FS applicant's request to coordinate
    spectrum. We believe that this proposal is a more effective and
    equitable approach for addressing the concerns FWCC has raised in
    its pleadings.

8.  In particular, we propose to amend Section 25.203 to require an FSS
    earth station that has been licensed to operate in C- or Ku-band
    shared frequencies for 24 months or longer to demonstrate, in
    response to the denial of a request of an FS applicant to coordinate
    spectrum, that the FSS earth station denying coordination is using,
    has recently used, or has imminent plans to use the requested
    spectrum. If the FSS earth station licensee cannot make such a
    demonstration during the coordination, then the FS station may be
    successfully coordinated and the FSS earth station must not cause
    unacceptable interference to, nor is it protected from interference
    from, the FS station on that spectrum in the future. We propose to
    exempt from the rule those FSS earth stations that are licensed for
    40 MHz or less of bandwidth in each direction. At the same time, we
    propose to amend Section 101.141 to shorten the loading period for
    FS licensees in the C- and Ku-bands from 30 to 24 months.
    Modification of the Part 25 and 101 rules in this manner would give
    both the FSS and FS licensees a comparable period of time in which
    to put their spectrum to use before it is susceptible to
    re-licensing to others. We ask for comment as to whether these Part
    25 and 101 rules should apply in other bands where the FSS and FS
    share spectrum on a co-primary basis.

9.  We also propose to amend Parts 25 and 101 to require that an FSS
    earth station or FS licensee accepting a particular interference
    analysis model in order to coordinate successfully the location of
    its station must accept use of the same model in subsequent
    coordinations. We propose that these rule changes to Parts 25 and
    101 would apply across all frequency bands where the services share
    a primary service allocation. Further, we propose to amend Part 25
    such that, if a C- or Ku-band FSS earth station licensee, during
    coordination, accepts a level of interference along a set of
    azimuths recognized to be below normally permissible interference
    objectives, the licensee may not subsequently claim protection from
    interference from future FS applicants on those same frequencies
    within that same set of azimuths. We ask for comment as to whether
    this Part 25 rule should apply at other bands where the FS and FSS
    share frequencies on a co-primary basis. *See infra* Appendix C and
    Section IV*.* We further propose that these amended rules would
    apply to all FSS earth stations and FS stations upon the effective
    date of the Report and Order in this proceeding.

10. ***The Onsat Petition.*** On September 10, 1999, Onsat[^12] filed a
    Petition for Declaratory Order that Section 25.115(c) of the
    Commission's Rules permits the licensing of Very Small Aperture
    Terminal (VSAT) satellite earth station networks, under a single
    authorization and with prior coordination, in the C-band. In the
    same filing, Onsat petitioned for a waiver to permit routine
    licensing of its proposed earth stations, which would have an
    antenna diameter smaller than those allowed to be routinely licensed
    under our existing rules.[^13] Onsat advocates such licensing of
    technically identical remote earth station terminals to permit
    operators to configure their C-band systems quickly without the
    expense and administrative effort involved in licensing individual
    earth stations. In support of its petition, Onsat contends that its
    proposal would further Commission objectives with regard to
    universal service and deregulation.

11. In its petition Onsat argues that small aperture terminal earth
    station technology is less expensive and more flexible than are
    other types of satellite technology, and that these types of earth
    stations can be coordinated easily to prevent interference with
    terrestrial and satellite operations in the C-band.[^14] Onsat
    proposes that, if granted a license for an earth station system
    consisting of a hub station and a specified number of technically
    identical remote earth stations, it would submit to the Commission a
    frequency coordination report for each station before placing it
    into operation.

12. FWCC initially opposed Onsat's petition on the ground that Onsat's
    proposed service would further exacerbate FS/FSS frequency
    coordination difficulties in the C-band, incorporating by reference
    a copy of its Petitions and arguing that the Commission should not
    act on Onsat's requests unless and until we acted favorably on
    FWCC's Petitions. FWCC later withdrew its opposition after Onsat
    agreed to modify its petition to limit both the amount of C-band
    spectrum its proposed system would use and the number of
    geostationary orbital positions toward which its remote earth
    stations would be directed.[^15]

13. We deny Onsat's petition for a declaratory order, but hereby propose
    rules that include the elements of the Onsat proposal.[^16] One of
    the Commission's chief goals is to foster wide access to electronic
    commerce and data through the Internet and other networks,
    particularly in underserved rural areas. We have sought to ensure
    that multiple service providers bring broadband access to all
    Americans. The service proposed by Onsat is an innovative means for
    bringing high-speed data services to rural Americans much more
    rapidly than might be accomplished by wireline or terrestrial
    wireless service. We propose to amend Part 25 of the Commission's
    Rules to allow the licensing, under a single authorization and with
    prior coordination, of C-band small aperture terminal earth station
    networks, which we will term "CSATs" to distinguish these small
    aperture terminal earth stations from the VSAT operations in the
    Ku-band.

14. At the same time, we note the concerns of the fixed wireless
    community that the C-band is congested and that authorization of
    CSATs could add to coordination difficulties between the FS and FSS.
    We therefore seek comment on those aspects of CSAT service that
    affect the concerns and issues raised by FWCC. We tentatively
    conclude that the limitations proposed by Onsat in its modified
    petition are appropriate limitations that can be applied generally
    to other prospective CSAT applicants.[^17] Thus, we propose to limit
    CSAT networks to operations using no more than 20 MHz of C-band
    spectrum, and to limit their flexibility to three satellite
    locations within the visible geostationary satellite arc. We further
    request comment on whether our rules should limit this C-band
    service to rural areas, or, alternatively, whether our rules should
    permit CSAT network service wherever frequency coordination allows
    the installation of earth stations. Although certain characteristics
    of the proposed Onsat system are discussed in this NPRM, our focus
    is on generally-applicable policies, procedures and rules for the
    operation of this type of small aperture terminal system in the
    C-band. Because Onsat only recently filed an application to provide
    this service, we will decide the issue of whether to grant the
    request for the proposed Onsat system in a separate licensing order.

15. ***The Hughes Ex Parte Letter.*** We invite specific comment on a
    recent *ex parte* pleading[^18] filed by Hughes Network Systems
    (Hughes) in the *18 GHz Proceeding*[^19] proposing the deployment,
    without individual site-by-site licensing, of geostationary
    satellite orbit FSS earth stations in the shared portion of the
    Ka-band.

# BACKGROUND 

16. The terrestrial fixed service (FS) and fixed-satellite service (FSS)
    share frequencies on a co-primary basis in the C-, Ku- and
    Ka-bands.[^20] These are important bands for both services. The
    spectrum above 2 GHz is fertile ground for advanced
    telecommunications applications. As Onsat's petition demonstrates,
    new service providers propose to use this spectrum to advance
    Commission policies like the deployment of communications services
    to tribal lands and other unserved areas. The instant FWCC and Onsat
    petitions, and the comments filed in response to them, concern the
    use of this shared spectrum by FSS earth stations and the impact of
    this use on the terrestrial FS.

17. ***Current Policies.*** In these shared bands, the Commission
    requires FS and FSS applicants to coordinate their proposed
    frequency use prior to filing their license applications with the
    Commission. In the FSS, this obligation is reflected in Section
    25.203. In frequency bands shared with equal rights between
    terrestrial and space services, earth station applicants, to the
    extent practicable, must select sites and frequencies in areas where
    the surrounding terrain and existing frequency use are such as to
    minimize the possibility of harmful interference between the sharing
    services.[^21] An earth station applicant, prior to filing with the
    Commission, must coordinate its proposed frequency usage with
    existing terrestrial users and with applicants that have filed for
    terrestrial station authorizations. The FSS earth station applicant
    must perform an interference analysis for each terrestrial station
    for which the Commission has granted a license or construction
    permit or for which the Commission has accepted an application for
    filing, which is, or is to be, operated in a shared frequency band
    to be used by the proposed earth station and which is located within
    the great circle coordination distance contour(s) of the proposed
    earth station.[^22]

18. Part 101 has similar coordination requirements for the FS. In those
    bands shared with the satellite service, an FS applicant must
    ascertain in advance whether the station(s) involved lie within the
    great circle coordination distance contours of an existing earth
    station or one for which an application has been accepted for
    filing. The FS applicant must coordinate its proposal with each
    earth station operator or applicant and FS operator or applicant.
    For each potential interference path, the FS applicant must perform
    the computations required to determine that the expected level of
    interference to or from the terrestrial station does not exceed the
    maximum permissible interference power level.[^23]

19. The two services differ, however, in their approach to licensing.
    Part 25 provides for full-band licensing of FSS earth stations. In
    the C-band, for example, an earth station applicant may apply to
    operate within the entire allocated 1000 MHz of C-band
    spectrum.[^24] This full-band policy is intended to provide earth
    stations the flexibility to change the communication paths to other
    satellite locations and transponder use assignments to meet
    operational requirements.[^25] Not all frequencies on each satellite
    are available for the specific earth station application because: 1)
    the geostationary satellites must also complete coordination with
    adjacent satellite networks and usually must accept constraints on
    the use of frequencies; and 2) the frequencies for that particular
    application may already be used by another earth station network.
    Part 101, however, does not contemplate full-band licensing for
    terrestrial FS facilities. Rather, the Commission has established
    maximum bandwidth channel plans that are set out in the rules (for
    example, 20 MHz at 3700-4200 MHz, 30 MHz at 5925-6425 MHz, 220 MHz
    at 17.7-18.14 GHz, 850 MHz at 27.5-28.35 GHz).[^26] Applicants may
    apply for channels of maximum bandwidth, although the Commission
    reserves the right to issue a license for less than the maximum
    bandwidth if it determines that less bandwidth would be sufficient
    to support an applicant's intended communications.[^27] During the
    coordination process that precedes the filing of an FS application,
    the FS applicant also may seek to coordinate channels for future
    growth.[^28] The private-sector frequency search companies
    performing frequency studies for FS applicants will "reserve," or
    protect, these coordinated growth channels in the databases of
    existing systems for the applicable geographic area. At some future
    date, when the FS operator needs these reserved channels, it will
    file applications with the Commission to be licensed on those
    channels.

20. Thus, FSS earth station and FS facility operators are not similarly
    situated with regard to the amount of frequency they coordinate
    prior to filing their license applications with the Commission.[^29]
    Moreover, Part 101 requires that any frequency reserved for future
    use must be released for use by another licensee, permittee or
    applicant upon a showing by the latter that it requires an
    additional frequency and cannot coordinate one that is not reserved
    for future use.[^30] Thus, a new full-band FSS earth station may
    coordinate with an existing FS operator and agree to accept
    interference on the active channels licensed to the FS operator in
    order to successfully coordinate the location of the earth station,
    and at the same time notify the FS operator that it requires use of
    the reserved growth channels for its FSS operations.[^31] Because
    the FS operator is not licensed to operate on the reserved channels,
    it has no recourse but to accept the use of these channels by the
    FSS earth station.

21. ***Growing Demand for Above-2 GHz Spectrum***. Spectrum above 2 GHz,
    particularly below 20 GHz, is becoming increasingly encumbered, most
    significantly in urban areas. For example, the FSS and FS share
    spectrum at 3700-4200 MHz, one of the replacement bands for
    terrestrial fixed services vacating the 2 GHz band to make way for
    emerging technologies.[^32] The relocation of 2 GHz microwave
    licensees into the 6 GHz and 11 GHz bands has further burdened this
    spectrum.

22. Although spectrum above 2 GHz is becoming scarcer, demand for it is
    growing. The growing scarcity of spectrum and the respective growth
    in demand for both the FSS and FS have heightened questions about
    FSS/FS systems coordination in various shared bands and have led
    incumbent users in one service to oppose allocating and adding new
    spectrum bands to the list of frequency bands currently available to
    the other service. For example, in the C-band, incumbent users at
    6700-7075 MHz have opposed allocating the band for NGSO MSS feeder
    downlinks, voicing concern that this will constrain future growth of
    terrestrial services.[^33] FS users ask the Commission to adopt
    specific coordination criteria prohibiting NGSO MSS feeder link
    systems from interfering with existing or coordinated FS
    systems.[^34]

23. Similarly, in the Ku-band, terrestrial fixed service operators have
    suggested limitations on NGSO FSS operators like those proposed by
    FWCC in its instant petition. These operators propose that FS
    operators be required to coordinate only over the azimuths actually
    used by the NGSO FSS gateway, permitting subsequent coordinations to
    benefit from prior coordination agreements with higher-than-desired
    interference objectives.[^35] Likewise, in the Ka-band, FS operators
    have suggested that terrestrial fixed service and FSS are not
    compatible services and should not be required to share the same
    frequency block.[^36]

24. ***FS/FSS Negotiated Agreements.*** In some instances, FS and FSS
    operators have reached negotiated agreements to resolve their
    differences over coordination and use of spectrum for specific
    facilities in shared bands. For example, FWCC withdrew its
    opposition to the grant of Onsat's instant petition after Onsat
    agreed to coordinate and limit its system use to only 20 MHz of
    spectrum at three different geostationary orbital locations.[^37] As
    discussed, *infra* Section V, this Notice proposes to adopt the
    parameters of the Onsat/FWCC agreement as a limit on spectrum use
    for CSAT networks.[^38]

# discussion of fwcc proposals

25. FWCC's petitions raise the issue of whether the FCC's current
    policies, as set out in Parts 25 and 101 of the Commission's Rules,
    ensure efficient and equitable use of spectrum in bands shared on a
    co-primary basis by the terrestrial FS and the FSS. The services
    provided by the FS and FSS are important to U.S. consumers and
    businesses, and consumers will benefit if these providers thrive and
    grow in innovative ways. In the past, FS and FSS operators have
    experienced some difficulties in coordinating the siting or
    modification of facilities.[^39] Additionally, FS operators have
    expressed concern about the future course of coordination and
    whether existing coordination methods will be sufficient to satisfy
    point-to-point microwave requirements given the growth in demand for
    above-2 GHz spectrum.[^40] At the same time, individual FS and FSS
    operators have achieved satisfactory coordination results through
    negotiated agreements,[^41] and these agreements may prove
    instructive as we assess whether to amend our current policies. In
    this Notice, we propose rule changes designed to further efficient
    and equitable use of spectrum in these shared FS/FSS frequency
    bands.

### General Considerations

26. Because the radio spectrum is a limited resource, as a general
    principle, all Commission licensees should use spectrum in the most
    efficient manner possible. This is particularly true where different
    services share the same radio spectrum resource and inefficient use
    by one service could foreclose or severely limit use by another
    service. In this regard, Parts 25 and 101 recognize the importance
    of cooperation between the FSS and FS in the coordination of their
    respective facilities in shared bands.[^42]

27. FWCC asserts that, notwithstanding these rules, in practice
    satellite-terrestrial sharing of the spectrum has not been
    accomplished on an equitable or equivalent basis. FWCC argues that
    satellite earth station operators have a preference in access to
    spectrum because of a combination of two factors: 1) the Commission
    routinely licenses an earth station for the entire allocated
    satellite band while terrestrial operators generally are both
    limited to frequencies "actually needed" and subject to stringent
    spectrum efficiency and loading requirements; and 2) earth stations
    routinely are licensed for all azimuths at all elevations and can
    deny coordination to terrestrial operators on that basis.[^43] Thus,
    FWCC contends that earth stations are permitted to "warehouse" huge
    amounts of unused bandwidth over unlimited azimuths, even if the
    spectrum is needed by terrestrial operators.[^44]

28. Opposing parties disagree with FWCC's allegation that satellite
    earth station operators are warehousing spectrum and have no
    incentive to operate efficiently.[^45] SIA, for example, observes
    that the Commission has placed technical limitations on both
    services to ensure efficient inter-service sharing, noting that the
    fixed service has a traffic loading requirement while the
    geostationary FSS has a two degree spacing standard.[^46] GE
    Americom adds that because transponder rates must be set to recover
    the huge sunk costs of a spacecraft, users of satellite service have
    a strong incentive to use bandwidth efficiently.[^47]

29. After weighing the arguments raised by Petitioner and commenters, we
    propose specific rules, *see infra,* to address the concerns of the
    Fixed Service community. We also seek comment as to whether evolving
    requirements of both satellite and terrestrial systems necessitate a
    further revision of our current policies and rules. For example, has
    the proliferation of ubiquitously-deployed satellite user terminals
    and point-to-multipoint fixed stations in certain frequency bands --
    as well as the implementation of NGSO satellite systems -- affected
    the conduct of inter-service coordination? If so, would modification
    of the Commission's rules, in addition to those we propose in this
    Notice, or changes to the procedures used by frequency coordinators,
    help to ensure that the principles of spectrum efficiency and equity
    among band-sharers are more fully realized in bands shared by the FS
    and FSS? We invite comment on these general questions.

