# Before the

# Federal Communications Commission

# Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

**The Establishment of Policies** ) IB Docket No. 99-81

**and Service Rules for the Mobile** )

**Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band** )

# REPORT AND ORDER

**Adopted: August 14, 2000 Released: August 25, 2000**

By the Commission: Chairman Kennard, Commissioners Ness and Tristani,
issuing separate statements; Commissioners Furchtgott-Roth and Powell
approving in part, dissenting in part, and issuing a joint statement.

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

**[Topic]{.underline} [Paragraph Number]{.underline}**

**I. INTRODUCTION** 1

**II. BACKGROUND** 3

##### III. DISCUSSION

A. Service Link Licensing Procedures

1\. Spectrum Sharing Plan

a\. Spectrum Authorization Methodologies Proposed in the *Notice*

and Alternatives Considered 8

b\. Orbit Considerations and Regional Spectrum 13

c\. The 2 GHz MSS Band Arrangement 16

d\. Service to Unserved Areas 31

e\. System Amendments 45

2\. Financial Qualifications 46

3\. Technical Qualifications 49

a\. Frequency Agility 51

b\. Coverage Requirements 55

c\. Provision of AMS(R)S 61

B. Non-Service Link Issues 68

1\. Feeder Links 72

a\. Extended C-band 74

b\. 5, 7 and 15 GHz bands 76

c\. Ku-band 78

d\. Ka-band 81

2\. Non-U.S.-Based Gateway Operations 86

3\. Inter-Satellite Service (ISS) Links 88

4\. Radionavigation Frequencies 90

C. Service Rules

1\. Regulatory Classification of Providers 92

2\. System Licenses and Terms 99

3\. Implementation Milestones 106

4\. Reporting Requirements 112

5\. Distress and Safety Communications and Enhanced 9-1-1 117

6\. Trafficking 128

7\. Orbital Debris Mitigation 135

8\. Exclusionary Arrangements 139

D. Mobile Earth Station Licensing 141

E. International Coordination 145

F. Interservice Sharing

1\. Sharing in 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands (In-band sharing)
151

2\. Adjacent Band Sharing 154

**IV. CONCLUSION** 164

**V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS** 165

**VI. ORDERING CLAUSES** 169

Appendix A List of Parties

Appendix B Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix C Final Rules

#####  I. INTRODUCTION

1.  In this *Report and Order*, the Commission takes the next step
    toward authorizing a new generation of mobile satellite services
    (MSS).[^1] These satellite systems will provide new and expanded
    regional and global data, voice, and messaging services using the 2
    GHz frequency band (2 GHz MSS). The 2 GHz MSS systems also will
    enhance competition in mobile satellite and terrestrial
    communications services, and complement wireless service offerings
    through expanded geographic coverage. 2 GHz MSS systems will thereby
    promote development of regional and global communications to
    unserved communities in the United States, its territories and
    possessions, including rural and Native American areas, as well as
    worldwide.[^2] The policies and rules we adopt in this *Report and
    Order* are designed to expedite the authorization process and
    encourage utilization of 2 GHz spectrum for delivery of the benefits
    of MSS to all U.S. consumers nationwide.

2.  Pursuant to a 2 GHz MSS processing round initiated in 1997, nine
    parties filed proposals to operate 2 GHz MSS systems in the United
    States.[^3] Specifically, the Boeing Company (Boeing), Celsat
    America, Inc. (Celsat), Constellation Communications, Inc.
    (Constellation), Globalstar, L.P. (Globalstar), Iridium LLC
    (Iridium), and Mobile Communications Holding, Inc. (MCHI) filed
    applications for U.S. space station licenses;[^4] and ICO Services
    Limited (ICO) (a United Kingdom company), Inmarsat Horizons
    (Inmarsat) (an inter-governmental satellite organization), and TMI
    Communications and Company, Limited Partnership (TMI) (a Canadian
    entity) filed letters of intent (LOIs) seeking reservation of
    spectrum to serve the U.S. market from non-U.S.-licensed
    systems.[^5] All system proponents must amend their applications or
    LOIs to conform their proposed systems to the requirements and
    policies we adopt today. Given the enormous potential benefits these
    systems offer, and the public interest in their timely deployment,
    amendments to applications or LOIs must be filed no later than 30
    days after a summary of this *Report and Order* is published in the
    Federal Register to receive continued consideration.

#####  II. BACKGROUND

3.  The 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) allocated
    the 1980-2010 MHz and 2170-2200 MHz bands to MSS worldwide, and the
    2165-2170 MHz band to MSS in Region 2,[^6] each on a co-primary
    basis with fixed and mobile services, effective January 1, 2000.[^7]
    The 1995 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC‑95) allocated the
    2010‑2025 MHz band to MSS in Region 2, effective January 1,
    2005.[^8] A footnote to this allocation provides that the 2010‑2025
    MHz band will be usable by MSS in the United States and Canada,
    effective January 1, 2000.[^9] In 1997, the Commission reallocated
    the 1990‑2025 MHz (uplink) and 2165-2200 MHz (downlink) bands to MSS
    in the United States, effective January 1, 2000.[^10]

4.  In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*Notice*) released on March 25,
    1999, we proposed licensing and service rules governing operation of
    2 GHz MSS systems.[^11] To accomplish our goal of expediting
    licensing of 2 GHz MSS systems, we sought comment on spectrum
    assignment options that would permit the authorization of all
    qualified 2 GHz MSS system proponents.[^12] To integrate our service
    rules for MSS systems, we proposed to amend the existing MSS Above 1
    GHz (Big LEO) service rules to incorporate service rules for the
    2 GHz MSS.[^13] We sought comment on earth station licensing
    proposals, international coordination requirements, interservice
    sharing, and several other substantial issues.[^14] In addition, we
    sought comment on specific incentives to encourage 2 GHz MSS
    operators to provide service to rural and unserved communities.[^15]

5.  In the *Notice*, we also reserved the option of adopting an
    alternative engineering solution or band sharing arrangement that
    would allow us to accommodate all qualified system proponents,
    including any hybrid solution arising from the proposed spectrum
    assignment alternatives.[^16] On February 7, 2000, the International
    Bureau released a *Public Notice* seeking supplemental comments on
    authorizing the 2 GHz MSS systems using a processing alternative
    that combines elements of the options proposed in the *Notice*.[^17]
    This additional band arrangement was intended to provide incentives
    for MSS operators to expedite implementation of their systems, while
    maximizing their operational flexibility during the incumbent
    relocation process.[^18]

6.  We recently finalized the incumbent relocation process for the 2 GHz
    MSS band.[^19] The incumbent licensees in the 2 GHz MSS uplink band
    from 1990-2025 MHz are the broadcast auxiliary service, cable
    television relay service, and local television transmission service
    (collectively, "BAS").[^20] Prior to the reallocation, BAS licensees
    were licensed to use seven channels of 17 or 18 megahertz each,
    spanning the 120 megahertz of spectrum from 1990 MHz to 2110 MHz
    (the "original BAS band").[^21] In the reallocation of the 1990‑2025
    MHz band to 2 GHz MSS, the BAS band has been reduced from 120
    megahertz to a total of 85 megahertz at 2025-2110 MHz (the "future
    BAS band"). In order to minimize the upfront relocation costs that 2
    GHz MSS systems will pay, ensure that valuable spectrum does not lie
    fallow for several years, and allow advances in design and
    manufacture of new BAS equipment, we decided to adopt a two‑phase
    BAS licensee relocation process.[^22] Because the highly integrated
    nature of BAS nationwide makes isolated, link-by-link relocation
    infeasible, an entire BAS channel must be cleared nationwide before
    one 2 GHz MSS system can operate in that spectrum.[^23] Thus, in
    Phase I, 2 GHz MSS operators will clear the lower 18 megahertz of
    the MSS uplink spectrum (1990‑2008 MHz), primarily through BAS
    equipment retuning and filtering, narrowing the seven BAS channels
    to 14.5 or 15 megahertz each, occupying 2008‑2110 MHz.[^24] In Phase
    II, which will begin when the 18 megahertz of Phase I spectrum is no
    longer sufficient to meet 2 GHz MSS requirements, 2 GHz MSS
    operators will clear the upper 17 megahertz of the MSS uplink
    spectrum (2008‑2025 MHz) by narrowing the seven BAS channels to
    approximately 12 megahertz each, at 2025‑2110 MHz.[^25]

7.  The incumbent licensees in the 2 GHz MSS downlink band from
    2165‑2200 MHz are the commercial and private wireless fixed services
    ("FS").[^26] Pursuant to the *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, MSS
    will relocate incumbent FS microwave licensees upon determination
    that unacceptable interference would be caused to the incumbent
    operations,[^27] based on the standards set by the
    Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) in its publication
    TSB86.[^28] Should relocation of FS microwave licensees be
    necessary, the *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O* sets forth a
    relocation policy designed to allow early entry for new technology
    providers by allowing providers of new services to negotiate
    arrangements for reaccommodation of incumbent licensees, consistent
    with the policy established in the *Emerging Technologies
    Proceeding*, and refined in the *Microwave Relocation
    Proceeding*.[^29]

#####  III. DISCUSSION

##### A. Service Link Licensing Procedures

**1. Spectrum Sharing Plan**

> **a. Spectrum Authorization Methodologies Proposed in the *Notice* and
> Alternatives Considered**

8.  In the *Notice*, we sought comment on four spectrum authorization
    methodologies that could accommodate all proposed 2 GHz MSS
    systems.[^30] The first is a "flexible band arrangement," in which
    the Commission would grant each proposed system 2.5 megahertz in
    uplink and downlink spectrum, group systems into segments based on
    modulation technology (*i.e.*, code division multiple access (CDMA)
    or time division multiple access (TDMA)) and orbital geometry
    (*i.e.*, non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) or geostationary orbit
    (GSO)), and provide expansion spectrum between the assigned segments
    for additional system requirements.[^31] In the second option,
    called the "negotiated entry" approach, the Commission would license
    all proposed systems across the entire band and allow the operators
    themselves to coordinate their operations; the Commission would be
    available to resolve disputes.[^32] In the third proposal, the
    "traditional band arrangement," the Commission would assign or
    designate equal spectrum blocks to the proposed systems using system
    design as a function of spectrum allocation (*i.e.*, a CDMA-NGSO
    block, a TDMA-GSO block, etc.).[^33] Under the fourth proposal, the
    Commission would auction the spectrum in the event that none of the
    preceding three options is viable.[^34] Two additional alternatives
    arose in the comments filed in response to the *Notice*: ICO USA
    Service Group (IUSG) offers a variation of negotiated entry it calls
    the "ICO Negotiated Entry Arrangement (INEA)," and Globalstar
    proposes an "all shared band arrangement."

9.  IUSG designed the INEA plan primarily to facilitate cost-effective
    relocation of the terrestrial incumbents, assuming that MSS
    operators would clear only as much spectrum as necessary for new
    operators to commence service on a rolling basis.[^35] Under the
    INEA plan, early entrants would be permitted to operate anywhere in
    the bands, subject to negotiation and coordination with later
    arrivals that have filed a request for ITU coordination, met the
    Commission's milestones, signed an unconditional launch contract,
    and are within one year of launch. In addition, the INEA plan would
    guarantee spectrum for later entrants through good faith intersystem
    coordination and dispute resolution mechanisms.[^36] Commenters
    supporting the INEA argue that it accounts for divergent service
    implementation timetables,[^37] and addresses international
    coordination concerns.[^38] Commenters opposing INEA argue that
    early entrants can anti-competitively delay coordination
    negotiations with subsequent entrants, and that the lack of a
    guaranteed spectrum assignment would disadvantage later entrants,
    making it difficult to obtain financing.[^39] To address some of
    these criticisms, IUSG revised the INEA in its reply comments. Under
    the revised INEA plan, if negotiations between MSS entrants prove
    unsuccessful, the earlier entrant would be required to relinquish
    2.5 megahertz of cleared spectrum to the later entrant, subject to
    cost-sharing reimbursement.[^40]

10. Globalstar calls its "all shared band arrangement" an "engineered
    solution" for assigning spectrum.[^41] Globalstar believes all
    systems should be authorized across the available spectrum and share
    all the spectrum based on mutual agreement regarding basic system
    parameters.[^42] Before any system begins service, all systems would
    adopt a sharing architecture, and as each system becomes ready to
    initiate service, all operational systems would be required to
    coordinate with the new system pursuant to the pre-negotiated
    sharing design.[^43] Globalstar adds that no system should be
    assigned exclusive spectrum unless it can convince other systems
    that it should receive exclusive frequencies prior to any system
    being licensed.[^44] At a minimum, Globalstar asks the Commission to
    assign spectrum to those systems that are capable of sharing in a
    separate segment of the band from those that cannot share
    spectrum.[^45] Globalstar contends that its "all shared band" is the
    superior proposal as it would increase the potential for competition
    by authorizing all applicants, facilitate international coordination
    by giving global systems more flexibility to obtain spectrum
    assignments from other administrations, provide certainty by
    ensuring that each system can use the entire spectrum to maximum
    capability, and discourage warehousing because delay increases the
    complexity of entry coordination.[^46] Alternatively, Globalstar
    proposes a hybrid plan under which the Commission would allow any
    system to operate anywhere within the band until a date certain, for
    instance, January 1, 2005, when a four-way band division -- NGSO
    shared, NGSO exclusive, GSO shared, GSO exclusive would take effect
    and all operational systems would be required to conform.[^47]

11. ICO and Inmarsat oppose Globalstar's proposal. According to ICO,
    despite Globalstar's statement that the Commission should be
    "neutral toward the marketplace" and "let the marketplace decide
    which systems achieve greater demand for spectrum,"[^48]
    Globalstar's "all shared" approach would force all operators to use
    CDMA technology.[^49] In addition, ICO claims Globalstar's plan
    would delay 2 GHz MSS implementation because lengthy negotiations
    would result in order to come to agreement regarding the sharing
    technology.[^50] According to Inmarsat, Globalstar's "all shared"
    proposal is contrary to ITU technical studies and would require all
    operators to modify their systems to share spectrum, contrary to
    Commission policy promoting innovation.[^51]

12. Although none of the proposed band arrangements generated support
    from a majority of the commenters, all system proponents believe
    that the Commission can develop a technical sharing solution to
    accommodate all qualified system proponents.[^52] In that regard,
    certain themes emerged: the Commission should (1) authorize a
    guaranteed minimum amount of spectrum,[^53] (2) permit flexible
    spectrum use,[^54] (3) allow flexibility not to choose any
    technology schemes prematurely,[^55] (4) set a mechanism for systems
    to increase their amount of authorized spectrum when
    needed,[^56] (5) provide disincentives for warehousing,[^57] (6)
    prevent anti-competitive conduct by early entrants,[^58] (7) avoid
    lengthy inter-system coordination negotiations,[^59] (8) ease
    international coordination,[^60] and (9) facilitate cost-effective
    relocation of the terrestrial incumbents.[^61] To further explore
    these themes, the International Bureau released a *Public Notice* on
    February 7, 2000, seeking supplemental comments on authorizing the
    2 GHz MSS systems using a processing alternative that combines the
    leading ideas on the record.[^62]

> **b. Orbit Considerations and Regional Spectrum**

13. The system proponents in this proceeding propose both NGSO and GSO
    mobile satellite systems.[^63] Each type of system has technical
    advantages and disadvantages. For example, because NGSO satellites
    orbit close to the earth's surface, time delays during radio
    transmissions from the Earth to the satellite and back are shorter
    than for GSO systems. Conversely, because GSO satellites are at high
    altitudes, approximately 22,300 miles, a single GSO satellite has a
    very large potential coverage area, compared to a single NGSO
    satellite. Our goal is to provide an opportunity for both types of
    systems to compete in the marketplace to provide users with the best
    combination of services and prices.[^64] We proposed, therefore, to
    authorize both NGSO and GSO MSS systems for operations in the 2 GHz
    MSS bands. The comments support our proposal to authorize both NGSO
    and GSO 2 GHz MSS systems.[^65] Consequently, we will accommodate
    both types of systems in our band plan.

14. Another difference between the two types of satellite systems is
    that NGSO systems can provide complete and continuous global
    coverage, whereas, a single GSO satellite, while capable of
    providing continuous coverage, typically only can provide regional
    service. In the *Notice*, we explained that because a single GSO
    satellite is inherently restricted to serving a particular
    geographic area, GSO systems may be better suited for regional
    spectrum than NGSO systems.[^66] At that time, we had tentatively
    concluded that the transition from the current BAS band to the
    future BAS band would take place simultaneously on a date
    certain.[^67] We therefore assumed that the authorized 2 GHz MSS
    systems would have immediate access to any portion of the 2 GHz MSS
    uplink band (1990‑2025 MHz). Thus, given that portions of the 2 GHz
    MSS spectrum allocation are not uniformly available throughout the
    world,[^68] the flexible and traditional band arrangements proposed
    in the *Notice* grouped GSO systems in that portion of the 2 GHz
    band allocated for MSS only in Region 2 (*i.e*., the 2010-2025 MHz
    uplink band and the 2165-2170 MHz downlink band) ("regional
    spectrum").[^69]

15. The two-phase transition from the current BAS band to the future BAS
    band described in the *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*[^70]
    requires us to revisit our assumptions about relocation, and develop
    a modified MSS authorization approach that will provide greater
    flexibility for MSS operators to implement service. Specifically,
    the lower 18 megahertz of the MSS uplink spectrum (1990-2008 MHz),
    which roughly aligns with that portion of the uplink band allocated
    for global operations (1990‑2010 MHz), will be cleared first.
    Consequently, the upper 17 megahertz of the MSS uplink spectrum
    (2008-2025 MHz), and thus, the regional uplink spectrum (2010‑2025
    MHz), will be cleared at a later date. We expect that the first 2
    GHz MSS systems launched, whether NGSO or GSO, may wish to begin
    operations in the spectrum cleared in the first phase of the
    relocation in the uplink portion of the band (1990-2008 MHz).[^71]
    Though the *Notice* proposed to authorize NGSO and GSO systems in
    separate global and regional portions of the bands, based on the 2
    GHz relocation policy we adopted since the *Notice*, we now do not
    believe it would be fair to prohibit GSO satellite operators from
    seeking access to the spectrum that is cleared in the first phase of
    the uplink relocation. Instead, we permit both GSO and NGSO system
    operators to use spectrum anywhere in the 2 GHz MSS bands. We
    believe that by eliminating distinctions between spectrum allocated
    for MSS in Region 2 and spectrum allocated for MSS globally, we are
    providing the most equitable mechanism for assigning the available
    spectrum in light of the incumbent relocation process. In addition,
    we expect that, because of differing regional spectrum assignments
    for MSS, many of the proposed systems may have to operate in
    different bands in different regions of the world, reducing the
    significance of any distinctions between regional and global 2 GHz
    MSS spectrum in the U.S. allocation.

> **c. The 2 GHz MSS Band Arrangement**

16. We adopt a hybrid band arrangement that includes features of the
    various proposals in the record. Under this arrangement, first we
    divide the 2 GHz MSS uplink (1990-2025 MHz) and downlink (2165-2200
    MHz) bands into distinct segments of equal bandwidth ("Selected
    Assignments") based on the number of system proponents at the time
    that we authorize the 2 GHz MSS systems, or the first of these
    systems, whichever occurs sooner.[^72] We also will reserve an
    additional segment of spectrum equal to the other segments for
    expansion of system(s) by operators meeting certain criteria for
    service to unserved areas.[^73] The band arrangement, including the
    segment reserved for service to unserved areas, can be described as
    follows:

    35 megahertz (Number of System Proponents + One) = Total Size of
    Spectrum Segments.

    The segments will consist of adjacent blocks stretching from one end
    of the band to the other.[^74] Each segment will represent an
    operator's potential selected spectrum assignment in each of the
    uplink and downlink bands. This arrangement is similar to the
    Traditional Band Arrangement proposal in the *Notice* in that we are
    dividing the spectrum into distinct segments for assignment. Unlike
    the Traditional Band Arrangement, however, we do not mandate a
    particular system orbit (that is, GSO or NGSO) for a given segment.
    Each 2 GHz MSS operator voluntarily will identify its selected
    spectrum at the time that the first satellite in its system reaches
    its intended orbit.[^75] Operators must notify the Commission in
    writing regarding their Selected Assignment. The Commission staff
    will then issue a Public Notice to provide notification of the
    operator's selected segment. We adopt this arrangement to provide
    the certainty of a specific spectrum assignment that many commenters
    observed is critical to obtaining financing and thus ultimately to
    market success.

17. As the *Notice* explained, our experience has demonstrated that five
    megahertz of spectrum assigned to one system, 2.5 megahertz in
    either direction, is sufficient for commencement of service.[^76]
    Under the band arrangement we adopt today, if all nine proponents
    are authorized, each system would choose Selected Assignments of 3.5
    megahertz bandwidth in both the uplink and the downlink, with the
    remaining spectrum available for assignment based on service to
    unserved areas.[^77] Several commenters supported our Flexible Band
    Arrangement in the *Notice* that would have provided for 2.5
    megahertz of initial spectrum in both the uplink and downlink
    bands.[^78] Still others favored our traditional band arrangement as
    a viable second choice because it offered a minimum amount of 3.75
    megahertz of spectrum.[^79] Thus, we believe that providing for 3.5
    megahertz for each system is sufficient to commence operations. In
    addition, although we are hopeful that all proposed systems proceed
    toward authorization, it is possible that not all will do so before
    we first authorize a 2 GHz MSS system.[^80] In such case, the
    remaining system proponents would receive more than 3.5 megahertz of
    spectrum upon authorization. For example, if at that time there are
    seven remaining proposals, each system authorized from that point
    would receive 4.375 megahertz of spectrum.[^81]

18. Furthermore, as explained in the *Notice*, although we are hopeful
    that all authorized systems will be built, we recognize that this
    might not occur.[^82] Thus, there is a probability that additional
    spectrum will become available as some authorized systems are not
    able to implement service. Spectrum abandoned by authorized systems
    may be available for expansion of systems that are operational and
    require additional spectrum. We do not, however, establish a policy
    or rule for redistribution of abandoned spectrum here. Instead, we
    will evaluate whether to redistribute such spectrum or make it
    available to new entrants after achievement of each of our system
    implementation milestones. We will also consider whether to
    designate abandoned spectrum for award to operators meeting our
    unserved area service criterion, described below.

19. In addition to authorizing each operational system to use a Selected
    Assignment, each operator may provide service anywhere else in the 2
    GHz MSS spectrum on a secondary basis as to other MSS operators,
    with respect to the unoccupied spectrum assignments available for
    selection by other 2 GHz MSS operators. For example, one operator
    may utilize spectrum in another operator's selected spectrum, but
    must vacate that spectrum if the operator that has selected that
    spectrum wishes to occupy it. In addition, each operator may
    coordinate with any other 2 GHz MSS operator also seeking to use
    spectrum outside of its Selected Assignment. In that case, both such
    operators would operate on a secondary basis with respect to the
    system that has selected the spectrum. Thus, if two systems desire
    to operate on the same frequencies outside each of their Selected
    Assignments, neither has priority over the other. If those operators
    cannot coordinate secondary spectrum use in the desired portion of
    secondary spectrum, then they both must vacate those frequencies and
    operate elsewhere. In other words, systems can claim priority use of
    only Selected Assignments, and must operate outside of selected
    spectrum subject to appropriate intersystem coordination.[^83] The
    sharing aspects of this band arrangement are similar to the
    negotiated entry alternative proposed in the *Notice* in that
    operators will coordinate spectrum usage among themselves.[^84]
    Operators using spectrum on a secondary basis must comply with all
    applicable incumbent relocation requirements before commencing
    service. Later entrants selecting spectrum as their Selected
    Assignment that has been cleared by an earlier entrant for secondary
    use will be required to reimburse the earlier entrant for relocation
    costs.

20. System operators will be required to comply with the rules adopted
    for negotiations with and transition of terrestrial incumbents in
    the 2 GHz MSS uplink and downlink bands.[^85] Operators that intend
    to use spectrum designated as Phase II spectrum in the uplink
    portion of the band must comply with all negotiation periods and
    transition requirements, unless they can share the spectrum. We
    recognize that system proponents may not be able to predict the
    segment of the uplink band they intend to select until late in the
    implementation process. This could make negotiations with incumbents
    more difficult under the two-year time periods established for
    negotiations for Phase II spectrum and in the downlink portion of
    the band. We believe, however, that 2 GHz MSS operators will have
    sufficient incentives to conclude negotiations in order to begin
    service. In addition, we believe that it will become clear once 2
    GHz MSS systems begin implementing which operators will be in Phase
    II spectrum and which portions of the downlink spectrum remain
    available for Selected Assignments.

21. We do not limit the amount of spectrum available to 2 GHz MSS
    operators on a secondary basis outside of their Selected
    Assignments. In order to limit the potential for strategic delays,
    such as those raised by commenters, system operators will be
    required to inform service providers and subscribers in writing that
    service provided using spectrum outside of the Selected Assignment
    is subject to preemption.[^86] In the event that a later entrant
    selects spectrum for its Selected Assignment that is being used by
    an earlier entrant, the earlier entrant will be required to move to
    other available spectrum or return to its Selected Assignment.[^87]
    This part of the arrangement is designed to allow MSS systems to
    begin providing service in any available frequencies during the
    incumbent transition process, to encourage use of spectrum, and to
    facilitate inter-system coordination in the band when later entrants
    begin operations.

22. The comments received in response to the February 7, 2000 *Public
    Notice* generally support this band arrangement with several
    commenters raising specific concerns or recommending minor
    modifications.[^88] Many of the commenters express concern about the
    ability of operators to access spectrum beyond the amount assigned
    for each Selected Assignment by sharing with other operators or
    other means.[^89] For similar reasons, several commenters urge us to
    adopt a policy that would redistribute spectrum obtained from
    abandoned or revoked authorizations to the remaining operators.[^90]
    We agree that our licensing arrangement should maximize spectrum
    sharing efficiencies. We recognize that some technologies may
    benefit from spectrum sharing techniques. Therefore, we permit
    operators to aggregate Selected Assignments by reaching agreement
    for sharing of those assignments among themselves. For example,
    several CDMA operators could agree to select and operate in adjacent
    Selected Assignments and design their spectrum use to overlap each
    other. This feature balances the needs of operators capable of using
    overlapping frequencies with those of systems that may not be
    designed to share co-frequency by providing incentives for shared
    technology proponents to cooperate during system
    implementation.[^91]

23. ICO and IUSG seek clarification as to whether our band arrangement
    will require operators to select paired Selected Assignments in the
    service link bands.[^92] That is, whether we will pair uplink
    Selected Assignments with downlink Selected Assignments. We do not
    require operators to select paired assignments of spectrum in the
    service links. We permit operators to request segments that are
    independent of each other. We agree with IUSG that this approach
    could reduce the burden of incumbent transitions during the initial
    phases of MSS deployment.

24. Similarly, in discussing how our band arrangement could reduce
    incumbent transition costs, Celsat requests that we clarify our
    position with regard to 2 GHz MSS systems sharing spectrum with BAS
    in the 1990-2025 MHz band.[^93] In the *2 GHz Second R&O and Second
    MO&O*, we generally applied our relocation policy in the *Emerging
    Technologies Proceeding* to the relocation obligations facing the 2
    GHz MSS system proponents.[^94] This policy permits new licensees
    that can share spectrum with incumbents to do so without incurring
    relocation obligations.[^95] Therefore, if a particular 2 GHz MSS
    system proponent can demonstrate conclusively that its proposed
    system is capable of sharing spectrum with all types of BAS
    operations in the 2 GHz band, that system will be exempt from
    relocation obligations.

25. Because an entire BAS channel must be cleared nationwide before an
    MSS system can operate in that spectrum, the first 2 GHz MSS system
    to begin service in that portion of the uplink will have to clear
    more spectrum than it will be authorized to use.[^96] As a result,
    the first entrant will clear BAS spectrum for later entering
    systems. That operator is thus entitled to relocation cost
    reimbursement from those systems using the cleared BAS spectrum. It
    would be grossly unfair to allow a system claiming it can share
    spectrum with BAS to take advantage of spectrum cleared by an
    earlier entrant. If that system can share with BAS to avoid
    relocation obligations, it must do so. Therefore, a 2 GHz MSS
    operator will be exempt from relocation obligations only if it
    chooses its Selected Assignment in an uncleared portion of the band.
    Furthermore, to maintain its relocation exemption, this 2 GHz MSS
    operator may not operate on a secondary basis in spectrum outside of
    its Selected Assignment that has been cleared by earlier entrants.
    For example, assuming the Phase I spectrum has been cleared, the 2
    GHz MSS operator claiming it can share with BAS must choose its
    Selected Assignment in the Phase II portion of the band, and only
    operate in the Phase II portion of the band. If the system, once
    operational, discovers that it cannot share with BAS, or otherwise
    desires to operate in cleared spectrum in Phase I, it may do so,
    subject to compliance with the relocation procedures established in
    our relocation order.