30. We also seek comment on the extent of the FS and FSS sharing
    problem. We invite licensees, commercial frequency coordinators and
    others with experience in coordinating FSS earth station and FS
    station facilities in shared bands to comment on the breadth and
    nature of sharing difficulties. We ask for comment on the numbers of
    cases in which the FS and FSS have experienced sharing difficulties
    and whether the sharing difficulties have occurred in particular
    band segments and under which specific circumstances. For example,
    in its reply comments, FWCC argues that "an earth station using one
    transponder on one satellite should not be able to block an FS
    applicant over the entire band."[^48] We ask for specific comment on
    how frequently this blocking occurs, and invite comment on whether
    the sharing difficulties experienced by FS or FSS applicants and
    licensees are correlated to particular types of FSS earth stations
    or FS stations. We also seek comment on how our proposal, in a
    recent Part 101 NPRM, to consider auctioning of geographic area
    licenses for fixed microwave facilities would affect the nature and
    extent of the current FS and FSS sharing problem.[^49] We
    specifically invite comment on whether the CSAT licensing we now
    propose, *see infra* Section V, would work in light of the earlier
    proposal to auction FS licenses in the C-band on a geographic area
    basis, as opposed to the current site-by-site basis. Further, we
    seek comment on whether geographic area licensing of FS facilities
    by means of auction leads to any conflict with the current licensing
    of C-band earth stations, or with the proposed licensing of CSATs,
    and how the C-band licensing of geographic area FS facilities and
    FSS earth stations could be fashioned to work compatibly?

31. We propose that the new Section 25.203(e)(2) and Section
    101.103(d)(1) rules on interference analysis models apply across all
    bands where the FS and FSS share spectrum on a co-primary basis. The
    remaining rule changes we propose in this Notice, *see infra*,
    concerning coordination and sharing between FSS earth stations and
    FS stations, would apply in the C- and Ku-bands where the two
    services share a primary service allocation, and we ask whether
    these rules also should apply in other bands. FWCC has identified
    three specific band pairs -- in the C-, Ku-, and Ka-bands[^50] --
    where it particularly is concerned about FS access to co-shared
    spectrum. We recognize that differing FS and FSS applications within
    particular services may affect how the services share. For instance,
    some satellite bands are reserved for "feeder link" or "gateway"
    earth station use and others provide service links to user
    terminals. We have reserved one FSS band for international
    systems.[^51] We also have reserved bands for specific uses such as
    Mobile-Satellite Service or Broadcast-Satellite Service feeder
    links.[^52] We, therefore, ask for comment on whether there are
    reasons that the rules we are proposing in this Notice should be
    limited to particular frequency bands. We further propose that these
    amended rules apply to all FSS earth stations and FS stations upon
    the effective date of the Report and Order in this proceeding.

### Demonstrating "Actual Need"

32. ***FWCC's Petitions***. In its petitions, FWCC asserts, with respect
    to the spectrum conservation obligations of operators in the FS and
    FSS, that the Part 101 and Part 25 rules are asymmetrical, to the
    disadvantage of FS licensees and applicants. FWCC avers that whereas
    Part 101 requires point-to-point terrestrial operators to meet
    stringent requirements designed to ensure efficient use and loading
    of FS spectrum,[^53] Part 25 contains no specific provisions
    requiring earth station operators to "minimize spectrum usage."

33. FWCC states that, since at least 1967, the Commission has licensed
    earth stations to use the entire allocated band without inquiring
    into the amount of traffic to be carried. It argues that the
    Commission's policy of imposing spectrum conservation obligations on
    terrestrial users but not on earth station operators unfairly
    burdens terrestrial systems.[^54] FWCC asks the Commission to affirm
    by declaratory ruling that an earth station in the FSS, using
    spectrum shared with terrestrial services, may be licensed and
    coordinated to use only twice the amount of bandwidth for which the
    applicant demonstrates "actual need at the time of licensing."[^55]
    Alternatively, FWCC asks the Commission to amend Section 25.130 to
    require an earth station applicant to specify and justify *a priori*
    the amount of bandwidth actually needed to deliver the services
    described in an application for initial authorization, major
    modification, or renewal.[^56] Under both its request for
    declaratory ruling and petition for rulemaking, FWCC further
    proposes that an earth station operator seeking additional bandwidth
    beyond what FWCC proposes to impose as the limitation in the earth
    station's license (that is, twice demonstrated need) must file to
    modify its license, subject to satisfactory frequency coordination
    with other users.[^57]

34. ***Oppositions*.** FSS licensees, users, and industry associations
    oppose FWCC's proposal to establish demonstrated need requirements
    for earth station applicants because they maintain that each earth
    station must have the ability to switch from one channel to another
    based on transponder availability on the satellite with which it
    desires to transmit at a given time.[^58] Further, they point out
    that FSS earth stations, particularly gateway/teleport earth
    stations, require full-band flexibility to accommodate changing
    space segment configurations and to meet existing and new market
    demands.[^59] HBO states that in many cases the particular satellite
    and frequency that must be used are beyond the control of the earth
    station operator.[^60] Opposing parties also note that a satellite
    transponder failure may require a particular earth station to switch
    to another transponder operating at a different frequency or on
    another geostationary satellite.[^61]

35. Commenters further state that NGSO satellite system earth stations
    must be capable of operating over the entire allocated bandwidth so
    that they can switch to channels that are available on satellites in
    view within the NGSO constellation, to avoid both interference to
    other NGSO systems and intrasystem interference.[^62] SkyBridge
    avers that although an earth station operator may not use all
    available bandwidth at the start of service, it may augment its use
    as its business grows and must be coordinated and licensed from the
    start for all of the bandwidth ultimately needed by the projected
    traffic.[^63] SkyBridge states that all such bands used by an earth
    station are needed.[^64]

36. Further, with respect to FWCC's proposal to use certifications of
    transponder contracts or minutes of usage per day, commenters
    contend that there are no general criteria for bandwidth usage that
    could be applied across the board to all satellite systems.[^65]
    Finally, commenters suggest that the rules proposed by FWCC would
    reverse the Commission's clear trend toward simplification of
    licensing and decreased reporting requirements.[^66]

37. ***FWCC Reply Comments***. In its reply comments, FWCC clarifies
    that it does not seek the adoption of identical rules for the FS and
    the FSS, but rather rules that would impose equitable requirements
    on both services. FWCC does not propose an FSS bits per Hertz
    efficiency standard,[^67] and does not believe such an efficiency
    standard would be necessary for equitable FSS/FS sharing. Nor does
    FWCC seek the adoption of any measures that would infringe on the
    legitimate needs of earth station operators for flexible use of the
    spectrum.[^68] FWCC posits, however, that its "actual need" proposal
    would promote efficient use of shared bands by allowing FS
    facilities access to frequencies that earth stations now keep
    idle.[^69]

38. ***Discussion*.** We acknowledge the concerns of the Fixed Service
    community that FS applicants and licensees are subject to specific
    efficiency standards[^70] while FSS earth station operators in the
    same band are not subject to parallel or equivalent requirements. At
    the same time, we recognize that the two services have architectural
    and operational differences. The FS involves point-to-point or
    point-to-multipoint facilities that are authorized to communicate on
    discrete paths at specific frequencies. FSS earth stations, on the
    other hand, may not use the same frequencies, at the same angles and
    azimuths, over long periods of time. Rather, many FSS earth stations
    regularly change their orientations and frequencies to transmit to
    or receive information from a number of satellites and satellite
    transponders. Spectrum use by FSS earth stations also must be
    coordinated in paired bands, one band for receive frequencies and a
    second band for transmit frequencies.

39. Because of these differences, we have taken different approaches to
    ensuring spectrum efficiency in the respective services. As
    commenters observe, we have placed technical limits on both services
    to ensure efficient use of the spectrum. For example, while our Part
    101 rules for the FS service employ a variety of payload and loading
    requirements, earth station operators, by default, must conform to
    the technical requirements for satellite space stations, in order to
    gain access to geostationary satellite orbit FSS satellites serving
    the United States and abroad.[^71] Indeed, FWCC itself recognizes
    that the two services differ, and states that it is not so much
    concerned about the efficiency of spectrum actually used by FSS
    earth stations but rather is concerned with what it sees as the
    non-use of some of the spectrum licensed to satellite earth
    stations.[^72] Thus, FWCC has proposed, in its request for
    declaratory ruling and in its parallel proposal for a rule
    amendment, that we change our policy of authorizing earth stations
    to access the full allocated band and declare instead that we will
    authorize earth stations to use no more than twice the amount of
    spectrum "actually needed."

40. At this time, we do not believe it is necessary to change our policy
    of authorizing earth stations, subject to coordination with FS
    operators prior to licensing,[^73] to use the entire pertinent
    frequency bands.[^74] Our full-band licensing policy promotes
    important operational objectives in the FSS, in particular by
    providing earth station licensees the needed flexibility to change
    transponders or satellites on short notice, and without having to be
    re-licensed by the Commission, to meet changing operational
    requirements. As commenters observe, the potential transmission path
    for a satellite earth station can include any authorized space
    station within the portion of the geostationary satellite arc seen
    by the earth station.[^75] Many satellite earth stations employ
    multiple antennas and regularly communicate with a constantly
    changing mix of FSS satellites, both domestic and foreign. This type
    of operation requires access over a wide range of orbital arc and
    frequencies. These stations include commercial gateway and teleport
    facilities that are in the business of providing third parties
    access to satellite services. They also include private facilities
    such as those operated by HBO to transmit and receive programming.
    As HBO observes in its pleadings, the antennas at its Hauppauge
    facility regularly communicate with multiple satellites on an array
    of frequencies. In sum, our full-band licensing policy provides all
    earth station operators the ability to conform to the constraints
    placed on the satellite operators and the flexibility to change
    channels to access available transponder capacity within a satellite
    network and available capacity on other satellite networks.

41. Moreover, we believe that FWCC's proposal would be impractical to
    implement. To obtain documentation to make an up-front showing of
    "actual need," an FSS earth station applicant, before it submitted
    its application, would be required to enter into contracts with
    those satellite operators whose satellites it proposed to access. To
    conclude such contracts, the FSS earth station applicant first would
    need to identify the specific frequencies and to pay reservation
    fees for these frequencies to the applicable satellite operators to
    ensure that the applicant had access to the spectrum it needed,
    although at that time it would be unclear whether the applicant in
    fact could coordinate the reserved spectrum with affected FS station
    licensees and applicants.

42. For these reasons, we deny FWCC's instant request for declaratory
    ruling and its parallel request to amend Section 25.130 to limit an
    earth station licensee's spectrum usage to the amount of bandwidth
    it can demonstrate *a priori* that it "actually needs" to deliver
    the services described in an application for initial authorization,
    major modification or renewal. At the same time, we take notice of
    FWCC's concern that, in fact, not all FSS earth stations may be
    using the full licensed band, and we propose to address FWCC's
    concerns in a different manner. FWCC states that coordinating new or
    expanded FS operations, particularly in the 4 GHz band but also in
    other shared bands, has become increasingly difficult.[^76] FWCC
    also advises that, "We have no quarrel with any use of spectrum by
    any earth station. We object only to earth station privileges over
    *unused* spectrum."[^77] FWCC seeks a remedy to the spectrum
    shortage it says FS applicants and licensees are experiencing, but
    "without significantly burdening satellite operations."[^78] We
    believe that FWCC's "actual needs" rule would place an undue
    regulatory burden on FSS earth station applicants, and therefore
    propose to adopt a more targeted and less burdensome requirement to
    address FWCC's concern.

43. In order to justify FWCC's "actual needs" rule, FWCC points out that
    FSS earth stations can deny coordination of new or expanded FS
    stations even with respect to unused spectrum. We propose, as
    discussed below, to tailor a rule to address those instances where
    an FSS earth station denies a coordination request when the FSS
    earth station is not using -- and has no imminent plans to use \--
    the requested spectrum. Although we would expect many FSS earth
    stations, particularly teleports and other FSS earth stations that
    communicate with a number of different satellites and transponders,
    to have records demonstrating use across most if not all of the
    relevant band, this may not be the case in all instances where
    coordination is denied. In those cases where FSS earth stations have
    chosen not to exercise their ability to change channels to access
    available transponder capacity within a satellite network and
    available capacity on other satellite networks, but yet have denied
    coordination, we believe that they should be required to coordinate
    the requested FS use.

44. As discussed below, we therefore incorporate this related concept of
    "demonstrated use" in our proposal, *see infra,* to require an FSS
    earth station operator to demonstrate to the frequency coordinator,
    at the time an FS operator requests and is denied coordination, that
    the FSS earth station is using, or has imminent plans to use, the
    spectrum in question. We believe that this proposal and a separate,
    additional proposal on FSS/FS frequency coordination, *see infra*,
    will ensure that spectrum in bands shared by the FSS and FS is being
    used efficiently and will help to alleviate congestion concerns when
    coordinated spectrum is not being used by FSS earth stations. We
    tentatively conclude that these proposals are the most effective and
    targeted means of addressing the concern of the FS community
    regarding access to spectrum at the time of coordination, without
    imposing unnecessary regulatory constraints on either service. We
    invite commenters disagreeing with our tentative conclusion to
    submit comments on this point. In particular, we ask for comment as
    to why our proposals, *see infra,* to adopt both a "demonstrated
    use" showing at the time coordination is denied and a separate rule
    on frequency coordination, but not to adopt FWCC's "actual need"
    proposal, would not address adequately the concerns of the FS
    community. We invite commenters arguing that our proposals do not
    address adequately those concerns to propose alternative approaches
    that take into account the constraints under which an FSS earth
    station must operate when attempting both to secure spectrum on
    satellite networks and to meet coordination requirements for shared
    frequency bands.

### Demonstrating "Use"

45. ***FWCC's Petitions***. In its petitions, FWCC has also requested
    that the Commission amend its rules so that earth stations using
    spectrum shared with the fixed services would be required to meet
    minimum loading standards, which the FWCC believes would help to
    make more spectrum available for terrestrial use without impinging
    on earth station operators.[^79] FWCC notes that spectrum shortage
    has become a fact of life in many parts of the country and that the
    Commission is attempting to ease congestion in most of the fixed and
    mobile services by requiring licensees to meet reasonably accessible
    levels of loading and spectrum efficiency.[^80] Specifically, FWCC
    has asked that the following language be added to Part 25 of the
    Commission's rules:

> An earth station licensee in the Fixed Satellite Service, in bands
> shared with point-to-point terrestrial services, must certify within
> 30 months after issuance of an initial license, major modification, or
> renewal that it is loaded to 50% of its licensed bandwidth. A licensee
> that cannot make this certification by the required date must instead,
> within 30 days of that date, notify the Commission pursuant to Section
> 25.118 of a reduced range of operating frequencies whose total
> bandwidth is no more than twice the actual load, and must disseminate
> such notice to the public in a manner reasonably calculated to reach
> other users of the band. This paragraph does not apply to earth
> stations authorized for total bandwidth of 40 MHz or less in each
> direction.[^81]

46. FWCC notes that the first sentence of this provision would parallel
    the loading requirement applicable to terrestrial operations in the
    4, 6, 10, and 11 GHz bands, operating at bandwidths of 10 MHz or
    greater.[^82] FWCC proposes the second sentence in lieu of outright
    cancellation of the earth station license for failure to load. The
    last sentence would provide an exemption for light users of the
    band.

47. ***Oppositions***. Opposing parties object to loading standards for
    the same reasons that they oppose the "actual need" proposal. They
    argue that FSS loading rules are unnecessary because efficient
    loading of satellite carriers is inherent in satellite capacity
    economics.[^83] They state further that loading standards are
    unworkable,[^84] that loading data is commercially sensitive
    information,[^85] and that a loading standard would increase
    administrative and regulatory costs.[^86]

48. ***FWCC Reply Comments.*** In response, FWCC avers that loading
    standards do not raise policy issues separate from the demonstrated
    need proposal, but are merely an enforcement mechanism to prevent
    earth stations from routinely using only a small part of the
    spectrum they coordinate.[^87] FWCC's proposal would acknowledge
    intermittent use toward loading if it would also be counted toward
    demonstrated need.[^88] FWCC concurs with ATC and SkyBridge that
    loading standards make little sense for spread-spectrum
    systems,[^89] and that licensees should not be required to disclose
    actual loading data.[^90]

49. ***Discussion*.** We wish to craft the most direct and
    straightforward rules possible to achieve our goals, and we solicit
    comment on whether the proposed rules can be streamlined to
    facilitate compliance, enforcement, and transparency. We are
    particularly interested in comments on whether we need to define
    \"use\" or whether we should look to the totality of the
    circumstances. That is, if it is appropriate to define use with
    specificity, how should we define it? We also seek comment on
    whether the factors listed below should be a part of the rule, or
    simply a portion of our assessment. We defer defining \"use\" until
    the record on these various points is more complete. Although we do
    not propose to adopt a specific spectrum efficiency standard for FSS
    earth stations, we seek comment on whether the Commission should
    develop and apply such a standard for FSS earth stations, especially
    in frequency bands shared with other radio services

50. Commenters in their oppositions to the FWCC proposal for "loading"
    standards raise legitimate questions as to how such a concept could
    be applied to satellite earth stations, particularly if we attempt
    to apply a general standard to all types of earth stations. What
    they have not done, however, is challenge the principle that all
    users of the radio spectrum bear a responsibility to ensure that it
    is used in an efficient manner. We believe the principle of
    efficient use of spectrum shared between satellite earth stations
    and terrestrial fixed stations is in the public interest and should
    be pursued.

51. We support the concept that licensed spectrum should be used or
    successfully coordinated with other primary services that require
    use of the shared spectrum. As FWCC has pointed out, the radio
    spectrum is a limited resource that must be shared by a wide variety
    of services and types of users within each service. The Commission
    must ensure that this resource is used in the most efficient manner
    possible, consistent with meeting the needs of its licensees. In
    shared bands, an earth station licensee should not be able to block
    indefinitely access to spectrum the earth station is not using.

52. The concept of loading, as proposed by FWCC and as discussed in the
    comments and reply comments, has two distinct components. First,
    licensed spectrum should be used and not warehoused by any licensee
    or licensees, and, in shared bands, every attempt should be made to
    successfully coordinate with other primary users. Second, when
    spectrum is used, it should be used in an efficient manner.

53. We propose to address the first component in this Notice, by
    proposing, for the C- and Ku-bands shared between FSS earth stations
    and FS stations, to adopt a new coordination procedure to increase
    efficient and equitable use of these bands. This new procedure would
    be initiated by the frequency coordinator only if an FSS earth
    station licensee denies an FS station applicant's request to
    coordinate spectrum. Pursuant to this new procedure, we propose to
    require that an FSS earth station operator denying a coordination
    request certify to the frequency coordinator: 1) its current and
    recent actual use of the requested spectrum, by identifying the
    applicable satellite locations, transponder frequency bands, and the
    timeframes they were in use; and (2) any imminent use of the
    requested spectrum. The frequency coordinator would determine, in
    the first instance, whether the requested spectrum is in "use," or
    whether it is not in "use" and thus is available for re-licensing to
    the requesting party. If a dispute arises over the coordinator's
    determination that the FSS earth station should reduce its licensed
    spectrum to accommodate the FS station request, or, alternatively,
    over the coordinator's determination that the coordination request
    should be denied because the requested spectrum is in "use," the
    disputing party may request Commission review. In a Commission
    review, the frequency coordinator would provide the Commission with
    all relevant information from the attempted coordination that led to
    the dispute, and the Commission might require, as needed, that the
    FSS earth station licensee and FS applicant supplement this record.
    We request comment on whether this proposal would provide for the
    equity in co-frequency sharing that the FWCC seeks and whether it
    would achieve the Commission's goal of promoting spectrum efficiency
    in shared bands. We request comment on whether this showing by the
    FSS earth station licensee should receive confidential treatment by
    the Commission.

54. Once the new coordination procedure is triggered, we would propose
    to require the FSS earth station to demonstrate "use" of the
    requested spectrum to the frequency coordinator, as follows: 1) for
    recent use, by identifying the timeframes during which each
    satellite transponder frequency band was "used" within the past 24
    months; 2) for current use, by identifying each satellite
    transponder frequency band in "use" at the time of the coordination
    request; and 3) for imminent use, by certifying the availability of
    some form of detailed information on planned "use," *e.g.,* use to
    be initiated within the next six months and supported by contract(s)
    or other documentation. We ask for comment on a number of questions
    on the concept of "use" as it is applied in the context of FSS earth
    stations. In particular, we ask whether we should define "use" and
    how FSS earth station licensees could demonstrate "use?" For
    example:

-   [Frequency Diversity:]{.underline} In the coordination and licensing
    process, how would the FCC and interested parties take into account
    the need of some FSS earth station operators for the flexibility to
    switch between different satellites or between multiple transponders
    on the same satellite? Would the routine or non-routine nature of
    the need for frequency diversity be relevant? Specifically, if the
    FSS earth station has a routine need to access multiple transponders
    or satellites, including multiple satellites in a non-geostationary
    orbit system, how would this operational requirement be factored
    into determining use? Similarly, would the presence at an FSS earth
    station of multiple antennas pointing at multiple and changing
    satellites be relevant? How would "routine" and "multiple" be
    defined?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Intermittent Use:]{.underline} If the spectrum licensed to an FSS
    earth station is not in use at all times, how much use would satisfy
    this criterion? Could factors such as total minutes of daily use be
    used to define use? In the context of a "wideband" data system,
    should a minimum threshold of data throughput be required to
    constitute use? If so, what should that minimum data throughput be?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Transponder Usage:]{.underline} In the context of an FSS earth
    station that varies its transponder usage over time, how often would
    a particular transponder (or even a portion of a transponder) be
    required to be active to be considered in use?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Future Use:]{.underline} Should the concept of use include
    contracts with the satellite operators for future use or to use
    certain transponders that could not be immediately brought into use
    due to international coordination difficulties or other
    circumstances such as satellite failure redundancy? What criteria
    should apply to determine whether an earth station licensee has
    imminent plans to use the spectrum in question? For example, should
    our definition of imminent use require a showing of firm financial
    commitments to lease satellite transponder time?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Space Segment Assignment:]{.underline} If the satellite frequency
    is assigned solely at the discretion of the space segment provider,
    would this factor be relevant in demonstrating use?

-   [Equipment Failure:]{.underline} Could occasional, short-term
    events, coordination to use satellites known to be nearing the end
    of useful life, and planning as a precaution against transponder or
    satellite failure constitute factors in the demonstration of use?

-   [NGSO/MSS Feeder Links:]{.underline} For non-geostationary satellite
    orbit Mobile-Satellite System feeder links or
    non-geostationary-orbit Fixed-Satellite System gateway earth
    stations, spectrum use is a function of the frequency reuse
    efficiencies realized in the bands used to serve the end user. For
    these stations, how should use be demonstrated, for example, in the
    6525-6875 MHz band?

-   [Balance of Current and Future:]{.underline} In the coordination
    process, how would "current" and "future" use be balanced in
    determining which spectrum should be considered in an FSS earth
    station/FS station coordination?

55. We propose that, if the FSS earth station denying coordination has
    been licensed for less than 24 months, it would be exempted from the
    new coordination procedure. This "initial loading period" would
    provide time for the FSS earth station to establish its business and
    build its customer base. At the same time, we propose to amend
    Section 101.141 to shorten the loading period for FS licensees in
    the C- and Ku-bands to 24 months. Currently, FS licensees in the C-
    and Ku-bands have 30 months from initial licensing in which to load
    their facilities to the required capacity. Modifications of the Part
    25 and 101 rules in this manner would give both the FSS and FS
    licensees a comparable period of time in which to put their spectrum
    to use before it is susceptible to re-licensing to others. We
    request comment on whether this initial loading period should vary
    depending on the type of FSS earth station or FS station involved
    and on the rationale for any recommended differences in treatment.
    We also seek comment as to whether Section 101.141 and Section
    25.203(e)(1) should be amended to include other bands shared by the
    FS and FSS, in addition to the C- and Ku-bands.

56. Finally, we note that FWCC suggests exempting FSS earth stations
    licensed for less than 40 MHz of bandwidth from its proposed Section
    25.118 rule change,[^91] and we propose a similar exemption for our
    new coordination rule. That is, FSS earth stations licensed for 40
    MHz or less of bandwidth in any direction would not be required to
    demonstrate use in order to retain protection for that spectrum. We
    observe that this exemption would mean that, under the rules we are
    proposing in Section V to authorize CSAT services, CSATs would not
    be subject to the new coordination rule because they would be
    limited to 20 MHz of bandwidth in each direction. We seek comment on
    this proposed exemption.

57. This proposal is contained in Appendix C to this NPRM. We ask for
    comment on the procedural aspects of this proposal. For example, in
    the case where a terrestrial FS station has been successfully
    coordinated on spectrum not currently used by the FSS earth station,
    we seek comment on how the results of such a coordination could be
    recorded for future reference. Should frequency coordinators
    maintain such results and should the results be reported to the
    Commission?

58. We also seek comment on the most practicable means to apply the new
    rule to existing FSS earth station licensees. Because such
    frequencies may no longer be available to the FSS earth station
    licensee without restriction, would this constitute a modification
    to the FSS earth station license and, if so, what Commission
    procedures would be required before re-licensing could occur?
    Moreover, we ask whether our new coordination procedure would
    require us to undertake an administrative hearing in order to amend
    the license of an existing FSS earth station to delete frequencies
    currently authorized to the FSS earth station but not demonstrated
    to be in actual use. We further ask whether we should impose
    conditions, on a forward-looking basis, on FSS earth station
    licenses that would allow us to implement this new coordination
    rule. Additionally, we request comment on whether we should require
    an FSS earth station licensee to make a showing of actual use at the
    time of each license renewal in order to retain the full licensed
    bandwidth, in addition to imposing the requirement for a showing at
    the time of a coordination request.

59. The second component of "loading" is efficient use of the spectrum.
    While FWCC makes no specific proposal with respect to an "efficiency
    standard" for earth stations, it does specifically reference the
    spectrum efficiency standards of Section 101.141(a)(3) note 3 in
    drawing a parallel between the Part 101 rules and its proposed
    loading standard.[^92] Although we do not propose in this Notice to
    adopt a specific spectrum efficiency standard for FSS earth
    stations, we do seek comment on whether the Commission should
    fashion a spectrum efficiency standard for FSS earth stations. For
    example:

-   [Type of Station:]{.underline} Recognizing that different kinds of
    earth stations (*e.g*., end user terminals versus teleport
    operators) may have differing requirements for flexibility, and that
    they operate in different frequency bands, how would the
    distinctions between these different types of stations affect the
    definition of any loading standards? Would the number (large or
    small) of users served by FSS earth stations be relevant to the
    definition of loading? Should there be a tiered approach to applying
    a loading standard (i.e., more stringent requirements in one band,
    or one portion of an FSS band, than in others)?

-   [Technology Employed:]{.underline} If a loading standard were to be
    adopted, should the standard vary based upon the type of technology
    involved? For example, if a particular satellite system used a Time
    Division Multiple Access (TDMA) wideband architecture, it would seem
    appropriate that individual user earth stations and gateway stations
    would have different loading standards. If so, what should those
    standards be?

-   [Timing:]{.underline} If loading standards were to be adopted, what
    would be an appropriate timeframe for meeting these standards? FWCC
    proposes 30 months. Would this 30-month timeframe be appropriate for
    all types of earth stations and for all times (*e.g*., after initial
    license or after license renewal)?

-   [Bandwidth:]{.underline} Should loading standards be waived for
    stations that use only a small portion of the band of license? FWCC
    suggests a waiver of the requirement for stations that use 40 MHz of
    spectrum or less in each direction. Is this an appropriate value? We
    note that at C-band 40 MHz is the normal satellite transponder
    bandwidth, but at the Ku- and Ka-band, satellites have different
    (larger) transponder bandwidths.

-   [Functionality:]{.underline} The Fixed Service shares spectrum with
    a variety of satellite services (*e.g*., FSS, BSS and MSS). With
    respect to the questions above, how do widely varying needs of these
    particular satellite services affect the determination of or need
    for loading standards? That is, are there specific amounts of
    spectrum routinely needed for different satellite uses and for
    differing functions (*e.g*., service links, feeder links, and
    Telemetry, Tracking and Command (TT&C))? Are there other factors
    affecting an estimation of spectrum need, such as operational
    requirements, business considerations, emergency planning, and
    possible growth, and do they vary depending on the types of
    satellite use and earth station function?

-   [Other Factors:]{.underline} How do we address other factors such as
    the earth station operator's business routinely requiring ready
    access to multiple satellites, an earth station complex having
    multiple antennas pointing at multiple and changing satellites, and
    the earth station operator providing service to independent third
    parties with unpredictable space segment needs?

60. Finally, there are instances where the FSS is operating under
    unusual or unique circumstances. For instance, in the 10.7-11.7 GHz
    band, FSS systems are limited to providing only international,
    intercontinental operations in accordance with footnote NG104 in
    order to limit the number of FSS earth stations operating in the
    band to permit more use by the Fixed Service. A second example is
    the 13.75-14.0 GHz band where FSS earth stations are required to
    share spectrum with Government services, and therefore are limited
    to certain corresponding shared downlink frequency bands. In this
    latter situation, a loss of frequency diversity might prevent
    implementation of satellite services in this band. We therefore seek
    comment on whether any spectrum use or efficiency standards are
    appropriate in situations where FSS earth station use already is
    substantially restricted and, if so, whether they should be tailored
    to the unique situations involved.

61. Although the efficiency requirements that we propose appear to be
    inconsistent with the Commission\'s general trend towards less
    intrusive regulation of the manner in which licensees use spectrum,
    we find that under the circumstances the proposals herein are better
    suited to meeting the needs of the industry and the general public.
    We note that the deregulatory approach has been particularly
    pronounced for spectrum purchased at auction. In this case, however,
    the users of the spectrum have obtained those rights free of charge.
    Given the current somewhat asymmetrical efficiency obligations on
    the co-primary licensees, absent an auction, we believe that
    exploring some efficiency requirement is the best way to further our
    spectrum management objectives.

### Interference Coordination

62. **FWCC's Petitions**. The FWCC Petitions raise the issue of how
    prior coordinations should affect the conduct of subsequent
    coordinations. Specifically, FWCC asks the Commission to adopt rules
    requiring an earth station to accept from subsequently coordinated
    fixed stations the same level of interference that it accepted in
    its initial coordination.

63. FWCC also proposes a detailed procedure for implementing this
    concept. It proposes that if a satellite earth station applicant
    coordinating a new or modified earth station accepts cases of
    potential interference into the earth station from terrestrial
    users, it may at its option explain the basis for accepting each
    case (frequency offset, terrain, attenuation from buildings, etc.).
    Combinations of explanations would be acceptable, as well as
    incomplete explanations. If the explanation for acceptance of
    potential interference relies on frequency offset, then a
    terrestrial station would be able to coordinate at any level in the
    frequency ranges accepted by the earth station. If, however, the
    only explanation for acceptance of the potential interference is
    shielding by a local feature that would not appear on a
    topographical map, such as a building or berm, then its level of
    attenuation would be deemed to be the amount of the missed
    objective, even if this is different from the actual attenuation
    that would show up in measurements. This imputed attenuation would
    then apply over the entire azimuth subtended by the feature. For
    example, if the earth station accepts a 50 dB missed objective on
    the basis of a building, then the attenuation of that building would
    be deemed to be 50 dB for all azimuths passing though the building.

64. If, however, the only explanation for acceptance of the interference
    is terrain blockage, then FWCC proposes that the earth station
    applicant must evaluate the blockage using industry-accepted
    programs based on current topographical maps. If the evaluated
    blockage is less than the missed objective, and therefore
    insufficient to meet the interference objective, the desired
    interference objective level of the original coordination would be
    reduced by the amount of the missed objective. For example, suppose
    the original interference objective is -170 dBW, the accepted
    incoming signal level is -120 dBW, and documented terrain blockage
    is 30 dB. The missed objective is the difference between -170 and
    -120, or 50 dB. Terrain accounts for 30 dB of that, leaving 20 dB
    unexplained. The interference objective for new terrestrial
    facilities would then deemed to be 20 dB above the original
    objective of -170 dBW, or -150 dBW.

65. If the explanation for acceptance of the interference is a
    combination of terrain blockage and shielding by a local feature,
    FWCC then proposes that the level of attenuation of the local
    feature would be deemed to be the amount of the missed objective,
    less the terrain blockage calculated as above, and would apply over
    the entire azimuth subtended by the attenuating feature. If the
    earth station operator does not offer an explanation for acceptance
    of the interference, or if none of the other explanations applies,
    then FWCC suggests that the original objective would be reduced by
    the amount of the unexplained missed objective. For example, if the
    original interference objective was -170 dBW and the missed
    objective was 20 dB, the interference objective for new terrestrial
    facilities would be deemed to be -170 + 20 = ‑150 dBW.[^93]

66. FWCC proposes specific modifications to Part 25 of the Commission's
    Rules that would implement these provisions. FWCC's specific
    proposal would amend Section 25.203 by redesignating paragraphs (e)
    through (k) as (f) through (l), and by adding a new paragraph (e)
    that would read as follows:

> (e)(1) An applicant for an earth station authorization may, during the
> frequency coordination process, choose to accept cases of potential
> interference into the earth station from terrestrial users. In that
> event, subsequent terrestrial applicants may coordinate with the earth
> station at the same level and under the same conditions as the earth
> station accepted in its coordination, subject to the following
> paragraphs.
>
> \(2\) An applicant for an earth station authorization that accepts
> cases of potential interference from a terrestrial station, as in
> paragraph (l), may specify that it does so on the basis of frequency
> offset from the frequencies and bandwidth used by the terrestrial
> station. In that event, subsequent terrestrial applicants may
> coordinate in the frequency ranges accepted by the earth station
> without affording any protection to the earth station.
>
> \(3\) An applicant for an earth station authorization that accepts
> cases of potential interference, as in paragraph (l), may specify that
> it relies on attenuation by a local feature, in which event it must
> identify the local feature and specify its location and the subtended
> azimuth. Subsequent terrestrial applicants may coordinate over the arc
> of azimuths passing through the local feature at the same level as the
> earth station accepted.
>
> \(4\) An applicant for an earth station authorization that accepts
> cases of potential interference, as in paragraph (l), may specify that
> its waiver is based in whole or in part on terrain blockage. In that
> event the earth station applicant must evaluate the terrain blockage
> using industry-accepted programs based on current topographical maps.
> If the evaluated blockage is less than the difference between the
> desired and accepted interference objectives, and therefore
> insufficient to clear the interference case, subsequent terrestrial
> applicants may coordinate at the level that the earth station accepted
> in its waiver, reduced by the evaluated blockage.
>
> \(5\) An applicant for an earth station authorization may accept cases
> of potential interference based on combinations of the factors
> addressed in paragraphs (2) through (4). In that event, subsequent
> terrestrial applicants may coordinate at the levels determined under
> paragraphs (2) and (3), which may depend on frequency and azimuth, as
> adjusted by terrain blockage as specified in paragraph (4).[^94]

67. ***Oppositions*.** Some opposing parties object to FWCC's proposal
    requiring an earth station licensee to grant interference exceptions
    to all future FS stations because the earth station waives a
    particular level of interference from one FS station.[^95] They
    contend that such a rule would have the effect of discouraging
    licensees from granting any interference exceptions.[^96] GE
    Americom asserts that there is no basis for the FCC to mandate that
    an existing earth station operator accept interference from a new
    applicant that could impair the earth station's ability to meet
    customer requirements.[^97]

68. Commenters also argue that serious damage could be caused to an
    earth station complex by adding multiple sources of potential
    interference[^98] and find fault with specific technical parameters
    set out in the FWCC proposal.[^99] Opposing parties further argue
    that a coordination rule is unnecessary,[^100] would cause
    regulatory delay,[^101] and would preempt existing industry
    fora.[^102]

69. ***FWCC Reply Comments.*** In its response, FWCC asserts that its
    petition merits public debate before the Commission as opposed to
    discussion in a less public industry forum.[^103] FWCC also disputes
    that the additive effects of multiple interference exposures, the
    changing nature of the interference environment, or adjacent band
    interference will degrade operations unacceptably.[^104]

70. ***Discussion*.** The FWCC proposal raises a number of general and
    specific issues related to frequency coordination between FS
    stations and FSS earth stations. The first of these issues is
    whether the waiving of a particular level of interference from one
    FS station should be treated as an acceptance of that level of
    interference from all future coordinated FS stations. Commenters
    opposing the FWCC proposal note that an FSS earth station operator
    may accept a particular level of interference in one particular
    portion of the spectrum, recognizing that not all frequencies will
    have the same value to the earth station operator. In its reply,
    FWCC asserts that its purpose is only to ensure that like cases are
    treated alike.