26. The only system opposing the band approach proposed in the *Public
    Notice*, Globalstar, reiterates its recommendation that we adopt its
    "all shared" band arrangement. Under that arrangement, immediately
    upon licensing all eligible systems would share the entire available
    2 GHz MSS spectrum through coordination. Globalstar's "all shared"
    band arrangement is premised on completion of coordination among all
    eligible 2 GHz MSS operators.[^97] Globalstar admits in its
    comments, however, that "\[n\]egotiations do not always succeed, or
    can drag on for years."[^98] We agree with Globalstar on that point
    and are concerned that if we were to adopt its proposal, deployment
    of all 2 GHz MSS systems could be delayed indefinitely. Such delay
    would significantly compromise our objective of expediting the
    delivery of 2 GHz MSS service to consumers. We also are troubled by
    the prerequisite under Globalstar's proposal that would potentially
    require the Commission to mandate that all 2 GHz MSS operators use
    the same technology or to coordinate (*e.g*., modulation schemes) in
    order to facilitate co-frequency sharing among the 2 GHz MSS
    providers.[^99] It has been our policy to allow licensees to
    optimize system designs within our regulatory framework in order to
    promote innovation.[^100] Given that most of the 2 GHz MSS
    proponents, including Globalstar, have not committed to implementing
    a particular technology, we find no justification for adopting
    Globalstar's proposal and believe that the band arrangement adopted
    here best addresses the various system proposals.[^101]

27. We also recognize, as stated by Globalstar, the ITU International
    Mobile Telecommunications for the Year 2000 ("IMT-2000") Project's
    progress on standardization of personal communication services
    technologies and its relevance to the MSS industry. All but one of
    the IMT‑2000 radio transmission technologies can be implemented
    within 3.5 megahertz of selected spectrum. The implementation of
    IMT-DS (Wideband CDMA) requires more spectrum than may be available
    to a single operator under our band approach. The band approach we
    adopt today, however, provides sufficient flexibility for operators
    convinced of the efficiencies of using Wideband CDMA in shared
    spectrum to use spectrum outside of their Selected Assignment on a
    secondary basis or aggregate their spectrum assignments.

28. Several commenters raise other concerns about our band arrangement
    in their supplemental comments. Inmarsat suggests that authorized
    systems be entitled to select spectrum six months before launch to
    allow sufficient time to finalize plans and procedures for in-orbit
    testing.[^102] We are not convinced by Inmarsat's assertion. We do
    not believe that launch dates are reliable deadlines. For instance,
    launch dates for any type of satellite -- GSO or NGSO -- can be
    delayed indefinitely or cancelled. TMI contends that triggering
    spectrum selection at the time of launch of a system's first
    satellite would disadvantage GSOs, as compared to NGSOs, because it
    takes longer to build and launch GSO satellites.[^103] It is
    accurate that construction and launch of GSO satellites typically
    takes longer than that of individual NGSO satellites. On balance,
    however, we believe it is best to allow spectrum selection at the
    time the first satellite in a system reaches its intended orbit. It
    is at that moment that a 2 GHz MSS satellite system will need to
    identify spectrum and begin to operate there. In addition, though
    NGSO systems usually can be built faster, they require more launches
    to implement a constellation and conditions often vary and, thus, it
    is not certain what systems will be the first to be deployed.
    Moreover, allowing the first system that launches to select its
    spectrum, and each subsequent system to do so sequentially provides
    market-based incentives to launch systems. Thus, this approach
    furthers the Commission's strong policies favoring competition,
    efficient use of spectrum resources and quick deployment of services
    for the benefit of U.S. consumers.

29. MCHI raises the concern that operators may resort to "gaming" under
    our band arrangement by selecting an assignment based on its value
    to another applicant and requests that the Commission be prepared to
    address such problems on an *ad hoc* basis.[^104] We do not intend
    to intervene unless the parties are unable to resolve an issue after
    first attempting to negotiate in good faith. We will be available to
    address specific concerns if an operator presents sufficient
    evidence to demonstrate that another operator has violated our
    rules. TMI raises a similar concern about preventing "squatting" by
    early entrants that use spectrum outside of their selected
    assignment on a secondary basis.[^105] We address the potential for
    early entrants to abuse their negotiating position with later
    entrants by only allowing secondary use of spectrum outside of the
    Selected Assignment and requiring written notice to service
    providers and subscribers that service can be preempted.[^106]
    Furthermore, we will enforce our rules if the need arises.

30. We adopt the band arrangement discussed above for assignment of the
    2 GHz MSS spectrum to accommodate all proposed systems with adequate
    spectrum to launch service, and thus, we resolve mutual exclusivity
    among the system proponents.[^107] This approach, which essentially
    consists of a combination of our Traditional Band Arrangement and
    Negotiated Entry Approach, provides certainty for qualified
    operators to pursue financing and design systems. At the same time,
    it provides sufficient flexibility to maximize the use of the 2 GHz
    MSS spectrum and minimize the burdens of incumbent relocation. In
    addition, the band arrangement adopted here promotes our goals of
    encouraging technical innovation, facilitating deployment of
    service, maximizing the efficient use of spectrum, and using
    market-based incentives.

> **d. Service to Unserved Areas**

31. Section 151 of the Communications Act mandates that the Commission
    "make available, so far as possible, to all the people of United
    States without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
    national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and
    world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate
    facilities at reasonable charges . . . ."[^108] In fulfilling this
    mandate, the Commission has had a long history of encouraging the
    deployment of basic and advanced telecommunications services to all
    U.S. consumers throughout the entire United States and associated
    geographic areas. For example, in 1994 in the *Big LEO Report &
    Order*, the Commission explained that the "new mobile satellite
    service \[Big LEO\] will offer Americans in rural areas that are not
    otherwise linked to the communications infrastructure immediate
    access to a feature-rich communications network."[^109] On August 5,
    1999, this Commission commenced two additional proceedings intended
    to foster the delivery of telecommunications services, including
    satellite services, to unserved areas.[^110] On June 8, 2000, we
    adopted the first two Orders arising from these proceedings.[^111]

32. We believe that access to telecommunications services is essential
    to ensuring that persons residing in unserved or geographically
    isolated areas are able to participate in today's fast-changing
    information economy. If access is not provided, persons residing in
    these areas will have less opportunity to seek or access
    educational, medical, economic or other important resources. As we
    stated in the *Notice*, we believe satellites are an excellent
    technology for delivering basic and advanced telecommunication
    services to unserved, rural, insular or economically isolated areas,
    including Native American communities, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto
    Rico, and U.S. territories and possessions such as communities
    within the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa ("unserved
    areas").[^112] In the *Notice*, we sought guidance as to the
    policies or rules we could implement (or forbear from) to encourage
    provision of 2 GHz MSS to unserved areas. For example, we asked
    whether one criterion for awarding expansion spectrum and resolving
    coordination disputes should be whether a licensee is providing
    service to unserved areas.[^113] We noted that we have thus far not
    adopted such policies or rules for Big LEO licensees or other MSS
    providers. We therefore sought comment on whether we should, in a
    separate proceeding, adopt similar policies or rules for unserved
    areas for Big LEO and other satellite licensees.

33. We remain committed to encouraging the expeditious delivery of
    telecommunications services, via satellite services, to unserved
    communities. The comments in this proceeding support our belief that
    satellites are an excellent technology for delivering these
    services.[^114] Indeed, the record shows that many of the 2 GHz MSS
    system proponents claim that providing service to unserved and rural
    areas is a major part of their business plans.[^115] For example,
    Celsat explains that it envisions being able to bring service to
    these communities for as little as eight cents per minute, including
    long-distance voice telephony service.[^116] Celsat agrees with our
    proposal to award expansion spectrum based on providing service to
    unserved areas as an incentive to provide such service.[^117]
    Moreover, ICO states that its technology and business plan are
    uniquely suited to serving remote areas.[^118]

34. We agree with the commenters who state that satellites are an
    excellent method for quickly extending basic and advanced
    telecommunications services to rural and unserved areas. We believe
    that the incentives we adopt below are an efficient method for
    deploying service in unserved areas. We find that it is more
    appropriate to create a spectrum-based incentive mechanism, rather
    than to adopt specific and detailed requirements, as an efficient
    means to more closely approximate a market-based mechanism for
    ensuring that unserved areas receive needed services in a timely
    manner. In other words, firms that choose to deploy service to
    unserved areas will obtain additional guaranteed spectrum as a
    result of providing such service, but will have the option of
    choosing not to deploy such service and therefore not avail
    themselves of the opportunity to obtain additional guaranteed
    spectrum.

35. Therefore, we will make available a separate segment of spectrum for
    assignment as expansion spectrum in both the uplink and the downlink
    portions of the service band. In the Flexible Band Arrangement
    section in the *Notice,* we proposed the concept of expansion
    spectrum by which additional spectrum would be assigned to an entity
    when it demonstrated that its commercial operations were exceeding
    the capacity of its original spectrum assignment.[^119] The
    expansion spectrum as adopted here will be available to authorized 2
    GHz MSS systems that first demonstrate they will offer MSS
    *capacity* directed at providing service to consumers in unserved
    areas. Authorized systems will be eligible for the expansion
    spectrum whether or not they are operational. The expansion segment
    will be available in any assignment available for selection in the
    Phase I portion of the uplink band (1990-2008 MHz), as long as
    sufficient spectrum remains available to accommodate at least one
    additional entrant. If there is not sufficient spectrum to
    accommodate an additional authorized system in the Phase I spectrum,
    the expansion spectrum will be located in the Phase II portion of
    the uplink band (2008-2025 MHz). The expansion spectrum will be
    available in any assignment available for selection in the downlink
    portion of the MSS spectrum (2165-2200 MHz) that has not already
    been selected.

36. In order to be eligible for assignment of the expansion spectrum,
    authorized 2 GHz MSS systems must demonstrate that at least ten
    percent of their contracted U.S. capacity is committed to service
    providers that offer 2 GHz MSS services in unserved or rural service
    areas. For purposes of this incentive, we will adopt as the
    definition of unserved area any area falling within a Rural Service
    Area (RSA).[^120] RSAs closely fit the unserved areas we identified
    as areas that could most benefit from 2 GHz MSS in the *Notice*, and
    provide a well-established geographic designation. We will determine
    the amount of unserved or rural capacity contributed by each
    individual capacity contract by multiplying the total amount of
    capacity covered by that contract by the percentage of the relevant
    retail carrier's service area that falls within an RSA. We will then
    add up the aggregate amount of rural capacity provided by all
    contracts and divide that figure by the total amount of the 2 GHz
    provider's contracted-for capacity.[^121]

37. We believe that ten percent of an authorized 2 GHz MSS system's
    contracted U.S. capacity represents a reasonable approximation of
    the capacity that is necessary to provide meaningful service to
    unserved areas. RSAs cover approximately 20 percent of the U.S.
    population, a significant percentage of potential subscribers.[^122]
    Thus, we believe that a ten percent RSA contracted-capacity service
    offering incentive is an appropriate and reasonable voluntary
    incentive that would not create an undue burden on operators. We
    also note that the spectrum available for expansion is optional, and
    is merely available as an incentive for those interested in
    providing service to unserved areas.

38. Authorized 2 GHz MSS systems that seek to establish eligibility for
    the expansion spectrum must submit copies of service contracts
    evidencing such eligibility. To maximize the opportunity for all
    2 GHz MSS operators to obtain service contracts, we will accept
    requests for expansion spectrum beginning one year from the date the
    first 2 GHz MSS system is authorized. When a request for the
    expansion spectrum is filed, Commission staff will issue a Public
    Notice announcing that the Commission is accepting competing
    requests for the expansion spectrum from authorized 2 GHz MSS
    systems. As stated above, authorized 2 GHz MSS systems do not have
    to be operational to qualify for the expansion spectrum. Once the
    deadline for requests closes, we will evaluate the requests based on
    the criterion described above, and issue an order assigning or
    designating the spectrum to those authorized 2 GHz MSS systems
    meeting or exceeding the criterion. A successful entity for
    expansion spectrum will be required to contribute all applicable
    incumbent relocation costs under our incumbent relocation rules and
    the 2 GHz MSS band arrangement adopted here. In addition, satellite
    operators receiving expansion spectrum under this process will be
    required to report on the actual number of subscriber minutes
    originating or terminating in unserved areas as a percentage of the
    actual U.S. system use, as part of their annual system-utilization
    reporting requirement.[^123]

39. The benefits of 2 GHz MSS, including two-way voice, data, and
    Internet services, should be available to U.S. customers in all
    parts of the United States, including unserved areas.[^124] We have
    carefully designed this incentive to complement the band arrangement
    we adopt today. We believe that assigning or designating additional
    spectrum to authorized 2 GHz MSS systems demonstrating concrete
    progress toward making satellite capacity available to unserved
    areas, as verified by reports of the number of subscriber minutes in
    these areas**,** will advance our objective of achieving universal
    access to telecommunications services as early as possible.

40. Some commenters urge us not to create incentives for 2 GHz operators
    to target their services to unserved areas.[^125] These commenters
    believe that the Commission's geographic coverage requirements and
    multiple licensing scheme already create market-based incentives for
    providing service to unserved areas.[^126] Many of these commenters
    argue that the earth station or handset licensees, as opposed to the
    space station operators, are more appropriate entities for
    incentives because they will be Commercial Mobile Radio Service
    (CMRS) operators offering service on a non-discriminatory
    common-carrier basis.[^127] These commenters argue that changes to
    the satellite system designs or business plans will not increase
    access to 2 GHz MSS in unserved areas. By contrast, Celsat asserts
    that satellite system operators design the space segment of the
    network to meet business plan and service pricing objectives.[^128]
    We believe that Celsat's assertion has merit. By providing a
    spectrum-based incentive beyond a provider's selected assignment, we
    can encourage systems to consider deployment of service to unserved
    areas in the early business planning and system design phases. We
    also note that ICO has recently made a commitment to provide
    telephone and Internet service to non-commercial locations on Native
    American tribal lands at a discount of up to 50 percent from
    applicable retail rates.[^129]

41. The commenters that oppose incentives for space segment operators
    suggest that the Commission may want to take positive steps to
    encourage access to Universal Service Funds by mobile earth station
    service providers by forbearing from regulations that make it
    difficult for these groups to obtain such funds.[^130] As described
    above, the Commission recently adopted two Orders addressing issues
    regarding deployment of terrestrial and satellite telecommunications
    services to unserved areas, including tribal and insular
    areas.[^131] In addition to our action here today, we recently
    adopted an order in which we stated that we will entertain waiver
    requests as necessary to overcome possible technical and
    administrative hurdles to facilitate deployment of service to
    certain unserved areas (i.e., tribal lands).[^132] Our recent Order
    with respect to universal service elaborated on the process of
    designating eligible telecommunications carriers to receive specific
    Federal universal service support.[^133] Consequently, it is
    unnecessary to take any further action in this item with respect to
    Universal Service Funds.

42. Several commenters also suggest that the Commission can actively
    support deployment of MSS to unserved areas by ensuring low-cost
    entry by minimizing relocation costs of 2 GHz incumbents.[^134]
    Under our relocation policy,[^135] the costs to 2 GHz MSS entrants
    have been reduced to the extent we believed possible, and we have
    provided maximum flexibility to MSS operators to provide service
    until the incumbents are relocated through the band arrangement we
    adopt today. These measures will significantly reduce any costs or
    burdens to MSS operators and should make availability of 2 GHz MSS
    capacity for service to unserved areas more economically viable.

43. Because it plans to provide aeronautical services, Boeing is
    concerned that its system may not qualify for any adopted incentive
    mechanism, depending on the definition of the term "unserved
    communities."[^136] We cannot guarantee that Boeing would be in the
    position to satisfy the criterion for expansion spectrum or to be
    granted it. As described above, however, all authorized 2 GHz MSS
    systems, including Boeing, will be entitled to file requests
    demonstrating that they have satisfied the requisite criterion for
    seeking authority to use the unserved area spectrum. In addition,
    under the adopted band arrangement, Boeing will be able to obtain
    its selected spectrum unrelated to eligibility for the unserved area
    expansion spectrum.

44. Iridium expresses concern that any adopted incentives for service to
    unserved areas should apply equally to 2 GHz U.S.-licensees and LOI
    filers and must exclude Big LEO (1.6/2.4 GHz) licensees.[^137] In
    response to Iridium, we clarify that the policies we adopt today for
    unserved area expansion spectrum apply equally to U.S. and
    foreign-licensed operators. In addition, we will not adopt any
    incentives concerning Big LEO spectrum at 1610-1626.5 MHz and
    2483.5-2500 MHz as this proceeding is limited to 2 GHz MSS.

> **e. System Amendments**

45. We have repeatedly emphasized that 2 GHz MSS system proponents will
    be afforded an opportunity to amend their applications and LOIs, if
    necessary, to bring them into conformity with the requirements and
    policies adopted for systems in these bands.[^138] Although we did
    not seek comment on amendment procedures, Celsat requests that we
    dispense with an amendment period entirely to expedite the spectrum
    authorization process,[^139] while MCHI requests a minimum three
    months to amend applications or LOIs as necessary.[^140] Based on
    our decisions today, system proponents will need to amend their
    applications or LOIs in order to receive continued
    consideration,[^141] even if the only amendment is an orbital debris
    narrative statement.[^142] We also believe, however, that a
    three-month amendment period would unnecessarily delay our goal of
    expediting authorization of these systems, some of which have been
    on file since 1994.[^143] Therefore, we will provide 30 days after a
    summary of this *Report and Order* is published in the Federal
    Register for system proponents to amend their filings, which is
    comparable to the length of time the Commission gave to the proposed
    Big LEO systems to file application amendments after release of the
    *Big LEO Report & Order*.[^144]

**2. Financial Qualifications**

46. Historically, the Commission has fashioned financial requirements
    for satellite services on the basis of entry opportunities in the
    particular service being licensed.[^145] Under Commission precedent,
    the purpose of financial qualification rules is to prevent
    warehousing and ensure quick deployment of service where there may
    be more applicants than available licenses.[^146] In cases where we
    can accommodate all pending applications and future entry is
    possible, however, we have not looked to financial ability as a
    prerequisite to a license grant.[^147] In the *Notice*, we
    tentatively concluded that analysis of financial qualifications
    would not be necessary in this 2 GHz MSS processing round because we
    believed the proposed 2 GHz MSS band arrangements could accommodate
    all proposed systems, and provide opportunities for future
    entry.[^148] In addition, we sought comment on whether strict
    enforcement of milestones would better serve the goals on which
    financial qualification requirements are based.[^149]

47. Many of the 2 GHz MSS system proponents oppose financial
    qualifications on the ground that implementation milestones alone
    will provide adequate assurances of project completion.[^150]
    Several observe that financial standards are inappropriate because
    they are a barrier to entry, impede innovation, and substitute a
    flawed method for predicting success for the rigors of the
    marketplace.[^151] Globalstar points out that it is common industry
    practice to acquire funding over an extended period of time, which
    suggests that milestones are more meaningful indicators than
    one-time financial qualifications.[^152] Boeing and Inmarsat,
    however, stress the need for financial qualification standards, in
    order to eliminate delay caused by applicants not prepared to deploy
    services rapidly.[^153]

48. We adopt our tentative conclusion not to impose financial
    qualification requirements for the current 2 GHz MSS processing
    round. As explained above, our adopted band arrangement accommodates
    all eligible systems with adequate spectrum to launch service. We
    also believe that future entry is possible, given our decision today
    to defer automatic redistribution of spectrum returned to the
    Commission as a result of missed milestones. Moreover, our decision
    to impose and strictly enforce milestone requirements will ensure
    timely construction of systems and deployment of service. BellSouth
    Corporation (BellSouth) contends that financial qualification
    requirements are necessary to ensure that MSS system proponents can
    meet obligations concerning incumbent relocation.[^154] We disagree.
    Paying relocation costs is a necessary prerequisite to beginning
    service (unless the system's ability to share spectrum exempts it
    from paying relocation costs). If a 2 GHz MSS system proponent does
    not have the funds to relocate incumbents, it cannot operate, and
    thus, the incumbent can continue operating in its original spectrum.
    We believe that this relocation process provides adequate
    marketplace incentives for 2 GHz MSS systems to obtain the necessary
    financing to commence and complete relocation in a timely fashion.

**3. Technical Qualifications**

49. The Commission traditionally has established threshold technical
    requirements for satellite systems to maximize use of the limited
    spectrum/orbit resource.[^155] All 2 GHz applicants and LOI filers
    must meet our threshold qualification criteria to be eligible for
    licensing or spectrum reservation. In this section, we describe the
    minimum requirements, if any, for frequency agility, geographic
    coverage, and provision of Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite Route
    Service ("AMS(R)S").

50. As we recognized in the *Notice*, the 2 GHz MSS system proponents
    have proposed different types of satellite system designs.[^156] We
    remain committed to giving satellite system operators the
    flexibility to design and implement systems that will best meet the
    needs of their customers. At the same time, we remain committed to
    facilitating competition by maximizing the number of potential
    service suppliers. The technical rules adopted here are intended to
    further both these goals.

> **a. Frequency Agility**

51. In the *Notice,* we proposed to require that 2 GHz MSS satellites
    and ground terminals be capable of operating across all portions of
    the 2 GHz MSS band (1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz) in order to
    ensure flexibility in system coordination and operations.[^157] TMI
    agrees with the proposal.[^158] ICO and IUSG suggest that we adopt a
    requirement that NGSO systems should be capable of operating
    anywhere within 70 percent of the band and GSO operators should be
    capable of operating anywhere within 70 percent of the regional
    spectrum.[^159] Inmarsat estimates that current technology would
    permit deployment of equipment that operates over a maximum of 30
    megahertz in each direction.[^160] Inmarsat opposes any requirement
    contending that the market will dictate whether manufacturers design
    their equipment to communicate over large portions of the band. ICO
    and IUSG also urge the Commission to adopt a rule requiring that
    system operators design their systems to be capable of unpaired
    frequency operation between the uplink and the downlink assignment
    segments;[^161] that is, the ability of satellite systems to change
    frequencies used to transmit from earth stations to the satellite(s)
    and back. [^162] ICO and IUSG argue that this requirement is
    necessary to facilitate frequency coordination with other MSS
    operators. These commenters also assert that requiring unpaired
    operation will reduce the burden of deployment during the transition
    with terrestrial incumbents.

52. We do not adopt a requirement that 2 GHz MSS systems must be able to
    operate across the entire 2 GHz MSS band. Such a requirement is
    unnecessary given that, as a result of our band arrangement,
    regional allocation variations for international coordination, and
    incumbent relocation, systems must be capable of operating across
    large portions of the band anyway.[^163] We do adopt a more limited
    requirement. Based on the comments, we believe that it is
    appropriate to require operators to be capable of operating across
    at least 70 percent of the U.S. 2 GHz MSS allocation (1990-2025 MHz
    and 2165-2200 MHz). We believe that it is important to design and
    launch 2 GHz MSS systems with sufficient flexibility to address
    coordination and band arrangement contingencies. This requirement
    comports with the current technical capabilities of system
    operators. We encourage system proponents to design their systems to
    be able to operate across more than 70 percent of the 2 GHz MSS
    bands in order to be able to provide the maximum amount of
    flexibility for spectrum use in the future.

53. With regard to unpaired frequency operation, we agree with ICO and
    IUSG and therefore adopt a requirement that 2 GHz MSS systems must
    be designed to be capable of changing the frequencies used to
    operate between the uplink and the downlink frequencies in their
    systems. This will provide for maximum flexibility in systems
    designs and assist in coordination of spectrum use among operators
    and with the transition of terrestrial incumbents in the bands.

54. Constellation requests that the Commission recognize that NGSO
    systems should be capable of operating in the 1980-1990 MHz band
    outside of the United States and that we authorize such systems for
    service outside the United States subject to protection of
    terrestrial systems in the United States.[^164] Although the global
    systems here may be capable of operating in bands not available in
    the United States, and the ITU allocations in the 1980-1990 MHz
    portion of the band may be available in other regions of the world,
    we do not have the authority to license operations in other Regions.
    Operators will be required to obtain authorization from
    administrations in other regions in order to operate in those
    countries' territories. We recognize that 2 GHz MSS operators,
    particularly those proposing global systems, may be required to use
    the 1980-1990 MHz band in other countries and the 2015-2025 MHz band
    only in Region 2. We remind these operators that they will have to
    design their systems to be capable of meeting the requirements of
    spectrum coordination in all parts of the world in which they expect
    to provide service. We do not, however, mandate that systems be
    capable of operating in the 1980-1990 MHz band outside of the United
    States.

**b. Coverage Requirements**

55. *NGSO systems.* In the *Notice*, we proposed adoption of the same
    coverage requirements for 2 GHz MSS NGSO systems as we did for Big
    LEO systems.[^165] We explained that we believed that the rationale
    for adopting coverage requirements in the Big LEO proceeding also
    applies here. We believe that balancing system cost against
    projected need and alternative service options favors requiring
    service only to areas sufficient to cover the majority of the
    populated areas on the Earth. We proposed 2 GHz MSS systems
    operating NGSO constellations be capable of serving locations as far
    north as 70º North latitude and as far south as 55º South latitude
    for at least 75 percent of every 24‑hour period in order to cover
    the majority of the world's population. We also proposed a specific
    coverage requirement for the United States. Specifically, we
    proposed that NGSO MSS operators be required to provide continuous
    coverage throughout all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories
    and possessions, and specifically that at least one NGSO satellite
    must be visible above the horizon at an elevation angle of at least
    five degrees at all times, as we did for Big LEOs.[^166]

56. The commenters support our proposed NGSO coverage requirement.
    [^167] We, therefore, adopt our proposals and amend the Big LEO
    rules to require 2 GHz MSS systems to provide global coverage. This
    requirement is consistent with our Big LEO rules and will provide
    sufficient coverage for service to the majority of the populated
    areas on the Earth. We also amend our rules to require 2 GHz MSS
    operators to provide continuous coverage of the United States, as
    described above. This requirement will create service opportunities
    for all of the United States.[^168]

57. Constellation requests that we clarify that the coverage
    requirements will apply equally to LOI filers.[^169] As we have said
    in *DISCO II* and throughout this proceeding, we will apply our 2
    GHz MSS operating requirements to all system operators. Therefore,
    LOI filers that will serve the United States, whether proposing NGSO
    or GSO systems, will be required to comply with the U.S. and
    worldwide coverage requirements.

58. *GSO systems.* In the *Notice*, we explained that individual GSO
    satellites have a fixed coverage area that is inherently
    regional.[^170] Because of this characteristic, we did not propose a
    global coverage requirement for systems that use only GSO
    satellites. While we could have required GSO satellite system
    operators to provide global coverage such coverage would require
    additional satellites without providing any additional capabilities
    or capacity in the United States. Rather, we proposed to require
    such systems to provide coverage to all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and
    the U.S. Virgin Islands, unless the system operator can demonstrate
    that such coverage is technically *infeasible*.

59. We adopt our proposal. We recognize that the commenters may have
    been confused by slightly different language in the *text* of the
    *Notice* and the proposed *rule* section of the *Notice*.[^171] The
    proposed rule proposes that operators be required to provide service
    to all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, if
    technically *feasible*.[^172] We adopt our proposal as drafted in
    the proposed rule and require GSO system operators to provide
    service to all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
    if technically *feasible*. This requirement is the same as our
    geographic service requirement for direct broadcast satellite
    operators.[^173] This requirement also provides reasonable parity
    with the NGSO coverage requirement. We recognize that GSO satellites
    located below a five degree elevation angle may not be capable of
    providing national coverage and do not require GSO operators to
    provide the geographic coverage specified above where a GSO
    satellite is located below a five degree elevation angle.[^174]

60. In its comments, Globalstar asserts that the coverage requirements
    for hybrid NGSO/GSO systems should be aggregated.[^175] We disagree
    with Globalstar. We believe that hybrid NGSO/GSO systems should be
    required to meet the same coverage requirements established for
    other satellite systems. For instance, the NGSO portion of a hybrid
    system will be required to comply with the coverage requirements for
    NGSO systems and the GSO portion will be required to comply with the
    coverage requirements for GSO systems.

**c. Provision of AMS(R)S**

61. Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite Route Service (AMS(R)S) is a radio
    communication service providing communications between aircraft
    earth stations via satellite and ground stations or other aircraft
    stations, reserved for communications pertaining to safety and
    regularity of flight along civil air routes.[^176] Prior to the
    *Notice*, in the application phase of this proceeding, several
    parties argued that there are no specific international or national
    frequency allocations for AMS(R)S in the 2 GHz MSS bands.[^177] In
    the comments, Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) contends that an
    exclusive allocation is required for the provision of AMS(R)S in
    generic MSS spectrum.[^178] Boeing contends, however, that the
    Commission's rules and the ITU Radio Regulations permit the
    provision of AMS(R)S in MSS spectrum.[^179] Boeing asserts that
    domestic and international rules define AMS(R)S as a type of
    Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite Service (AMSS) and that AMSS is a
    sub-category of MSS.[^180]

62. In the *Notice,* we sought comment on the feasibility of permitting
    Boeing to provide AMS(R)S in the 2 GHz MSS bands.[^181] We stated
    that although we agree with Boeing's assertion that the absence of a
    specific AMS(R)S allocation does not prohibit the provision of
    AMS(R)S in MSS bands, there are additional domestic and
    international regulatory issues that must be addressed prior to
    commencing service.[^182] We also explained that the domestic and
    international 2 GHz MSS allocations do not include any regulatory
    provisions for AMS(R)S, especially for intra-network priority and
    preemptive access.[^183]

63. Constellation, Inmarsat, and Iridium argue that the 2 GHz MSS
    allocation is for commercial mobile voice and personal
    communications services and that AMS(R)S is not compatible with this
    allocation.[^184] ICO believes that it is premature to decide
    whether AMS(R)S should be permitted and that FCC action should be
    deferred until after the next World Radiocommunication Conference
    addressing the issue.[^185] Constellation believes that the
    Commission should prohibit AMS(R)S operations in the 2 GHz
    bands.[^186] In response, Boeing states that its system would serve
    the intended purpose of the allocation because it will serve the
    rural aviation community and provide global aviation safety
    benefits.[^187]

64. As the Commission has stated in the past, AMSS is an example of
    MSS.[^188] The Commission has also stated that AMSS includes
    AMS(R)S.[^189] Therefore, we believe that Boeing can enter into
    contracts with members of the aviation community to provide AMS(R)S
    in the generic MSS allocation, with appropriate intra-network
    priority and preemption, without the need for any priority and
    preemption provision in the U.S. Table of Allocations.[^190]
    Therefore, we adopt our decision not to propose any rule changes
    specifically to accommodate Boeing's proposal, and will consider
    Boeing's proposal as an MSS system in the licensing phase of this
    proceeding.