71. When conducting an interference analysis as part of the coordination
    of an FSS earth station and an FS station, there are a number of
    factors to be considered. These include the transmitted power of the
    FS station, the pointing direction of the FS station antenna
    relative to the FSS earth station, the FS station antenna radiation
    pattern, and any anomalies over the propagation path that might
    attenuate the interfering signal (such as terrain shielding or
    attenuation by buildings). Additionally, the coordination would
    consider technical aspects of the FSS earth station, such as antenna
    gain and pointing direction, in determining whether interference
    from an FS station would result in the FSS earth station operating
    at below normally permissible interference objectives.

72. When an FSS earth station applicant enters into the coordination
    process with an FS station licensee, the FSS earth station applicant
    may consider mitigating factors such as terrain blockage, frequency
    offset, attenuation by buildings, or the importance of that
    particular set of frequencies (*e.g.,* the availability of those
    frequencies on the applicable satellite(s)) to determine whether it
    successfully can coordinate its earth station. An FSS earth station
    applicant also may be willing to accept higher than desired levels
    of interference in a part of the coordinated spectrum in order to
    complete its coordination successfully. The FSS earth station
    licensee, however, may have no incentive to apply those same
    mitigation factors when considering coordination requests from
    subsequent FS station applicants. In this situation, we believe, as
    stated by FWCC, "that like cases \[should be\] treated alike."

73. Every coordination request is likely to differ from earlier requests
    in some respects. There are, however, elements that are often
    identical, or nearly identical, among coordinations. In situations
    where these elements are common, it would be reasonable, assuming no
    change in propagation models, for the quantitative effects of these
    elements on the interference analysis in later coordinations to be
    the same as in the initial coordination. By way of example, if an
    FSS earth station applicant successfully coordinates with an FS
    station licensee and, as part of the interference analysis, assumes
    a 30 dB attenuation of the interfering signal by an intervening
    building, then it would be reasonable for the FSS earth station
    licensee to accept the same 30 dB attenuation derived in the
    original propagation analysis in subsequent coordinations with FS
    station applicants if the latter stations are to be operated from
    the same tower as the first FS station (assuming operation in the
    same frequency band, *e.g.,* C-band). In this situation, the second
    interfering signal would be traveling along the same path as the
    first signal that was successfully coordinated, encountering the
    same building along its path. We note, however, that use of the same
    value of attenuation attributed to a building in the original
    analysis would not necessarily imply acceptance of the interference
    resulting from the second fixed service station. As noted above,
    there are many factors that must be considered when performing an
    interference analysis as part of a coordination procedure, and it is
    the effects of all of these factors that must be considered.

74. FWCC suggests that, if an FSS earth station accepts a level of
    interference that would degrade its performance below normally
    permissible interference objectives in one part of the spectrum in
    which it is operating, then it should be required to accept that
    same level on all frequencies. We cannot support the logic of FWCC's
    argument. The objectionable interference that the earth station
    applicant may be willing to accept may affect only a relatively
    small portion of the spectrum that the earth station will use. We
    recognize that an earth station applicant may have to accept
    interference in one part of its licensed spectrum in order to gain
    access to the remainder. The sacrifice of the use of this small
    portion of its total bandwidth is one the earth station applicant
    should be free to make without sacrificing the viability of its
    entire system. Allowing the earth station applicant to proceed in
    this manner recognizes the realities of sharing a scarce resource
    among many users and services, and promotes the efficient use of the
    radio spectrum.

75. FWCC also suggests that acceptance of a particular level of
    interference from one source should imply acceptance of all
    subsequent interference sources at or below the level of the initial
    interference source. As pointed out by a number of the commenters,
    interference sources are cumulative, and it is the totality of that
    interference that must be considered in determining whether
    interference from subsequent sources is acceptable. In this respect,
    each subsequent coordination request must be evaluated on its own
    merits, and its effects on existing stations must be considered in
    the context of the entire interference environment. We must,
    therefore, reject this specific proposal of FWCC.

76. An additional problem noted by FWCC is the situation in which an FSS
    earth station applicant, in order to complete its coordination
    successfully, accepts interference from an existing FS station that
    would exceed the total interference allowance for the earth station,
    even after consideration of mitigating factors such as terrain
    shielding or building blockage. The question then becomes one of
    further protecting an earth station that has already accepted
    interference, on a particular set of frequencies, that is recognized
    will cause the earth station to operate below its normally
    permissible interference objectives. FWCC proposes that if the
    acceptance of this interference is based upon frequency offset, then
    subsequent FS station applicants may coordinate in the frequency
    ranges accepted by the FSS earth station without affording any
    protection to the earth station. Because our goal is efficient use
    of the spectrum, it would not seem reasonable to allow an FSS earth
    station licensee to preclude future FS station use of a part of the
    spectrum in which the earth station licensee has already accepted
    levels of interference from other FS stations that would preclude
    its use of that particular part of the spectrum. We recognize,
    however, that the earth station may experience these objectionable
    interference levels only when pointing at a limited set of
    geostationary satellite orbit locations, and that this factor also
    must be considered during the coordination process.

77. These varying scenarios, therefore, raise a number of issues:

-   If an FSS earth station licensee accepts the use of particular
    interference mitigation factors during a coordination with an FS
    station, should the FSS earth station be required to accept the use
    of those same interference mitigation factors during subsequent
    coordinations if similar circumstances are present? More
    specifically, if terrain or building blockage was considered and
    accepted in one coordination, should the same amount of signal
    blockage be assumed for future coordinations over identical or
    nearly identical paths?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If an FSS earth station licensee accepts a particular level of
    interference during coordination with an FS station, should the FSS
    earth station, once licensed, be required to accept the same level
    of interference or less from an FS station subsequently seeking
    coordination on the same frequency? On offset frequencies?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Should a requirement for acceptance of a particular level of
    interference be dependent upon whether the FSS earth station\'s
    total interference allowance already has been exceeded in prior
    coordinations?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Should similar coordination requirements apply to FS station
    applicants and licensees?

78. In order to better balance the competing needs of the FSS and FS
    services in shared bands and to promote, during the coordination
    process, the most efficient use of this shared radio spectrum, we
    propose that if an FSS earth station or FS station applicant employs
    certain interference mitigation techniques (such as terrain
    shielding or building blockage) in order to coordinate its station
    successfully, then to the extent that those same conditions exist
    for subsequent requests for coordination between an FSS and FS
    station applicant and licensee, the FSS earth station or FS station
    licensee must give those interference mitigation factors the same
    weight as in the original coordination. Additionally, if an FSS
    earth station applicant, during its coordination, accepts a level of
    interference that is recognized to be below accepted interference
    objectives along a set of azimuths and elevation angles, then the
    FSS earth station licensee is not entitled to protection from
    interference from future FS applicants on those same frequencies
    within that same set of azimuths and elevation angles. Our proposal
    would amend Section 25.203 and Section 101.103(d)(1) of the rules,
    as set forth in Appendix C of this Notice. We propose that these
    amended rules would apply across all frequency bands where the FSS
    and FS share a primary service allocation.

79. We anticipate that these rules would be applied by the relevant
    frequency coordinators as they process requests for frequency
    coordination, and that the frequency coordinators will maintain
    records of these actions within their database, including
    information about interference models and assumptions used,
    including any updates to interference models over time.

80. We seek comment on the specific proposals presented in Appendix C,
    on the issues raised above, and on any other factors regarding rules
    or procedures that could facilitate coordination between FS stations
    and FSS earth stations, and promote the efficient use of such shared
    spectrum. Additionally, to ease the process of coordinating future
    requests, we seek comment on whether the Commission should place
    conditions on the license of an FS station or FSS earth station to
    specifically identify those particular frequencies and interference
    paths where the station has not successfully cleared coordination,
    and is therefore not entitled to protection. Finally, we are very
    interested in receiving information about actual experiences in
    which earlier and later applicants, that are similarly situated,
    have been treated differently in the coordination process.

# discussion of onsat proposal

81. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Commission to
    encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications, on a
    reasonable and timely basis to all Americans. [^105] It also
    requires the Commission to take action to accelerate deployment of
    that capability to all Americans. In our most recent report to
    Congress, we observed that although advanced telecommunications
    capability is generally being deployed in a reasonable and timely
    fashion, certain groups of consumers - including rural Americans and
    consumers in tribal areas - are not receiving such service in a
    timely fashion. [^106] Last year we initiated an NPRM in which we
    sought comment on potential terrestrial wireless and satellite
    policy initiatives to address the telecommunications needs of Native
    Americans living on tribal lands. [^107] In that Tribal Lands NPRM,
    we cited small aperture terminal earth station networks as one
    satellite technology increasingly being deployed for low-cost
    telephony that is also capable of providing advanced
    telecommunications services. [^108] We sought comment on any
    satellite policies we could adopt to further the deployment of such
    networks on tribal lands and in other unserved areas. [^109] The
    Report and Order that the Commission adopted in the proceeding
    concluded that, technical and administrative hurdles to the
    provision of satellite service to tribal lands are best considered
    on a case-by-case basis, with waivers granted as necessary to
    facilitate such deployment. [^110] In its instant petition, Onsat
    asks the Commission to issue a declaratory order that Section
    25.115(c) of the Commission\'s Rules permits the licensing of very
    small aperture terminal (VSAT) satellite earth stations in the
    C-band. [^111] Onsat avers that the rule interpretation it seeks is
    a response to our request, in the Tribal Lands NPRM, for proposals
    on satellite policies that would promote the deployment of satellite
    services in tribal lands and other unserved areas. [^112] Onsat
    states that, if permitted to go forward in developing C-band small
    aperture terminal earth station networks, it will be able to serve
    rural institutional customers with the most advanced communications
    in a cost-effective manner. [^113]

82. Onsat's petition raises the issue of whether we should authorize a
    network of small aperture terminal satellite earth stations in the
    C-band under a single license. As we observed in the *Tribal Lands
    NPRM*[^114]*,* these types of satellite earth station networks
    employ cost-effective technology to reach sparsely populated areas,
    and thus could help to accelerate deployment of advanced
    telecommunications capability to Americans in tribal and rural
    areas. We propose to adopt changes to Part 25 of our rules to
    authorize, under a single license, networks of prior-coordinated
    small aperture terminal satellite earth stations in the C-band. Our
    proposal to license this service is based on our current licensing
    rules for Very Small Aperture Terminals, or VSATs, in the Ku-band,
    with necessary modifications to reflect the prior frequency
    coordination required in the C-band because of FS/FSS co-primary
    frequency sharing in this band. To distinguish our licensing of
    these pre-coordinated C-band earth stations from the blanket
    licensing of VSATs in the Ku-band, we will refer to the C-band
    networks addressed in this Notice as C-band Small Aperture Terminals
    (CSATs).

83. Onsat's petition argues that blanket licensing of such CSATs is
    permissible in the C-band under existing Commission rules, and Onsat
    seeks a declaratory ruling to confirm its interpretation of the
    rules. We believe that such a declaratory ruling could expand the
    need for case-by-case evaluation of proposed CSAT networks and thus
    would not be the most efficient or effective means for regulating
    this service. We, therefore, deny Onsat's petition for declaratory
    ruling and, instead, initiate a rulemaking to propose modification
    to Part 25 of the Commission's Rules to permit licensing of CSAT
    networks in C-band frequencies under a single authorization.[^115]
    We believe that this Notice regarding licensing of CSAT networks is
    particularly relevant to our inquiry in the *Tribal Lands NPRM*
    because it will further the Commission's goal of serving rural
    customers with advanced communications.

### General Considerations

84. When the Commission first licensed VSAT networks in 1986, the
    multiple applicants for the service requested frequencies only in
    the 12/14 GHz band, at least in part because there were no
    co-primary terrestrial users of those bands.[^116] The Commission
    stated that granting the applicants' requested blanket authorization
    procedures would result in more rapid use of the 12/14 GHz
    frequencies that had not been occupied.[^117] In addition, because
    this band was allocated solely to FSS on a primary basis, the
    Commission could grant one license to cover hundreds or thousands of
    Ku-band earth stations without regard to intra-band, inter-service
    coordination issues. The *VSAT Order* observed that while the lack
    of co-primary terrestrial users in the 12/14 GHz frequency bands
    eliminated the need for location and site-specific frequency
    exhibits, those exhibits would be necessary in the C-band where
    there are co-primary terrestrial users.[^118]

85. Nevertheless, the Commission historically has sought to streamline
    the licensing process for networks of C-band earth stations as well.
    In 1984, the Commission implemented a simplified procedure for one
    licensee that was operating a network containing large numbers of
    small, technically-identical C-band earth stations.[^119] Under this
    streamlined approach, the licensee, Equatorial Communications
    Company, would still submit site-specific frequency coordination
    information and the Commission would still issue individual licenses
    for each earth station, but the individual applications would be
    submitted in an abbreviated form. The Commission further streamlined
    this procedure for Equatorial's successor-in-interest, GTE Spacenet
    Services Corporation, in 1992, when the Commission implemented a
    "blanket" licensing procedure for these same earth stations.[^120]
    Under this procedure, the Commission granted GTE Spacenet a lead
    license to cover a specified number of identical earth stations (in
    this case, 30,000). To ensure that these earth stations do not
    interfere with co-primary FS operations, the Commission required GTE
    Spacenet to complete frequency coordination for each individual
    station before bringing it into service. Further, the Commission
    required GTE Spacenet to notify the Commission, on a monthly basis,
    of the number of earth stations brought into service.

86. The CSAT licensing procedures we propose in this Notice respond to
    concerns that individual licensing of each earth station in a
    network of small aperture terminal earth stations would result in
    longer overall license processing times, increased consumer costs,
    and additional administrative burdens. The procedures we propose
    also reflect our belief that "blanket" licensing is possible in the
    C-band but only if contingent on individual site coordination
    between FS facilities and the FSS earth station as required by our
    proposed rules.

### Regulatory and Licensing Issues

87. We propose to model CSAT licensing procedures on the streamlined
    procedure successfully used since 1992 for licensing the small earth
    stations of the GTE Spacenet Services Corporation in the C-band.
    Most notably, these procedures will require CSAT applicants to
    complete frequency coordination for each individual earth station
    antenna, but will allow licensing for a system of
    technically-identical earth stations so coordinated, with simplified
    reporting to the FCC.

88. ***Rule Governing Applications***. Our earth station application
    rule permits applications for license of small antenna network
    systems operating in the 12/14 GHz frequency band under blanket
    operating authority.[^121] The rule does not specifically provide
    for "blanket" licensing in other frequencies, although one licensee
    has been operating a comparable small antenna network system in the
    C-band frequencies both before and since the adoption of the *VSAT
    Order*.[^122] We therefore propose to amend Section 25.115 to
    specifically incorporate generic simplified processing procedures
    that will apply to any CSAT applicant instead of addressing
    "blanket" applications for earth station networks in the C-band on a
    case-by-case basis, as we have done in the past.

89. ***Application Form**.* We propose that existing application
    procedures in Section 25.115 will govern applications to license
    small antenna network systems operating in the 4/6 GHz frequency
    band. Applications for CSAT operating authority will be filed on FCC
    Form 312. The main portion of Form 312 and Schedule B shall be filed
    for each large hub station, and another Schedule B shall be filed
    for each representative type of small antenna station operating
    within the network. The initial or "lead" application will identify
    the requested spectrum to be used for communication channels. The
    Commission will place the "lead" application on Public Notice.
    Acceptable applications will be granted for a "lead" application to
    construct and operate the requested number of technically identical
    small antenna earth stations specified in the small antenna Schedule
    B included with the lead application. Further, we propose to require
    electronic filing of Form 312, Schedule B applications to add
    technically identical small antenna earth stations to a previously
    authorized CSAT system. After coordination and licensing, and before
    placing any earth station into operation, our rules would require
    the earth station licensee to file a coordination notification for
    each earth station with the Commission. This coordination
    notification will include the location of each station, as well as a
    certification that frequency coordination has been completed and
    that the earth station complies with all environmental and Federal
    Aviation Administration requirements. We would put the licensee's
    coordination notification filing on public notice, and the licensee
    would be permitted to commence operation if no comments were
    received within the 30-day notice period. A commenter objecting to
    the earth station commencing operations would be required to serve
    the earth station licensee with a copy of its comments. We would
    permit the earth station to begin operations once the objection is
    removed. We seek comment on any alternative to the proposal that
    expedites the processing and minimizes the administrative burden on
    both the Commission and the CSAT licensee while providing adequate
    notice to affected parties.

90. ***Fees.*** Section 8(a) of the Communications Act sets forth fees
    the Commission must assess for filing applications to aid in
    recovering some of the administrative costs incurred in processing
    those applications. The fee structure in the Communications Act can
    only be amended by legislative action. Consequently, applications
    for CSAT networks may require the Commission to propose a new fee
    category to Congress.

91. Because the CSAT service most closely matches the GTE Spacenet
    system, the existing fee structure for Fixed-Satellite
    Transmit/Receive Earth Stations (2 meters or less and operating in
    the 4/6 GHz frequency band) is the fee most comparable to CSAT
    applications.[^123] Because the underlying statute limits this fee
    category to earth stations that are two meters in diameter or less,
    we must pursue a statutory change in order to create a comparable
    fee structure for CSATs. We propose charging applicants for CSAT
    service a set fee for an initial, lead application, and charging an
    additional fee for coordination notification of each additional
    earth station. We request comment on the extent to which Commission
    review of the individual coordination of CSAT earth stations added
    to a network after the "lead" license would create administrative
    processing burdens and costs.

92. ***Licensing Provisions***. We propose to amend Section 25.134 of
    our rules to make it applicable to CSAT networks.[^124] We expect
    that routine processing will be possible for CSAT networks that meet
    the antenna performance standards in our present Section 25.209, and
    do not exceed the power levels specified in our present Sections
    25.211(d) and 25.212(d).[^125] Applications seeking to exceed these
    limits will be required to include a technical analysis
    demonstrating an ability to operate on a non-interference basis to
    adjacent fixed-satellite services or to provide a certification from
    the satellite operator that this operation has been successfully
    coordinated with adjacent satellite operators. We anticipate
    revisiting these rules in an earth station streamlining proceeding
    later this year, and will consider at that time whether these power
    and antenna size limits can or should be amended to allow routine
    processing of more applications.

93. ***Frequency Coordination**.* As discussed *supra*, the fixed
    wireless community has raised concerns that authorization of CSATs
    could add to coordination difficulties between the FS and FSS in the
    C-band. FWCC initially opposed Onsat's petition for declaratory
    order on the ground that Onsat's proposed service would further
    exacerbate frequency coordination difficulties in the C-band. FWCC
    later withdrew its opposition after Onsat agreed to limit both the
    amount of C-band spectrum its proposed system would use and the
    number of orbital positions toward which its remote earth stations
    would be directed.[^126] We propose to adopt the parameters of the
    Onsat/FWCC agreement as a limit on spectrum use for CSATs.[^127]
    Thus, we propose to license CSAT networks for no more than 20 MHz of
    C-band spectrum and for no more than three satellite locations
    within the visible geostationary satellite arc.[^128] We seek
    comment on whether CSAT networks can be designed and implemented
    within these limitations. We also invite comment on whether we
    should propose to limit the licensing of all CSAT networks to a
    particular identified portion of the C-band and, if so, how much of
    a sub-band we should set aside for CSATs. We further ask whether
    such band restrictions would pose operational difficulties for CSAT
    networks.

94. Furthermore, in order to allow CSAT networks in the C-band
    frequencies, it is essential that each and every earth station
    facility be fully coordinated with co-primary terrestrial users of
    C-band frequencies. Accordingly, we propose that the Commission
    require every technically identical earth station in any CSAT
    network to be coordinated under our existing rules for coordination
    of earth stations with terrestrial stations.[^129] This coordination
    must be accomplished at the time applicants or licensees seek to
    place an individual earth station in service. We expect that
    applicants will request operating authority for a number of earth
    stations at the time their lead application is filed, and
    subsequently will coordinate and notify the Commission of each earth
    station implemented in the network authorized in accordance with the
    lead license. In other words, even though CSAT stations may be
    conditionally authorized under a lead license, each CSAT earth
    station must protect, and is not entitled to protection from, other
    earth stations or terrestrial stations that were coordinated prior
    to coordination of that particular CSAT earth station. The CSAT
    station also would not be permitted to operate until this
    coordination is completed, the Commission has been notified, and the
    30-day notice period has elapsed.

95. We believe that the type of service proposed by Onsat and
    contemplated in our proposed CSAT rules is in the public interest
    because it facilitates advanced broadband communications for
    Americans in rural, underserved areas. Our *Tribal Lands*
    proceedings[^130] and other Commission initiatives have sought to
    improve the delivery of broadband services to rural areas. We note
    that the required individual coordination with terrestrial users of
    C-band frequencies may, as a practical matter, effectively limit
    CSAT networks to rural areas where those frequencies are relatively
    underused. We seek comment, therefore, on whether our rules should
    limit the CSAT service to rural areas, or, alternatively, whether
    our rules should allow CSAT network service wherever frequency
    coordination allows the installation of an earth station. If rules
    limiting the service to rural areas are proposed, we request comment
    on how to define rural for this purpose, and how we can administer
    such a rural limitation.

96. ***Reporting Requirements**.* We propose that each CSAT licensee be
    required to provide the Commission an annually updated list of all
    operational earth stations in its system. This list would provide a
    definitive portrait of each licensee's operational CSAT system once
    a year, and would allow the Commission to verify the validity of its
    database. The CSAT licensees' annual report would also have to
    include a list of all earth stations planned for the next 12 months
    but not yet built, a list of all earth stations deactivated during
    the year, and a report of any changes in satellite location
    applicable to the CSAT network. We propose to seek only an estimate
    of all earth stations planned for the next 12 months but not yet
    built, because we recognize that businesses would have some
    difficulty projecting the number of CSATs they plan to deploy in the
    future. The annual reporting requirement would provide the FCC and
    frequency coordinators the opportunity to crosscheck database
    records for accuracy, and be useful in dispute resolution.

## Conclusion

97. We propose to amend our rules to accommodate the licensing of CSAT
    service in the C-band frequencies. We propose rules to govern
    applications for CSAT service in C-band frequencies, and invite
    public comment on the tentative conclusions reached in this Notice,
    and comment on the proposed rules set forth in Appendix C.

# DISCUSSION OF HUGHES PROPOSAL

98. We ask for comment on a recent *ex parte* pleading[^131] filed by
    Hughes in the *18 GHz Proceeding, see supra* note **3,** concerning
    the proposed deployment of earth stations for geostationary
    satellite orbit (GSO) FSS systems in the shared portion of the
    Ka-band without individual site-by-site licensing.[^132] Hughes
    contends that the Commission has the power to authorize GSO FSS
    earth stations under a "blanket" licensing approach in these shared
    bands. Hughes observes that GSO FSS earth stations would operate in
    the receive mode in the 18 GHz band and thus would not cause
    interference to terrestrial users sharing the band, but could
    receive harmful interference from FS transmissions operating in the
    band. Hughes urges the Commission to allow GSO FSS earth stations to
    receive signals in the 18 GHz shared band, with the option of
    registering for interference protection on a site-by-site basis in
    accordance with the coordination procedures of Sections 25.203 and
    25.251. Hughes also suggests that any fees for such registration
    must be "consumer-tolerant" (such as a single low charge for a batch
    of 1000 registrations, *e.g.,* \$295). In the 29.25-29.5 GHz band
    that is shared with MSS feeder links, Hughes contends that the
    provisions of Section 25.258 that deal with intersystem coordination
    and sharing between NGSO MSS feeder link stations and GSO FSS
    services are sufficient to allow the deployment of a large number of
    pre-coordinated GSO FSS earth stations under a single authorization.

99. We invite comment on whether such deployment of GSO FSS earth
    stations in both the 29.25-29.5 GHz and 18.3-18.58 GHz bands would
    be practicable. In particular, we seek comment on whether Hughes'
    request for an expedited and simplified licensing procedure for
    satellite user earth terminals at Ka-band would raise the same kinds
    of concerns that FWCC has presented in its instant filings. In this
    regard, we note that one of the fundamental tenets of the 18 GHz
    band segmentation plan was to separate services that would be widely
    deployed. We also seek comment on how deployment of a large number
    of FSS earth stations over the entire shared portions of the
    Ka-band, with specific site location information, would impact
    existing and future MSS feeder link operations. If deployment would
    be practicable, we ask how such a licensing procedure could be
    implemented to ensure that the requirements of both the satellite
    and terrestrial users would be met in the 18 GHz band. We invite
    comment on whether we should apply to the portion of the 18 GHz band
    shared by the FSS and FS each of the rules that we propose in this
    Notice. We also invite comment on whether, if we were to allow
    deployment in the shared portion of the Ka-band of a large number of
    pre-coordinated GSO FSS earth stations under a single authorization,
    we should limit the earth stations to communications with only the
    specific satellites that are a part of a single satellite
    system.[^133] This limitation on the number of satellite locations
    would be similar to our proposal, *see supra* Section V, to limit
    the authorization of CSAT networks in the C-band to only three
    satellite locations. Further, we ask for general comment on the
    issue of registration fees and, specifically, on Hughes' proposal
    that any registration fees for interference protection should be in
    the range of \$295 for a batch of 1000 registrants. We also invite
    alternative proposals to achieve the objectives of the Hughes
    proposal, within the scope and overall objectives of this
    proceeding.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

100. ***Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**.* Appendix D to this
     document contains the analysis required by the Regulatory
     Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. § 603.

101. ***Ex parte Presentations**.* This is a permit-but-disclose
     rulemaking proceeding*. Ex parte* presentations are permitted,
     provided they are disclosed as provided in Sections 1.1202, 1.1203,
     and 1.1206(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202,
     1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

102. ***Authority.*** This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(I),
     7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act
     of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157(a), 303(c),
     303(f), 303(g), and 303(r).

103. ***Comment**.* Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
     Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.415 and 1.419, interested
     parties may file comments on or before \[30 days following
     publication in the Federal Register\]**,** and reply comments on or
     before\[45 days following publication in the Federal Register\].
     Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment
     Filing System (ECFS) or by paper copies. *See, Electronic Filing of
     Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).

104. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
     via the Internet to \<<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>\>.
     Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
     If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of
     this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic
     copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced
     in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters
     should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and
     the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
     an electronic comment by Internet e‑mail. To obtain filing
     instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail
     to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and should include the following words in the
     body of the message, \"get form \<your e-mail address.\" A sample
     form and directions will be sent in reply.

105. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
     copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
     appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit
     two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
     number. All filings must be sent to the Commission\'s Secretary,
     Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal
     Communications Commission, The Portals, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,
     Room TW‑A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.

106. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
     comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to:
     Commission\'s Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the
     Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, The Portals, 445
     Twelfth Street, S.W., Room TW‑A325, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a
     submission should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM
     compatible format using Word for Windows or compatible software.
     The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be
     submitted in \"read only\" mode. The diskette should be clearly
     labeled with the commenter\'s name, IB Docket No. 00-**XXX**, type
     of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the
     name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also
     include the following phrase \"Disk Copy - Not an Original.\" Each
     diskette should contain only one party\'s pleading, preferably in a
     single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette
     copies to the Commission\'s copy contractor, International
     Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington,
     D.C. 20037.

107. ***Additional Information**.* For general information concerning
     this rulemaking proceeding contact Ed Jacobs, International Bureau,
     at (202) 418-0624, internet: <ejacobs@fcc.gov;> for questions
     concerning the proposed licensing of C-band small aperture terminal
     earth stations, contact Mark Young at (202) 418-0762, internet:
     <myoung@fcc.gov>, International Bureau; Federal Communications
     Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

108. IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c),
     303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
     amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),
     and 303(r), this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby ADOPTED.

109. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FWCC's Request for Declaratory Ruling is
     DENIED.

110. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Onsat's Petition for Declaratory Order
     is DENIED.

111. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
     Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
     Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory
     Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief, Counsel for Advocacy of the
     Small Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A: COMMENTS IN FWCC PROCEEDING**

[Comments and Oppositions]{.underline}

Comsat Corporation (Comsat)

Corporate Satellite Communications, Inc. (CSC)

GE American Communications, Inc. (GE Americom)

Home Box Office (HBO)

Iridium LLC (Iridium)

McKibben Communications (McKibben)

Satellite Communications Division of Telecommunications Industry
Association (TIA SCD)

Satellite Industry Association (SIA)

SkyBridge LLC (SkyBridge)

Sprint Corporation (Sprint)

Williams Communications, Inc. (Williams)

[Reply Comments]{.underline}

Americasky Corporation (Americasky)

ATC Teleports, Inc. (ATC)

Comsat Corporation (Comsat)

Fixed Point-to-Point Communications Section of Wireless Communications
Division of Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA FS/WCD)

Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC)

GE American Communications, Inc. (GE Americom)

MCI WorldCom, Inc. (MCI WorldCom)

[Ex Parte Filings]{.underline}

Letter to Commission from Counsel for FWCC dated 11/4/99, with
attachment.

**APPENDIX B: LIST OF COMMENTS IN ONSAT PROCEEDING**

[Comments and Opposition]{.underline}

Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC)

Home Box Office (HBO)

JDL Technologies Inc. (JDL)

[Reply Comments]{.underline}

Onsat Network Communications, Inc. (Onsat)

[Supplemental Letters]{.underline}

Letter to Commission from Attorney for Onsat dated 2/10/00

Letter to Commission from Counsel for FWCC dated 2/14/00

**APPENDIX C: Proposed Rules**

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 25 of title 47 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 25\--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

112. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies sec. 303, 47 U.S.C.
303. 47 U.S.C. sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332, unless
otherwise noted.

113. Section 25.115 is amended by redesignating paragraph (c) as (c)(1)
     and by adding a new paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

**§ 25.115 Application for earth station authorizations.**

\* \* \* \* \*

(c)(2) Large Networks of Small Antennas operating in the 4/6 GHz
frequency bands with U.S.-licensed or non-U.S. licensed satellites for
domestic services. Applications to license small antenna network systems
operating in the 4/6 GHz frequency band shall be filed electronically on
FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B.

(c)(2)(i) An initial lead application providing a detailed overview of
the complete network shall be filed. Such lead applications shall fully
identify the scope and nature of the service to be provided, as well as
the complete technical details of each representative type of small
antenna (less than 4.5 meters) that will operate within the network.
Such lead applications shall not be licensed unless they identify no
more than three discrete geostationary satellites to be accessed,
identify a maximum of 20 MHz of spectrum to be used for communication
channels, and identify the maximum number of earth station sites, the
amount of frequency bandwidth sought, and the general geographic area in
which each type of small antenna will operate.

(c)(2)(ii) Following the issuance of a license for the initial lead
application, the licensee shall notify the Commission of the complete
technical parameters of each individual earth station site before that
site is bought into operation under the lead authorization. Full
frequency coordination of each individual site shall be completed prior
to filing Commission notification and conducted in accordance with
Section 25.203. Such notification shall be done by electronic filing and
shall be consistent with the technical parameters of Schedule B of FCC
Form 312. These individual site notifications will be routinely
processed. Operation of each individual site may commence if no comments
are received within a 30-day period after public notice of the
licensee's notification filing. Continuance of operation for the
duration of the lead license term of each individual site shall be
dependent upon successful completion of the normal public notice
process. If any objections are received to the newly added remote
stations, the licensee shall not operate those particular stations until
the coordination dispute is resolved and the licensee informs the
Commission of the resolution. Each CSAT licensee shall provide the
Commission an annually updated list of all operational earth stations in
its system. The annual list also shall include a list of all earth
stations planned for the next 12 months but not yet built, a list of all
earth stations deactivated during the year, and a report of any changes
in satellite location applicable to the CSAT network.

\* \* \* \* \*

114. Section 25.134 is amended by revising the section title, by
     redesignating paragraph (a) as (a)(1) and adding an introductory
     heading, by adding a new paragraph (a)(2), and by adding a new
     heading to paragraph (b) to read as follows:

**§ 25.134 Licensing provisions of Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT)
and C-band Small Aperture Terminal (CSAT) networks.**

(a)(1) *VSAT networks operating in the 12/14 GHz bands**.*** All
applications for digital VSAT networks . . . \* \* \*

(a)(2) *Large Networks of Small Antennas operating in the 4/6 GHz
frequency bands*. All applications for digital and/or analog operations
will be routinely processed provided the network employs antennas that
are 4.5 meter or larger in diameter, that are consistent with §25.209,
the power levels are consistent with §25.211(d) and §25.212(d), and
frequency coordination has been satisfactorily completed. The use of
smaller antennas or non-consistent power levels require the filing of an
initial lead application (§25.115(c)(2)) that includes all technical
analyses required to demonstrate operation on a non-interference basis
or an affidavit from the satellite operator that such non-conforming
operations have been successfully coordinated with any and all affected
adjacent satellite operators.