65. In addition, the *Notice* explained that the Commission's rules have
    specific requirements concerning licensing of terminals for aviation
    distress and safety communications.[^191] These rules explicitly
    state which frequency bands may be used for aircraft-to-satellite
    AMS(R)S transmissions and do not include the 1990-2025/2165-2200 MHz
    bands.[^192] Iridium and ARINC state that Part 87.187 and the U.S.
    Table of Frequency Allocations would need to be amended to permit
    the operation of Boeing's terminals, yet no rulemaking is
    pending.[^193] Boeing states that it intends to file a petition for
    rulemaking with the Commission seeking a revision of Part 87 to
    permit aeronautical Earth stations to operate in the 2 GHz MSS
    frequency bands but does not believe that this should delay
    licensing of the satellite portion of the proposed system.[^194]

66. We agree with the commenters stating that Part 87 will have to be
    amended or waived to permit Boeing to operate AMS(R)S earth stations
    in the United States. We do not, however, undertake those regulatory
    changes here because it involves issues outside the scope of this
    proceeding and will require a separate notice and comment process.

67. The commenters raise other domestic and international regulatory
    issues related to Boeing's application.[^195] While we recognize
    that there are remaining issues concerning provision of AMS(R)S in
    the 2 GHz MSS bands, we believe that the appropriate place to
    address these system-specific concerns is in the licensing phase of
    this proceeding. Therefore, we will address such and any public
    comments on the system application and amendments at that time.

# B. Non-Service Link Issues

68. To this point, we have discussed rules and policies regarding the
    service link portion of an MSS system, *i.e.*, the transmission path
    between the MSS satellite and a customer's Mobile Earth Terminal
    (MET). In addition to service links, MSS networks require separate
    frequencies for feeder links, tracking, telemetry, and command
    (TT&C), and in some cases, inter-satellite links (collectively,
    "non-service links"). Feeder links are the radio links that transmit
    a user's messages in both directions between the system's satellites
    and its gateway earth station(s) that connect the MSS network with
    the public switched telephone network.[^196] Tracking, telemetry,
    and command (TT&C) communications provide data on a satellite's
    functions via a two-way telemetry link between the satellite and a
    controlling earth station, or control center.[^197] Some system
    designs also use frequencies in the inter-satellite service (ISS) to
    provide links by which satellites in a constellation may communicate
    with each other. The 2 GHz MSS system proponents seek feeder link,
    TT&C and ISS frequencies in a variety of bands, and in one case,
    radionavigation frequencies not germane to the operation of the MSS
    system.[^198]

69. While we are optimistic that sufficient spectrum will be available
    to support 2 GHz MSS non-service link operations, at this time, we
    are not certain when that will occur. As described in more detail
    below, authorization of these requested frequency bands for
    non-service links remain subject to resolution in other
    proceedings.[^199] We agree with PanAmSat Corporation (PanAmSat) and
    Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE) that we should not
    resolve the parties' non-service link requests in this proceeding if
    such resolution would pre-ordain the outcome of related, pending
    proceedings.[^200] Therefore, this *Report and Order* only
    identifies the bands we believe will be available for 2 GHz MSS
    non-service links. Specific issues such as the amount of spectrum
    each system will be assigned in the relevant band will be decided in
    the subsequent 2 GHz MSS authorization instruments, and through
    inter-system coordination.

70. In the *Notice*, we sought comment as to what weight, if any, we
    should give to non-service link potential delaying factors in
    developing authorization methods and service rules for the 2 GHz MSS
    service links, especially with regard to system implementation
    milestones.[^201] We agree with the majority of commenters that we
    should award 2 GHz MSS licenses as quickly as possible, and thus,
    the Commission's milestone schedules should commence on the service
    link grant date.[^202] Of the nine system proponents, only Boeing
    proposes deferral of milestone schedules for 2 GHz MSS operators
    until the Commission finalizes all critical spectrum allocation
    decisions.[^203] Boeing observes that satellite operators have
    limited influence over the ITU Radiocommunication Bureau's satellite
    coordination procedure,[^204] or the pace at which the Commission
    makes non-service link assignments.[^205] On the other hand,
    commenters observe that system proponents could use these inherent
    delays to warehouse service link spectrum until such time as
    requested non-service link spectrum is allocated and assigned.[^206]
    We believe that it is the responsibility of the system operators to
    seek unencumbered non-service link spectrum, and milestones will
    provide the necessary incentive for system operators to seek
    attainable non-service links in a reasonable time or risk the loss
    of service link spectrum. We find that the benefits to the public of
    expediting implementation of 2 GHz MSS outweigh the burden this
    requirement may place on system operators to design systems in
    accordance with the proposed milestone rules. Therefore, we will
    initiate milestones upon authorization of service link spectrum,
    irrespective of the non-service link issues extant.[^207]

71. We intend to allow 2 GHz MSS system proponents to modify their
    non-service link proposals if it becomes apparent, based on the
    outcome of the relevant rulemakings and proceedings, that the
    frequencies (or substantial portions of those frequencies) for which
    they have sought assignment will not be available for timely
    non-service link use.[^208] Furthermore, we will treat such
    modifications as minor modifications, provided that the alternative
    frequency band will expedite deployment of that system's service
    (*i.e.*, the spectrum is usable for non-service links without
    further administrative proceedings, and the addition of those
    non-service links to the band will not cause unnecessary congestion,
    make it difficult to obtain coordination, or otherwise increase the
    potential for interference to other systems in the frequency bands
    selected for non-service links).[^209] System proponents that do not
    amend their applications or LOIs so as to utilize accessible
    non-service link frequencies are advised that they proceed at their
    own risk that the regulatory issues surrounding their request may
    delay implementation,[^210] resulting in a missed milestone and
    cancellation of its authorization. Contrary to Globalstar's
    suggestion,[^211] we do not contemplate approval of requests for
    waiver of milestones based on a system's inability to access
    non-service link frequencies.

####### 1. Feeder Links

72. As a general rule, because MSS feeder links operate with gateway
    stations at fixed locations, feeder links use frequencies allocated
    to the FSS.[^212] We tentatively concluded in the *Notice* that
    there is sufficient feeder link spectrum currently or imminently
    available to accommodate the spectrum needs of the 2 GHz MSS system
    proponents.[^213] The comments we received on this issue generally
    support this conclusion.[^214] Although the record is inconclusive
    with regard to any *calculable* relationship between service link
    spectrum and feeder link spectrum,[^215] a relationship does
    exist.[^216] Therefore, in light of the band arrangement we adopt
    today, which authorizes the 2 GHz MSS systems for significantly less
    service link spectrum than each has requested, we affirm our finding
    that there is sufficient feeder link spectrum for the 2 GHz MSS
    system proponents to provide commercial service. Given our past
    reliance on MSS operators to coordinate conflicting frequency uses
    in shared feeder link bands,[^217] and based on the record before
    us,[^218] we require the 2 GHz MSS operators, and their associated
    gateway earth station licensees, to comply with the coordination
    requirements of Section 25.203(k) of the Commission's rules.[^219]
    This requirement should further enhance the 2 GHz MSS providers'
    ability to access adequate feeder link spectrum to provide service.

73. The *Notice* also generated considerable comment from the Fixed
    Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) and its membership
    regarding allocation of MSS feeder links in frequencies that are
    heavily used by the fixed services.[^220] FWCC advocates that,
    should the Commission license MSS feeder links in FS bands, it must
    promulgate sharing and coordination rules that adequately protect FS
    operation and expansion.[^221] United Telecom Council (UTC),
    perceiving a spectrum shortage faced by fixed users, recommends that
    the Commission initiate a new rulemaking to identify additional
    spectrum for FS.[^222] In response, Inmarsat objects to FWCC's
    coordination suggestions as being biased on the side of FS,[^223]
    and claims that there is no need to impose spectrum efficiency
    standards on MSS because the MSS operators are aware of spectrum
    scarcity, and it is in their best interest to use spectrum as
    efficiently as technically feasible.[^224] Globalstar states that
    FWCC's proposals regarding protection for terrestrial systems from
    MSS feeder links in these bands are inappropriate for this
    proceeding,[^225] as are requests to find allocations of additional
    spectrum for FS.[^226] We agree that the allocation and technical
    matters FWCC and its members raise are not appropriate for this
    authorization and service rules proceeding, and are more appropriate
    for discussion in pending proceedings addressing MSS feeder link
    allocations in FS spectrum,[^227] and in a proceeding initiated by
    FWCC, designated RM-9649.[^228]

> **a. Extended C-band**

74. Inmarsat seeks GSO MSS feeder links in the extended C-band
    frequencies.[^229] In the *Notice*, we stated that Inmarsat's
    requested feeder downlinks in the United States would be limited to
    potentially available spectrum between 3600‑3650 MHz, because the
    3550‑3600 MHz band is not allocated in the United States for FSS,
    and the 3650-3700 MHz band is proposed to be reallocated from FSS to
    FS in an ongoing proceeding.[^230] Inmarsat believes that it should
    be able to access the 3650‑3700 MHz band for its feeder links
    because the reallocation is not yet final, and in any case, its
    feeder link use of that spectrum would be fully compatible with any
    new FS services in the band, and its maximum of two gateways in the
    United States would make terrestrial coordination feasible.[^231]
    Should Inmarsat pursue extended C-band feeder downlinks in the
    3650-3700 MHz band, its earth station receive sites must be within
    close proximity (*i.e.*, 10 miles or less) of an existing extended
    C-band earth station receive site authorized to use these
    frequencies.[^232] We also reiterate that FSS operations in the
    United States in the 3600-3700 MHz band are limited by footnote
    US245 to the U.S. domestic table of allocations,[^233] which
    restricts FSS to international, inter-continental systems, subject
    to a case-by-case electromagnetic compatibility analysis.[^234]

75. Inmarsat's requested feeder uplinks in the United States may also be
    limited because it potentially would share the 6425-6525 MHz portion
    of the band on a primary basis with the Local Television
    Transmission Service (LTTS).[^235] Commenters generally object to
    allowing MSS feeder links in the LTTS band.[^236] Inmarsat replies
    that since its system proposes to use a maximum of two gateways in
    the United States, it would be feasible to find appropriate
    locations, with proper shielding if necessary, from which to operate
    the feeder uplinks without mutual interference.[^237] We need not
    address these issues here. Inmarsat will have the opportunity to
    make such a showing when applying for its U.S.-based gateway earth
    station licenses, which require coordination under Part 25 of our
    rules.

**b. 5, 7 and 15 GHz bands**

76. The Commission has a pending proceeding proposing to allocate the
    5091-5250 MHz ("5 GHz"), 6700-7075 MHz ("7 GHz") and 15.43-15.63 GHz
    ("15 GHz") frequency bands to NGSO MSS feeder links (the *5, 7,
    15 GHz Allocation Proceeding*).[^238] Constellation, Globalstar and
    MCHI already hold authorizations to operate Big LEO feeder links in
    these same bands, although Constellation and Globalstar seek
    different feeder link frequencies for their 2 GHz MSS systems than
    those authorized for their respective Big LEO systems.[^239] Thus,
    the only 2 GHz MSS system seeking feeder link access in these bands
    for the first time is ICO.[^240] In the *Notice*, we sought comment
    on whether we could accommodate all of these systems in the
    potential 5, 7 and 15 GHz feeder link spectrum, as well as other
    authorized satellite users of the band.[^241] Globalstar agrees with
    the Commission that at least two systems can coordinate with each
    other to share spectrum for co‑directional feeder link
    transmissions.[^242] MCHI states that it can coordinate its
    requested 2 GHz MSS feeder links with all other authorized Big LEO
    feeder links, including its own, but is concerned that additional
    feeder link sharing would require it to incur high costs to prevent
    interference.[^243] Similarly, Constellation requests that Big LEO
    systems be given priority when accommodating 2 GHz systems in feeder
    link spectrum.[^244] In response, ICO proffers that it is already
    coordinating its feeder links with other NGSO MSS systems and has
    encountered no claims that its feeder links cannot be
    accommodated.[^245] Globalstar states that it is premature for the
    Commission to judge feeder link intersystem sharing issues at least
    until all of the Big LEO systems are operational.[^246] In light of
    the unresolved issues with the use of these bands, we expect all
    operational MSS systems proposing feeder links in the 5, 7 and 15
    GHz bands to coordinate use of feeder link spectrum,[^247] subject
    to the outcome of any allocation and licensing proceedings related
    to these frequencies.[^248]

77. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    (NTIA) is the Federal spectrum manager and the principal Executive
    Branch advisor on telecommunications policy. NTIA requests that NGSO
    MSS feeder uplink and TT&C authorizations in the 5 GHz and 15 GHz
    bands be conditioned to protect aeronautical radionavigation
    services (ARNS).[^249] The Commission has proposed such protections
    in the *5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation Proceeding*,[^250] and therefore, we
    will address NTIA's request in that proceeding. In addition, NTIA
    requests that gateways using the 5 GHz and 15 GHz bands be subject
    to coordination through the Frequency Assignment Subcommittee (FAS)
    of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) to ensure
    that harmful interference between the MSS feeder links and
    government operations is minimized.[^251] IRAC coordination is
    standard procedure in such circumstances. Thus, if feeder link earth
    stations are authorized to operate in the 5 GHz or 15 GHz bands,
    IRAC coordination would be required. NTIA also recommends that, to
    the extent practicable, any 2 GHz MSS operator using the 5091‑5150
    MHz band for feeder links locate its TT&C signal at the upper edge
    of the band, to reduce the likelihood of interference to the
    adjacent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standard
    Microwave Landing System (MLS) operations at 5030‑5091 MHz.[^252]
    Assuming that MSS operators are authorized to operate feeder links
    in the 5 GHz band, they likely would choose TT&C frequencies in
    accordance with NTIA's recommendation on their own accord, to ease
    coordination with MLS operations and reduce constraints placed on
    feeder link earth station transmissions. Therefore, we do not need
    to regulate placement of the TT&C signal in the 5 GHz band at this
    time.

**c. Ku-band**

78. *NGSO MSS Feeder Links.* The "conventional Ku-band" refers to the
    Earth-to-space (uplink) frequencies at 14.0‑14.5 GHz and the
    corresponding space-to-Earth (downlink) frequencies at 11.7-12.2
    GHz. The "lower Ku-band" refers to the space-to-Earth (downlink)
    frequencies at 10.7-11.7 GHz.[^253] Boeing requests NGSO MSS feeder
    links in these bands,[^254] and the Commission has a pending
    proceeding proposing to allocate these bands to NGSO FSS
    systems.[^255] In the *Notice*, we sought comment as to whether NGSO
    MSS feeder links would be an efficient use of the proposed Ku-band
    NGSO FSS spectrum.[^256] Boeing claims it has demonstrated that its
    proposed NGSO feeder links would not cause unacceptable interference
    to GSO satellites and terrestrial networks in the band, and that it
    can operate its feeder links on a shared basis with other proposed
    NGSO FSS systems.[^257] PanAmSat and GE American Communications,
    Inc. (GE Americom) express concern over the feasibility of NGSO/GSO
    sharing in the Ku-band.[^258] In addition, PanAmSat suggests there
    is no need to act on Boeing's feeder link request at least until the
    NGSO/GSO sharing issues are resolved, because fundamental policy
    questions pertaining to Boeing's proposed AMS(R)S service likely
    will delay Boeing's ability to operate in the 2 GHz band.[^259] We
    agree that Boeing's feeder link request is intertwined with the
    issue of whether NGSO FSS links can operate co-frequency with GSO
    FSS and terrestrial systems in these Ku-band frequencies. Therefore,
    as proposed in the *Notice*,[^260] we will address Boeing's feeder
    link request in the pending rulemaking and application proceedings
    addressing the NGSO/GSO sharing issue.[^261]

79. *GSO MSS Feeder Links.* As the Commission has indicated, GSO MSS
    feeder links operating on frequencies and at orbital locations that
    are extensively used could preclude conventional FSS services and
    inhibit the use of these GSO locations for future FSS
    assignments.[^262] Consequently, the Commission has determined that
    GSO MSS operators should seek to operate feeder links at frequency
    bands other than those "conventional" bands that are heavily used
    for domestic and international FSS services.[^263] Nevertheless, the
    Commission reserves the option of considering GSO MSS feeder link
    requests in FSS bands on a case-by-case basis, using such factors as
    existing use of spectrum, orbital locations, potential adverse
    impact on FSS operations, and the benefits of successfully using
    these assignments to introduce new and needed satellite services to
    the public.[^264] In the *Notice*, we sought comment on whether we
    should consider granting authority for MSS feeder links in the
    frequencies allocated for FSS where, for example, a 2 GHz MSS system
    proponent reaches an agreement with an existing FSS licensee to use
    its licensed spectrum, or if the requested location is in an
    uncongested portion of the arc.[^265]

80. Globalstar is the only 2 GHz MSS applicant that seeks to use
    "conventional" FSS spectrum for GSO MSS feeder links. Specifically,
    Globalstar seeks authority to operate GSO MSS feeder links in the
    conventional Ku‑band FSS frequencies from four GSO satellites,
    including one at the 80° W.L. orbital location.[^266] Under our
    case-by-case analysis, we note numerous obstacles to this request.
    First, FSS already uses the conventional Ku-band intensively.[^267]
    Second, Globalstar does not indicate how it plans to access its
    suggested Ku-band orbital locations, whether it be through a
    processing round,[^268] or an agreement with an existing FSS
    licensee.[^269] Most significantly, Globalstar's proposed feeder
    link operations at the 80° W.L. orbital location are not in
    conformance with the Commission's GSO orbit location two-degree
    spacing policy.[^270] Therefore, we expect Globalstar to explain how
    it intends to coordinate the proposed Ku-band GSO MSS feeder links
    with existing FSS operations, and the public interest benefit of
    such an assignment, before we would further entertain this request.
    If Globalstar cannot provide an adequate showing in this regard, we
    expect it to seek alternative feeder link spectrum.[^271]

**d. Ka-band**

81. The Ka-band refers to the Earth-to-space (uplink) frequencies at
    27.5-30.0 GHz (the "28 GHz band") and the corresponding
    space-to-Earth (downlink) frequencies at 17.7-20.2 GHz (the "18 GHz
    band"). These bands have been segmented for, and shared by, several
    types of communications systems, including NGSO MSS feeder links,
    terrestrial FS, FSS, and the Local Multipoint Distribution Service
    (LMDS), pursuant to an extensive rulemaking proceeding and the
    efforts of a negotiated rulemaking committee.[^272] We recently
    modified the sharing arrangements in the 18 GHz band.[^273]

82. *NGSO MSS Feeder Links.* In the *Ka-Band First Report and Order*,
    the Commission adopted a band sharing arrangement that designates
    spectrum for NGSO MSS system feeder links.[^274] In the 28 GHz band,
    the Commission established a co-primary allocation for NGSO MSS
    feeder uplinks at 29.1-29.5 GHz, subject to the special sharing
    requirements set forth in Sections 25.257 and 25.258 of the
    rules.[^275] In the 18 GHz band, the Commission designated
    19.3-19.7 GHz for NGSO MSS feeder downlinks on a co-primary basis
    with FS,[^276] subject to site and frequency coordination.[^277]
    Globalstar proposes to operate NGSO MSS feeder uplinks on a
    reverse-band working basis in the 19.3‑19.6 GHz band segment, as an
    alternative to its NGSO MSS feeder uplink request in the 15 GHz
    band.[^278] The Commission stated in the *Ka-Band First Report and
    Order*, that requests for reverse-band working operation in this
    band would be examined on a case-by-case basis.[^279] We are not
    changing any policies concerning this band at this time. In the
    *Ka-Band First Report and Order*, the Commission further stated that
    the 19.3-19.7 GHz band should be able to accommodate at least two
    systems' feeder links.[^280] Therefore, this band may be available
    to alleviate congestion in other NGSO MSS feeder link bands.

83. *GSO MSS Feeder Links.* Celsat seeks GSO MSS feeder link bandwidth
    anywhere in the Ka-band.[^281] Although the Commission has not
    specifically designated Ka-band spectrum for GSO MSS feeder links,
    we tentatively concluded in the *Notice* that the GSO FSS
    designations in the Ka‑band are appropriate for GSO MSS feeder link
    use.[^282] GE Americom, Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc./Hughes
    Communications, Inc. (Hughes), PanAmSat, and Pegasus Development
    Corporation (Pegasus) request that the Commission reverse its
    tentative conclusion in the *Notice* and not accommodate GSO MSS
    feeder links within what they call the "core," "conventional" or
    "primary" GSO FSS Ka-band spectrum.[^283] PanAmSat states that the
    Ka-band faces the same problems of spectrum and orbital location
    scarcity as do the conventional C- and Ku-bands.[^284] Pegasus adds
    that GSO MSS feeder link use of this spectrum would be a highly
    inefficient use of the Ka-band orbital resource in the CONUS
    arc.[^285] In addition, Hughes asks us to reject those portions of
    the 2 GHz MSS applications that are inconsistent with the 28 GHz
    band plan and Hughes' licensed and proposed Spaceway systems.[^286]
    Celsat claims that the concerns surrounding GSO MSS feeder link use
    of the conventional C- and Ku-band FSS allocations are not present
    in the Ka-band, because the Ka-band is not currently heavily used
    for FSS services.[^287] Hughes and PanAmSat reject Celsat's
    argument, claiming it ignores the near-future roll-out of broadband
    GSO FSS service, and thus, does not justify Commission departure of
    precluding feeder link use of conventional FSS spectrum.[^288]

84. We see no reason to adopt any rules or policies prohibiting GSO MSS
    feeder links in Ka‑band GSO FSS spectrum in this *Report and Order*.
    At this time, the Ka-band does not carry the same heavy level of FSS
    traffic that the conventional C- and Ku-bands carry. As to Celsat,
    however, we highlighted in the *Notice* that Celsat's use of the
    Ka-band spectrum for feeder links depends on its ability to obtain
    successfully an appropriate GSO orbital location in the domestic
    arc, many of which already are assigned.[^289] Commenters suggest
    that Celsat use portions of the GSO FSS allocation where no
    geostationary orbital slots are currently occupied by first-round
    Ka-band licensees,[^290] or attempt to coordinate the 111° W.L.
    orbital position with the Canadian administration, which has an ITU
    filing at that location.[^291] This issue, and thus, the related
    authorization of Celsat's feeder links, will need to be resolved in
    the context of the Ka-band second processing round.[^292]

85. We note that Celsat is committed to cooperating with all interested
    parties in the Ka-band second processing round to develop an
    agreeable orbital assignment plan that will accommodate its feeder
    link request.[^293] Furthermore, Celsat's spectrum choices for its
    feeder links must be consistent with the limitations and related
    coordination requirements adopted to resolve Ka-band spectrum
    sharing issues. Thus, should Celsat seek feeder uplink spectrum in
    the 27.5-28.35 GHz sub-band (designated as primary to LMDS),[^294]
    it only could do so on an unprotected, non-interference basis to
    LMDS,[^295] with LMDS priority applied in all respects to any
    existing or future use of the band as currently allocated,[^296] and
    no requirement that LMDS licensees coordinate use of this band for
    MSS feeder links.[^297] Should Celsat seek its feeder downlink
    spectrum in the 18.3-18.58 GHz sub-band (co-primary with FS
    operators), it only could do so subject to coordination.[^298]
    Finally, should Celsat seek feeder uplink spectrum in the 29.25-29.5
    GHz sub-band (designated as co-primary with NGSO MSS feeder links),
    it would need to comply with the spectrum sharing and coordination
    rules set forth at Section 25.258 of the Commission's rules.[^299]

**2. Non-U.S.-Based Gateway Operations**

86. In *DISCO II*, the Commission concluded that systems serving the
    United States using foreign satellites must meet the same technical
    requirements as systems using U.S.-licensed satellites.[^300] TMI
    presents a unique situation among the nine 2 GHz MSS systems
    proponents. Specifically, TMI proposes to serve the United States
    from a Canadian-licensed satellite, using a Canadian gateway for
    feeder links and TT&C operations.[^301] By contrast, the other
    system proponents intend to use at least one U.S. gateway for feeder
    links and TT&C. TMI plans to use frequencies outside its proposed
    feeder links for TT&C operations,[^302] a system design that does
    not comport with Section 25.202(g) of the Commission's rules.[^303]
    PanAmSat argues that, to be authorized in the United States under
    the *DISCO II* LOI process, TMI must comply with the Commission's
    Part 25 technical rules applicable to U.S.-licensed systems,
    including Section 25.202(g).[^304] Because we do not have
    jurisdiction over system operations wholly outside of the United
    States, the *DISCO II* rule regarding technical requirements only
    applies to specific system components that operate in the United
    States. Thus, because TMI's feeder link and TT&C operations will be
    limited to transmissions between TMI's Canadian-licensed satellite
    and a Canadian gateway, and will not operate in the United States,
    the *DISCO II* rule regarding technical requirements does not apply
    to TMI's feeder links and TT&C transmissions.[^305] Notwithstanding
    the foregoing, any system proposing to handle communications
    originating or terminating from mobile terminals in the United
    States via gateways located outside the United States may need to
    address law enforcement and national security concerns before
    licensing or spectrum authorization can be effected.[^306]

87. TMI's system design prompted our proposal to require that 2 GHz MSS
    operators perform TT&C operations within their assigned feeder link
    frequencies, or within bands allocated to space operations, pursuant
    to Section 25.202(g) of the Commission's rules.[^307] Commenters
    generally support this proposal,[^308] and we adopt this requirement
    with regard to all 2 GHz MSS operators performing TT&C operations
    from control centers located in the United States. Should TMI seek
    Commission authority to operate TT&C from a U.S.-based earth station
    control center, we would require TMI to perform TT&C operations in
    compliance with Section 25.202(g).[^309]

**3. Inter-Satellite Service (ISS) Links**

88. Section 25.279 of the Commission's rules sets forth the obligation
    to coordinate proposed commercial use of the ISS bands with
    Government agencies in bands co-allocated to Government and
    non-Government use, as well as existing non-Government permittees
    and licensees.[^310] In the *Notice*, we proposed that Section
    25.279 would apply to the 2 GHz MSS system proponents. [^311] NTIA
    and Globalstar support of our proposal,[^312] and we received no
    objections. We therefore adopt this proposal, so that all parties
    cooperate fully and make every reasonable effort to resolve
    technical problems and conflicts that may inhibit effective and
    efficient use of the radio spectrum. Globalstar notes that Section
    25.279 refers to ISS links between only NGSO satellites and other
    space stations,[^313] and should be amended to apply to
    communications between any space stations.[^314] The Commission
    promulgated Section 25.279 in the *Big LEO Report & Order*,[^315] a
    processing round limited to NGSO satellites.[^316] Since that time,
    satellite systems are being designed to include inter-satellite
    communications between GSO satellites,[^317] or between satellites
    in a system incorporating GSO and NGSO architectures.[^318]
    Therefore, we revise Section 25.279 so that it will apply to any
    space station communicating with another space station using
    frequencies in the ISS bands.

89. Globalstar seeks ISS links in the 59‑64 GHz bands.[^319] Currently,
    the 59-64 GHz bands are available for Government and non-Government
    ISS.[^320] In July 1999, however, we proposed deleting the
    non-Government ISS allocation from the 59-64 GHz bands, and
    allocating the 65-71 GHz band for exclusive non-Government ISS
    use.[^321] We made these proposals because there is a
    well-established and pressing demand for commercial inter-satellite
    link spectrum and because NTIA asserts that Government ISS
    operations in the 59-64 GHz bands are not compatible with proposed
    commercial ISS users of this band.[^322] In the event that we adopt
    these proposals in an upcoming order, Globalstar may amend its
    proposed ISS frequencies to operate consistent with the U.S.
    allocation.[^323]

**4. Radionavigation Frequencies**

90. In addition to requesting service and feeder link spectrum for its
    2 GHz MSS system, Boeing seeks Commission authority to use the
    1565.42-1585.42 MHz band (the "GPS L1 band") to provide a Navigation
    Augmentation Service (NAS) for aircraft utilizing the Global
    Positioning System (GPS).[^324] In the *Notice*, we sought comment
    on Boeing's proposed use of this band, which is allocated for the
    Radionavigation Satellite Service (RNSS) and used by the Government
    for its GPS system within NTIA's jurisdiction.[^325] NTIA states
    that "\[d\]etailed discussion of the technical parameters of the
    proposed system will be necessary" with the Department of Defense
    and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure protection of GPS
    "before NTIA could concur on the Boeing proposal."[^326] Boeing
    therefore requests that the FCC authorize its proposed GPS
    augmentation service conditioned on the agreement of U.S. government
    users of the band.[^327]

91. Boeing's ability to provide MSS is not dependent on receipt of
    authorization to use the GPS L1 band.[^328] There are multiple
    technical and national policy issues to be resolved before we could
    authorize any GPS augmentation service in the RNSS. For example,
    NTIA requests that the Commission conform its rules to reflect the
    fact that the bandwidth for GPS has been amended to 1563.42-1587.42
    MHz,[^329] and Boeing asks the Commission to adopt rules requiring
    that any RNSS operating in the GPS L1 band must provide global
    coverage.[^330] We will address these issues, as well as a similar
    application submitted by Lockheed Martin Corporation,[^331] in a
    future action.

# C. Service Rules

**1. Regulatory Classification of Providers**

92. *Space Station Providers*. In the *Notice,* we sought comment on our
    interpretation that certain provisions of the Communications Act
    grant us the discretion to impose, or refrain from imposing,
    common-carrier regulation in the provision of space segment capacity
    in the 2 GHz MSS.[^332] We explained that, in our view, Section
    332(c)(5) of the Communications Act, which relates to CMRS,
    authorizes the Commission "to determine whether the provision of
    space segment capacity to providers of commercial mobile services
    shall be treated as common carriage."[^333] In addition, we noted
    that Section 3(44) of the Communications Act states that "the
    Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile
    satellite service shall be treated as common carriage."[^334] We
    tentatively concluded that we would treat the space segment
    component of 2 GHz MSS as non-common carriage.[^335]

93. We adopt our tentative conclusion. The commenters support our
    tentative conclusion that the space segment component of the 2 GHz
    MSS does not have to be regulated on a common carrier basis.[^336]
    In the *Notice*, we explained that the Commission has used the
    two-part analysis enunciated by the D.C. Circuit in *National
    Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. FCC*, 525 F.2d
    630, 642 (D.C. Cir. 1976), *cert. denied,* 425 U.S. 999 (*NARUC I*)
    to determine whether a space station operator offering service to
    another entity that then offers service to end users should be
    regulated as a common carrier.[^337] *NARUC I* requires a
    determination of whether: (1) there is or should be any legal
    compulsion to serve the public indifferently; or (2) whether the
    service is such that the provider is likely to hold itself out to
    serve indifferently all eligible users.

94. We tentatively concluded that, based on the *NARUC I* analysis, it
    did not appear that we needed to impose common carrier requirements
    on 2 GHz MSS space station operators. We explained in the *Notice*
    that, with respect to the first prong of the *NARUC I* analysis, in
    the context of satellite space station operators, there only would
    be a need for a legal requirement to serve the public indifferently
    if there were an insufficient amount of satellite capacity
    available. Specifically, we explained that the Commission has found
    that if the barriers to entry for new satellite operators are low
    and alternative competitive sources of satellite services are
    available to consumers through service providers, space segment
    operators will have incentive to offer space segment services
    efficiently at low wholesale rates.[^338] Under these circumstances,
    the Commission has determined that there is no need to compel
    operators to offer space segment capacity to service providers or
    the public indifferently.[^339] We also concluded that, under the
    second prong of the *NARUC I* analysis, based on the fact that 2 GHz
    MSS space station applicants propose to offer space segment-only
    services, they would not be holding themselves out to serve the
    public indifferently to all eligible users. In this regard, the 2
    GHz MSS operators will be in a similar position as Big LEO space
    station licensees and, thus, we see no reason to treat 2 GHz MSS
    space segment operators differently than Big LEO space segment
    licensees.

95. The commenters agree with our *NARUC I* analysis. Globalstar notes
    that, with respect to the first prong of the *NARUC I* analysis,
    space segment providers will not serve end users directly and that
    satellite operators offering space segment capacity to other
    carriers have operated in a competitive environment for many years
    qualifying as private carriers.[^340] As to the second prong of the
    *NARUC I* analysis, ICO asserts that there is nothing inherent in
    the 2 GHz MSS to require that space segment capacity be offered
    indifferently to the public.[^341] ICO and Iridium both assert that
    because 2 GHz MSS and Big LEO operations are similar, the services
    should be treated the same for regulatory classification
    purposes.[^342] Based on our analysis and the comments received, we
    adopt our tentative conclusion and will not require the space
    segment component of the 2 GHz MSS to be regulated as common carrier
    service.

96. *Earth Station Providers.* In the *Notice* we also sought comment on
    our tentative conclusion that, to the extent that 2 GHz MSS earth
    stations, including mobile earth terminals,[^343] gateways,[^344]
    and tracking, telemetry and control earth stations,[^345] are used
    to make service available to the public for profit and for
    interconnection with the public switched network, the service must
    be regulated as common carriage.[^346] We explained that if the
    service is offered to the public as described in the Communications
    Act,[^347] service to the end user of the service would fall within
    the statutory definition of CMRS.[^348] In addition, we explained
    that the Commission has determined that each mobile satellite
    service must be evaluated to determine whether the service offering
    is CMRS or private mobile radio service (PMRS).[^349] More
    specifically, we pointed out that in discussing Section 332(c)(5) of
    the Communications Act, Congress indicated that the provision of
    earth segment capacity to users of CMRS, including by MSS terminals,
    shall be treated as common carriage. In the *Notice*, we said,
    however, that we would reserve the right to review individual
    applications on a case-by-case basis to determine if this
    classification is appropriate. We also noted that the Commission has
    forborne from applying certain provisions of Title II to CMRS
    providers.[^350] We tentatively concluded that under the statutory
    and *NARUC I* standards, gateway earth stations and stations that
    may be used for tracking, telemetry and control should not be
    required to be licensed for common carriage because those services
    generally are not used to provide service to the public but rather
    for backhaul of large amounts of communications traffic and control
    of the space segment of satellite systems, respectively.

97. We adopt our tentative conclusions with respect to earth station
    regulatory classifications. We believe, and the commenters
    agree,[^351] that the reasons we provided in the *Notice* for
    treating mobile earth terminals differently than gateway and
    tracking, telemetry and control earth stations for regulatory
    classification purposes under the statutory definition of CMRS are
    valid. We will treat the mobile earth terminal component of the 2
    GHz MSS as common carriage for regulatory purposes. We will,
    however, reserve the right to review individual applications on a
    case-by-case basis to determine if this regulatory classification is
    appropriate. We note that Globalstar agrees with our conclusion that
    we should reserve the right to review each application on a
    case-by-case basis to determine whether a particular classification
    is appropriate and whether forbearance may be in order.[^352]

98. As for gateway and tracking, telemetry and control earth stations,
    several of the commenters agree with our preliminary analysis and
    explain that because these services are not offered directly to the
    public there is no need to regulate these components of the systems
    as common carriers.[^353] We adopt our tentative conclusions with
    respect to the regulatory classification of earth station terminals
    in the 2 GHz MSS and will not require that gateways or tracking,
    telemetry and control earth stations be regulated on a common
    carrier basis.

**2. System Licenses and Terms**

99. As we explained in the *Notice*, the applicants in the 2 GHz MSS
    propose systems that include non-geostationary constellations of
    technically identical satellites, geostationary satellites, and a
    hybrid system with satellites in geostationary and non-geostationary
    orbits.[^354] The *Notice* proposed granting "blanket" launch and
    operation licenses[^355] for systems of technically identical
    satellites, which probably will include most NGSO
    constellations.[^356] We proposed to license 2 GHz MSS geostationary
    satellites by issuing a separate license for each orbital position
    to account for variations in system design, such as beam patterns,
    at each geostationary satellite orbital position. We proposed this
    distinction in licensing between NGSO and GSO satellites because of
    the design differences between the systems, the beam coverage
    variations, and our experiences licensing both types of systems.

100. We adopt this proposal. ICO, the only commenter on this issue,
     supports our proposal.[^357] We believe that design differences
     among GSO satellites in a system affirm the value of our practice
     of licensing each GSO satellite individually. In addition, each GSO
     satellite must be internationally coordinated and technical
     concerns may arise unique to each satellite based on the operations
     of adjacent satellites. For GSO/NGSO hybrid systems, we will adopt
     our proposal to license the GSO component on an individual
     satellite basis and the NGSO constellation portion of the system on
     a "blanket" license basis.

101. In the *Notice*, we proposed a ten-year license term for 2 GHz MSS
     operators in addition to a pre-operational testing authority.[^358]
     We proposed that, like the Big LEO license term, the license term
     for 2 GHz MSS would end ten years following commencement of
     satellite operations. Thus, given construction time, the length of
     the authorization actually would exceed ten years. We also proposed
     that systems with both NGSO and GSO satellite components would have
     separate license terms for the NGSO portion of the system and for
     each GSO satellite. Finally, recognizing statutory authority for
     the FCC to be able to award a longer license period,[^359] as well
     as the investment required to construct and launch these systems,
     combined with the development of satellite technology, specifically
     developments that have given satellites longer life spans -- up to
     15 or more years in some cases for geostationary satellites -- we
     sought comment on whether the license term should exceed ten years.
     We also proposed that the license would include a separate
     pre-operational testing authority. In addition, we proposed to
     permit the licensee to replace any satellites lost during launch
     and older satellites retired before the end of the license period
     with technically identical satellites.

102. The commenters support our proposal to extend the license term to
     15 years. The commenters argue that longer license terms will
     enhance system proponents' ability to attract the large investments
     required to start a global MSS system.[^360] Boeing, Inmarsat and
     IUSG point out that longer license terms more accurately reflect
     the improvements in satellite life span.[^361] These commenters
     agree that the Commission has the statutory authority to extend
     license terms.[^362]

103. We adopt a 15-year license term for the 2 GHz MSS space segment for
     NGSO constellations, individual GSO satellites, and the equivalent
     terms for the NGSO constellation and individual GSO satellite
     portions of hybrid systems. We agree with the commenters that state
     that the extremely large amount of capital investment required to
     construct a global MSS system, particularly NGSO systems, is
     facilitated by the increased degree of certainty provided by a
     longer license term.[^363] We also recognize that GSO satellites
     are being constructed with longer life-spans of 15 years or more.
     In this regard, we believe that it is appropriate to have a license
     term that is more commensurate with the life of geostationary
     satellites. We also adopt our proposal to start the license term
     once operations commence and the licensee certifies to the
     Commission that the first satellite in the system has been
     successfully placed into orbit and the first transmission to or
     from that satellite in the authorized frequency bands has occurred,
     as we required for Big LEO licensees. In addition we will authorize
     system operators to conduct pre-operational testing in the license
     grant, to the extent that applicants include such information in
     their applications.

104. We also adopt our proposal to permit replacement satellites to be
     launched within the license term of the satellite being replaced
     without distinction between GSO and NGSO systems. ICO agrees with
     our proposal and suggests that we adopt a rule to require
     replacement satellites to conform identically to their operational
     counterparts.[^364] We have found that requiring that replacement
     satellites launched during the initial license term be technically
     identical to the authorized satellite has worked well as a policy
     for Big LEO licensees and will continue this requirement. Most NGSO
     constellations require satellites to be technically identical.
     Requiring GSO satellites to be technically identical will assure
     continued compatibility of the systems with other users of the
     spectrum. We also adopt our proposal that the technically identical
     replacement satellite requirement apply to all 2 GHz MSS system
     designs -- NGSO, GSO and hybrid systems. As such, we will treat any
     non-conforming satellites as requests for license modification, as
     the Commission does with respect to Big LEO satellites.[^365] In
     addition, as to spare satellites, we adopt our proposal to allow
     system operators to request authority to deploy technically
     identical in-orbit spare satellites in the case of NGSO
     constellations and collocated spares for GSO systems.[^366] System
     operators can activate spare satellites as necessary, but will be
     required to notify the Commission, within ten days after
     activation, that activation of the satellite did not cause the
     licensee to exceed the total number of authorized space stations.
     As proposed, the license term for activated spare satellites will
     expire with the overall system's authorization term.

105. Where licensees wish to utilize next generation systems, or
     individual next generation satellites in the case of GSO operators,
     after the initial license term, they must file applications no
     earlier than three months before and no later than one month after
     the end of the twelfth year of the existing license.[^367] As we
     explained in the *Notice*, this proposal, which is the same as the
     Big LEO rule, is designed to allow the Commission and the public
     adequate time to evaluate and act upon replacement applications, as
     well as sufficient time for the licensee to implement its next
     generation system. We proposed not to adopt a formal renewal
     expectancy for 2 GHz MSS licensees, but to proceed on a
     case-by-case basis as we have in other satellite services.[^368] We
     adopt our proposal. Specifically, we will generally grant system
     operators the authority to implement replacement systems/satellites
     if the orbit location and/or frequencies remain available for use
     by U.S. systems.[^369] This recognizes that changed circumstances,
     including intervening international agreements, may affect our
     ability to assign or renew orbit and spectrum resources to U.S.
     systems. IUSG, ICO, and Iridium argue for the grant of a license
     renewal expectancy in order to provide for greater investment
     attraction,[^370] to assured continuity of service to
     consumers,[^371] to provide a reduction in the burden associated
     with the grant of *ad hoc* extensions and to acknowledge the great
     expense of procuring the initial license.[^372] We agree with these
     commenters' concerns but believe that the 15-year license term we
     are granting to 2 GHz MSS operators will serve the same objectives.
     We recognize, however, the enormous investment necessary to launch
     and operate 2 GHz MSS satellite systems and therefore will grant
     extensions for satellites that continue to operate beyond their
     license term, replacement authorizations, and renewals, if
     appropriate, unless extraordinary circumstances require a denial.
     Thus, we will continue to review renewal applications on a
     case-by-case basis. We also adopt our proposal that these policies
     apply to earth station renewals.

**3. Implementation Milestones**

106. In the *Notice*, consistent with Commission precedent, we proposed
     to adopt an implementation milestone schedule for 2 GHz MSS
     systems. Under that precedent, we seek to ensure speedy delivery of
     service to the public and prevent warehousing of valuable orbital
     locations and spectrum. To that end, we require systems to begin
     operation within a prescribed time. We continue to believe that
     milestone requirements promote efficient use of limited spectrum
     resources. As we emphasized in the *Notice*, milestone requirements
     are especially important because we are declining to adopt
     financial qualifications as an entry criterion for 2 GHz MSS
     systems.[^373] Commenters generally agreed with our conclusions. We
     therefore adopt the following implementation milestone schedules
     for 2 GHz MSS systems, which will be incorporated as conditions to
     licensing and spectrum reservation:

-   *Non-geostationary satellite systems* must enter into a
    non-contingent satellite manufacturing contract for the system
    within one year of authorization, complete critical design review
    ("CDR") within two years of authorization, begin physical
    construction of all satellites in the system within two and a half
    years of authorization, and complete construction and launch of the
    first two satellites within three and a half years of grant.[^374]

-   *Geostationary satellite systems* must enter into a non-contingent
    satellite manufacturing contract within one year, complete CDR
    within two years, begin physical construction of all satellites in
    the system within three years, and complete construction of, and
    launch, one satellite of its constellation into its assigned orbital
    location within five years of authorization.

-   *Hybrid satellite systems* (containing NGSO and GSO components) must
    follow the non-geostationary milestones for the non-geostationary
    portion of the system and comply with the geostationary milestones
    for the geostationary portion of the proposed system.

-   The entire system, whether NGSO, GSO, or hybrid, will have to be
    launched and operational within six years of authorization.

Non-compliance with implementation milestones will result in
cancellation of the authorization.[^375] Consistent with our practice in
other services, we will require operators to submit certifications of
milestone compliance, or filing disclosure of non-compliance, within 10
days following a milestone specified in the system authorization.
Failure to file a timely certification of milestone compliance, or
filing disclosure of non-compliance, will result in automatic
cancellation of an operator's system authorization with no further
action required on the Commission's part.[^376]

107. As proposed in the *Notice*, and generally supported by
     commenters,[^377] milestones will begin to run upon award of a
     service link license to U.S.-based applicants, or upon issuance of
     a Public Notice or Declaratory Ruling designating spectrum for LOI
     filers.[^378] We will assess compliance with the adopted milestone
     schedules through review of the annual reports operators must file,
     which include detailed information about satellite system
     implementation.[^379] In addition, operators must, within ten days
     after a required implementation milestone, certify to the
     Commission by affidavit that the system has (or has not) met the
     milestone.[^380] IUSG and ICO recommend that all filers be required
     to make milestone reports public to all interested parties.[^381]
     We agree with these commenters. While we will permit filers to
     request confidential treatment of information that may be
     proprietary, we strongly urge filers to limit the scope of
     confidentiality requests. Finally, we retain discretion to seek
     additional information from system proponents concerning any aspect
     of system progress.

108. The milestone schedule we adopt incorporates a number of elements
     of the European Milestone Review Committee ("MRC") criteria for
     system implementation, as suggested by Globalstar.[^382] In
     particular, we are adopting CDR as a new, intermediate milestone.
     CDR is the stage in the spacecraft implementation process at which
     the design and development phase ends and the manufacturing phase
     starts. System proponents certifying completion of this milestone
     must support their certification with a declaration by the
     satellite manufacturing company stating the date on which the CDR
     was completed.[^383] This new milestone will address commenters'
     concerns, which we share, with there being a three-year gap between
     the first and second milestones. The CDR milestone will aid us in
     assessing that prospective operators are taking immediate, concrete
     steps toward system implementation after meeting the first
     milestone, and allows us to identify any failure in system
     progress. This approach also will require prospective operators to
     identify any system modifications needing prior FCC approval well
     in advance of the CDR milestone.

109. Note, however, that we adopt Globalstar's suggestion that licensees
     meet the MRC milestones only in part, declining to adopt several
     suggestions for making milestone requirements stricter. We are
     sympathetic to concerns that milestone requirements must be
     effective so that spectrum does not lie fallow, and have carefully
     considered these requests. We believe the MRC milestones are a
     reasonable method for evaluating system progress, and one that
     complements our own efforts. The information provided to the MRC is
     very similar to that provided to the FCC in annual construction
     progress reports. We believe the more limited set of milestone
     requirements we adopt today will provide adequate warning if a
     system is not progressing toward provision of service. Similarly,
     we do not adopt IUSG's suggestion that we impose a separate
     milestone schedule to track the progress of in-orbit spares and
     ground segments.[^384] While progress with respect to spare
     satellites and ground segment may be relevant to overall system
     progress, in the typical case, a system making no progress on
     ground segment or spare construction also will exhibit
     non-compliance with other milestone requirements.

110. We also reject suggestions that we relax milestone requirements for
     space stations. In particular, we reject Constellation's proposal
     that companies already licensed to construct first generation MSS
     systems in other frequency bands, should begin their 2 GHz MSS
     milestones periods on a date that would permit them to launch a
     second generation system including both frequency bands.[^385] If
     we were to adopt this proposal, such systems might not be required
     to begin 2 GHz MSS operation before 2010. This is an unreasonably
     long period of time in which to preclude spectrum from potential
     use by other parties, including any new entrants that develop
     system plans in the next few years, and thereby delay deployment of
     service for U.S. customers. Modifications of currently licensed
     systems, of the type described by Constellation, are more
     appropriately considered at a later date.

111. As we noted in the *Notice*, the Communications Act states that
     "\[w\]ith respect to any other station or class of station
     \[including space and earth stations\], the Commission shall not
     waive the requirement for a construction permit unless the
     Commission determines that the public interest, convenience, and
     necessity would be served by such a waiver."[^386] Consistent with
     our statutory authority, and with our treatment of other satellite
     services, we will waive the requirement that 2 GHz MSS operators
     obtain construction permits for space and earth stations prior to
     commencing construction. We will, however, require that 2 GHz MSS
     system operators notify the Commission in writing that they intend
     to begin construction at their own risk of satellites and earth
     stations.[^387]

**4. Reporting Requirements**

112. The *Notice* proposed applying the same annual reporting
     requirements to 2 GHz MSS operators as we currently apply to other
     satellite systems.[^388] The reporting rules require system
     operators to file reports specifying satellite system
     implementation, anticipated launch dates, system utilization, and
     system outages or malfunctions. The reports also are used to
     determine annual regulatory fees for each system. We proposed to
     amend Section 25.143(e) of the Commission's rules to apply these
     requirements to 2 GHz MSS operators.[^389]

113. We adopt the reporting requirements as proposed in the *Notice*,
     with the addition of requiring satellite operators receiving
     expansion spectrum to report on the actual number of subscriber
     minutes originating or terminating in unserved areas as a
     percentage of the actual U.S. system use.[^390] The commenters
     agree with this proposal, with some minor exceptions.[^391] We note
     that under this requirement we are not requiring foreign-licensed
     systems to file separately information already provided to the
     licensing administration. As ICO points out in its comments,
     because it is licensed by the United Kingdom, the Commission has
     determined not to subject it or other similarly foreign-authorized
     systems to redundant licensing requirements in the United
     States.[^392] We require, however, that foreign-licensed system
     operators file any information required by our rules but not
     already filed with the licensing administration. We also require
     foreign-licensed operators to file copies with the Commission of
     information submitted to the foreign-licensing administration that
     is required of U.S.-licensees for purposes of monitoring compliance
     with our rules and the terms of entry into the U.S. market.

114. The *Notice* also proposed to apply to 2 GHz MSS operators the
     requirement that system operators file affidavits certifying
     whether milestone requirements are met.[^393] As we explained in
     the *Notice*, the Commission will retain the right to request
     additional information to ensure compliance with milestones. These
     requirements are consistent with the U.S. commitments in the World
     Trade Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications because
     the Commission requires this information to determine whether
     system implementation milestones of both U.S. and foreign operators
     have been met and to ensure network operational status.

115. In the *Notice,* we proposed to change the deadline for filing
     annual reports from June 30th to October 10th. The purpose of this
     proposed change is to provide additional information about system
     operators and to coincide with the end of the Commission's fiscal
     year, September 30th, for more accurate determination of annual
     regulatory fees.[^394] Iridium filed comments supporting this
     change.[^395] We adopt this proposal.

116. We also sought comment on our proposal to allow parties to request
     confidential treatment for any portion of an annual report.[^396]
     Iridium suggests that the Commission delete the requirement to
     report on system utilization and to provide confidential treatment
     of reports from operational systems but not of reports related to
     progress in meeting implementation milestones, that Iridium
     contends should be publicly available.[^397] We decline to
     implement Iridium's suggestions. As required under our Big LEO
     rules, 2 GHz MSS operators will be required to file affidavits
     certifying that milestones have been met and operators will be
     permitted to request confidential treatment of an annual report
     pursuant to Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules.[^398] We
     believe that this policy has not been burdensome for operators in
     the past and that it sufficiently provides for the disclosure of
     individual system proponents' progress toward system implementation
     and of operational status.

**5. Distress and Safety Communications and Enhanced 9-1-1**

117. *Distress and Safety Communications.* As we stated in the *Notice*,
     many of the 2 GHz MSS systems proposed would be capable of
     providing distress and safety communications services.[^399] In
     addition to voice and data services, several of the applicants
     propose position determination features. We noted that 2 GHz MSS
     systems cannot be used in place of distress beacons, such as
     satellite emergency position indicating radiobeacons (EPIRBs) that
     are required by international agreement and statute to be carried
     by passenger ships and certain cargo ships. [^400] Like Big LEO
     operators, however, 2 GHz MSS systems will have certain statutory
     obligations related to maritime distress communications. In the
     *Notice,* we explained that in the *Big LEO Report & Order*, the
     Commission stated that, although the Big LEO applicants did not
     have plans for extensive distress and safety service, to the extent
     they provided such services, the licensees would have to meet
     certain statutory obligations and coordinate with the appropriate
     safety and rescue organizations.[^401] In the *Notice,* we sought
     comment on our tentative conclusion that because the services being
     proposed by 2 GHz MSS systems are similar to those proposed by Big
     LEO licensees, the distress and safety rules adopted for Big LEO
     licensees also should be adopted for 2 GHz MSS systems.[^402]

118. The comments support our proposal to adopt safety and distress
     rules for the 2 GHz MSS. The commenters state that the application
     of the Big LEO rules to 2 GHz MSS operators would be equitable
     because the rule already applies to the Big LEO licensees.[^403]
     NTIA states that 2 GHz MSS operators providing safety and rescue
     services should coordinate with the National Search and Rescue
     Committee (NSARC)[^404] and all other similar domestic and
     international search and rescue organizations, as required by
     Section 25.143(f)(2).[^405] NTIA supports our tentative conclusion
     to modify Section 25.143(f) of the rules, to require 2 GHz MSS
     operators to comply with ship distress and safety
     requirements.[^406] The United States Coast Guard (USCG) proposes
     that we adopt the International Maritime Organization's (IMO)
     "Criteria for use when Providing Inmarsat Shore-based Facilities"
     for use in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety Service (GMDSS)
     to address reliability of delivering emergency messages over
     satellite systems (IMO Inmarsat criteria) for the 2 GHz MSS
     systems.[^407]

119. We agree with the commenters that it is appropriate to apply the
     Big LEO distress and safety rules to the 2 GHz MSS, which will
     offer similar services. Therefore, we adopt the distress and safety
     rules as proposed and amend Section 25.143(f) of our rules[^408] to
     include the 2 GHz MSS service. We agree with NTIA's recommendation
     that the 2 GHz MSS operators providing safety and rescue services
     coordinate their service with NSARC. We decline, however, to adopt
     the USCG's recommendation that we apply the IMO Inmarsat criteria
     to 2 GHz MSS because of the delay that would result in adapting the
     requirements specifically for 2 GHz MSS. This could place
     unnecessary and onerous requirements on mobile satellite operators.
     We find that our current network reliability reporting requirements
     are sufficient for 2 GHz MSS systems. If a 2 GHz MSS operator wants
     to be recognized as part of the GMDSS or offer specialized Maritime
     Mobile Satellite Distress Service, we will reexamine the
     application of these requirements to 2 GHz MSS operators.[^409]

120. *Enhanced 911.* In the *Notice*, we explained that in the *Big LEO
     Report & Order*, the Commission also considered and denied requests
     that Big LEO operators be required to provide caller ID,
     standardized position information and automatic call routing for
     distress and safety communications or disaster response
     communications, stating that it would address the issue in a
     separate rulemaking on enhanced 911 (E911).[^410] We explained
     that, in the 1996 *E911 Report & Order*,[^411] the Commission
     exempted MSS carriers from 911 obligations because MSS was still in
     the early development stages and faced more technological and
     international hurdles than terrestrial carriers.[^412] Therefore,
     the Commission did not include MSS in the list of covered CMRS
     carriers.[^413] The Commission stated, however, that it expected
     mobile satellite operators to eventually provide appropriate access
     to emergency services in future systems as they are deployed.[^414]

121. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on whether 2 GHz MSS systems,
     particularly those at an early stage of development, should be
     required to implement their systems with E911 capabilities.[^415]
     We noted that because four of the 2 GHz MSS applicants are Big LEO
     licensees proposing essentially second generation or expansion
     systems, it appeared appropriate to consider whether E911
     capabilities should be incorporated into these expansion systems.
     Several commenters support adoption of E911 requirements for the 2
     GHz MSS.[^416] Specifically, commenters explain that having
     automatic number identification (ANI) and automatic location
     identification (ALI) would provide an important public safety
     function and assist agencies responsible for search and rescue
     operations in remote locations, including rural, wilderness,
     unserved, and maritime situations.[^417] The USCG points out that
     this information is important to identify the person seeking
     assistance and also for prosecution and deterrence of hoax
     calls.[^418] The USCG believes that it is essential for every MSS
     system to provide a means to reach a real person, not an automated
     system, 24 hours a day to ensure that the proper Public Safety
     Answering Points (PSAPs) are identified.[^419]

122. The USCG explains that there is also an international component to
     the E911 discussion. The USCG requests that the Commission closely
     coordinate any compatibility requirements and standards with
     international regulatory bodies.[^420] The USCG states that
     standards are needed to allow these wireless systems to transmit
     ALI, ANI, priority and routing information to emergency service
     providers in other countries.[^421] The USCG states further that
     the International Maritime Organization is working to resolve
     international access for emergency calls from ships over MSS.

123. We also explained in the *Notice* that several of the 2 GHz MSS
     applicants are proposing systems that may complement terrestrial
     wireless communications networks, which are required to provide
     E911 capabilities. Because of the potential for seamless use of the
     2 GHz MSS systems, we sought comment as to whether we should
     require 2 GHz MSS operators to provide a seamless network with
     similar emergency services for users as terrestrial systems. Some
     commenters point out that the public's expectations of the
     capabilities of 2 GHz MSS handsets, especially those designed for
     seamless roaming, may be that the handset will have the same
     capabilities as terrestrial systems.[^422] Commenters explain that
     because 2 GHz MSS has yet to be implemented, the 2 GHz MSS
     rulemaking is the best time for the Commission to set standards and
     avoid the delays in implementation faced by the cellular and
     Personal Communications Service industries.[^423] The USCG and NTIA
     request that if the Commission does not require all consumer
     wireless equipment to have E911 capability, that any equipment not
     capable of providing emergency calling functions be labeled clearly
     to indicate that it cannot be used for emergency purposes.[^424]

124. Other commenters oppose the adoption of E911 requirements for the 2
     GHz MSS.[^425] They argue that E911 requirements would be
     inappropriate at this time because the MSS industry is still in the
     nascent stages of development and is facing unique global
     technological and regulatory hurdles.[^426] Some argue that because
     of MSS technological characteristics and coverage requirements, it
     is more difficult for MSS operators to provide E911 service than
     for terrestrial wireless providers to do so.[^427]

125. We appreciate the comments received on these issues and value the
     concerns raised including those regarding public safety. We
     recognize that whether terrestrial wireless- or satellite-based,
     deployment of E911 features can save lives and improve the
     efficiency and effectiveness of emergency police, fire, and medical
     services across the country. We also note that, since the adoption
     of the *E911 Report & Order*, there have been significant strides
     in the development of GPS-based location technology.[^428] We
     further note some commenters' position that, because 2 GHz MSS has
     yet to be implemented, this rulemaking is the best time for the
     Commission to adopt E911 obligations. We find, however, that there
     is insufficient information in the record in this proceeding to
     mandate specific requirements. We believe, therefore, that it is
     better to address the E911 issue in the forthcoming Global Mobile
     Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) rulemaking (*GMPCS
     Proceeding*).[^429] To that end, we direct the International Bureau
     to issue a Public Notice in the *GMPCS Proceeding* seeking
     additional information regarding the technological, regulatory, and
     international aspects of Basic 911 and E911 for satellite services.
     Addressing this issue in the *GMPCS Proceeding*, moreover, will
     allow us to simultaneously consider the full scope of technical and
     other issues on a wide-scale basis for the entire satellite
     industry, including all MSS and FSS services, rather than only the
     2 GHz MSS at issue here.