(b*) VSAT networks operating in the 12/14 GHz bands*. Each applicant for
digital and/or analog VSAT network . . . \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

115. Section 25.203 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (e)
     through (k) as (f) through (l) and by adding a new paragraph (e) to
     read as follows:

**§ 25.203 Choice of sites and frequencies.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) The following provisions shall apply to the coordination of a
newly proposed terrestrial station with an existing or previously filed
FSS earth station:

\(1\) When a terrestrial fixed service license applicant requests but is
denied coordination in spectrum in the 3700-4200 MHz, 5925-6425 MHz,
6525-6875 MHz or 10.7-11.7 GHz band, a potentially affected earth
station licensee must demonstrate to the frequency coordinator that it
is actually using, has recently used, or has imminent plans to use the
spectrum in question if the earth station licensee wishes, in the case
of a receiving earth station, to be protected from interference from the
new terrestrial fixed station on that spectrum, or, in the case of a
transmitting earth station, not to have to protect the new terrestrial
station. If the earth station licensee cannot make such a demonstration
during the coordination, then the terrestrial fixed station may be
successfully coordinated and the earth station must not cause
unacceptable interference to, nor is it protected from interference
from, the terrestrial fixed station on that spectrum in the future. In
demonstrating use of the spectrum that has been denied coordination, the
earth station licensee shall: 1) for recent use, identify the timeframes
during which each satellite transponder frequency band was used within
the past 24 months; 2) for current use, identify each satellite
transponder frequency band in use at the time of the coordination
request; and 3) for imminent use, certify the availability of some form
of detailed information or planned use, *e.g.*, use to be initiated
within the next six months and supported by contracts(s) or other
documentation. If, however, the earth station has been licensed for less
than twenty-four months, all of its licensed bandwidth will be
considered in use for purposes of the coordination. Earth stations
licensed for 40 MHz or less in each direction would not be required to
demonstrate use within any timeframe in order to retain protection for
that spectrum.

\(2\) If an earth station licensee accepts a particular interference
analysis model that employs certain interference mitigating factors,
such as terrain or building blockage, in order to successfully
coordinate its station with a terrestrial fixed station, then it must
accept the use of that same model in subsequent coordinations.

\(3\) If an earth station applicant for spectrum in the 3700-4200 MHz,
5925-6425 MHz, 6525-6875 MHz or 10.7-11.7 GHz band, during its
coordination, accepts a level of interference that is recognized to be
below accepted interference objectives along a set of azimuths and
elevation angles on part of the spectrum for which it is applying, and
therefore insufficient to clear the interference case, then the earth
station licensee is not entitled to protection from interference from
future terrestrial fixed service applicants on those same frequencies
within that same set of azimuths and elevation angles.

\* \* \* \* \*

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 101 of title 47 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 101---FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES

116. The authority citation for Part 101 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

117. Section 101.103(d)(1) is amended by adding new text at the end of
     the section to read as follows:

**§ 101.103 Frequency Coordination Procedures.**

\* \* \* \* \*

(d)(1) General Requirements.

\* \* \* Additionally, if a fixed station licensee accepts a particular
interference analysis model that employs certain interference mitigating
factors, such as terrain or building blockage, in order to successfully
coordinate its station with a fixed satellite service earth station in
the 3700-4200 MHz, 5925-6425 MHz, 6525-6875 MHz or 10.7-11.7 GHz
frequency band, then it must accept the use of that same model in
subsequent coordinations.

\* \* \* \* \*

118. Section 101.141 is amended by revising the text of note 3 in
     paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

**§ 101.141 Microwave Modulation.**

\* \* \* \* \*

(a)(3) \* \* \*

^3^ This loading requirement must be met within 24 months of licensing.
\* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX D: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^134] the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
We request written public comments on this IRFA. Commenters must
identify their comments as responses to the IRFA and must file the
comments by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking provided above in paragraphs 103-106. The Commission will
send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
*See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

We initiate this rulemaking proceeding to obtain comment and develop a
record on certain proposals in frequency bands shared between the space
and terrestrial fixed services, as well as to provide for the blanket
licensing of small aperture antenna terminals in the C-band (CSATs).
Specifically, this *Notice* proposes to amend Section 25.203 to require
an earth station licensed for 36 months or longer to demonstrate, in
response to a request of a terrestrial fixed service applicant to
coordinate spectrum, that the earth station is using, has recently used,
or has imminent plans to use the requested spectrum. Additionally, the
item proposes to amend Section 25.203 to require that an earth station
licensee that accepted a particular interference analysis model in order
to successfully coordinate location of its station must accept use of
the same model in subsequent coordinations. Further, if an earth station
licensee, during coordination, accepts a level of interference along a
set of azimuths recognized to be below normally permissible interference
objectives, the licensee may not subsequently claim protection from
interference from future terrestrial fixed service applicants on those
same frequencies within that same set of azimuths. With respect to
licensing of CSATs in the C-band, we propose to amend Section 25.115 to
model CSAT licensing procedures on the streamlined procedure
successfully used since 1992 for licensing small earth stations to GTE
Spacenet in the C-band. Additionally, the proposed rule changes will
require CSAT applicants in the C-band to complete frequency coordination
for each individual earth station antenna, but will allow blanket
licensing for a system of technically-identical earth stations so
coordinated, with simplified reporting to the Commission.

These proposals will facilitate the efficient and equitable use of the
shared radio spectrum by satellite and terrestrial fixed service
operators through a modification of the coordination and licensing
procedures for earth station licensees. These proposals will promote
efficient use of the spectrum shared between the satellite and
terrestrial services, and will allow the efficient introduction of new
satellite technologies that will provide wide access to electronic
commerce in underserved, rural areas of America.

**B. Legal Basis**

The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, and
303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,
154(i), 154(j), 301, and 303.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules May Apply**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^135] The RFA generally
defines the term \"small entity \" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^136] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^137] A small business concern is one
which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^138] A small
organization is generally \"any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.\"[^139] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.[^140] \"Small governmental jurisdiction\" generally
means \"governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
50,000.\"[^141] As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such
jurisdictions in the United States.[^142] This number includes 38,978
counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have
populations of fewer than 50,000.[^143] The Census Bureau estimates that
this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities.
Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91
percent) are small entities. Below, we further describe and estimate the
number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the proposed
rules, if adopted.

[1. Cable Services]{.underline}. The SBA has developed a definition of
small entities for cable and other pay television services, which
includes all such companies generating \$11 million or less in revenue
annually. This definition includes cable systems operators, closed
circuit television services, direct broadcast-satellite services,
multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems and
subscription television services. According to the Census Bureau data
from 1992, there were 1,788 total cable and other pay television
services and 1,423 had less than \$11 million in revenue. The Commission
has developed its own definition of a small cable system operator for
the purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission\'s rules, a
\"small cable company,\" is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers
nationwide[^144]. Based on our most recent information, we estimate that
there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as small cable system
operators at the end of 1995[^145]. Since then, some of those companies
may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have
been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other
cable operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than
1,439 small entity cable system operators.

The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable
system operator, which is \"a cable operator that, directly or through
an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
\$250,000,000.\"[^146] The Commission has determined that there are
66,690,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we found that an
operator serving fewer than 666,900 subscribers shall be deemed a small
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual
revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed \$250 million in the
aggregate.[^147] Based on available data, we find that the number of
cable operators serving 666,900 subscribers or less totals 1,450.[^148]
We do not request nor do we collect information concerning whether cable
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed \$250,000,000, and thus are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.

2\. [International Services]{.underline}

The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to licensees in the international services. Therefore, the
applicable definition of small entity is generally the definition under
the SBA rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere
Classified (NEC).[^149] This definition provides that a small entity is
expressed as one with \$11.0 million or less in annual receipts.[^150]
According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 848 communications
services providers, NEC, in operation in 1992, and a total of 775 had
annual receipts of less than \$9.999 million.[^151] The Census report
does not provide more precise data.

[3. Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations]{.underline}.
Currently there are over 7500 authorized fixed satellite
transmit/receive earth stations authorized for use in bands shared with
the terrestrial fixed service. We do not request or collect annual
revenue information, and thus are unable to estimate the number of the
earth stations that would constitute a small business under the SBA
definition.

[4. Mobile Satellite Earth Station Feeder Links.]{.underline} There are
two licensees operating in spectrum shared with terrestrial fixed
services. We do not request or collect annual revenue information, and
thus are unable to estimate of the number of mobile satellite earth
stations that would constitute a small business under the SBA
definition.

[5. Space Stations (Geostationary).]{.underline} Commission records
reveal that there are six space station licensees licensed in spectrum
shared on a co-primary basis with the terrestrial fixed service in the
C- and Ku-bands. We do not request or collect annual revenue
information, and thus are unable to estimate of the number of
geostationary space stations that would constitute a small business
under the SBA definition.

[6. Space Stations (Non‑Geostationary)]{.underline}. There are four
Non‑Geostationary Space Station licensees licensed in spectrum shared on
a co-primary basis with the terrestrial fixed service in the C- and
Ku-bands. We do not request or collect annual revenue information, and
thus are unable to estimate of the number of non‑geostationary space
stations that would constitute a small business under the SBA
definition.

[7. Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and other program distribution
services.]{.underline} This service involves a variety of transmitters,
generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through
translator and booster stations) or within the program distribution
chain (from a remote news gathering unit back to the station). The
Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable
to broadcast auxiliary licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition
of small entity is the definition under the Small Business
Administration (SBA) rules applicable to radio broadcasting stations
(SIC 4832) and television broadcasting stations (SIC 4833). These
definitions provide that a small entity is one with either \$5.0 million
or less in annual receipts for a radio broadcasting station or \$10.5
million in annual receipts for a TV station. 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC
CODES 4832 and 4833. There are currently 3,237 FM translators and
boosters, 4913 TV translators.[^152] The FCC does not collect financial
information on any broadcast facility and the Department of Commerce
does not collect financial information on these auxiliary broadcast
facilities. We believe, however, that most, if not all, of these
auxiliary facilities could be classified as small businesses by
themselves. We also recognize that most translators and boosters are
owned by a parent station which, in some cases, would be covered by the
revenue definition of small business entity discussed above. These
stations would likely have annual revenues that exceed the SBA maximum
to be designated as a small business (as noted, either \$5 million for a
radio station or \$10.5 million for a TV station). Furthermore, they do
not meet the Small Business Act\'s definition of a \"small business
concern\" because they are not independently owned and operated.

[8. Microwave Services.]{.underline} Microwave services includes common
carrier, private operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio
services. At present, there are over 13,500 common carrier stations, and
approximately 18,00 private operational fixed stations and broadcast
auxiliary radio stations in the microwave services in spectrum that is
potentially affected by this rulemaking. Additionally, these stations
represent the following distinct licensees among the various radio
services: LMDS (121), DEMS (2), Common Carrier Fixed (PTP and LTTS)
(1028), Private Operational Fixed PTP (1511), and Fixed Broadcast
Auxiliary (806).[^153] Inasmuch as the Commission has not yet defined a
small business with respect to microwave services, we will utilize the
SBA\'s definition applicable to radiotelephone companies ‑‑ i.e., an
entity with no more than 1,500 persons. 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC CODE
4812. We estimate, for this purpose, that all of the Fixed Microwave
licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as
small entities under the SBA definition for radiotelephone companies.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

The Commission\'s existing Part 25 rules on FSS operations contain
reporting requirements for FSS systems, and we propose to modify these
reporting requirements to eliminate duplicative costs of filing multiple
applications for one particular type of service at C-band. In addition,
we propose to add an annual reporting requirement to indicate the number
of satellite earth stations actually brought into service. The proposed
blanket licensing procedures do not affect small entities
disproportionately and it is likely no additional outside professional
skills are required to complete the annual report indicating the number
of small antenna earth stations actually brought into service. We seek
comment on these proposed changes.

**E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities,**

**and Significant Alternatives Considered**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

This Notice solicits comment on alternatives for more efficient spectrum
sharing between satellite earth stations and terrestrial fixed service
stations, as well as comment on licensing of small aperture antennas at
C-band. This item should positively impact both large and small
businesses by providing a more efficient and less economically
burdensome coordination and licensing procedure for terrestrial fixed
stations in spectrum shared with satellite services. Additionally, the
proposed licensing service rules provide for consolidation of licensing
for small antenna earth stations and minor reporting requirements to
indicate the number of satellite earth stations brought into service.

**F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules**

None.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH**

*Re: FWCC Request for Declaratory Ruling on Partial-Band Licensing of
Earth Stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service that Share Terrestrial
Spectrum, IB Docket No.00-369, RM-9649, et al (rel. Oct. 24, 2000)*

Today's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking makes important strides to bring:
(1) symmetrical efficiency obligations to terrestrial and satellite
users that share spectrum, and (2) Onsat's service closer to reality.
These initiatives are overdue and will improve and balance our
regulatory approach to spectrum management.

Particularly regarding the FWCC's petition, I urge the parties to
evaluate meticulously our proposals to ensure that the ultimate rules
are the least intrusive necessary to achieve our regulatory goals. In
these bands \-- where both the terrestrial and satellite licensees
received their spectrum for free \-- it is important that we require
symmetrical, technology-neutral, and reasonably efficient spectrum use.
With that goal in mind, the FCC must also avoid rules that are too
detailed and complicated to be effective. Specifically in defining "use"
and "efficiency" the Commission should take great care to craft narrow,
concise rules. In this regard, parties are encouraged to develop
proposed "safe harbors" that may streamline the Commission's assessment
of these factors. Burdensome regulatory obligations and showings will
ultimately only obscure our goals and slow down the regulatory process.
I look forward to developing a comprehensive record in this proceeding
and adopting rules that are clear, straightforward, and enforceable.

[^1]: *See* Part 25 of the Commission's Rules, Satellite Communications,
    47 C.F.R. §§ 25.101-25.601.

[^2]: These C-band small aperture terminal earth station networks, or
    CSATs, are technically similar to the very small aperture terminal
    earth station networks, or VSATs, currently deployed in the Ku-band,
    *see infra* n. 111. The C-band generally refers to frequencies at
    3700-4200 and 5925-6425 MHz.

[^3]: Hughes filed its *Ex parte* Letter in IB Docket 98-172, RM-9005,
    and RM-9118, *Redesignation of the 17.7-19.7 GHz Frequency Band,
    Blanket Licensing of Satellite Earth Stations in the 17.7-20-2 GHz
    and 27.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Bands, and the Allocation of Additional
    Spectrum in the 17.3-17.8 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Bans for
    Broadcast Satellite-Service Use* *(18 GHz Proceeding). See* Letter
    from Joslyn Read, Assistant Vice President for Hughes Network
    Systems/Spaceway, and John P. Janka, Counsel to HNS/Spaceway, to
    Magalie Salas, Secretary of the FCC, dated May 19, 2000. The 18 GHz
    proceeding is now terminated. *See 18 GHz Report and Order,* FCC
    00-212 (released June 22, 2000), and we address Hughes' *ex parte*
    filing in this proceeding.

[^4]: *See infra* note 13.

[^5]: *Ex parte* filing of Hughes Network Systems in CC Docket No.
    98-172. *See* Letter from Joslyn Read, Assistant Vice President,
    Hughes Network Systems/Spaceway and John P. Janka, Counsel for
    HNS/Spaceway to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary of the FCC, dated May
    19, 2000.

[^6]: These shared bands are 18.3-18.58 GHz and 29.25-29.5 GHz. In the
    18 GHz band, GSO FSS (downlink) and FS share portions of the band.
    In the 28 GHz band, GSO FSS (uplink) and NGSO MSS feeder links share
    portions of the band. *See 18 GHz Proceeding, supra* n. 3, Report
    and Order, FCC 00-212 (released June 22, 2000).

[^7]: FWCC is a coalition of microwave equipment manufacturers and users
    of terrestrial fixed microwave communications, including railroads,
    public utilities, petroleum and pipeline entities, public safety
    agencies, the broadcast industry, and communication service
    providers.

[^8]: FWCC's Petitions reference the following bands: 3700-4200,
    5925-6425 and 6425-7125 MHz and 10.7-11.7, 12.7-13.25, 17.7-19.7,
    and 27.5-29.5 GHz. The Fixed-Satellite Service is a
    radiocommunication service between earth stations at given
    positions, when one or more satellites are used; the FSS also may
    include feeder links for other space radiocommunication services.
    The terrestrial fixed service (FS) is a radiocommunication service
    between fixed points. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.

[^9]: *See* FWCC Petitions at 2-4. FWCC alleges that satellite earth
    station operators receive preferential access to shared spectrum
    because: (1) the Commission licenses earth stations for the entire
    allocated band and with no loading requirements, while
    point-to-point terrestrial operations are limited to frequencies
    actually needed and are subject to stringent spectrum efficiency
    requirements, and (2) the Commission licenses earth stations for all
    azimuths and thus earth stations can deny coordination to
    terrestrial stations. *Id.*

[^10]: FWCC also includes, in Appendix C of its pleading, a parallel
    request for a rule that would require FSS earth station applicants
    to show demonstrated need for the spectrum they seek.

[^11]: FWCC Petitions at 2.