126. In the interim, we are concerned that in an emergency situation
     consumers may have difficulty distinguishing between services
     provided by satellite and those provided by terrestrial wireless
     networks, which are required to offer Basic 911 services, and E911
     services under certain conditions.[^430] As a result, consumers
     likely will expect 911 services to be available whether they are on
     terrestrial systems or roaming on a satellite network. Until the
     Commission adopts an order in the *GMPCS Proceeding*, we require
     any handset used for 2 GHz MSS that does not have the capability of
     providing basic 911 or E911, to clearly indicate that it cannot
     provide those functions in the form of a sticker or label affixed
     to the handset. In addition, we strongly encourage the 2 GHz MSS
     industry to design the space segment portion of their networks with
     sufficient flexibility to be capable of accommodating earth station
     operators providing 911 services and to be able to provide basic
     and E911 services upon commencement of service to the public. We
     also recognize that MSS operators may be compelled by market forces
     to provide such 911 services in order to compete with terrestrial
     providers. In addition, we encourage continued development of
     international standards for emergency calling capabilities.

127. Finally, manufacturers of 2 GHz MSS equipment and service providers
     whose equipment and service do not have the capability of providing
     emergency calling functions and have not been fully coordinated
     with NSARC are prohibited from marketing their equipment and
     services to ships for distress or safety functions. In order to be
     eligible to market or operate such equipment and services,
     manufacturers of MSS equipment and service providers are required
     to notify the FCC that their service has been fully coordinated
     with NSARC.

**6. Trafficking**

128. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on whether we should adopt an
     anti-trafficking rule for 2 GHz MSS licensees.[^431] We explained
     that the Commission adopted an anti-trafficking rule to govern the
     transfer of Big LEO licenses, which were not granted through
     competitive bidding.[^432] We also explained that the purpose of
     the anti-trafficking rule is to prevent unjust enrichment of those
     who had obtained a license only for speculation and would not
     implement systems.[^433] We cautioned that it is not our intent to
     adopt an anti-trafficking rule that would prevent debt or equity
     transactions, but rather to ensure that licensees do not sell bare
     licenses for profit.

129. ICO and IUSG oppose the adoption of anti-trafficking rules. ICO
     believes that the anti-trafficking prohibition on license sales is
     inappropriate in the volatile global telecommunications
     marketplace.[^434] ICO would allow trafficking and would address
     the associated spectrum speculation issue through the use of
     milestones and inter-system coordination procedures that only
     recognize operational systems.[^435] IUSG argues that
     anti-trafficking rules are not necessary because the complex
     licensing procedures will deter any party from applying for a 2 GHz
     authorization in order to transfer it purely for profit.[^436] IUSG
     believes that licensees are also deterred from speculative
     trafficking practices because they are likely to have other vital
     interests before the Commission.[^437]

130. We are not convinced by ICO and IUSG's arguments. As we have
     stated, we do not intend our anti-trafficking rule to be an
     impediment to legitimate investments in 2 GHz MSS systems. We agree
     with these commenters that licensing procedures and milestones also
     will protect against speculative applications. These rules,
     however, do not cover the entire licensing process. For instance,
     without an anti-trafficking rule, a successful licensee/spectrum
     designee with no intention to provide service could transfer its
     authorization for significant profit.

131. We adopt the anti-trafficking rule as proposed in the *Notice*. We
     believe that the policies of deterring speculation and unjust
     enrichment are well-served by this rule in other services, without
     hampering a licensees' ability to raise capital.[^438] We will
     review transfer and assignment applications in 2 GHz MSS under the
     same criteria we have used in other satellite services.[^439]

132. We also sought comment on whether, if adopted, an anti-trafficking
     rule should apply to foreign systems for which a spectrum
     reservation has been made and how we would retain the discretion to
     address our unjust enrichment policy concerns in connection with
     spectrum reservations for foreign-licensed satellites. In its
     comments, Iridium states that it supports anti-trafficking rules
     but only if equally applied to foreign-licensed systems with
     special attention to the ICO/Inmarsat relationship. [^440] Iridium
     suggests that the Commission place special restrictions on
     transfers between Inmarsat and ICO because of their affiliated
     ownership and control. Iridium believes that any ICO/Inmarsat
     transfers should be allowed only if the Commission determines
     that: (1) all other global MSS systems are able to obtain access to
     markets and spectrum in every country where ICO or Inmarsat have
     access; and (2) an ICO/Inmarsat transfer is in the public
     interest.[^441]

133. ICO and Inmarsat object to Iridium's suggestion that restrictive
     transfer rules should apply only to ICO and Inmarsat. These
     commenters argue that such a rule would unfairly predicate
     transfers of spectrum upon conditions over which neither company
     has any control.[^442] ICO also points out that an ICO/Inmarsat
     specific rule would violate the Commission's own principles as
     outlined in *DISCO II.* [^443] Inmarsat also argues that Iridium
     does not show why its proposed rules should not apply to all
     applicants.[^444]

134. As we have said before, our service rules will apply equally to
     U.S.-licensed and foreign-licensed systems, including our
     anti-trafficking rule.[^445] If a foreign-licensed spectrum
     designee's ownership undergoes a change prior to the issuance of an
     earth station authorization for use of any spectrum reserved in a
     space station processing round, that designee must file a
     notification with the FCC so that we may ensure that the
     circumstances continue to warrant a spectrum reservation. For
     example, we will need to know whether the transferee's licensing
     administration is a WTO member country for purposes of our market
     access analysis. Once we receive notification of the change, we
     will determine if we need additional information to conduct an
     anti-trafficking analysis. We will not adopt an ICO/Inmarsat
     specific rule. We believe that our licensing and spectrum
     designation process combined with the *DISCO II* analysis and
     prohibition on exclusionary arrangements are sufficient to address
     Iridium's market access concerns.

**7. Orbital Debris Mitigation**

135. In the *Notice*, we outlined the steps undertaken by Executive
     Branch agencies to develop guidelines for orbital debris
     mitigation, and asked whether the Commission should take any
     complementary steps.[^446] In particular, we sought comment on
     whether some or all elements of the National Aeronautics & Space
     Administration (NASA)/Department of Defense (DoD) draft debris
     mitigation standard practices should be incorporated in the
     Commission's rules.[^447] We asked, in the alternative, whether we
     should require submission, in connection with satellite licensing,
     of narrative information concerning debris mitigation.[^448]

136. A number of commenters stated they considered it their
     responsibility to mitigate orbital debris generated by their
     operations.[^449] Several commenters agreed with our observation in
     the *Notice* that debris issues are not unique to satellites
     operating at 2 GHz, and suggested that any debris mitigation
     requirements should be addressed in a separate proceeding
     concerning all commercial communications satellites.[^450]

137. The DoD, through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
     Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, filed comments
     stating its concern with "what may appear to be a desire to make
     mandatory all aspects of the DoD/NASA voluntary debris mitigation
     standards," especially that portion involving disposal of
     spacecraft at the end-of-life.[^451] DoD offered several specific
     comments to aid the Commission in determining "what aspects of the
     voluntary guidelines are mature for consideration as
     regulations."[^452] DoD emphasized that the NASA/DoD guidelines are
     voluntary, and must be analyzed in individual cases in light of
     impact on mission objectives and cost.[^453] DoD observes that
     "\[t\]he current state of knowledge on orbital debris does not
     support a regulation requiring the mandatory deorbit or deboost of
     satellites."[^454] DoD noted, however, that "requiring
     documentation of debris mitigation design strategies and
     end-of-life plans may not be unreasonable."[^455]

138. Currently, the FCC addresses concerns regarding orbital debris and
     satellite systems on a case-by-case basis, typically in response to
     concerns raised by potentially affected third parties. Any such
     concerns are analyzed under the general "public interest,
     convenience, and necessity," standard in the Communications Act.
     Based on the comments received, and giving particular weight to the
     expertise of DoD on this matter, at this time we will continue to
     address orbital debris concerns for all systems, including 2 GHz
     MSS, on a case-by-case basis. In order to ensure an adequate
     opportunity for comment by potentially affected entities, however,
     parties to our 2 GHz MSS processing round must submit a narrative
     statement describing the debris mitigation design and operational
     strategies, if any, that they will use. System proponents must
     include this narrative statement in the amendments to applications
     or LOIs to be filed no later than 30 days after a summary of this
     *Report and Order* is published in the Federal Register. Applicants
     are specifically required to submit a casualty risk assessment if
     planned post-mission disposal involves atmospheric re-entry of the
     spacecraft. In preparing such exhibits, parties may find helpful
     the NASA/DoD guidelines and the ITU Recommendation concerning
     end-of-life maneuvers by geostationary satellites.[^456] We intend
     to commence a rulemaking proceeding proposing to adopt filing
     requirements for all FCC-licensed satellite services. In addition,
     the rulemaking will explore other orbital debris mitigation issues,
     including selection of safe flight profiles and operational
     configurations, and post-mission disposal practices.

**8. Exclusionary Arrangements**

139. In the *Notice,* we sought comment on our proposal to apply to 2
     GHz MSS our rule applicable to other satellite services prohibiting
     exclusionary arrangements for traffic between the United States and
     foreign countries.[^457] As explained in the *Notice,* exclusionary
     arrangements are arrangements that offer a particular satellite
     system as the only permissible facility through which to obtain a
     particular satellite service between the United States and another
     country.[^458] We reiterated in the *Notice* that it is our policy
     to prohibit exclusionary arrangements in other satellite services
     to facilitate competition. [^459] We also explained that prior to
     the DISCO II decision, the Commission applied this prohibition to
     U.S. licensees and that the *DISCO II Order* extended this policy
     to non-U.S. systems.[^460] Under this policy, if a provider (U.S.
     or non-U.S.) has an exclusionary arrangement, we will not authorize
     service by the provider between the United States and the country
     with which the provider has such an exclusionary arrangement.[^461]

140. Congress has recently enacted a statutory bar to exclusionary
     arrangements in the ORBIT Act.[^462] Because there is now a
     statutory prohibition against such arrangements, we do not believe
     that it is necessary to adopt our proposal to apply to 2 GHz MSS
     our rule applicable to other satellite services. Therefore, we do
     not adopt our proposal on exclusionary arrangements. We note,
     however, that there are additional statutory requirements for
     intergovernmental satellite organizations and their affiliates with
     respect to exclusionary arrangements that we will evaluate in the
     licensing and spectrum reservation phase of this proceeding.[^463]

##### Mobile Earth Station Licensing

141. Even though the 2 GHz MSS ground segment proposals are unique in
     their design, they all are comprised of three principal elements:
     mobile earth stations operating in the 2 GHz MSS frequency bands,
     fixed earth "gateway" stations operating in the feeder link
     frequency bands, and TT&C earth stations operating in either the
     feeder link or other space frequency bands. Furthermore, the
     proposed 2 GHz MSS systems' ground segments are analogous in their
     functionality to Big LEO systems' ground segments. Recognizing
     these common aspects of MSS ground segment design in the Notice, we
     proposed to amend the existing Big LEO licensing procedure and
     rules for the mobile earth stations to include the 2 GHz MSS
     systems and to license 2 GHz gateways and TT&C stations as
     fixed-satellite earth stations under Part 25.[^464] In addition, we
     sought comment on whether, in conjunction with the GMPCS
     certification procedure, we need to adopt new requirements beyond
     those already proposed or applicable for the operations of the 2
     GHz mobile earth terminals, such as position determination,
     out-of-band emissions, transponder's operational frequency range or
     radiation hazard standard.

142. The commenters generally support our proposal to extend the Big LEO
     earth station licensing procedure to the 2 GHz MSS systems.[^465]
     Under these procedures, each 2 GHz MSS service provider will be
     required to obtain blanket licenses to cover multiple user
     transceiver units. [^466] Because of the similarity of services
     offered by Big LEOs and 2 GHz MSS systems, and because these
     procedures have been proven to ensure safe and secure
     communications for the public and other licensees while reducing
     the regulatory burden, we adopt these rules as proposed in the
     *Notice*.

143. Several parties support the application of the GMPCS certification
     procedure for 2 GHz MSS Mobile Earth Terminals (MET) and associated
     additional requirements.[^467] Other commenters assert that in
     order to promote free cross-border circulation of METs, the
     Commission should adopt even more stringent technical standards
     that are consistent with the international standards.[^468]
     Conversely, TMI points out that global circulation is not required
     for systems that will provide only regional service. Therefore, TMI
     argues, the Commission should not mandate GMPCS certification as
     part of the 2 GHz MSS service rules.[^469]

144. Although the current interim FCC certification process for GMPCS
     equipment is voluntary, it may become an essential part of the
     Commission's blanket licensing process for mobile earth stations.
     We currently are conducting a rulemaking to integrate the GMPCS
     certification into our existing regulatory framework.[^470] We
     expect this rulemaking to finalize the technical requirements and
     procedures associated with the GMPCS certification. We, therefore,
     defer consideration of GMPCS requirements for the 2 GHz mobile
     earth stations pending completion of the *GMPCS Proceeding*, and
     plan to address the comments filed on the issue of GMPCS
     certification in the *GMPCS Proceeding*.

##### E. International Coordination

145. As we stated in the *Notice*, all proposed 2 GHz MSS systems
     require some degree of international coordination. In this regard,
     we sought comment on the policies we should adopt for international
     coordination of the U.S.-licensed 2 GHz MSS systems. We also sought
     comment on the coordination policies that we should adopt toward
     the non-U.S. licensed systems that we may authorize to operate in
     the United States in accordance the with *DISCO II Order*.[^471]
     Lastly, recognizing the public benefit of ensuring compatibility
     between varying 2 GHz MSS spectrum band plans around the world, we
     asked for comment on our spectrum sharing proposals.

146. The 2 GHz MSS applicants urge the Commission to ensure that
     U.S.-licensed 2 GHz MSS systems are not denied access to provide
     service in other countries due to inability to coordinate spectrum
     with non-U.S. systems or incompatibility of spectrum band plans.
     There is no clear consensus on what these measures should be. Some
     applicants argue that access to U.S. spectrum by non-U.S. licensed
     systems should be conditioned on cooperation in international
     spectrum coordination.[^472] Others state that the Commission
     should work to encourage other administrations to follow the U.S.
     band plan and to ensure that U.S. licensed systems are provided the
     means (*i.e.,* spectrum) to access foreign markets.[^473] The
     European Community (EC) and ICO argue that conditioning access to
     U.S. spectrum on completion of international coordination would
     delay or deny entry to non-U.S. licensed systems, and strongly
     oppose any such proposals.[^474] ICO also notes that to require
     other countries to accept the U.S. spectrum sharing arrangement
     would be in violation of the U.S. commitments under the WTO Basic
     Telecom Agreement.[^475]

147. In responding to assertions that non-U.S. licensed operators should
     be required to facilitate international spectrum coordination, we
     rely on the ITU coordination procedure. All 2 GHz MSS systems are
     subject to the ITU coordination procedure. This procedure assures
     that worldwide coordination is accomplished in a manner that
     requires both the administration proposing the system and the
     administration that is affected by the proposed system's frequency
     use to cooperate in resolving any coordination difficulties. We
     expect all administrations, and administrations representing the
     interests of the non-U.S. licensed 2 GHz MSS systems in particular,
     to collaborate in the coordination of the U.S. licensed systems in
     accordance with the procedure prescribed by the ITU. We have no
     reason to believe that other administrations will act in bad faith.
     We, therefore, conclude that it is neither necessary nor
     appropriate to condition non-U.S. licensed systems' access to U.S.
     spectrum on cooperation in international coordination process. We
     do, however, require all operators to meet their international
     coordination obligations defined by the ITU Radio Regulations (ITU
     RR). We also retain discretion to address any unfair gaming of the
     U.S. spectrum reservation process.

148. In accordance with ITU RR, the U.S. administration will effect
     coordination for the U.S.‑licensed 2 GHz MSS systems with other
     administrations under the provisions of ITU RR, Article S9. Before
     the frequency assignments for the U.S. licensed satellite network
     can be recorded in the Master International Frequency Register, a
     coordination agreement must be reached with each administration
     identified in accordance with Article S9. In the past, our policy
     has been that completion of international coordination is not a
     prerequisite for licensing, launching and operating MSS
     systems.[^476] We note, however, until completion of the
     international coordination, the U.S. licensed systems have no
     protection from interference caused by radio stations authorized by
     other administrations.[^477] We find no reason to deviate from this
     policy. Furthermore, we intend to follow the coordination procedure
     prescribed by the ITU and will work with the global community to
     promote mobile satellite services through the development of
     sharing techniques and the exploration of other technical issues.

149. We recognize the concern expressed by commenters that other
     administrations may deny U.S. licensed systems access to provide
     service on its territory subject to completion of international
     coordination with existing or planned space networks, in most cases
     other 2 GHz MSS systems. A coordination agreement that allows an
     operator to provide 2 GHz MSS service to another country on an
     exclusive basis, particularly given the limited amount of available
     spectrum, would appear to be contrary to the goal of maximizing
     competition. We, however, believe that there is no demonstrated
     need for the Commission to adopt rules to address this concern.
     Instead we will address any such concerns on a case-by-case basis.
     In the event a satellite operator in this processing round is
     prevented from providing service to another country because the
     administration of that country requires as a prerequisite
     completion of coordination and this operator has been unable to
     complete coordination due to unresolved concerns raised by another
     participant in this 2 GHz MSS processing round, we would examine
     such situation in light of our rules and policies prohibiting
     exclusionary arrangements.[^478]

150. We also decline to require as a condition of reserving spectrum
     that other administrations adopt the U.S. 2 GHz MSS band plan. It
     is not clear at present that operating constraints developed to
     accommodate 2 GHz MSS service in the United States will be
     effective in other jurisdictions, particularly given the regional
     differences in 2 GHz MSS allocations and incumbent users. At this
     time, we find no requirement to take special measures with regard
     to the Pan-European 2 GHz spectrum-use plan adopted in 1997.[^479]
     The ERC Decision designates 2 GHz MSS spectrum for systems that
     will enter service by January 1, 2001. Based on developments since
     the *Notice*, however, it appears unlikely that any MSS system will
     commence operations in 2 GHz spectrum prior to January 1, 2001,
     and, therefore, the current ERC Decision is of limited
     applicability.

##### F. Interservice Sharing

**1. Sharing in 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands (In-band
sharing)**

151. In the *Notice*, we recognized that 2 GHz MSS systems would be
     required to share the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands with
     existing services. In this regard we noted that in the *2 GHz MSS
     Allocation Order*, the Commission found that incumbents affected by
     new 2 GHz MSS systems would be treated in accordance with our
     *Emerging Technologies* policy.[^480] In particular, the Commission
     concluded that MSS and BAS could not share spectrum without
     unacceptable mutual interference. The Commission, therefore,
     determined that it is necessary to relocate BAS in order to
     accommodate MSS in the 1990-2025 MHz band. The Commission also
     concluded that it would provide for MSS sharing with, and any
     necessary relocation of, FS. The Commission decided that MSS cannot
     begin operations in the 2165‑2200 MHz band until that spectrum is
     cleared of all FS licensees who would receive harmful interference
     from MSS licensees, but that MSS licensees will not be required to
     relocate any FS incumbent with whom they can successfully share
     spectrum.[^481] In the *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, the
     Commission specified that 2 GHz MSS ability to share with the FS in
     the 2165-2200 MHz band must be analyzed in accordance with the
     Telecommunications Industry Association's Technical Service
     Bulletin 86 (TSB-86). TSB-86 provides technical methodologies and
     criteria for assessing MSS/FS sharing.

152. In the *Notice*, we suggested that it was not necessary to adopt
     additional rules or policies to address sharing between 2 GHz MSS
     systems and other services in the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165‑2200 MHz
     frequency bands. It was our view that the policies the Commission
     adopted in the *2 GHz MSS Allocation Proceeding* should adequately
     address all aspects of the 2 GHz MSS in-band sharing.[^482] The
     commenters agree with our proposed approach. American Petroleum
     Institute (API) specifically requests the Commission to ensure that
     the band plan it adopts does not frustrate or limit relocation
     rights of FS incumbents.[^483] Others, however, urge the Commission
     to take into account relocation and sharing issues in adopting a
     final 2 GHz MSS band arrangement so as to ensure that the band
     arrangement is competitively neutral and does not favor certain
     operators in the band.[^484]

153. Recently the Commission adopted the *2 GHz Second R&O and Second
     MO&O* in which we finalized the rules and policies that govern the
     sharing with or relocation of incumbent services in the 2 GHz MSS
     bands.[^485] These rules and policies establish comprehensive
     in-band sharing and/or relocation criteria and form the basis of
     the band arrangement we adopt in this *Order.* We find that the
     commenters have not raised any new issues that were not addressed
     by the *2 GHz MSS Allocation* proceeding. We, therefore, affirm our
     tentative conclusion in the *Notice* that there is no need to adopt
     additional rules to address in-band sharing issues between
     incumbent services and MSS in this proceeding.

**2. Adjacent Band Sharing**

154. As with any radio transmitting device, the 2 GHz MSS systems'
     transmitters are expected to emit certain amount of power outside
     of their assigned frequency band. These "out-of-band" or "unwanted"
     emissions may cause interference to services operating in adjacent
     frequency bands. For this reason, in the *Notice*, we noted the
     general unwanted emissions limits for satellite space and earth
     stations specified in the Commission's Rules,[^486] but sought
     comment on whether these limits are sufficient to eliminate the
     potential for interference between 2 GHz MSS and existing services
     in adjacent bands.[^487] We specifically noted that in the
     2025-2110 MHz band, the U.S. Government operates high power
     Earth-to-space transmitters that may cause unwanted emission
     interference to 2 GHz MSS service uplinks in the 1990-2025 MHz
     band. We also noted that in the 2200-2290 MHz band, the U.S.
     Government operates high gain space-to-Earth receivers that may be
     susceptible to out-of-band emissions interference from 2 GHz MSS
     service downlinks in the 2165-2200 MHz. We sought comment on
     whether any additional 2 GHz MSS service rules are needed to
     mitigate these potential interference issues. Furthermore, in
     response to comments from Wireless Communications Association
     International, Inc. (WCA) regarding the potential for interference
     to 2 GHz MSS service downlinks from Multipoint Distribution Service
     (MDS) operations in the 2150-2165 MHz band, we asked commenters to
     assess this adjacent band sharing situation. Lastly, noting NTIA's
     petition for the need to protect the reception of aeronautical
     radionavigation signals in the 1559-1605 MHz band from MSS
     terminals operating in the 1610-1660.5 MHz band, we proposed to
     extend the same requirement to 2 GHz MSS terminals.[^488]

155. Most commenters favor the application of the existing out-of-band
     emission limits specified in Section 25.202(f) to all 2 GHz MSS
     systems and the adoption of additional requirements for the
     protection of aeronautical radionavigation service.[^489] NTIA
     expresses concern regarding the potential for out-of-band
     interference into Government operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band
     from MSS downlink transmissions in the 2165-2200 MHz band.[^490]
     NTIA states that interference to adjacent band Government space
     systems must be taken into consideration when the Commission adopts
     power limits and out-of-band emission limits for the 2 GHz MSS
     systems. NTIA further notes that 2 GHz MSS systems design should
     account for extensive government operations in the 2025-2110 MHz
     band that is immediately adjacent to the 1990-2025 MHz MSS uplink
     band.[^491] Boeing notes that out-of-band emissions interference
     with U.S. Government users in the 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz
     bands cannot be solved by guardbands due to the scarcity of
     spectrum, but will require close cooperation and
     coordination.[^492]

156. We note NTIA's concerns regarding potential for adjacent band
     interference between the Government space operations and 2 GHz MSS
     systems. We also recognize that the potential for adjacent band
     interference is highly dependent on systems design and that all
     proposed 2 GHz systems designs are unique. Thus, we are concerned
     that adopting a general requirement to address this issue may not
     be sufficient but is likely to unnecessarily restrict the
     implementation of MSS systems.

157. Recently, we initiated a proceeding to establish appropriate limits
     on unwanted emissions from satellite networks.[^493] In that
     proceeding, we intend to address the technical and regulatory
     aspects of unwanted emissions and, if necessary, revise relevant
     Commission's rules. Until completion of satellite network unwanted
     emissions proceeding, however, we rely on a presumption that 2 GHz
     MSS and Government operators are motivated to cooperate on the
     resolution of adjacent band interference issues on a
     system-by-system basis. We expect all 2 GHz MSS operators to
     account for existing Government's space operations in the adjacent
     bands and emphasize that, in addition to the Commission's technical
     and service rules, each 2 GHz MSS authorization will be subject to
     other public interest requirements. For these reasons, we find that
     adopting additional restrictions on 2 GHz MSS emissions in order to
     facilitate spectrum sharing with Government operations in the
     2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz bands is unwarranted at this time.

158. WCA reiterates its concern that 2 GHz MSS operators may deploy
     interference‑prone receivers that may suffer out-of-band
     interference from Multipoint Distribution Service operations in the
     2150-2162 MHz band. WCA urges the Commission to clarify that 2 GHz
     MSS systems are required to accept unwanted emissions interference
     from current and future MDS operations that comply with the
     Commission's MDS spectral mask and EIRP limitations. WCA also
     suggests that 2 GHz MSS satellite systems be required to limit
     their power flux density (pfd) levels at the earth's surface to
     --190 dBW/m^2^/Hz. WCA explains that the Commission adopted this
     limit to protect MDS response station hubs from co-channel
     interference. In response, Globalstar and Inmarsat advocate that
     WCA's recommendations lack the necessary technical justification
     and, therefore, should be rejected.

159. On the issue of interference to 2 GHz MSS downlinks from MDS
     facilities operating in the 2150-2162 MHz band, first we accept
     WCA's assertion that there is nothing in the record to suggest that
     the Commission's prior conclusion with respect to Big LEO downlinks
     is not transferable to 2165‑2200 MSS downlinks.[^494] We also note
     that for the case of MSS spread spectrum systems this conclusion
     was operationally validated when Globalstar initiated provision of
     commercial MSS service in the 2483.5-2500 MHz band without reported
     instances of interference from MDS operations. We, therefore, do
     not expect 2 GHz MSS systems to experience interference from the
     out-of-band emissions of MDS operations. Nonetheless, we clarify
     for the record that we expect the 2 GHz MSS receivers to be
     designed to accept levels of unwanted emissions interference from
     MDS that are specified in our rules.[^495]

160. With regard to WCA's recommendation to limit MSS power flux density
     at the earth's surface, we note that the ‑190 dBW/m^2^/Hz level at
     station hub receivers was deemed acceptable interference only from
     neighboring, co-channel transmitting MDS stations.[^496]
     Furthermore, in case of adjacent channel interference, the
     protection level was set at ‑151 dBW/m^2^/Hz, with a 20 dB
     reduction in either case when the interference signal is
     cross-polarized.[^497] We agree with commenters that WCA's
     explanation of why this specific, in-service sharing criteria
     should be extrapolated to space-based transmitters operating in the
     entirely different frequency band lacks the necessary technical
     basis.[^498] Moreover, as discussed above, operational experience
     to date demonstrates that adjacent frequency band operations of MSS
     and MDS are feasible under current Commission's rules.[^499] We,
     therefore, find no requirement to adopt additional rules in this
     regard.

161. Commenters are divided as to the requirements the Commission should
     adopt to protect aeronautical radionavigation satellite (ARNS)
     service in the 1559-1610 MHz band from out-of-band emissions of 2
     GHz MSS terminal transmissions in the 1990-2025 MHz band. ARINC and
     Iridium support the out-of-band ARNS service protection limits
     proposed in the *Notice*.[^500] NTIA supports the Commission's
     proposal for a wide band equivalent isotropically radiated power
     (EIRP) limit of --70 dBW/MHz and a narrow band EIRP limit of --80
     dBW in the 1559-1610 MHz band but rejects the proposed limit of
     --70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz and --10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz with the
     levels in between determined by linear interpolation. NTIA argues
     that because it is less challenging for the 2 GHz MSS systems to
     suppress emissions in the 1559-1610 MHz band than for the L-band
     systems, the 2 GHz systems should be held to a higher
     standard.[^501] Furthermore, NTIA recommends that in order to
     facilitate GMPCS certification, the Commission should harmonize the
     2 GHz MSS out-of-band emission standards with established
     international standards. Based on adopted international standards,
     NTIA recommends that the Commission adopt a wide band limit of --70
     dBW/MHz and a narrow band EIRP limit of --80 dBW in the 1559-1625
     MHz band for MSS terminals operating in the 1990-2025 MHz band.
     NTIA also argues that for 2 GHz MSS terminals employing TDMA
     technology, the proposed out-of-band emission limits averaged over
     a 20 msec time interval are inadequate to protect FAA's GPS
     augmentation system such as the Wide Area Augmentation System
     (WAAS). The 20 msec time interval proposed in the *Notice* is based
     on the 50 bit per second data rate of the GPS navigation message.
     The WAAS has a much higher data rate than GPS, with a much shorter
     symbol duration of 2 msec. As a result of the shorter symbol
     duration, WAAS systems are more vulnerable to disruption by long
     duration pulsed signals. To provide protection for these
     augmentation systems, NTIA recommends that the unwanted emissions
     of MSS terminals employing TDMA technology should be averaged over
     a time interval of duration that is equal in length to the
     transmission time slot and not 20 msec as proposed in the
     Notice.[^502] Furthermore, noting that at any one time the majority
     of MSS terminals will be in the carrier-off state, NTIA recommends
     that the Commission account for the cumulative power effect and,
     consistent with international standards, adopt carrier-off limits
     for the 2 GHz MSS terminals that are 10 dB lower than the proposed
     carrier-on limits.

162. Globalstar and ICO support NTIA's recommendation to adopt
     out-of-band emission limits in the 1559-1626.5 MHz band of --70
     dBW/MHz for broadband signals consistent with established
     international standards, but disagree with the proposed --80 dBW
     narrow band limit.[^503] Globalstar and ICO explain that, contrary
     to NTIA's assertion, the narrow band limit is not part of
     international standards and is unnecessary. Inmarsat questions
     NTIA's assertions given that there are no ARNS operations above
     1610 MHz.[^504]

163. On the issue of protection of aeronautical radionavigation
     operations from 2 GHz MSS out-of-band emissions, we recognize the
     support and interest expressed by the commenters. In the *Notice*
     and in the *GMPCS Proceeding*, with respect to suppression of
     unwanted emissions to protect aeronautical radionavigation, we
     stated our intent to adopt requirements for 2 GHz MSS that are
     analogous to the L Band MSS requirements.[^505] In doing so, the
     Commission recognized that the *GMPCS Proceeding* would establish
     guiding principles for the protection of aeronautical
     radionavigation from MSS out-of-band emissions. At this time,
     however, we have not completed consideration of the issues in that
     proceeding. We, therefore, will address the comments and resolve
     the issues concerning protection for aeronautical radionavigation
     in the 1559-1610 MHz band from 2 GHz MSS mobile earth terminals
     (METs) in the *GMPCS Proceeding*. In this regard, we emphasize that
     the 2 GHz MSS METs will be subject to applicable rules and policies
     the Commission will adopt in the *GMPCS Proceeding*.

# IV. CONCLUSION

164. This *Report and Order* opens the way for rapid deployment of 2 GHz
     mobile satellite services in the United States by establishing
     service and technical rules based on the public interest. We have
     devised an innovative methodology for authorizing spectrum that
     provides incentives for system operators to initiate service as
     quickly as possible, and promote development of regional and global
     communications to unserved communities in the United States, while
     providing enough certainty to encourage investment in the proposed
     systems. We apply the system service rules equally to U.S.-licensed
     and non-U.S.-licensed systems, with strict milestones for
     implementing service to ensure that spectrum is not warehoused. Our
     adopted band arrangement is flexible enough to accommodate the
     divergent satellite and radio communications technologies
     envisioned by the 2 GHz MSS system proponents without preferring
     one technology or service over another. We anticipate that these
     MSS systems, once authorized, will provide competitive voice and
     data services, and in some cases, additional seamless world-wide
     capacity, for MSS providers and terrestrial systems.

# V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

165. *Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.* The Final Regulatory
     Flexibility Analysis for this *Report and Order*, pursuant to the
     Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 604, is contained in
     Appendix B.

166. *Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.* The requirements adopted
     in this Rulemaking have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork
     Reduction Act of 1995 (the "1995 Act") and found to impose new or
     modified information collection requirements on the public.
     Implementation of any new or modified requirements will be subject
     to approval by the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") as
     prescribed by the 1995 Act's emergency processing provisions. OMB
     approval is requested to be granted no later than 30 days from the
     date of publication of this Rulemaking in the Federal Register. The
     Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
     burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information
     collections contained in this *Report and Order*, as required by
     the Act 1995. Public comments are due 21 days from date of
     publication of this *Report and Order* in the Federal Register.
     Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of
     information is necessary for the proper performance of the
     functions of the Commission, including whether the information
     shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
     burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
     clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
     burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
     including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms
     of information technology.

167. Written comments by the public on the new or modified information
     collection requirements are due 21 days after publication of this
     Rulemaking in the Federal Register. Comments on the information
     collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley,
     Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room
     1-C804, Washington, D.C. 20554, or over the Internet to
     <jboley@fcc.gov> and to Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room
     10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the
     Internet to edward.springer@omb.eop.gov. For additional information
     on the information collection requirements, contact Judy Boley
     at (202) 418-0214 or via the Internet at the above address.

168. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Chris
     Murphy at (202) 418‑2373/cmurphy@fcc.gov, Howard Griboff at (202)
     418-0657/hgriboff@fcc.gov, or Alex Roytblat at (202)
     418-7501/aroytbla@fcc.gov, International Bureau, Federal
     Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

# VI. ORDERING CLAUSES

169. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7, 302, 303(c),
     303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
     amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 154(i), 157, 302, 303(c), 303(e), 303(f)
     and 303(r), this *Report and Order* IS ADOPTED and that Part 25 of
     the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED, as specified in Appendix C,
     effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except
     that amendments to §§ 25.143(b)(1), (e)(1)(iii), and (e)(3) SHALL
     become effective upon approval by the Office of Management and
     Budget.

170. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the applicants and LOI filers will be
     required to file conforming amendments and all necessary fees no
     later than 30 days after a summary of this *Report and Order* is
     published in the Federal Register for continued consideration in
     this processing round.

171. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as
     required by Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and as
     set forth in Appendix B, IS ADOPTED.

172. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
     Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
     *Report and Order*, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
     Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
     Administration.

###### FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

########  Magalie Roman Salas

> **Secretary**

**APPENDIX A**

####### LIST OF PARTIES

**[Comments]{.underline}**

Aeronautical Radio, Inc.

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc.

Association of American Railroads

BellSouth Corporation

Boeing Company

Bosch Telecom, Inc.

Celsat America, Inc.

Century OCN Programming, Inc.

Constellation Communications, Inc.

Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition

Globalstar, L.P.

Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. and Hughes Communications, Inc.

ICO Services Limited

ICO USA Service Group (BT North America Inc., Hughes Telecommunications
and Space Company, Telecomunicaciones de Mexico, TRW Inc.)

Inmarsat Ltd.

Iridium LLC

Lynch, Timothy H.

Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc.

National Academies' Committee on Radio Frequencies

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

PanAmSat Corporation

Pegasus Development Corporation

Personal Communications Industry Association

Satellite Industry Association

SBC Communications Inc.

Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.

TMI Communications and Company, Limited Partnership

United States Coast Guard

UTC, The Telecommunications Association

WinStar Communications, Inc.

Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.

**[Reply Comments]{.underline}**

American Petroleum Institute

Association of American Railroads

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. and the National
Association of Broadcasters BellSouth Corporation

Boeing Company

Celsat America, Inc.

Constellation Communications, Inc.

European Union/Delegation of the European Commission

Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition

GE American Communications, Inc.

Globalstar, L.P.

Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. and Hughes Communications, Inc.

ICO Services Limited

ICO USA Service Group (BT North America Inc., Hughes Telecommunications
and Space Company, Telecomunicaciones de Mexico, TRW Inc.)

Inmarsat Ltd.

Iridium LLC

KaStar Satellite Communications Corp.

Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

PanAmSat Corporation

Satellite Industry Association

Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.

Titan Wireless

United Telecom Council (formerly UTC, The Telecommunications
Association)

WinStar Communications, Inc.

Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.

**[Supplemental Comments]{.underline}**

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. and the National
Association of Broadcasters

Boeing Company

Celsat America, Inc.

Constellation Communications Holding, Inc. (formerly Constellation
Communications, Inc.)

Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition

Globalstar, L.P.

ICO Services Limited

ICO USA Service Group (BT North America Inc., Telecomunicaciones de
Mexico, TRW Inc.)

Inmarsat Ltd.

Iridium LLC

Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc.

TMI Communications and Company, Limited Partnership

United Telecom Council (formerly UTC, The Telecommunications
Association)

**[Ex Parte Presentations]{.underline}**

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. and the National
Association of Broadcasters

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.

BellSouth Corporation

Boeing Company

Celsat America, Inc.

Department of Defense

Final Analysis Inc.

Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition

Globalstar, L.P.

ICO Services Limited

Eagle River Investments LLC

ICO USA Service Group

Inmarsat Ltd.

Iridium LLC

Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc.

STM Wireless, Inc.

Teledesic LLC

Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.

**APPENDIX B**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^506] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the *Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Notice*) in this docket, IB Docket No.
99-81.[^507] The Commission sought written public comment on the
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in the *Notice*, including on the IRFA. This Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^508]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, this *Report and Order***

This *Report and Order* establishes a spectrum authorization approach to
accommodate all proposed 2 GHz MSS systems, and service rules to govern
the 2 GHz MSS systems. These actions are designed to assign the 2 GHz
MSS spectrum to applicants, or reserve the 2 GHz MSS spectrum in the
case of letter of intent filers, in an efficient manner. At the same
time, these rules are designed to ensure systems implement their
proposals in a manner that serves the public interest and results in the
continued deployment of mobile satellite services to the public, with
minimal disruption to existing 2 GHz band permittees and licensees.

####### B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised in Comments in Response to the IRFA

There were no comments which solely discussed or addressed the IRFA. The
Commission has nonetheless considered any potential significant economic
impact of the rules on small entities, and has designed its rules to
reduce regulatory burdens on these entities accordingly.

####### C. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities To Which Rules Will Apply

The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to geostationary or non-geostationary orbit fixed-satellite
or mobile satellite service operators. Therefore, the applicable
definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business
Administration (SBA) rules applicable to Communications Services, Not
Elsewhere Classified. This definition provides that a small entity is
one with \$11.0 million or less in annual receipts.[^509] According to
Census Bureau data, there are 848 firms that fall under the category of
Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, which could
potentially fall into the 2 GHz MSS category. Of those, approximately
775 reported annual receipts of \$11 million or less and qualify as
small entities.[^510] The rules adopted in this *Report and Order* apply
only to entities providing 2 GHz mobile satellite service. At least one
of the 2 GHz MSS system proponents may be considered a small business at
this time. Small businesses often do not have the financial ability to
become 2 GHz MSS system operators because of the high implementation
costs associated with satellite systems and services. By the time of
system implementation, we expect that the one small entity will no
longer be considered a small business due to the capital requirements
for launching and operating its proposed system. Therefore, because of
the high implementation costs of providing 2 GHz MSS, we believe that
this *Report and Order* will have no significant impact on small
entities.

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

The rules adopted in the *Report and Order* affect those entities
applying for 2 GHz MSS space station and earth station authorizations
and those participating in assignment of 2 GHz MSS spectrum. As an
initial matter, the nine 2 GHz MSS system proponents under consideration
in this *Report and Order* are required to submit amendments to their
previously-filed applications or letters of intent, to conform their
proposed systems to the spectrum authorization and service rules adopted
herein, including an orbital debris statement. The adopted rules also
require each authorized 2 GHz MSS system to notify the Commission that
it has met construction milestones, notify the Commission as to which
spectrum block it chooses as its preferred spectrum block at the time
that the first satellite in its system reaches its intended orbit, and,
if it desires additional spectrum under the rural service initiative,
notify the Commission of how it has achieved the required rural service
criteria. Once operational, the 2 GHz MSS systems may need to coordinate
with each other the use of spectrum outside of its preferred spectrum
block. These negotiations are likely to require the skills of engineers
to evaluate the technical requirements of co-frequency spectrum sharing
and/or adjacent frequency operation on a non-interference basis.

**E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered**

In developing the rules and policies adopted in this *Report and Order*,
the Commission has attempted to minimize the burdens on all entities in
order to allow maximum participation in the 2 GHz MSS market, while
achieving the item's other objectives. The Commission considered band
arrangements that would have assigned specified blocks of spectrum based
on modulation technology (*i.e.*, code division multiple access or time
division multiple access). Similarly, the Commission considered
Globalstar's suggested band arrangement that would have required all
systems to pre-negotiate a sharing architecture.[^511] The Commission
rejected these alternatives, in part because these alternatives would
have required all 2 GHz MSS operators to choose their technological
parameters immediately, rather than allowing systems to optimize designs
in order to promote innovation and reduce the economic impact of system
build-out. In addition, to reduce the 2 GHz MSS operators' incumbent
relocation costs, the Commission will exempt any 2 GHz MSS operator from
relocation obligations if it is capable of sharing spectrum on a
non-interference basis with the existing incumbent operations. *See*
Section III.A.1., *supra*.

**[Report to Congress:]{.underline}** The Commission will send a copy of
this *Report and Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
Congress pursuant to the SBREFA. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). In
addition, the Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order*,
including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the *Report and Order* and FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. *See*
5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

#  APPENDIX D

**Final Rules**

Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25, is amended as
follows:

1.  The authority citation for Part 25 is amended to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies Section 4, 301, 302,
303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332, unless otherwise noted.

2.  Section 25.114 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
    follows:

**Section 25.114 Applications for space station authorizations.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) The following information in narrative form shall be contained in
each application:

\* \* \*

\(6\) \* \* \*

\(iii\) if applicable, the feeder link and inter-satellite service
frequencies requested for the satellite, together with any demonstration
otherwise required by this chapter for use of those frequencies (see,
e.g., Sec. 25.203 (j) and (k));

\* \* \*

\(21\) Applications for authorizations in the 1.6/2.4 GHz
Mobile-Satellite Service or 2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service shall also
provide all information specified in Sec. 25.143.

\* \* \* \* \*

3.  Section 25.115 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
    follows:

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

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) User transceivers in the NVNG, 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile‑Satellite
Service, and 2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service need not be individually
licensed. Service vendors may file blanket applications for transceivers
units using FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B, and specifying the
number of units to be covered by the blanket license. Each application
for a blanket license under this section shall include the information
described in Sec. 25.136.

\* \* \* \* \*

4.  Section 25.121 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
    follows:

**Section 25.115 License term and renewals.**

\(a\) *License term.* Licenses for facilities governed by this part will
be issued for a period of 10 years, except that licenses and
authorizations in the 2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service will be issued for
a period of 15 years.

\* \* \* \* \*

5.  Section 25.133 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
    follows:

**Section 25.133 Period of construction; certification of commencement
of operation.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) Each license for a transmitting earth station included in this
part shall also specify as a condition therein that upon the completion
of construction, each licensee must file with the Commission a
certification containing the following information: The name of the
licensee; file number of the application; call sign of the antenna; date
of the license; a certification that the facility as authorized has been
completed and that each antenna facility has been tested and is within 2
dB of the pattern specified in Sec. 25.209, Sec. 25.135 (NVNG MSS earth
stations), or Sec. 25.213 (1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service and 2
GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service earth stations); the date on which the
station became operational; and a statement that the station will remain
operational during the license period unless the license is submitted
for cancellation. For stations authorized under Sec. 25.115(c) of this
part (Large Networks of Small Antennas operating in the 12/14 GHz bands)
and Sec. 25.115(d) of this part (User Transceivers in the
Mobile‑Satellite Service), a certificate must be filed when the network
is put into operation.

\* \* \* \* \*

6.  Section 25.136 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

**Section 25.136 Operating provisions for earth station networks in the
1.6/2.4 GHz mobile‑satellite**

**service and 2 GHz mobile‑satellite service.**

In addition to the technical requirements specified in Sec. 25.213,
earth stations operating in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service or
2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service are subject to the following operating
conditions:

\(a\) User transceiver units associated with the 1.6/2.4 GHz
Mobile‑Satellite Service or 2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service may not be
operated on civil aircraft unless the earth station has a direct
physical connection to the aircraft Cabin Communication system.

\(b\) No person shall transmit to a space station unless the user
transceiver is first authorized by the space station operator or by a
service vendor authorized by that operator, and the specific
transmission is conducted in accordance with the operating protocol
specified by the system operator.

\(c\) Any user transceiver unit associated with this service will be
deemed, when communicating with a particular 1.6/2.4 GHz
Mobile‑Satellite Service or 2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service system
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, to be temporarily associated
with and licensed to the system operator or service vendor holding the
blanket earth station license awarded pursuant to Section 25.115(d). The
domestic earth station licensee shall, for this temporary period, assume
the same licensee responsibility for the user transceiver as if the user
transceiver were regularly licensed to it.

7.  Section 25.137 is amended by adding new paragraph (d) to read as
    follows:

Section 25.137 Application requirements for earth stations operating
with non-U.S. licensed space

stations.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) Earth station applicants requesting authority to operate with a
non-U.S. licensed space station must demonstrate that the space station
the applicant seeks to access has complied with all applicable
Commission milestones, reporting requirements, and any other applicable
service rules required for non-U.S. licensed systems to operate in the
United States.

\* \* \* \* \*

8.  Section 25.143 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1),
    (b)(2), (e) and (f)(1) to read as follows:

Section 25.143 Licensing provisions for the 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile‑satellite
service and 2 GHz

mobile‑satellite service.

\(a\) *System License*: Applicants authorized to construct and launch a
system of technically identical satellites will be awarded a single
"blanket" license. In the case of non-geostationary satellites, the
blanket license will cover a specified number of space stations to
operate in a specified number of orbital planes. In the case of
geostationary satellites, as part of a geostationary-only satellite
system or a geostationary/non-geostationary hybrid satellite system, an
individual license will be issued for each satellite to be located at a
geostationary orbital location.

\(b\) *Qualification Requirements*.

\(1\) *General Requirements*: Each application for a space station
system authorization in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service or 2
GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service shall describe in detail the proposed
satellite system, setting forth all pertinent technical and operational
aspects of the system, and the technical, legal, and financial
qualifications of the applicant. In particular, each application shall
include the information specified in Sec. 25.114. Non-U.S. licensed
systems shall comply with the provisions of Sec. 25.137. System
proponents seeking authorization in the 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service
also shall describe the design and operational strategies that they will
use, if any, to mitigate orbital debris. Applicants must submit a
casualty risk assessment if planned post-mission disposal involves
atmospheric re-entry of the spacecraft.

\(2\) *Technical Qualifications*: In addition to providing the
information specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, each
applicant and letter of intent filer shall demonstrate the following:

\(i\) That a proposed system in the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS frequency bands
employs a non‑geostationary constellation or constellations of
satellites;

\(ii\) That a system proposed to operate using non-geostationary
satellites be capable of providing mobile satellite services to all
locations as far north as 70 deg. North latitude and as far south as 55
deg. South latitude for at least 75% of every 24‑hour period, i.e., that
at least one satellite will be visible above the horizon at an elevation
angle of at least 5 deg. for at least 18 hours each day within the
described geographic area;

\(iii\) That a system proposed to operate using non-geostationary
satellites be capable of providing mobile satellite services on a
continuous basis throughout the fifty states, Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, i.e., that at least one satellite will be visible above
the horizon at an elevation angle of at least 5 deg. at all times within
the described geographic areas; and

\(iv\) That a system only using geostationary orbit satellites, at a
minimum, be capable of providing mobile satellite services on a
continuous basis throughout the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, if technically feasible.

\(v\) That operations will not cause unacceptable interference to other
authorized users of the spectrum. In particular, each application in the
1.6/2.4 GHz frequency bands shall demonstrate that the space station(s)
comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 25.213.

\* \* \*

\(e\) *Reporting requirements*.

\(1\) All operators of 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service systems and
2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service systems shall, on October 15 of each
year, file with the International Bureau and the Commission's Columbia
Operations Center, Columbia, Maryland, a report containing the following
information current as of September 30 of that year:

\* \* \*

\(iii\) A detailed description of the utilization made of the in-orbit
satellite system. That description should identify the percentage of
time that the system is actually used for U.S. domestic or transborder
transmission, the amount of capacity (if any) sold but not in service
within U.S. territorial geographic areas, and the amount of unused
system capacity. 2 GHz Mobile Satellite systems receiving expansion
spectrum as part of the unserved areas spectrum incentive must provide a
report on the actual number of subscriber minutes originating or
terminating in unserved areas as a percentage of the actual U.S. system
use.

\*\*\*

\(3\) All operators of 2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service systems must begin
system construction upon award of a service link license to U.S.-based
applicants, or upon designation of spectrum for non-U.S.-based systems,
in accordance with milestones set forth in the respective system's
authorization. All operators of 2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service systems
shall, within 10 days after a required implementation milestone as
specified in the system authorization, certify to the Commission by
affidavit that the milestone has been met or notify the Commission by
letter that it has not been met. At its discretion, the Commission may
require the submission of additional information (supported by affidavit
of a person or persons with knowledge thereof) to demonstrate that the
milestone has been met. Failure to file timely certification of
milestones, or filing disclosure of non-compliance, will result in
automatic cancellation of the authorization with no further action
required on the Commission's part.

\(f\) *Safety and distress communications*.

\(1\) Stations operating in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service and
2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service that are voluntarily installed on a U.S.
ship or are used to comply with any statute or regulatory equipment
carriage requirements may also be subject to the requirements of
sections 321(b) and 359 of the Communications Act of 1934. Licensees are
advised that these provisions give priority to radio communications or
signals relating to ships in distress and prohibits a charge for the
transmission of maritime distress calls and related traffic.

\* \* \* \* \*

9.  Section 25.201 is amended by adding the following definition in
    alphabetical order to read as follows:

Section 25. 201 Definitions.

\* \* \* \* \*

*2 GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service*. A mobile‑satellite service that
operates in the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165‑2200 MHz frequency bands, or in
any portion thereof.

\* \* \* \* \*

10. Section 25.202 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as
    paragraph (a)(4)(i), and adding new paragraph (a)(4)(ii) to read as
    follows:

Section 25. 202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance and emission
limitations.

\(a\) \* \* \*

\* \* \*

(4)(i) The following frequencies are available for use by the 1.6/2.4
GHz Mobile‑Satellite Service:

1610‑1626.5 MHz: User‑to‑Satellite Link

1613.8‑1626.5 MHz: Satellite‑to‑User Link (secondary)

2483.5‑2500 MHz: Satellite‑to‑User Link

\(ii\) The following frequencies are available for use by the 2 GHz
Mobile‑Satellite Service:

1990-2025 MHz: User‑to‑Satellite Link

2165-2200 MHz: Satellite‑to‑User Link

\* \* \* \* \*

11. Section 25.203 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
    follows:

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

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) Prior to the filing of an application, an earth station applicant
shall coordinate the proposed frequency usage with existing terrestrial
users and with applicants for terrestrial station authorizations with
previously filed applications in accordance with the following
procedure:

\* \* \* \* \*

12. Section 25.279 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
    follows:

**Section 25.279 Inter-satellite service.**

\(a\) Any satellite communicating with other space stations may use
frequencies in the inter-satellite service as indicated in Sec. 2.106.
This does not preclude the use of other frequencies for such purposes as
provided for in several service definitions, *e.g.*, FSS. The technical
details of the proposed inter-satellite link shall be provided in
accordance with Sec. 25.114(c).

\* \* \* \* \*

**SEPARATE** **STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WILLIAM E. KENNARD**

*Re: The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
Satellite Service*

*in the 2 GHz Band*, FCC 00-302, IB Docket No. 99-81 (rel. August 25,
2000).

I am pleased that the Commission has adopted licensing and service rules
for the 2 GHz mobile satellite service. This action should enhance
competition and new service offerings, such as voice, data, and Internet
services, in the mobile communications markets, to the benefit of
consumers. The rules adopted are technologically neutral, and will
facilitate deployment of a wide range of innovative systems.

I am particularly encouraged by this action because it involves one of
the Commission's most important responsibilities -- making service
available "to all the people of the United States," including those in
rural and geographically remote areas. Congress has made the importance
of this mandate eminently clear, for both traditional telecommunications
services, and for emerging advanced services.

While satellite services have played an important role in bringing
services to remote areas, there remain significant unmet needs for
communications services in these areas. It is vitally important that the
unique capabilities of satellite systems be used to address these needs.
Because the cost of satellite communications is essentially the same,
whether the particular user is in the largest city, or the most isolated
area, satellite technologies present a unique opportunity to address
unmet needs.

The newly adopted regulations include a significant incentive for
companies to address this concern. This incentive puts the market to
work to meet unmet needs, not through a specific command to perform in a
certain way, but by providing a small but palpable incentive.
Specifically, 2 GHz systems that offer satellite capacity to service
providers that are capable of providing service to consumers in unserved
areas will be eligible to receive additional 2 GHz spectrum. Our
incentive recognizes that most 2 GHz providers will be selling wholesale
capacity to retail providers and that 2 GHz providers will want
additional spectrum. Therefore, the incentive is structured to encourage
2 GHz providers to enter into capacity arrangements with carriers that
are serving rural areas.

This incentive is the product of an open process in which the Commission
sought broad comment on service to rural areas, and on licensing
mechanisms to foster such service. I look forward to the next step in
this process \-- working cooperatively with industry to implement this
incentive promptly.

I strongly support this incentive, as an important step in pursuing all
possible means for providing service to all the people of the United
States.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS**

*Re: The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
Satellite Service*

*in the 2 GHz Band*, FCC 00-302, IB Docket No. 99-81 (rel. August 25,
2000).

I support our adoption today of rules governing the provision of Mobile
Satellite Service ("MSS") in the 2 GHz Band. These rules implement a
creative band plan that should result in the expeditious licensing of
new satellite providers of voice, data, and messaging services.

Satellite technologies have long held the promise of providing
communications services to rural areas in this country. Compared with
terrestrial systems, there is relatively little incremental cost for
satellites to reach customers located in high-cost areas, since
providers do not have to extend network infrastructure across vast
stretches of sparsely populated terrain. Our Order creates an extra
incentive for MSS licensees to fulfill this promise by making available
additional spectrum for service providers who market service to our
nation's rural and remote areas.

I fully support the rural service incentive, but I write separately to
suggest a willingness to entertain additional comments on the details of
our mechanism for assigning this additional spectrum. I also would have
preferred to establish a procedure for redistributing spectrum that is
abandoned by licensees that do not meet their operational milestones.
Given the unique nature of the band plan we adopt today, I believe that
we should consider seriously whether to adopt a method for reassigning
abandoned spectrum among existing licensees.

That having been said, I do not wish to see further delay in adopting
the 2GHz MSS framework while we address the issues. Prospective
licensees need authorization to begin their long-awaited service
offerings. Adjustments to the mechanism for assigning additional
spectrum and consideration of how best to reassign abandoned spectrum
can be adequately addressed in further proceedings or on
reconsideration.

Separate Statement of Commissioner Gloria Tristani

Re: *The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band*, FCC 00-302, IB Docket No. 99-81
(rel. Aug. 25, 2000).

I am pleased to support this decision, which creates an innovative band
plan for the next generation of the mobile satellite service (MSS)
systems. The rules we adopt here account for the evolving nature of the
MSS marketplace and set the stage for licensing and service deployment.
I write separately to express my support for the expansion spectrum
policy and our commitment to further examine 911 issues in the satellite
context.

The 2 GHz MSS system proponents offer the promise of new and innovative
services, particularly in rural and unserved areas. Our action here is
yet another step in fulfilling our mandate to make nationwide and
worldwide communications available to all Americans.[^512] The expansion
spectrum policy we adopt creates an incentive-based mechanism to
encourage MSS rollout in unserved communities. The triggering criterion
offers any MSS licensee the opportunity to gain additional spectrum if
meaningful capacity is available for consumers in unserved areas. As a
result, I support the policy.

In addition, I am pleased that as part of this decision the Commission
commits to further examine 911 policies in the MSS context. Emergencies
can and do occur just about everywhere, including locations where phone
lines do not reach.[^513] A mobile phone can mean the difference between
isolation and help-on-the-way, and in such instances consumers should
not have to be concerned about whether their handset is terrestrial- or
satellite-based. They simply need access to public safety assistance.

The Commission previously concluded that enhanced 911 (E911) policies
should not extend to the MSS industry in its early stages, but recent
developments suggest that earlier technology hurdles may no longer be a
barrier to E911 location capability in satellite services.[^514] Because
this proceeding lacks an adequate record on E911, however, we direct the
International Bureau to issue a public notice seeking input on E911
capability in satellite services, which we will consider as part of the
upcoming Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS)
proceeding.[^515] With a more fully developed record, I look forward to
examining E911 issues in the MSS context and moving quickly in the GMPCS
proceeding.

**JOINT SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS**

**HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH AND MICHAEL POWELL**

**Approving in part, Dissenting in part**

*Re: The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band*, FCC 00-302, IB Docket No. 99-81,
*Report and Order* (Rel. August 25, 2000).

We support today's decision to promulgate service rules for Mobile
Satellite Service (MSS) in the 2 GHz band. Many of the proposed service
providers in this band have been waiting years to get underway. We are
pleased that these providers will soon be competing in the marketplace.

We are concerned, however, about the decision to adopt a specific
mechanism for determining eligibility for spectrum set-aside for service
to rural areas. Conceptually, we are intrigued by the possibility of
making additional spectrum available to providers who can demonstrate a
meaningful commitment to providing service in underserved areas.[^516]
However, the United States has never before pursued a satellite
licensing approach that rewards a provider with additional spectrum
based on a service commitment. In assessing such a new initiative, it
seems to us that the Commission has an obligation to weigh carefully the
policy implications of any particular approach and to vet fully our
proposals with the public. Here, we are concerned that the majority has
rushed to judgment in an effort to proclaim that the FCC is "doing
something" for underserved areas -- in reality that "something" appears
to be almost nothing.