[^12]: Onsat is a private company, founded in 1998 and headquartered in
    Salt Lake City, Utah, that provides satellite-based, wireless,
    broadband network services to schools, libraries, Internet Service
    Providers and other institutional customers in rural America and on
    tribal lands to facilitate high speed Internet and other data
    network access. Onsat's website is at http://www.onsat.net. *See*
    Onsat Petition at 2.

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.212(d). We will evaluate Onsat's particular
    antenna size waiver request in a separate licensing order. We expect
    to consider, in an earth station streamlining proceeding later this
    year, the more general issues of what antenna sizes and power
    densities may be licensed routinely under this rule.

[^14]: *See* Onsat Petition at 10.

[^15]: Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Counsel for FWCC, to Magalie Salas,
    Secretary of the FCC, dated Feb. 14, 2000.

[^16]: Although technically we deny the petition for declaratory order,
    we propose to adopt by rulemaking the substantive relief that Onsat
    seeks in its petition.

[^17]: Onsat agrees to coordinate only 20 MHz at three different orbital
    slots. *See* Letter from Ellen P. Goodman, Attorney for Onsat, to
    Magalie Salas, Secretary of the FCC, dated Feb. 10, 2000, at 2. *See
    infra* discussion at Section V.

[^18]: *See* n. 131.

[^19]: *See* n. 3.

[^20]: The bands 3700-4200 MHz, 5925-6425 MHz, 10.7-11.7 GHz, 12.7-13.25
    GHz, 17.7-19.7 GHz, and 27.5-29.5 GHz are allocated on a co-primary
    basis to both the FS and FSS. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^21]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(a). In establishing the policy permitting
    authorization of domestic communications satellite facilities to
    non-governmental entities in 1970, the Commission recognized that
    this band would be shared between the fixed-satellite service and
    the fixed service on a co-primary basis. The Commission further
    acknowledged that coordination between these two services might
    prove difficult in many cases, especially because the adopted
    coordination procedures assumed that "each earth station and each
    radio relay station within the coordination distance contours
    utilizes the entire pertinent frequency band or bands." *See
    Establishment of Domestic Communication-Satellite Facilities by
    Nongovernmental Entities,* Report and Order, 22 FCC 2d 86 ¶ 35
    (1970). Thus, the Commission required earth station applicants to
    endeavor to find suitable earth station locations presenting the
    least amount of potential interference problems. Today, this
    obligation is reflected in Section 25.203(a).

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R.§ 25.203(c).

[^23]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.21(f). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d), which
    sets out frequency coordination procedures for the Fixed Microwave
    Services. This rule requires FS applicants to "prior coordinate"
    with existing licensees, permittees and applicants in the area, and
    with other applicants with previously-filed applications, whose
    facilities could affect or be affected by the new proposal in terms
    of frequency interference on active channels, applied-for channels,
    or channels coordinated for future growth. Coordination must be
    completed prior to filing an application. Coordination involves
    notification to and response from the existing licensees,
    permittees, and applicants, and all applications must certify that
    coordination, including response, has been completed. Section 101.3
    defines "prior coordination" as "a bilateral process conducted prior
    to filing applications which includes the distribution of the
    technical parameters of a proposed radio system to potentially
    affected parties for their evaluation and timely response." 47
    C.F.R. § 101.3.

[^24]: This includes 500 MHz at 3700-4200 for downlinks and 500 MHz at
    5925-6425 for uplinks.

[^25]: *See, e.g., Establishment of Domestic Communications-Satellite
    Facilities by Nongovernmental Entities,* Report and Order, 22 FCC 2d
    86, 102 (1970). *See also American Satellite Corp.,* 72 FCC 2d 750,
    754 (1978).

[^26]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.109 and 101.147 (establishing maximum
    authorized bandwidths for the various frequency bands used by the
    fixed microwave services). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 101.141
    (establishing minimum payload and traffic loading payload
    requirements for the various nominal channel bandwidths).

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 101.109(c).

[^28]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d).

[^29]: We note, however, that in bands shared by the FSS and FS, the
    relative positions of FSS and FS operators during the coordination
    process could be affected if the Commission were to adopt a recent
    proposal for the auctioning of geographic area licenses for fixed
    microwave facilities. *See Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1,
    2, 21 and 95 of the Rules to Establish a New Part 101 Governing
    Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Services,* Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 94-148, FCC
    00-33 (released February 14, 2000).

[^30]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d)(2)(xii).

[^31]: *See, e.g.,* FWCC Petitions at 6.

[^32]: *See Redevelopment of the Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in New
    Telecommunications Technologies,* ET Docket 92-2, First Report and
    Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992), Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd
    6495 (1993), Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6589 (1993)(*Emerging
    Technologies Proceeding*).

[^33]: In addition, broadcast interests have opposed sharing in the
    6875-7075 MHz segment, which is used by the broadcast auxiliary
    service (BAS). For example, the Society of Broadcast Engineers
    (SBE), a group that coordinates use of these BAS channels, believes
    that terrestrial TV BAS operations could be an interference threat
    to MSS downlink receive sites and thus suggests such sites should be
    allowed only outside of major metropolitan areas where TV pickup
    station operations are unlikely to occur regularly. *See* SBE
    Comments at 1-3 in ET Docket No. 98-142, in response to *Amendment
    of Parts 2, 25 and 97 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to the
    Mobile-Satellite Service Above 1 GHz,* Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*,* 13 FCC Rcd 17107 (1998) *(Big Leo Feeder Links).* In
    the same proceeding, SBE further contends that NGSO MSS downlinks
    pose an interference threat to 7 GHz TV BAS links that convert from
    conventional FM video analog modulation to digital modulation so as
    to allow a station's studio-to-transmitter links to carry the
    station's new digital television signal. *See* SBE Reply Comments at
    1.

[^34]: *See* TIA FS/WCD Comments at 6-8 in ET Docket No. 98-142 (seeking
    the adoption, in Part 25, of interference protection criteria like
    those in 47 C.F.R. § 101.105, and proposing that NGSO MSS feeder
    link applicants should apply for, justify, and be authorized to use
    only the bandwidth and arc required for immediate use, plus an
    additional amount not to exceed 50% of spectrum needed for immediate
    use).

[^35]: *See, e.g.,* FWCC Comments at 20-21 in ET Docket No. 98-206, in
    response to *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,* Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*,* 14 FCC Rcd 1131 (1999) *(SkyBridge).*

[^36]: *See, e.g., Redesignation of the 17.7-19.7 GHz Frequency Band*,
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 98-172, 13 FCC Rcd
    19923, ¶¶ 17-23 (1998) *(18 GHz Proceeding)*, in which the
    Commission proposed to redesignate the band to separate terrestrial
    fixed services from most satellite earth station operations.

[^37]: *See supra* note 15.

[^38]: In a related proceeding in the Ku-band, FWCC withdrew its
    opposition to SkyBridge's petition asking the Commission to permit
    operation of NGSO FSS systems in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band, after
    negotiating an agreement with SkyBridge on appropriate rules to
    govern the shared use of the band by the FS and NGSO FSS. The
    FWCC-SkyBridge agreement calls for identifying FS "growth zones,"
    within which NGSO FSS operators would assume certain obligations to
    protect the FS from interference. *See, e.g.,* "Written *Ex Parte*
    Communication in ET Docket No. 98-206" filed by SkyBridge and FWCC
    on December 8, 1999 and supplemented on December 22, 1999. The
    parties propose that a growth zone would be defined as any county in
    which, based on a semi-annual determination, at least 30 FS
    frequencies were licensed to transmit in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band. *Ex
    parte* Communication of December 22, 1999, at 2. The Commission has
    not acted on the SkyBridge/FWCC proposal.

[^39]: *See, e.g.,* FWCC Petitions at 10 n.17. *See also* Comsat
    Opposition at 14 n.12.

[^40]: FWCC's instant petitions are a prime example. The FS community
    has raised similar concerns in the *Onsat*, *Big Leo Feeder Links*,
    and *SkyBridge* proceedings, *see supra*. *See also* *Reorganization
    and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 95 of the Rules to Establish a
    New Part 101 Governing Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Services,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,* WT
    Docket No. 94-148, FCC 00-33 (released February 14, 2000), ¶ 77
    (asking whether to restrict location of satellite earth stations to
    outside of major cities, where microwave routes are most
    valuable)*(Part 101 NPRM).*

[^41]: *See* Background section, *supra.*

[^42]: For example, Section 101.103(d)(1) states, "All applicants and
    licensees must cooperate fully and make reasonable efforts to
    resolve technical problems and conflicts that may inhibit the most
    effective and efficient use of the radio spectrum" and, "Applicants
    should make every reasonable effort to avoid blocking the growth of
    systems as prior coordinated." *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d)(1).
    Additionally, Section 25.203(a) states, in part, "Sites and
    frequencies for earth stations, operating in bands shared with equal
    rights between terrestrial and space services, shall be selected ...
    as to minimize the possibility of harmful interference between the
    sharing services." 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(a).

[^43]: *See* FWCC Petitions at 2-4. In *ex parte* comments, FWCC refers
    to its filing as the "full-band/full-arc" petition. *See* Letter
    from Mitchell Lazarus, Counsel for FWCC, to Magalie Salas, Secretary
    of the FCC, Nov. 4, 1999, at attachment. The Fixed Point-to-Point
    Communications Section of the Wireless Communications Division of
    TIA supports FWCC's petition. *See* TIA FS/WCD Reply Comments at 4.
    We note that, in frequency bands shared by the FSS and FS, the
    full-arc policy applies only in the 3700-4200 MHz and 5925-6425 MHz
    bands.

[^44]: FWCC Petitions at 4.

[^45]: The satellite industry and users of FSS services argue that
    FWCC's petitions fail to appreciate the inherent operational
    differences between the FS and FSS. *See, e.g.,* Iridium Opposition
    at 2; GE Americom Opposition at 3-8; Sprint Opposition at 3; TIA SCD
    Opposition at 2; McKibben letter at 2; Williams Opposition at 2;
    Americasky Reply Comments at 1-2; MCI Worldcom Reply and Opposition
    at 3; HBO Opposition at 2; SkyBridge Opposition at 7-8; Comsat
    Opposition at 10-12, 23; SIA Opposition at 3. In addition, Sprint
    suggests that a Notice of Inquiry, rather than a rule change or a
    declaratory ruling, would produce more effective rules to address
    the issue of efficient use of the spectrum. *See* Sprint Opposition
    at 2, 4-5

[^46]: SIA Opposition at 3. *See also* GE Americom Opposition at 5 ("The
    Commission's two-degree licensing requirement ensures efficient use
    of FSS spectrum by permitting full re-use of the bandwidth by each
    spacecraft").

[^47]: GE Americom Opposition at 5. *See also* TIA SCD Opposition at 5
    ("It is important to note that space segment economics (transponder
    cost) precludes operating more bandwidth than is necessary at any
    given time").

[^48]: FWCC Reply Comments at ii.

[^49]: In February the Commission released an NPRM proposing amendments
    to Part 101 to streamline processing of microwave applications. The
    NPRM specifically addresses issues concerning FS licensing above 2
    GHz to ensure the consistency of our implementation of the Balanced
    Budget Act of 1997. In that NPRM, we seek comment on proposals for
    auctioning of geographic area licenses for fixed microwave
    facilities, in addition to the possibility of retaining the current
    approach of site-by-site licensing but with auctions to resolve
    mutually exclusive FS applications. *See supra* n. 40. We note that,
    subsequent to adoption of our *Part 101 NPRM*, Congress enacted the
    ORBIT Act, *see* ORBIT Act, Pub. L. No. 106-180, 111 Stat. 48
    (2000)(to be codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 701-769), which limits
    Commission authority to auction spectrum used for the provision of
    satellite services.

[^50]: *See supra* notes 8 and 20**.**

[^51]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §2.106 note NG104.

[^52]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 notes US 271 and NG 166.

[^53]: FWCC cites various requirements of 47 C.F.R. Part 101. FS
    equipment at 4, 6, 10 and 11 GHz is subject to payload requirements
    ranging from 2.46 to 4.47 bits/second/Hertz. 47 C.F.R. §
    101.141(a)(3). The Commission reserves the right to issue a license
    for less than the maximum requested bandwidth if it determines that
    a lesser bandwidth would be sufficient to support the applicant's
    intended communications. 47 C.F.R. § 101.109(c). Equipment at 4, 6,
    10 and 11 GHz operating at bandwidths of 10 MHz or greater is
    required to be loaded to 50% of the specified payload standards
    within 30 months of licensing. 47 C.F.R. § 101.141(a)(3) note 3.
    Part 101 prohibits licensing for frequency diversity in the absence
    of a showing that the required communications are not otherwise
    achievable. 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(c). In the C-band, frequency
    diversity is limited to one protection channel, which will not be
    authorized without a minimum of three working channels in service or
    a showing that three working channels will be required within three
    years, subject to termination if the application for the third
    working channel is not filed within three years. *Id*.

[^54]: FWCC Petitions at 5-6. *See also* TIA FS/WCD Reply Comments at 3.

[^55]: FWCC Petitions at 8. FWCC suggests an applicant might demonstrate
    need by certifying it has appropriate contracts for transponder use
    or by certifying minutes of use per day, or by justifying the
    requested bandwidth in terms of the service proposed. For example,
    FSS users such as broadcast networks that require routine access to
    several transponders on multiple satellites might justify an actual
    need to license and coordinate spectrum for this purpose. *Id.*
    FWCC's reply comments suggest additional circumstances under which
    an earth station applicant might demonstrate need. These include
    instances when: 1) the satellite or frequency is wholly at the
    discretion of the space segment provider; 2) the earth station
    operator's business routinely requires ready access to multiple
    satellites; 3) an earth station complex has multiple antennas
    pointing at multiple and changing satellites; 4) the earth station
    operator provides service to independent third parties with
    unpredictable space segment needs; 5) the earth station coordinates
    to use satellites known to be nearing the end of useful life; and 6)
    an NGSO feeder link earth station requires access to multiple
    satellites in a system. FWCC Reply Comments at 12-13.

[^56]: FWCC Petitions at Appendix C.

[^57]: FWCC Petitions at Appendices B and C.

[^58]: Comsat Reply Comments at 3. *See also* SIA Opposition at 5 ("the
    potential transmission path for any satellite earth station
    necessarily includes any authorized space station that is within the
    portion of the geostationary arc that it "sees""); GE Americom
    Opposition at 11 ("the frequency allowance the FWCC proposes would
    be useful only in the unlikely event that an earth station's
    licensed frequencies happened to coincide with available alternate
    capacity"); HBO Opposition at 2 (proposal "fails to recognize the
    operational realities of major satellite uplink facilities that
    employ multiple antennas and communicate with a constantly changing
    mix of FSS satellites (both U.S. and non-U.S. licensed) over a wide
    range of orbital arc and frequencies \[and\] would make it
    difficult, if not impossible, to operate earth station facilities
    with the flexibility demanded in today's satellite service business
    environment"); Sprint Opposition at 2 (carriers at both ends of an
    international circuit must be able to accept a circuit assigned by
    Intelsat and failure to accept the assignment would result in the
    carrier losing the capacity); and MCI Worldcom Reply Comments at 2.
    HBO, in its Opposition at 4 and Attachment A, provides information
    showing that antennas at its Hauppauge facility have communicated
    with a total of 24 different satellites, operating at 18 different
    orbital locations in a range between 58W and 135W and have used a
    total of 34 separate frequencies, 24 in the C-band and 10 in the
    Ku-band. SIA, at 5*,* cites to earlier Commission decisions
    acknowledging the need for full-band/full-arc coordination to ensure
    the flexibility of the satellite operator to change satellite
    locations and transponder use assignments. *See, Public Notice on
    Processing Procedures for Domestic Earth Station Applications,* FCC
    75-932, Attachment 2, *RCA Global Communications Inc.,* 56 F.C.C. 2d
    660, 694 at n.32 (1975) and *Processing of Pending Space Station
    Applications in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service,* 93 F.C.C. 2d
    832, 837-38, ¶ 17 (1983). Sprint, at 4, observes that it uses
    satellite service exclusively to serve nearly 50 countries.

[^59]: *See, e.g.,* Comsat Opposition at 11. Comsat states that a 100%
    excess bandwidth assignment allowance would not begin to satisfy
    needed frequency assignment flexibility. It observes that typical
    earth station carriers range from 0.5 to 36 MHz in occupied
    bandwidth and contends that the proposed demonstrated need rule
    would result in a tuning flexibility only on the order of 1 MHz for
    the narrowest, and 72 MHz for the widest, in this range, an amount
    of agility that would make carrier frequency relocation difficult
    because relocation often requires shifts of greater than 72 MHz.
    Comsat advises that it recently was able to make 72 MHz of
    bandwidth, an entire transponder, available on an Intelsat satellite
    at 174E (186W), to accommodate service needs of one of its largest
    customers, only through extensive relocation of almost 35 carriers
    over a period of a few weeks. Comsat further notes that, in
    cooperation with earth station operators, who are Comsat's
    customers, it relocates some 200 carriers each year with the
    objective of making the most efficient use of the satellite
    resource. *Id.* at 20. *See also* Williams Opposition at 2; ATC
    Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^60]: For example, when HBO transmits or receives programming produced
    by a third party, it must access the satellite and transponder
    arranged by the program producer, and, even when HBO has control
    over procurement of satellite capacity for a particular event, the
    satellite and transponder are dependent on technical specifications,
    market conditions, and transponder availability at a specific date
    and time. HBO Opposition at 4. HBO adds that commercial teleports in
    the business of serving the varied requirements of hundreds of
    customers may have even greater need for spectrum flexibility than
    HBO has in meeting its own private transmission requirements. *Id.*
    at 5 n.4. *See also* McKibben Letter at 2.