This decision to adopt specific qualifying criteria for the set-aside
spectrum is based on a virtually non-existent record. The gap in the
record is understandable, since the parties were never provided with a
clear opportunity to comment on any specific qualifying criteria.
Instead, the Notice only sought "guidance" on "any policies or rules we
could implement (or forebear from) to encourage 2 GHz MSS service to
\[unserved, rural, insular, or economically isolated\] areas."[^517]
While the Notice did seek comments relating to providing incentives for
service to rural and unserved communities,[^518] it did not even address
the idea of having a spectrum set-aside, how much the set-aside should
be or how providers could qualify for the "extra" spectrum. As a policy
matter, we do not believe that such a vague request provided sufficient
notice to the parties that such a specific and detailed decision would
be forthcoming.[^519] The American people would be better served by
promulgating a further notice to assess the efficacy of any particular
approach. This agency is embarking in a potentially transformative new
policy direction -- more spectrum in exchange for service commitment
quotas to targeted areas. We owe it to all the parties and the public to
develop a full record before we proceed.[^520]

We are also concerned that the qualifying criteria in the Order will not
actually achieve the Commission's stated goals.[^521] Under the Order,
when a service provider demonstrates to the Commission that it has
reserved and contracted to use 10 percent of its U.S. capacity to serve
rural and underserved areas, the Commission will notify other service
providers that it will begin accepting applications for the set-aside
expansion spectrum.[^522] Once all the applications are filed, the
set-aside spectrum is to be divided evenly among the qualifying
licensees. The "demonstration" requires only service contracts. There is
no requirement that the system initially provide any service to rural
areas. Nor is there any requirement that the qualifying system provide
any particular level of service in the future. The only requirement is
that 10 percent of the capacity on the system be reserved and contracted
for this use. Under this standard, it appears that a ubiquitously
available service, such as one that could be received on aircraft, would
qualify based on its service to rural areas. In short, it appears that
virtually every licensee will qualify for a sliver of the set aside
spectrum, without anyone necessarily providing the desired amount of
service to rural and underserved areas.

We applaud the Commission's efforts to explore how satellite services
can be used to meet the communications demands of underserved and
unserved areas. However, in embarking on this mission, we believe we
have an obligation to ensure that our press release promises
meaningfully correspond to our promulgated policies.

[^1]: MSS is defined as a radiocommunication service: (1) between mobile
    earth stations and one or more space stations, or between space
    stations used by this service; or (2) between mobile earth stations,
    by means of one or more space stations. This service may also
    include feeder links necessary for its operation. 47 C.F.R. §
    25.201.

[^2]: Operations outside the United States are subject to the regulatory
    requirements of those countries in which these systems may seek to
    operate.

[^3]: In this document, the terms "system proponents" or "system
    operators" refer to all parties seeking access to 2 GHz MSS
    spectrum, and the term "proposals" refers to their collective
    requests currently pending at the Commission; the terms "applicant"
    and "application" refer to those parties seeking to operate
    U.S.-licensed systems and their formal request; the terms "letter of
    intent (LOI) filer" and "LOI" refer to those non-U.S. licensed
    systems seeking to serve the U.S. market using 2 GHz MSS spectrum,
    and their formal request. Non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems, or
    LOI filers, seeking future access to U.S. spectrum may request,
    through a letter of intent, that the Commission "reserve" spectrum
    for the system when adopting service rules in anticipation of earth
    station applications to be filed in the future to access the
    non-U.S.-licensed satellite system. *See Amendment of the
    Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space
    Stations to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in
    the United States*, IB Docket No. 96-111, Report and Order, 12 FCC
    Rcd 24094, 24173-74 ¶ 185 (1997) (*DISCO II Order*) (detailed
    discussion of the procedures under which
    foreign-licensed satellite systems may provide service in the United
    States).

[^4]: Application of The Boeing Company, File Nos.179-SAT-P/LA-97(16)
    and 90-SAT-AMEND-98(20); IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-19970926-00149 and
    SAT-AMD-19980318-00021 (Boeing 2 GHz MSS Application); Application
    of Celsat America, Inc., File Nos. 26/27/28-DSS-P-94,
    36-SAT-AMEND-95, 65/66/67-SAT-AMEND-96, 192-SAT-AMEND-97, and
    88-SAT-AMEND-98; IBFS Nos. SAT-A/O-19940408-00016/17/18,
    SAT-AMD-19941125-00089, SAT-AMD-19960124-00007/8/9,
    SAT-AMD-19970925-00124 and SAT-AMD-19980113-00009; Application of
    Constellation Communications, Inc., File No. 181-SAT-P/LA-97(46);
    IBFS File Nos. SAT-LAO-19970926-00148 and SAT-AMD-19991230-00134
    (Constellation 2 GHz MSS Application); Application of Globalstar,
    L.P., File Nos. 183 through 186-SAT-P/LA-97 and 182-SAT-P/LA-97(64);
    IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-19970926-00151 through SAT-LOA-19970926-00156
    (Globalstar 2 GHz MSS Application); Application of Iridium LLC, File
    No. 187-SAT-P/LA-97(96); IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-19970926-00147;
    Application of Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc., File No.
    180-SAT-P/LA-97(26); IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-19970926-00150 (MCHI 2
    GHz MSS Application).

[^5]: Letter of Intent of ICO Services Limited, File No. 188-SAT-LOI-97;
    IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-19970926-00163; Letter of Intent of Inmarsat
    Horizons, File No. 190-SAT-LOI-97; IBFS File No.
    SAT-LOI-19970924-00098; Letter of Intent of TMI Communications and
    Company, Limited Partnership, File No. 189-SAT-LOI-97; IBFS File No.
    SAT-LOI-19970926-00161 (TMI 2 GHz MSS LOI).

[^6]: The world is divided into three Regions by agreement of the
    Members of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
    Generally, Region 1 includes Africa, Europe, Northern and Western
    portions of Asia; Region 2 includes the Americas and Greenland; and
    Region 3 includes Southern portions of Asia, Australia and the South
    Pacific. *See* ITU Radio Regulations Article S5, Section I.

[^7]: *See* Final Acts of the 1992 World Administrative Radio
    Conference, Malaga-Torremolinos (1992). A service designated as
    primary in a particular band enjoys priority status to operate in
    that band. A service designated as co-primary shares the band with
    other services given co-primary status on a co-equal basis. A
    service designated as secondary may operate in a particular band
    only to the extent that it does not cause harmful interference to
    any primary or co-primary designated service. *See generally* 47
    C.F.R. § 2.105(c).

[^8]: *See* Final Acts of the 1995 World Radiocommunication Conference,
    Geneva (1995).

[^9]: *See* ITU Radio Regulations S5.444A.

[^10]: *See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service*,
    ET Docket No. 95-18, First Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 7388, 7393-95 ¶¶ 10-15 (1997) (*2
    GHz MSS Allocation Order*) (international allocation of portions of
    the 2 GHz frequency band for mobile satellite service links adopted
    for use in the United States), *on recon*., Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, 13 FCC Rcd
    23949 (1998) (affirming 2 GHz MSS allocation and seeking further
    comment on relocation issues) (*2 GHz Relocation Third NPRM*). The
    1980-1990 MHz portion of the international 2 GHz MSS allocation was
    allocated for domestic terrestrial mobile service use by Personal
    Communications Services (PCS) in 1994. *Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications
    Services*, GEN Docket No. 90-314, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9
    FCC Rcd 4957 (1994).

[^11]: *The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band*, IB Docket No. 99-81, 14 FCC
    Rcd 4843 (1999) (*Notice*). In response to the *Notice*, 31 comments
    and 26 reply comments were filed, as well as numerous *ex parte*
    letters. A list of parties is attached as Appendix A.

[^12]: *Id.* at 4857-64 ¶¶ 26-48.

[^13]: *Id.* at 4874-89 ¶¶ 71-103. *See generally Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a
    Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz
    Frequency Bands*, CC Docket No. 92-166, Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd
    5936 (1994) (*Big LEO Report & Order*), *on recon.*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12861 (1996) (*Big LEO
    Reconsideration*).

[^14]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4889-94 ¶¶ 104-119 (earth station
    licensing, international coordination, interservice sharing); *see
    also id.* at 4865-74 ¶¶ 49-70 (feeder links; tracking, telemetry,
    and command; inter-satellite links).

[^15]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4886-87 ¶ 95.

[^16]: *Id.* at 4858 ¶ 30.

[^17]: *International Bureau Requests Further Comment on Selected Issues
    Regarding Authorization of 2 GHz MSS Systems*, IB Docket No. 99-81,
    Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 2696 (Int'l Bur. 2000) (*Public Notice*).
    In response to the *Public Notice*, 13 supplemental comments were
    filed, as well as *ex parte* letters. *See* list of parties,
    Appendix A.

[^18]: *Id.*

[^19]: *See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service*,
    ET Docket No. 95-18, Second Report And Order and Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, FCC 00-233 (rel. July 3, 2000) (*2 GHz Second R&O
    and Second MO&O*).

[^20]: *2 GHz MSS Allocation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7396 ¶ 16.

[^21]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.602. BAS licensees use these frequencies to
    relay news reports or other special events from remote locations to
    a broadcast station's main studio for on-air broadcast. Frequency
    coordinators at the news location coordinate use of the seven BAS
    channels among the BAS operators at the scene, which means that BAS
    operators might access any of the seven BAS channels on a moment's
    notice.

[^22]: *See 2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233, at ¶ 35.

[^23]: *See id.* at ¶¶ 27, 62. *Accord* IUSG Supplemental Comments at 7
    ("the first 2 GHz MSS entrant's efforts to make available even three
    or four megahertz of spectrum for its own use in the 2 GHz MSS
    uplink bands will require that all BAS licensee operations cease
    nationwide within the channel.").

[^24]: *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233, at ¶ 29. BAS
    equipment operating on channels of 17 or 18 megahertz width
    generally can be retuned and filtered to utilize narrower channels
    of 14.5 or 15 megahertz width. *Id.* at ¶ 67. The first 2 GHz MSS
    entrant must retune and filter (or replace, if necessary) the
    equipment of incumbent BAS licensees in the 30 largest television
    markets before beginning operations. After the first MSS entrant
    begins operations, it must retune BAS licensees' equipment in the
    next 70 largest markets within three years. Subsequent 2 GHz MSS
    entrants will be required to compensate the first 2 GHz MSS entrant
    on a *pro rata* basis. *Id.* at ¶ 71.

[^25]: *Id.* at ¶ 30. Phase II relocation likely will be costlier than
    Phase I, because the Phase II channel bandwidth is too narrow for
    current equipment design. Thus, new equipment will be required.
    *Id.* at ¶ 67.

[^26]: *2 GHz MSS Allocation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7402 ¶ 34.
    Specifically, the lower 15 megahertz of the MSS downlink spectrum
    (2165-2180 MHz) is used for common carrier purposes such as phone
    company microwave links, while the upper 20 megahertz of the MSS
    downlink spectrum (2180-2200 MHz) is used for private operational
    fixed services by railroads, pipelines, utilities, local
    governments, and public safety organizations.

[^27]: *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233, at ¶ 78.
    Interference could be caused to fixed service microwave receivers by
    MSS satellites and to MSS handsets on the ground by microwave
    transmitters. *Id.* at ¶ 75.

[^28]: *See* Letter from G. Rosenblatt, TIA, to M. Salas, Federal
    Communications Commission (filed Nov. 11, 1999) (cover letter
    submitting TIA, *Criteria and Methodology to Assess Interference
    Between Systems in the Fixed Service and the Mobile-Satellite
    Service in the Band 2165-2200 MHz*, TSB86 (Telecommunications
    Industry Association 1999)). TSB86 was developed by a Joint Working
    Group comprised of the TIA Engineering Subcommittees on Spectrum and
    Orbit Utilization, the TIA Engineering Subcommittee on Interference
    Criteria for Microwave Systems, and the National Spectrum Managers
    Association. *See* *id.*

[^29]: *See 2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233, at ¶¶ 75-102.
    *See also Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the
    Use of New Telecommunications Technologies*, ET Docket No. 92-9,
    First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7
    FCC Rcd 6886 (1992); Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6495 (1993);
    Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd
    6589 (1993); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1943 (1994);
    Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7797 (1994),
    *aff\'d*, *Association of Public Safety Communications
    Officials-Int\'l Inc. v. FCC*, 76 F.3d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
    (*Emerging Technologies Proceeding*); *Amendment to the
    Commission\'s Rules Regarding a Plan for Sharing the Costs of
    Microwave Relocation*, WT Docket No. 95-157, First Report and Order
    and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 8825, 8837-38
    ¶¶ 20-22 (1996); Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2705 (1997);
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, FCC 00-123
    (released July 19, 2000) (*Microwave Relocation Proceeding*).

[^30]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4857-64 ¶¶ 26-48.

[^31]: *Id.* at 4858-61 ¶¶ 31-39.

[^32]: *Id.* at 4861-62 ¶¶ 40-43.

[^33]: *Id.* at 4863 ¶¶ 44-45.

[^34]: *Id.* at 4863-64 ¶¶ 46-48.

[^35]: ICO Comments at 6; IUSG Comments at 1 & Reply at 16-17; European
    Union/Delegation of the European Commission (EC) Comments at 4.

[^36]: IUSG Comments at 5-16 & Exhibit A (draft negotiation
    regulations).

[^37]: ICO Comments at 1; EC Comments at 1-2.

[^38]: IUSG Comments at 23-25 & Reply at 12-13.

[^39]: *See* Celsat Reply at 14-18; Constellation Reply at 5; Globalstar
    Reply at 5; MCHI Reply at 6 n.12. *But see* IUSG Comments at Exhibit
    B (attaching two letters from Wall Street institutions opining that
    the INEA proposal would not be a barrier to raising capital because
    the INEA safeguards guarantee licensees spectrum to commence
    operations).

[^40]: IUSG Reply at 5-8.

[^41]: Globalstar Comments at 9. Globalstar compares its all shared band
    arrangement to the one the Commission attempted in licensing the
    radiodetermination satellite service (RDSS), *id.* at 11 n.13,
    without acknowledging that no RDSS system ever launched, and the
    Commission reclaimed the RDSS spectrum for the Big LEO MSS systems.

[^42]: *Id.* at 11.

[^43]: *Id.* at 12 & n.14. MCHI supports some elements of Globalstar's
    "all shared band arrangement," but believes that the Commission need
    not adopt any band sharing agreement if the system proponents are
    required by regulation to discuss in good faith (1) adopting a band
    plan harmonized with Europe; (2) obtaining spectrum throughout the
    world; (3) exploring co-frequency sharing with different
    modulations; (4) adopting out-of-band emission standards; and (5)
    modifying system designs to facilitate sharing. MCHI Reply at 12-14.

[^44]: Globalstar Comments at 11. For example, Globalstar states that
    its studies "suggest that properly designed TDMA systems may well be
    able to share spectrum with other TDMA and CDMA systems." *Id.* at
    17. *But see* IUSG Reply at 32-33 (Globalstar's "all shared"
    proposal is based on "unseen studies").

[^45]: Globalstar Comments at 17, 20-21. *Accord* TMI Comments at 7
    (Commission should permit sharing arrangements between operators).

[^46]: Globalstar Comments at 11-12 & Reply at 3-4.

[^47]: Globalstar Comments at 21-22.

[^48]: Globalstar Reply at 7.

[^49]: ICO Reply at 17-19.

[^50]: *Id*. *See also* IUSG Reply at 32-33 (it is too late for ICO to
    alter its technology to CDMA, as would be necessary under
    Globalstar's plan); Iridium Reply at 15-16 (Globalstar's "all
    shared" proposal is too impractical to work effectively in the
    present environment of 2 GHz MSS applications).

[^51]: Inmarsat Reply at 4-7.

[^52]: *See* Constellation Reply at 1. *See also* Globalstar Comments at
    12-14; ICO Comments at 5; MCHI Comments at 17; TMI Comments at 8.

[^53]: *See* Celsat Comments at 7-8 (benefit of flexible band
    arrangement); MCHI Comments at 5 (same). *See also* Boeing Comments
    at 21 (traditional band arrangement is the most attractive
    processing alternative because it is the most equitable in that it
    provides a minimum amount of guaranteed spectrum with the
    opportunity to later expand into unused or forfeited portions of the
    band); Constellation Comments at 13, 18 (same); MCHI Comments at 11
    (same). *But see* IUSG Comments at 26-27 (guaranteed spectrum
    assignment not necessary to provide necessary certainty to permit
    confidence in system licenses for the purpose of financing).

[^54]: Even parties that oppose the proposed flexible band arrangement
    argue for more flexibility. *See* Constellation Comments at 11, 15
    (flexible band arrangement is too rigid ); Globalstar Comments at 17
    (same); ICO Comments at 10-11 & Reply at 10, 14-15 (denies early
    entrants the ability to operate flexibly and economically); IUSG
    Comments at 28-31 & Reply at 21 (cannot accurately predict the needs
    of all systems). *See also* ICO Comments at 10-11 & Reply at 10
    (traditional band arrangement is too rigid); Inmarsat Comments at 11
    & Reply Comments at 3 (same); IUSG Comments at 29-31 & Reply at 28
    (same).

[^55]: Constellation Comments at 11, 15; Globalstar Comments at 17; ICO
    Comments at 10-11 & Reply at 14-15; Inmarsat Comments at 5-6 (band
    plan should take new technological design developments into
    account); IUSG Comments at 28-31. IUSG urges the Commission not to
    segment the band by modulation schemes as technology may change and
    such a requirement would force applicants to elect a technology that
    may require submission of a major modification in the future to
    change the system. IUSG Comments at 20-22. *Cf.* Celsat Comments at
    8 n.9 (requesting option of offering TDMA or CDMA service in its
    assigned segment).

[^56]: Celsat Comments at 7-8; Inmarsat Comments at 3; MCHI Comments at
    5 & Reply at 9-10 (expressing preference for flexible band plan);
    TMI Comments at 5.

[^57]: Celsat Comments at 7-8; MCHI Comments at 5, 10-11; IUSG Comments
    at 33-34 & Reply at 28-29 (would invite warehousing of spectrum by
    "paper satellite" systems).

[^58]: Celsat, Constellation, Globalstar, Inmarsat, MCHI, and TMI all
    believe that early entrants could have the ability to delay entry of
    later entrants and, therefore, make it extremely difficult for later
    entrants to raise capital and to implement service. Celsat Comments
    at 16-17; Constellation Comments at 16-19; Globalstar Comments at
    16, 18-19; Inmarsat Comments at 10-11; MCHI Comments at 5 n.12,
    11-14; TMI Comments at 6-7. *See also* Celsat Comments at 9-12
    (prevent the creation of "squatters rights"). *But see* IUSG Reply
    at 10-12 (all successful licensees to be accommodated once they are
    ready to provide service).

[^59]: ICO Comments at 10-11 & Reply at 11-12; MCHI Comments at 7-8
    (adopt a good faith coordination standard); *but see* IUSG Reply at
    23-24 (disputes over coordination could be contentious, delaying
    service).

[^60]: Inmarsat Comments at 4 (proposing spectrum assignments that would
    closely harmonize the Commission's band arrangement with the
    European 1.9/2.1 GHz MSS arrangement adopted by the European
    Radiocommunications Committee (ERC)); IUSG Reply at 22-23 & 29-30
    (systems would require re-engineering, international
    re-coordination, and adjustments to the relocation scheme as system
    requirements change). MCHI states that the traditional approach
    would facilitate international coordination. MCHI Comments at 10-11.
    *See also* Celsat Comments at 14-16; Globalstar Comments at 16, 19;
    MCHI Comments at 5 n.12, 13-14.

[^61]: Of those commenters that addressed the relocation issue, most
    seek definitive action by the Commission to limit potential costs
    and to formulate rules to spread the costs equitably among the MSS
    licensees. Boeing Comments at 21-22 (advantage of the traditional
    arrangement is that relocation would be easier because each licensee
    would know what portion of the spectrum it is responsible for
    clearing); Celsat Comments at 9-12; IUSG Comments at 13-16, 20 n.45
    & Reply at 26-27; TMI Comments at 4-6 (flexible arrangement does not
    address the relocation issue).

[^62]: *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 2696.

[^63]: We use the generic term NGSO to apply to low Earth orbit (LEO),
    medium Earth orbit (MEO), and highly elliptical orbit systems.

[^64]: As stated in the *Notice*, we limited eligibility to NGSO systems
    in the Big LEO proceeding because of a *de facto* limitation in
    other MSS bands to GSO services, a desire to foster LEO development,
    and to enhance consumer choice. *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4854 n.60
    (citing *Big LEO Reconsideration*, 11 FCC Rcd at 12871 ¶ 29). We
    continue to believe that there is no reason to adopt a similar
    limitation in the 2 GHz frequency bands because there is adequate
    spectrum to accommodate both NGSO and GSO systems.

[^65]: Constellation Comments at 8; Globalstar Comments at 3; ICO
    Comments at 4; Inmarsat Comments at 8; TMI Comments at 3. *See also*
    Iridium Comments at 10.

[^66]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4857-58 ¶ 28.

[^67]: *2 GHz Relocation Third NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at 23966 ¶ 39.

[^68]: *See supra* footnote 6 and accompanying text.

[^69]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4857-58 ¶ 28. *See, e.g.*,
    Constellation Comments at 8 (group GSO systems primarily in that
    portion of the 2 GHz band allocated for MSS in Region 2); Celsat
    Comments at 6-7 & Reply at 6-7 (segment the 2 GHz spectrum into
    global and regional bands); TMI Comments at 4 (supports the
    segmentation of the band into regional and global spectrum as long
    as there are no undue relocation costs as a result); Boeing
    Supplemental Comments at 7-10 (assign regional systems to regional
    spectrum); IUSG Supplemental Comments at 8 n.9 (confine GSO systems
    to regional spectrum). *Cf.* ICO Comments at 4-5 (limit the spectrum
    available to all GSO systems to an aggregate 10 MHz in either
    direction (2015-2025 MHz and 2165-2175 MHz); IUSG Comments at 7
    (same). *But see* Celsat Reply at 7-8 (opposing the establishment of
    a GSO spectrum limitation).

[^70]: *See 2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233, at ¶¶ 22-35;
    *see also* paragraph 6, *supra*.

[^71]: Of course, we will not prohibit 2 GHz MSS systems from operating
    in Phase II portion of the uplink band (2008-2025 MHz) if they are
    able to operate without causing interference to BAS licensees, *see*
    paragraph 24, *infra*, or are willing to escalate Phase II
    relocation.

[^72]: Based on the framework established in *DISCO II*, we will license
    U.S. systems and designate spectrum for foreign-licensed systems.

[^73]: *See* Section III.A.1.d., *infra*.

[^74]: For instance, if the Selected Assignments are 3.5 megahertz each,
    in the uplink portion of the band, the first Selected Assignment
    will begin at 1990 MHz and end at 1993.5 MHz. The second Selected
    Assignment will begin at 1993.5 MHz and end at 1997 MHz. The same
    segmentation will apply to the downlink portion of the band.

[^75]: A satellite's intended orbit is the orbit it will occupy to
    provide commercial service.

[^76]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4959 ¶ 34 (citing *Big LEO Report &
    Order,* 9 FCC Rcd at 5955 ¶ 44).

[^77]: That is, 35 megahertz of spectrum divided by nine system
    proponents plus one segment for assignment based on service to
    unserved areas would yield ten segments of 3.5 megahertz each.

[^78]: Celsat Comments at 7-8; Inmarsat Comments at 3; MCHI Comments at
    5; TMI Comments at 5.

[^79]: Globalstar Comments at 21-22; MCHI Comments at 11; TMI Comments
    at 7. *Cf.* Celsat Comments at 13‑14 (may provide enough spectrum if
    forfeited spectrum is reassigned to first round operators as
    expansion spectrum under Celsat's proposed expansion spectrum
    assignment rules).

[^80]: *See* Letter of F. Thomas Tuttle, Senior Vice President, Iridium
    LLC to Magalie Salas, Secretary, FCC, File No. 187-SAT-P/LA-97
    (Sept. 13, 1999) (advising the Commission of the company's filing of
    a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
    Federal Bankruptcy Code); Constellation Comments at 25‑26 ("\[i\]t
    will be very difficult for any system operator to finance two
    systems at the same time. . . . \[F\]ull \[second\] system
    construction is unlikely to begin until about three years prior to
    the end of the first generation system."). *Compare* Celsat
    Supplementary Comments at 2 n.3 (presuming that Inmarsat has
    abandoned its proposed 2 GHz MSS system) *and* MCHI Supplementary
    Comments at 2 n.5 (same) *with* Letter of Kelly Cameron, Inmarsat
    Counsel to Thomas Tycz, Chief, Satellite and Radiocommunications
    Division, International Bureau, FCC, File No. 190-SAT-LOI-97(4)
    (Jan. 28, 2000) (reporting the Inmarsat Board's decision that
    Project Horizons "is not appropriate to pursue at this time" yet
    "\[d\]espite this, Inmarsat remains interested in participating in
    the Commission's 2 GHz processing round."). *See generally American
    Telephone and Telegraph Co./Ford Aerospace Satellite Services
    Corp.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 4431, 4435 ¶ 29
    (1987) (it is the Commission's policy not to consider applications
    that propose launch more than five years after grant).

[^81]: That is, 35 megahertz of spectrum divided by seven system
    proponents plus one segment for assignment based on service to
    unserved areas would yield eight segments of 4.375 megahertz each.

[^82]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 4858 ¶ 29.

[^83]: *See* paragraph 29, *infra*.

[^84]: *Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd 4861-62 at ¶ 40-43.

[^85]: *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233, at ¶¶ 38-49,
    83-90.

[^86]: For example, a 2 GHz MSS operator may operate solely in its
    Selected Assignment, entirely outside of its Selected Assignment (on
    a secondary basis), or partially in each.

[^87]: Operators will be required to vacate spectrum identified as a
    Selected Assignment by another operator within 30 days of receipt of
    a letter from the new entrant requesting the move. Operators
    requesting a move shall file a copy of the demand letter with the
    Commission.

[^88]: Boeing Supplemental Comments at 1; Celsat Supplemental Comments
    at 7; Constellation Supplemental Comments at 2; ICO Supplemental
    Comments at 2; Inmarsat Supplemental Comments at 2; Iridium
    Supplemental Comments at 2-3; IUSG Supplemental Comments at 2; MCHI
    Supplemental Comments at 3; TMI Supplemental Comments at 2.

[^89]: Celsat Supplemental Comments at 4 (operators should be permitted
    to occupy two blocks because not all applicants will implement);
    Constellation Supplemental Comments at 7-8 (Commission should permit
    certain systems using CDMA technology to operate over two selected
    assignments); ICO Supplemental Comments at 3 (allow use of spectrum
    beyond selected assignment on secondary basis); Inmarsat
    Supplemental Comments at 2 (allow some selected assignments to
    overlap if operators agree); IUSG Supplemental Comments at 5
    (operators launching the first satellite should be able to use
    spectrum beyond the selected assignment on a secondary basis); MCHI
    Supplemental Comments at 6-8 (concerned that the band plan does not
    provide the type of spectrum efficiencies that the Traditional Band
    Approach employed through technology groupings).

[^90]: ICO Supplemental Comments at 4-5; Inmarsat Supplemental Comments
    at 3; Iridium Supplemental Comments at 3-4; IUSG Supplemental
    Comments at 6; and MCHI Supplemental Comments at 9-10.

[^91]: In order to be able to aggregate spectrum, system proponents
    capable of sharing may want to coordinate launch of the first
    satellites in each system to coordinate the selection of Selected
    Assignments.

[^92]: ICO Supplemental Comments at 6-7; IUSG Supplemental Comments at
    7-8.

[^93]: Celsat Comments at 11 n.13.

[^94]: *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233, at ¶ 63.

[^95]: "\[W\]e will encourage spectrum sharing between emerging
    technologies services and incumbent 2 GHz fixed microwave users
    whenever technically feasible. . . . We are hopeful, however, that
    spectrum sharing techniques for some services . . . may prove
    workable. The success of those techniques could allow co‑primary
    operation of some emerging technologies with existing fixed
    microwave services on a non‑interference basis without the need for
    any relocation agreements." *Emerging Technologies Proceeding*,
    First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7
    FCC Rcd at 6891 ¶ 29.

[^96]: *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233, at ¶ 62.

[^97]: Globalstar Supplemental Comments at 16.

[^98]: *Id.* at 19-20.

[^99]: *Id.* at 14.

[^100]: 47 U.S.C. § 157(a) ("It shall be the policy of the United States
    to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the
    public.")

[^101]: Globalstar Supplemental Comments at 10 n.5.

[^102]: Inmarsat Supplementary Comments at 2-3.

[^103]: TMI Supplemental Comments at 2-3.

[^104]: MCHI Supplemental Comments at 8-9.

[^105]: TMI Supplementary Comments at 2.

[^106]: Celsat Supplementary Comments at 4-5. *See* paragraph 19,
    *supra*.

[^107]: Our decision to forge a band arrangement that avoids mutual
    exclusivity by accommodating all 2 GHz MSS system proponents moots
    our consideration of competitive bidding as a method of authorizing
    the 2 GHz MSS system proponents. For the same reason, we do not
    address the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of
    International Telecommunications Act (ORBIT Act), enacted after
    release of the *Notice*. *See* Pub. L. No. 106-180, § 3, 114 Stat.
    48 (2000) (adding Section 647 to the Communications Satellite Act of
    1962, 47 U.S.C. § 701 *et seq.*).

[^108]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^109]: *Big LEO Report & Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 5940 ¶ 3.