[^61]: SkyBridge Comments at 9 n.23. SkyBridge states that, unlike
    terrestrial facilities, satellite facilities generally cannot be
    repaired and therefore flexibility is required to maximize use of
    the satellite resources. Similarly, GSO earth stations often are
    coordinated for all pointing directions along the GSO arc, in case a
    satellite failure requires repointing earth stations to a different
    GSO satellite. *Id.* *See also* SIA Opposition at 5 ("the earth
    station operator will not know in advance on which frequencies it
    will be able to operate because of the potential for transponder
    outages, satellite failures, the deployment of new satellites, and
    the decommissioning of aging satellites"); GE Americom Opposition at
    6-11 ("if a transponder fails and a spare transponder is not
    available, service can be restored only by re-routing transmissions
    to a different transponder or an entirely different spacecraft
    \[and\] this almost always requires a shift in the frequency band
    over which the service is carried...it is impossible for an earth
    station operator to predict in advance when it will require new
    capacity, much less what specific frequencies will be available when
    that capacity is needed...the end result \[of FWCC's proposal\]
    would be to significantly increase the time during which services
    are disrupted following a transponder or spacecraft failure"); HBO
    Opposition at 5 ("in the event of interruption to any one of HBO's
    network distribution feeds...HBO would be required to repoint
    antennas to different satellites and/or change to frequencies (that
    may or may not be known until the interruption event occurs) within
    minutes"); and McKibben Letter at 2 (discussing failure of Galaxy 4,
    effect on millions of nationwide paging systems, repositioning of
    antennas, and restoration of most services within 24 hours).

[^62]: SIA Opposition at 5 n.10.

[^63]: SkyBridge Comments at 9.

[^64]: SkyBridge Comments at 9. *See also* SIA Opposition at 5 ("Absent
    full band coordination, changes in satellite transponder assignments
    could require shifts in the frequencies transmitted and/or received
    by such earth stations to frequencies outside the limited band
    segments requested in applications, and for which no operating
    rights could be granted until a new application was completed....If
    earth stations were restricted to operating in limited portions of
    the azimuth or only in limited sub-channels within a licensed band,
    then the Commission would lose two of its more important methods to
    coordinate space stations internationally: orbital reassignments and
    frequency use changes").

[^65]: SkyBridge Comments at 9. SkyBridge adds that transponder usage
    and minutes per day are not easily applicable to new satellite
    systems, such as NGSO FSS systems, and a requirement that bandwidth
    be justified in terms of the services proposed leaves the door open
    for endless controversies. *Id.*

[^66]: GE Americom Opposition at 12, citing recent proceedings that
    substantially streamline Part 25. *See, e.g.,* *Public Notice,
    "Commission Launches Earth Station Streamlining Initiative,"* DA
    99-1259 (June 25, 1999) and *Streamlining the Commission's Rules and
    Regulations for Satellite Application and Licensing Procedures,*
    Report and Order*,* 11 FCC Rcd 21581 (1996). GE Americom also
    states, *id*. at 11, that, under FWCC's proposal, earth station
    operators needing access to new spectrum would have to pay for new
    coordination analyses and bear the costs of preparing and filing
    modification applications, costs that ultimately would have to be
    borne by satellite service users.

[^67]: FWCC Reply Comments at 6. "FWCC claims not inefficient use of
    occupied spectrum, but licensing of excessive amounts of
    *unoccupied* spectrum." *Id.* at n.11.

[^68]: FWCC Reply Comments at 12. FWCC contends that it supports a broad
    reading of the term "actual need." *Id.* at ii.

[^69]: *Id.* at 7.

[^70]: *See, e.g.,* Section 101.141(a)(3), 47 C.F.R. § 101.141(a)(3),
    which requires that FS equipment applied for, authorized, and placed
    in service after June 1, 1997 must meet specified minimum payload
    capacity and minimum traffic loading requirements in the 3700-4200
    (4 GHz), 5925-6425 and 6525-6875 (6 GHz), 10.5-10.68 GHz (10 GHz)
    and 10.7-11.7 GHz (11 GHz) bands. *See also* Section 101.141(c), 47
    C.F.R. § 101.141(c), which states that, for systems employing analog
    modulation techniques, the Commission will not grant (absent
    extraordinary circumstances) additional frequencies over existing
    routes unless the applicant demonstrates that the traffic load will
    shortly exhaust the capacity of the existing equipment, and Section
    101.109(c), 47 C.F.R. § 101.109(c), which reserves the Commission's
    right to issue licenses at less than the maximum specified bandwidth
    if the Commission determines a lesser bandwidth would be sufficient
    to support the applicant's intended communications.

[^71]: The Commission requires geostationary satellite orbit FSS
    satellite operators to conform to a two-degree spacing policy, *see
    Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service
    and Related Revisions of Part 25 of the Rules and Regulations,*
    Report and Order*,* CC Docket No. 81-704, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d 577 (1983)
    (*Reduced Orbital Spacing)*, and our Part 25 rules set out technical
    requirements for earth and space stations in the FSS. For example,
    space stations must be designed to derive the maximum capacity from
    the assigned orbit location by employing state-of-the-art full
    frequency reuse using both horizontal and vertical polarization.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(e). Part 25 also requires relatively
    stringent earth station antenna performance in order to protect from
    interference other FCC-licensed GSO FSS operators and the systems of
    other Administrations. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.209 and 25.210(k).
    These FSS technical and efficiency rules, requiring FSS earth
    stations to narrow their antenna beam widths and reduce their
    sidelobe energy, benefit the FS because they afford FS stations the
    ability to operate in closer proximity to FSS earth stations than
    they could before implementation of these stricter operating
    requirements. In addition, certain limitations are contained in the
    Commission's Table of Allocations. For example, the 10.7-11.7 GHz
    band is limited to international operations only. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    2.106, Footnote NG 104. This limitation on the allocation was
    designed to minimize the number of GSO FSS earth stations in the
    band and has mitigated the impact of GSO FSS earth stations on
    terrestrial operations.

[^72]: FWCC Reply Comments at ii and 5-6. FWCC is concerned that recent
    Commission decisions reallocate bands away from the FS for satellite
    use and increase sharing burdens on the FS to accommodate new
    satellite operations. *See*, *e.g.,* *Emerging Technologies, supra*
    at note 32, *Big Leo Feeder Links, supra* at note 33, and *18 GHz
    Proceeding, supra* at note 38.

[^73]: We understand that the coordination process may in fact limit the
    actual frequencies and azimuths that the FSS earth station can use
    even though the FSS earth station applicant requests, and has been
    licensed for, the entire frequency band and visible geostationary
    arc.

[^74]: *See, e.g., Establishment of Domestic Communications-Satellite
    Facilities by Nongovernmental Entities,* Report and Order, 22 FCC 2d
    86, 102 (1970). *See also American Satellite Corp,* 72 FCC 2d 750,
    754 (1978) (intent of full-band/full-arc policy is to protect the
    Commission's flexibility and that of the satellite operator to
    change satellite locations and transponder use assignments to best
    satisfy overall domestic satellite service requirements).

[^75]: This applies for most FSS earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz and
    5925-6425 MHz bands, which are co-shared with the FS, and also
    applies in the 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz bands, which in the
    United States are not shared on a co-primary basis with the FS.

[^76]: FWCC Reply Comments at 4.

[^77]: *Id.* at 5.

[^78]: *Id.* at 10.

[^79]: FWCC Petitions at 9.

[^80]: FWCC Petitions at 9.

[^81]: FWCC Petitions at 10.

[^82]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.141(a).

[^83]: Comsat Opposition at 23 (the economic penalties of using
    excessively wide bandwidth carriers that are lightly loaded are too
    great because the relatively high cost of associated satellite power
    and bandwidth prohibits this type of operation by satellite
    systems). *See also* TIA SCD Opposition at 5.

[^84]: McKibben Letter at 2. *See also* ATC Opposition at 7; SkyBridge
    Opposition at 8 (loading requirements are not applicable to
    spread-spectrum systems); GE Americom Opposition at 12 (any snapshot
    view of loading of individual earth station would be inaccurate
    representation of use of facility).

[^85]: SkyBridge Opposition at 8.

[^86]: Comsat Opposition at 21; GE Americom Opposition at 10.

[^87]: FWCC Reply Comments at 14.

[^88]: *Id.*

[^89]: *Id.*

[^90]: *Id.* at 15. Rather, FWCC asks that earth station licensees be
    required to certify to the Commission that they have met loading
    criteria. *Id.*

[^91]: FWCC Petitions at 10.

[^92]: FWCC Petitions at 10.

[^93]: FWCC Petitions at 12.

[^94]: FWCC Petitions at Appendix C.

[^95]: *But see* TIA SCD Opposition at 4 (agreeing with FWCC that
    interference resolution should be fair and that initial case
    resolution should be considered in subsequent coordinations);
    SkyBridge Opposition at 4-5 (agreeing in principle with concept so
    long as applied to any coordination and to both services); Comsat
    Opposition at 12 n.6 (agreeing that earth station operators should
    coordinate with subsequent FS applicants in consistent manner).

[^96]: *See* HBO Opposition at 2, 6; TIA SCD Opposition at 3; MCI
    Worldcom Reply Comments at 4-5; SkyBridge Opposition at 5; Williams
    Opposition at 3.

[^97]: *See* GE Americom Opposition at 9.

[^98]: *See* SIA Opposition at 9-10; GE Americom Opposition at 9-10; HBO
    Opposition at 6; Comsat Opposition at 17; SCD TIA Opposition at 3-4.

[^99]: *See* SkyBridge Opposition at 5-6; ATC Reply Comments at 6;
    Williams Opposition at 2. For example, these commenters allege that,
    under FWCC's proposal, the additive effects of multiple exposures
    and the changing nature of the interference environment would
    degrade operations unacceptably. Commenters also contend that, if
    the only explanation for a waiver of performance objectives is
    frequency offset, under FWCC's proposal future FS stations would not
    be required to protect the earth station in the relevant
    frequencies, which ignores the potential impact of adjacent band
    interference.

[^100]: *See* GE Americom Opposition at 13 (would significantly
    complicate already difficult process of coordinating earth station
    and microwave facilities); Comsat Opposition at 17 (anecdotal
    information provided does not justify new rules when industry has
    sound track record of administering workable coordination
    procedures).

[^101]: *See* HBO Opposition at 2.

[^102]: *See* Comsat Opposition at 17; TIA SCD Opposition at 4 (citing
    National Spectrum Managers Association as proper forum); SIA
    Opposition at 9-10; ATC Reply Comments at 7. *But see* TIA FS/WCD
    Reply Comments at 4 (suggesting that FCC obtain input from NSMA in
    development of new coordination rules).

[^103]: FWCC Reply Comments at 17.

[^104]: FWCC Reply Comments at 18-20.

[^105]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat.
    56, Section 706 (1996) ("advanced telecommunications capability" is
    defined as "high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications
    capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality
    voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any
    technology," Section 706 (c)(1)).

[^106]: Second Report, *Inquiry Concerning The Deployment Of Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability To All Americans In A Reasonable And
    Timely Fashion, And Possible Steps To Accelerate Such Deployment
    Pursuant To Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, FCC
    00-290, CC Docket No. 98-146 (2000).

[^107]: *In the Matter of Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services
    to Tribal Lands*, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 13679,
    FCC 99-205 (1999) (*Tribal Lands NPRM*).

[^108]: *Id.* at ¶ 14.

[^109]: *Id.* at ¶ 39.

[^110]: *In the Matter of Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services
    to Tribal Lands*, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making, FCC 00-209, WT Docket No. 99-266 (2000) (*Tribal Lands
    Report and Order*) at ¶51.

[^111]: VSAT systems are networks of technically identical stations
    using very small aperture antennas that generally communicate via
    satellite with a larger hub station. *In the Matter of Streamlining
    the Commission's Rules and Regulations for Satellite Application and
    Licensing Procedures,* Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 21581, 21592,
    FCC 96-425 (1996). *See also In the Matter of Routine Licensing of
    Large Networks of Small Antenna Earth Stations Operating in the
    12/14 GHz Frequency Bands,* Declaratory Order (rel. April 9, 1986),
    available at 1986 WL 291567 (*VSAT Order).* VSAT systems are private
    networks in which the hub station controls all remote transmissions.
    As we observed in the *Tribal Lands NPRM*, VSAT networks eliminate
    the need to lay miles of terrestrial infrastructure and hence are
    especially cost-effective in sparsely populated areas. *Tribal Lands
    NPRM* at ¶ 14. Early VSAT networks were used primarily by major
    national retailers, such as Seven-Eleven and Wal-Mart, for private,
    non-common carrier networks transmitting point-of-sale credit
    authorizations and inventory control. *VSAT Order* at ¶ 2. More
    recently, major corporations have developed innovative uses of VSAT
    systems to provide broadband and Internet applications. *See* Gino
    Picasso, Data in Orbit, 34 *Communications News* 46 (July 1, 1997).

[^112]: Onsat Petition at 2.

[^113]: *Id.* at 7.

[^114]: *Tribal Lands NPRM* at ¶ 14.

[^115]: By C-band we are referring to the traditional C-band at
    3700-4200 and 5925-6425 MHz, and not to what is called the extended
    C-band at 3650-3700 MHz.

[^116]: *VSAT Order* at ¶ 5.

[^117]: *Id.* at ¶ 6.

[^118]: *Id.* at n.15.

[^119]: *Equatorial Communications Services,* Mimeo No. 2831 (March 31,
    1984).

[^120]: *In the Matter of GTE Spacenet Corporation Streamlined Licensing
    Procedures for 4/6 GHz Earth Stations,* 7 FCC Rcd 5217 (1992).

[^121]: 47 C.F.R § 25.115(c).

[^122]: GTE Spacenet Services Corporation, note 131, *supra*.

[^123]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1107.4.

[^124]: 47 C.F.R § 25.134.

[^125]: 47 C.F.R §§ 25.209, 25.211(d) and 25.212(d).

[^126]: Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Counsel for FWCC, to Magalie
    Salas, Secretary of the FCC, dated Feb. 14, 2000.

[^127]: Onsat has agreed to limit its spectrum usage to 20 MHz of C-band
    spectrum, and to limit its flexibility within the visible
    geostationary orbital arc to just three satellite locations. Onsat
    states that it takes no position on FWCC's petition or on C-band
    earth station licensing parameters generally, and does not concede
    that the bandwidth accommodation it makes actually constitutes twice
    Onsat's actual needs, stating that, in fact, its accommodation is
    less than its need. *See* Letter from Ellen P. Goodman, Attorney for
    Onsat, to Magalie Salas, Secretary of the FCC, dated Feb. 10, 2000,
    at 2 n. 5.

[^128]: We note that C-band earth station applicants seeking individual
    licensing for each earth station under our current rules, as opposed
    to applying for a single CSAT network license under the proposed
    rules, are not subject to the frequency and orbit limitations we
    propose for CSATs.

[^129]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.203. These existing rules apply to all earth
    stations operating in frequency bands shared on a co-primary basis
    between terrestrial and satellite services.

[^130]: *See Tribal Lands NPRM, supra* n.107, and *Tribal Lands Report
    and Order, supra* n. **110**.

[^131]: *Ex parte* filing of Hughes Network Systems in CC Docket No.
    98-172. *See* Letter from Joslyn Read, Assistant Vice President,
    Hughes Network Systems/Spaceway and John P. Janka, Counsel for
    HNS/Spaceway to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary of the FCC, dated May
    19, 2000.

[^132]: These shared bands are 18.3-18.58 GHz and 29.25-29.5 GHz. In the
    18 GHz band, GSO FSS (downlink) and FS share portions of the band.
    In the 28 GHz band, GSO FSS (uplink) and NGSO MSS feeder links share
    portions of the band. *See 18 GHz Proceeding, supra* n. **3**,
    Report and Order, FCC 00-212 (released June 22, 2000).

[^133]: For example, the two satellites that will constitute the Hughes
    Network Systems system at Ka-band.

[^134]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see*, 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^135]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^136]: *Id*. § 601(6).

[^137]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^138]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^139]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^140]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^141]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^142]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, \"1992 Census of
    Governments.\"

[^143]: *Id*.

[^144]: 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based
    on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with
    annual revenues of \$100 million or less. [Implementation of
    Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and
    Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration.]{.underline} 10 FCC Rcd
    7393 (1995), 60 FR 10534 (Feb. 27, 1995).

[^145]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., [Cable TV Investor]{.underline},
    Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

[^146]: 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2).

[^147]: 47 CFR 76.1403(b).

[^148]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., [Cable TV Investor]{.underline},
    Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

[^149]: An exception is the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service,
    *infra*.

[^150]: 13 C.F.R. § 120.121, SIC code 4899.

[^151]: *1992 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size
    Report*, Table 2D, SIC code 4899 (U.S. Bureau of the Census data
    under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business
    Administration).

[^152]: FCC News Release, [Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30,
    1999]{.underline}, No. 71831 (Jan. 21, 1999).

[^153]: **Results of analysis by FCC ULS contractor in July 2000.**