[^110]: First, in a Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we sought comment on the
    availability of, and possible impediments to, deployment and
    subscribership in unserved and underserved areas of the Nation,
    including for satellite services. *Promoting Deployment and
    Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal
    and Insular Areas*, CC Docket No. 96-45, Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 21177 (1999). We also sought comment on a
    range of possible modifications to the high-cost, low-income and
    rural health care support mechanisms that are designed to promote
    deployment and subscribership in these areas. Second, in a separate
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing wireless and satellite
    technologies specifically, we sought comment on any policies that we
    could adopt, or regulations that we should eliminate or streamline,
    including for satellite services, to promote the deployment of
    services in tribal lands and other unserved areas. *Extending
    Wireless Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands*, WT Docket No.
    99-266, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 13679 (1999). The
    Commission has recently imposed conditions on the merged SBC
    Communications Inc. (SBC) -- Ameritech Corporation (Ameritech)
    entity to promote service to rural and unserved areas. We are
    requiring that at least ten percent of all rural/urban wire centers
    where the merged entity's xDSL separate affiliate provides service
    be low-income rural/urban centers. Summary of SBC/Ameritech
    Conditions,
    http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrc9077a.html.

[^111]: *Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and
    Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas*, CC Docket
    No. 96-45, Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion And Order,
    and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 00-208 (rel. June 30,
    2000) (*Universal Service Twelfth R&O*); *Extending Wireless
    Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands*, WT Docket No. 99-266,
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC
    00-209 (rel. June 30, 2000) (*Wireless Tribal Order*).

[^112]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4886-87 ¶ 95.

[^113]: *Id.*

[^114]: Boeing Comments at 16-18; Celsat Comments at 28; Constellation
    Comments at 28; Globalstar Comments at 44; ICO Comments at 19; IUSG
    Comments at 44; Iridium Comments at 41; MCHI Comments at 26;
    Satellite Industry Association (SIA) Comments at 2-3. We also
    received comments from two very small aperture terminal (VSAT)
    providers. Both of the VSAT commenters agree that satellites are an
    excellent technology for providing telecommunications services to
    unserved areas. STM Wireless, Inc. (STM) argues that MSS systems may
    not be an efficient technology for providing service to these areas.
    *Ex Parte* Letter of STM Wireless, Inc. (dated July 13, 1999)
    (explaining that STM is currently using the latest VSAT technologies
    to successfully serve these markets for 10-15 cents per minute for
    voice telephone service to anywhere in the United States). The other
    VSAT commenter, Titan Wireless (Titan), requests Commission support
    in various regulatory areas. Titan seeks assistance in the areas of
    interconnection with the PSTN, access to Universal Service Funds,
    coordination of space segment frequency and expeditious licensing of
    earth stations, and availability of extended C-band frequencies to
    make it easier for VSAT operators to provide service in these
    unserved areas. Titan Reply Comments at 2-4. These issues are
    outside the context of this proceeding and will be considered in
    other rulemakings.

[^115]: Constellation 2 GHz MSS Application at 13; MCHI 2 GHz MSS
    Application, Exhibit 2: Market Information; Globalstar 2 GHz MSS
    Application at 52-3; *Ex Parte* Letter of Eagle River Investments,
    LLC, and ICO Global Communications (dated March 17, 2000) (Eagle
    River/ICO *Ex Parte* Letter); Celsat Consolidated Replies and
    Opposition at 2 (filed June 3, 1998).

[^116]: Celsat Comments at 28.

[^117]: *Id.* at 29.

[^118]: Eagle River/ICO *Ex Parte* Letter at 1.

[^119]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4859 ¶ 33.

[^120]: RSAs are 428 areas, other than Metropolitan Statistical Areas
    (MSAs), established by the Commission for the purposes of defining
    cellular markets. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.909. The 428 RSAs, and the
    counties they comprise, are listed in Public Notice, Report No.
    CL-92-40, DA 92-109, 7 FCC Rcd 742, 762-97 (1992).

[^121]: An authorized 2 GHz MSS system seeking expansion spectrum must
    submit all capacity measurements (e.g., minutes, megabits per
    second) in a uniform measurement when aggregating capacity. For
    example, satellite operator A enters into capacity contracts with
    retail service providers B and C for 10 million minutes each.
    Satellite operator A does not have any other contracts. B's retail
    footprint extends 20% into RSAs. Multiplying 10 million minutes by
    20% yields 2 million minutes attributable to RSA coverage. C's
    retail footprint extends 7% into RSAs. Multiplying 10 million
    minutes by 7% yields 700,000 minutes. Aggregating B and C's
    attributable RSA minutes sums to 2.7 million minutes. Dividing the
    aggregate of B and C's RSA minutes by the total contracted-capacity
    of 20 million minutes produces a 13.5% attributable RSA
    contracted-capacity for satellite operator A. A qualifies for rural
    spectrum as it has met the 10% threshold.

[^122]: We note that as of 1996, approximately 20 percent of the U.S.
    population lived in RSAs, based on census data indicating that 214
    million people live in metropolitan areas (MAs), including MSAs, and
    a total U.S. population of 265 million people (derived from data
    published at U.S. Bureau of the Census, State and Metropolitan Area
    Data Book 1997, table B-1; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
    Reports, 25-311, 25-802, 25-1095 and "Monthly estimates of the
    United States population: April 1, 1980 to November 1, 1998"). We
    recognize that MAs, as described by the Census Bureau, may be
    overinclusive because they include MSAs, consolidated MSAs, and New
    England county metropolitan areas (NECMAs). This approximation,
    however, is sufficient for purposes of estimation.

[^123]: *See* Section III.C.4., *infra*.

[^124]: We also note that this spectrum has long been identified by the
    Commission for service to such areas. *See Amendment of the
    Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications
    Services,* GEN Docket No. 90-314, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9
    FCC Rcd 4957, 4995-96 ¶¶ 94-97 (1994).

[^125]: Constellation Comments at 27; Globalstar Comments at 44-45; ICO
    Comments at 20; IUSG Comments at 44‑45; Iridium Comments at 42; MCHI
    Comments at 26 (not supporting the proposals in the *Notice*); SIA
    Comments at 2‑3 (not supporting the proposals in the *Notice*).

[^126]: Constellation Comments at 28; Globalstar Comments at 44-45; ICO
    Comments at 19 n.59 & Reply at 23; IUSG Comments at 44 & Reply at
    41; Iridium Comments at 41; Boeing Reply at 24.

[^127]: ICO Comments at 20-21 & Reply at 24; IUSG Comments at 44-45 &
    Reply at 41; Iridium Comments at 42.

[^128]: Celsat Reply at 20.

[^129]: *See* Eagle River/ICO *Ex Parte* Letter.

[^130]: Globalstar Comments at 44-45; MCHI Comments at 26-27; IUSG
    Comments at 44-45.

[^131]: *See supra* footnote 111 and accompanying text.

[^132]: *Wireless Tribal Order*, FCC 00-209, at ¶ 51.

[^133]: *Universal Service Twelfth R&O*, FCC 00-208, at ¶¶ 61, 109.

[^134]: ICO Comments at 20; IUSG Comments at 45-46; MCHI Comments at 26.

[^135]: *See generally 2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233.

[^136]: Boeing asserts that the aviation community should be included in
    the definition of "unserved communities." Boeing Comments at 17-18.
    Boeing Reply at 24-25 (Boeing changed its initial support for the
    Commission's proposal to provide incentives for service to unserved
    areas in its reply comments due to its concern that the aviation
    community may not be included in the definition of the term unserved
    communities).

[^137]: Iridium Comments at 43 n.79.

[^138]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4848 ¶ 5; Public Notice, Report No.
    SPB-88, 12 FCC Rcd 10446 (1997).

[^139]: Celsat Comments at 4-5, Reply at 3-4 & Supplemental Comments at
    6. Celsat's support for its proposal, the streamlined licensing
    procedure used in the Ka-band first processing round, is inapposite
    because the Ka-band proponents came to a mutual agreement and were
    able to simply file a letter with the Commission stating their
    intention to construct its system in compliance with that agreement.
    No such agreement has been reached in the 2 GHz MSS processing
    round.

[^140]: MCHI Comments at 18.

[^141]: *See, e.g.*, *Big LEO Report & Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 5939 ¶ 2.

[^142]: *See* Section III.B.7., *infra*.

[^143]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4847 ¶ 5.

[^144]: *See Big LEO Report & Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6023 ¶ 230.

[^145]: *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.140(c), 25.142(a)(4).

[^146]: *See, e.g.*, *Big LEO Report & Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 5948-50 ¶¶
    26-30.

[^147]: *Id.* at 5948 ¶ 26.

[^148]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4856 ¶ 24.

[^149]: *Id.*

[^150]: *See* Celsat Comments at 20-23 & Reply at 24; Constellation
    Comments at 3-4; Globalstar Comments at 6-8 & Reply at 19; ICO
    Comments at 5-6; MCHI Comments at 22; *see also* IUSG Comments at
    38; Iridium Reply at 24.

[^151]: *See, e.g.*, MCHI Comments at 22; Constellation Comments at 3-4;
    Celsat Comments at 20-23.

[^152]: Globalstar Comments at 6-7.

[^153]: Boeing Comments at 27-33; Inmarsat Comments at 15-16.

[^154]: Bell South Comments at 4-5 & Reply at 5-6. *Accord* Society of
    Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE) Reply at 2. *Cf.* BellSouth Comments
    at 2-3 & Reply at 1-4 (suggesting that the Commission prescribe a
    competitive bidding licensing mechanism to ensure that the 2 GHz MSS
    spectrum is assigned to entities with the financial resources to
    commence service to the public promptly); *but see* TMI Comments at
    8 (auctions would distort access to capital); SIA Comments at 3-4
    (auctions would inhibit competition among global satellite systems).

[^155]: 47 U.S.C. § 308(b).

[^156]: *Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 4853 ¶ 16.

[^157]: *Id.* at 4890 ¶ 107.

[^158]: TMI Comments at 4.

[^159]: ICO Comments at 22; IUSG Comments at 7-8.

[^160]: Inmarsat Comments at 17.

[^161]: Traditional "bent pipe" satellite systems use paired frequencies
    between the uplink and the downlink bands. The satellite sets the
    translation frequency between the transmit and receive bands.

[^162]: ICO Comments at 22 & Supplemental Comments at 7-8; IUSG
    Supplemental Comments at 7-8.

[^163]: *See* Section III.A.I.c., *supra* (band arrangement); Section
    III.E., *infra* (different regions may require operations on
    different frequency bands for the purposes of international
    coordination); *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233
    (incumbent relocation).

[^164]: Constellation Comments at 8-9.

[^165]: *Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 4854 ¶ 18.

[^166]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(b)(2)(ii)-(iii).

[^167]: Globalstar Comments at 4; ICO Comments at 4; Iridium Comments at
    11.

[^168]: Celsat expresses concern that Boeing's system requirement for
    intra-network priority and preemptive access is inconsistent with
    our coverage proposal for NGSO systems because Boeing's priority and
    preemption requirements mean that Boeing would not be able to
    provide continuous service to all users in its system.^?^ We
    disagree with Celsat. We find that our continuous coverage
    requirement does not prohibit customer priority or preemption
    between calls on the same system. In addition, the requirement does
    not require that systems exceed their inherent design capacity in
    order to attain uninterrupted service.

[^169]: Constellation Comments at 3.

[^170]: *Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 4854 ¶ 19.

[^171]: Constellation and Globalstar argue that the proposed rule is
    less stringent than the description of the proposed rule in the text
    of the *Notice,* which would require coverage unless technically
    *infeasible.* Constellation Comments at 3; Globalstar Comments at 4.
    Celsat and Iridium urge us to adopt the rule as described in the
    text of the *Notice.* Celsat Comments at 26; Iridium Comments at 11.
    On the other hand, Inmarsat favors a less stringent standard that it
    believes was proposed in the rule section of the *Notice*. Inmarsat
    Comments at 8-9 & Reply at 18-19. We disagree with the commenters
    who contend that one formulation of the rule is more or less
    stringent than the other. We do not believe that there is any
    substantive difference between the phrases "if technically feasible"
    and "unless technically infeasible."

[^172]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4905-06 (Appendix D, Sec.
    25.143(b)(2)(iv)).

[^173]: 47 C.F.R. § 100.53 (b).

[^174]: *See* Reduced Domestic Satellite Orbital Spacing at 4/6 GHz,
    FCC/OST R83-2 4-5 (May 1983) (view of a satellite below five degrees
    is not reliable due to atmospheric effects).

[^175]: Globalstar Comments at 4.

[^176]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.

[^177]: *See, e.g.*, Consolidated Comments and Petition to Deny of
    Iridium at 9 (filed May 5, 1998); Comments of Aeronautical Radio,
    Inc. at 4-5 (filed May 4, 1998); Comments of Celsat at 7 (filed May
    4, 1998); Comments of Constellation at 20 (filed May 4, 1998);
    Consolidated Comments of ICO at 17-18 (filed May 4, 1998).

[^178]: ARINC Comments at 3.

[^179]: *See* Consolidated Opposition of Boeing at 9 (filed June 3,
    1998).

[^180]: Boeing Comments at 3.

[^181]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4855-56 ¶ 22.

[^182]: *Id.* at 4855 ¶ 21.

[^183]: *Id.*

[^184]: Constellation Comments at 5; Inmarsat Comments at 13-14; Iridium
    Comments at 9.

[^185]: ICO Comments at 5.

[^186]: Constellation Comments at 5.

[^187]: Boeing Reply at 6.

[^188]: *See, e.g.*, *Amendment of Part 87 of the Commission's Rules to
    Establish Technical Standards and Licensing Procedures for Aircraft
    Earth Stations*, PR Docket No. 90-315, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd
    5895, 5895 n.3 (1992).

[^189]: *See, e.g.*, *Amendment of Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the
    Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum for, and to Establish Other
    Rules and Policies Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies in a
    Mobile Satellite Service for the Provision of Various Common Carrier
    Services*, GEN Docket No. 84-1234, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4
    FCC Rcd 6016, 6025 n.3 (1989).

[^190]: Priority and preemption contractual provisions may require the
    involvement of other federal agencies.

[^191]: *Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 4855 ¶ 21.

[^192]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 87.187(q) and § 2.106 U.S. Table of Frequency
    Allocations.

[^193]: Iridium Comments at 8-9; ARINC Comments at 2.

[^194]: Boeing Comments at 13-14.

[^195]: For example, several commenters are concerned about interference
    from and to Boeing's system and object to any special coordination
    status for AMS(R)S in the 2 GHz MSS spectrum. Constellation Comments
    at 5; Globalstar Comments at 4-6 & Reply at 21-22; Inmarsat Comments
    at 13 & Reply at 18; Iridium Comments at 8 & Reply at 45‑46;
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
    Comments at 18; TMI Comments at 3. As stated above, we will address
    those concerns when we consider Boeing's application for licensing.

[^196]: Gateway earth stations also perform billing and call-management
    functions.

[^197]: TT&C communications are used throughout the satellite's life,
    including the launch and deployment phase, to monitor the health of
    the spacecraft. The TT&C function allows the earth station to
    control the satellite's physical orbital position and internal
    functioning.

[^198]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4865-74 ¶¶ 49-70.

[^199]: *See Amendment of Parts 2, 25 and 97 of the Commission's Rules
    with Regard to the Mobile-Satellite Service Above 1 GHz*, ET Docket
    No. 98-142, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 13 FCC Rcd 17107 (1998)
    (*5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation NPRM*); *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*, ET Docket No. 98-206, Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making, 14 FCC Rcd 1131 (1999) (*NGSO FSS Notice*); *Amendment of
    the Commission\'s Rules with Regard to the 3650-3700 MHz Government
    Transfer Band*, ET Docket No. 98-237, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 1295 (1998) (*3650-3700 MHz Notice*).

[^200]: *See* SBE Comments at 3 & Reply at 1 (requesting that we shelve
    all feeder link requests as premature pending completion of
    allocation rulemakings); PanAmSat Reply at 7 (also requesting that
    our decisions in this docket do not complicate the resolution of
    NGSO/GSO sharing issues).

[^201]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4865, 4883 ¶¶ 49, 83.

[^202]: Globalstar Comments at 26; IUSG Comments at 38-39; TMI Comments
    at 10. *See also* Iridium Comments at 36 & Reply at 25-26.

[^203]: Boeing Comments at 25-27 (also arguing that precedent supports
    its view).

[^204]: *Id.* at 26.

[^205]: Boeing Reply at 20.

[^206]: IUSG Reply at 39 (citing Iridium Comments at 36 (initiating
    milestones upon authorization of service link spectrum will
    encourage applicants to pursue presently attainable non-service
    links, and discourage attempts to delay milestones through the
    selection of non-service link frequencies that will require lengthy
    proceedings to resolve)).

[^207]: For a discussion of the milestones that 2 GHz MSS systems must
    meet, see Section III.C.3., *infra*.

[^208]: *See also Big LEO Reconsideration*, 11 FCC Rcd at 12876 ¶ 42.

[^209]: *Id.* Accordingly, we delegate authority to the International
    Bureau to waive 47 C.F.R. § 25.116, consistent with this decision.

[^210]: *Accord* Globalstar Comments at 26.

[^211]: *Id.*

[^212]: *See Big LEO Reconsideration*, 11 FCC Rcd at 12875 n.30; *Big
    LEO Report & Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 5997 ¶ 163; *accord* Celsat
    Comments at 24 & n.28 & Reply at 24 & n.44 (MSS feeder links are by
    definition a type of FSS, citing 47 C.F.R. § 2.1).

[^213]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4866 ¶ 51 (regarding NGSO MSS feeder
    links); *id.* at 4868 ¶ 54 (regarding GSO MSS feeder links).

[^214]: *See* PanAmSat Comments at 1 (existing allocations are
    sufficient to satisfy the feeder link spectrum requirements of the
    2 GHz NGSO MSS applicants); GE American Communications, Inc. (GE
    Americom) Reply at 3 (same); *accord* Globalstar Comments at 27
    (there is sufficient spectrum in the 15.43-15.63 GHz and 6700-7075
    MHz bands to accommodate those applicants that desire feeder links
    in these frequency ranges). *See also* Inmarsat Comments at 14 (with
    respect to the proposed GSO MSS systems, there is sufficient amount
    of feeder link spectrum to accommodate all proposals).

[^215]: *See* Constellation Comments at 22 (it is premature for the
    Commission to consider formulas or algorithms to relate service link
    assignments with feeder link assignments); Globalstar Comments at 25
    & n.26 (an algorithm to scale back feeder link requests is
    impractical since applicants should be able to assess their feeder
    link needs after reviewing the service link plan).

[^216]: Hughes and Globalstar acknowledge some quantitative relationship
    between service link spectrum and the spectrum needed for feeder
    links. *See* Hughes Comments at 7; Globalstar Comments at 25. *Cf.*
    Boeing Comments at 23-25 (a reduction in service link spectrum may
    not warrant a comparable reduction in feeder link requirements);
    Constellation Reply at 9 (satellite system architectures are too
    complex to draw a simple relationship between feeder link and
    service link spectrum requirements).

[^217]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4868 ¶ 55 (citing, *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. §
    25.203(k)).

[^218]: *See* Globalstar Comments at 25 n.27 (47 C.F.R. § 25.203(k)
    provides sufficient guidance for coordination of feeder link
    conflicts); Constellation Comments at 22 (2 GHz MSS space station
    operators should be included within the purview of 47 C.F.R. §
    25.203(k)'s requirement to coordinate gateway earth station uses).

[^219]: "An applicant for an earth station that will operate with a
    geostationary satellite or non-geostationary satellite in a shared
    frequency band in which the non-geostationary system is (or is
    proposed to be) licensed for feeder links, shall demonstrate in its
    applications that its proposed earth station will not cause
    unacceptable interference to any other satellite network that is
    authorized to operate in the same frequency band, or certify that
    the operations of its earth station shall conform to established
    coordination agreements between the operator(s) of the space
    station(s) with which the earth station is to communicate and the
    operator(s) of any other space station licensed to use the band." 47
    C.F.R. § 25.203(k).

[^220]: *See* FWCC Comments at 2-7, Reply at 1-4 & Supplemental Comments
    at 2-3; Association of American Railroads (AAR) Comments at 3-5 &
    Reply at 1-3; American Petroleum Institute (API) Comments at 4-6;
    Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
    Inc. (APCO) Comments at 2; United Telecom Council (UTC) Comments at
    2-3 & Supplemental Comments at 4-5.

[^221]: FWCC Comments at 3. FWCC's sharing proposals include: (a)
    limiting total numbers of feeder link earth stations; (b)
    co-locating MSS feeder link earth stations; (c) locating feeder link
    earth stations away from high-concentration FS areas; (d) requiring
    feeder link earth stations to use the largest feasible antenna; (e)
    shielding feeder link earth stations so as to permit FS operations
    in closer proximity; and (f) setting standards for earth station
    spectrum efficiency. *Id.* at 4-5. FWCC's coordination proposals
    include: (a) where there is significant overlap between MSS
    designations and FS, requiring feeder link earth stations to specify
    half of the overlap to be left available for FS growth; (b) not
    requiring FS operators to coordinate within unused azimuths; and (c)
    once an earth station accepts interference that exceeds the desired
    objective when coordinating, then allowing a future FS station
    located in the same area to coordinate at that same higher level.
    *Id.* at 5-7. *Accord* API Reply at 5; UTC Supplemental Comments at
    5.

    In addition to supporting FWCC's proposals, AAR recommends that the
    Commission (a) define "feeder link gateway" narrowly, so that MSS
    operators cannot deploy gateways that are the functional equivalent
    to subscriber terminals; and (b) limit the number of gateways for
    which any single MSS operator may be licensed to no more than six.
    AAR Comments at 4-5 & Reply at 2; *accord* API Reply at 5. Inmarsat
    states that its gateway plans are compatible with AAR's proposal
    limiting the number of gateway earth stations per MSS system.
    Inmarsat Reply at 16 n.42.

[^222]: UTC Comments at 4 & Supplemental Comments at 5-6. *Accord* API
    Reply at 6.

[^223]: Inmarsat Reply at 17.

[^224]: *Id.* at 16.

[^225]: Globalstar Reply at 8-13. *Accord* Iridium Reply at 40 (adding
    that FWCC can also raise these issues in coordination negotiations);
    Inmarsat Reply at 16 (although FWCC's spectrum sharing suggestions
    could be employed successfully in order to promote greater spectrum
    efficiency, FS/MSS feeder link interference matters are better
    handled on a case-by-case basis during good faith coordination
    discussions among the parties).

[^226]: Globalstar Reply at 8 n.18.

[^227]: *See, e.g.*, *5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd 17107;
    *NGSO FSS Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 1131.

[^228]: In its Request for Declaratory Ruling on Partial-Band Licensing
    of Earth Stations in the Fixed Satellite Service that Share
    Terrestrial Spectrum and Petition for Rulemaking to Set Loading
    Standards for Earth Stations in the Fixed Satellite Service that
    Share Terrestrial Spectrum (filed May 5, 1999), FWCC seeks changes
    to the FCC's rules and coordination procedures toward what it
    believes to be "more equitable sharing" between terrestrial FS and
    satellite services generally. The Commission designated FWCC's
    filing as RM-9649. *See* Public Notice, Report No. 2334, Mimeo No.
    93716 (rel. June 11, 1999).

[^229]: Specifically, Inmarsat requests the 6425-6575 MHz band for
    feeder uplinks and the 3550-3700 MHz band for feeder downlinks. *See
    Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4865 ¶ 50 (feeder link table).

[^230]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4869 ¶ 58 (citing *3650-3700 MHz
    Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 1295).

[^231]: Inmarsat Comments at 14-15.

[^232]: *See Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to the
    3650-3700 MHz Government Transfer Band*, ET Docket No. 98-237,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-181, at ¶ 4 & Appendix A (rel.
    May 22, 2000).

[^233]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4869 n.115.

[^234]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 n.US245.

[^235]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. LTTS is similar to BAS insofar as TV stations
    and independent mobile services set up microwave facilities for news
    gathering, coverage of live events, and program distribution. BAS
    and cable television relay services licensees share the LTTS
    spectrum. *See* paragraph 6, *supra*.

[^236]: Century OCN Programming, Inc. Comments at 1-2 (MSS feeder links
    will exacerbate existing frequency coordination and interference
    problems in already crowded spectrum); SBE Comments at 2 (Inmarsat's
    proposal could conflict with the existing LTTS allocation); SBC
    Comments at 2 (LTTS services have no alternative frequency bands in
    which to operate). *Cf.* Tim Lynch Comments at 1 (MSS providers will
    not be inclined to prior coordinate with the LTTS incumbents).

[^237]: Inmarsat Reply at 16.

[^238]: *See 5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd 17107.

[^239]: Specifically, Constellation requests 2 GHz MSS feeder uplinks in
    the 5 and 15 GHz bands and 2 GHz MSS feeder downlinks in the 7 GHz
    band, while its Big LEO feeder links are in the 5 and 7 GHz bands.
    Globalstar requests 2 GHz MSS feeder uplinks in the 15 GHz band and
    2 GHz MSS feeder downlinks in the 7 GHz band, while its Big LEO
    feeder links are in the 5 and 7 GHz bands. MCHI requests 2 GHz MSS
    feeder uplinks in the 15 GHz band and 2 GHz MSS feeder downlinks in
    7 GHz band, while its Big LEO feeder links are in the same bands.
    *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4869 ¶ 59 (citing Big LEO
    authorizations) and 4865-66 ¶ 50 (feeder link table).

[^240]: ICO requests feeder uplinks in 5 GHz band and feeder downlinks
    in 7 GHz band. *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4865 ¶ 50 (feeder link
    table).

[^241]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4870 ¶ 60 & n.122 (citing two DARS
    systems authorized in the upper portion of the 7 GHz band). WCS
    Radio, Inc. withdrew an application for a DARS license to use these
    bands. *See* Public Notice, Report No. SAT-00020, Mimeo No. 94323,
    at 3 (rel. July 22, 1999).

[^242]: Globalstar Comments at 27 (citing *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4869 ¶
    59).

[^243]: MCHI Comments at 25.

[^244]: Constellation Comments at 21-22.

[^245]: ICO Reply at 19.

[^246]: Globalstar Reply at 9 n.21.

[^247]: *See* Constellation Comments at 21 & Reply at 9 (recommending
    "suitable" or "appropriate" coordination agreements); MCHI Comments
    at 25 n.62 (suggesting "a good faith coordination negotiation
    requirement").

[^248]: *See* paragraph 69, *supra*. *Accord* SBE Comments at 2-3 (the
    proposals to operate feeder downlinks in the 7 GHz band could impact
    the 6875-7125 MHz TV BAS band, and need to await resolution of the
    *5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation Proceeding*).

[^249]: NTIA Comments at 6-9. *Accord* ICO Reply at 20. ARNS is a
    radionavigation service intended for the benefit and for the safe
    operation of aircraft. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 87.5.

[^250]: *5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at 17115 ¶ 16.

[^251]: NTIA Comments at 7-8. The Commission submits non-Government
    frequency assignment applications for consideration by the FAS, a
    subcommittee of IRAC. IRAC is an advisory committee within NTIA
    composed of the 20 most active Federal users of Federal spectrum and
    a liaison member from the Commission. The primary functions of IRAC
    are to assist in assigning frequencies to Government spectrum users
    and in developing and executing policies, programs, procedures and
    technical criteria pertaining to the allocation, management, and use
    of the spectrum.

[^252]: NTIA Comments at 9. The ICAO Standard MLS is an all-weather
    precision approach and landing system that will eventually replace
    the Instrument Landing System as the international standard. MLS
    operates on 200 channels in the 5030-5091 MHz band. A MLS station
    supports navigation and guidance for suitably-equipped aircraft out
    to a range of 43 kilometers (23 nautical miles) and an altitude of
    6096 meters (20,000 feet).

[^253]: The 10.7-11.7 GHz band is allocated domestically to the FSS on a
    co-primary basis with the terrestrial FS, and allocated
    internationally to the FSS, FS, and mobile services. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    § 2.106. The Commission's rules permit FSS use of this portion of
    the band on an international basis only. 47 C.F.R. § 25.202(a)(1),
    n.2 ("\[u\]se of this band by the fixed-satellite service is limited
    to international systems, *i.e.*, other than domestic systems").
    *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, NG104.

[^254]: Specifically, Boeing requests its feeder links in the upper-most
    portions of the bands, *i.e.*, 14.391-14.5 GHz and 11.591-11.7 GHz.
    *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4865 ¶ 50 (feeder link table).

[^255]: *See NGSO FSS Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 1131; Public Notice, Report
    No. SAT-00013, Mimeo No. 92541 (rel. March 23, 1999) (accepting NGSO
    FSS Ku-band applications for filing).

[^256]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4871 ¶ 61.

[^257]: Boeing Comments at 22-23 & Reply at 13-14.

[^258]: PanAmSat Comments at 4; GE Americom Reply at 4.

[^259]: PanAmSat Comments at 5 & Reply at 2.

[^260]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4871 ¶ 61.

[^261]: *See NGSO FSS Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 1131; Public Notice, Report
    No. SAT-00013, Mimeo No. 92541 (rel. March 23, 1999) (accepting NGSO
    FSS Ku-band applications for filing). *See also* National Academies'
    Committee on Radio Frequencies Comments at 4 (requesting that the
    Commission protect Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) and Earth
    Exploration-Satellite Service (EESS) users at 10.6-10.7 GHz from MSS
    feeder downlink operations at 10.7-11.7 GHz through out-of-band
    emission limitations similar to those proposed by the Commission for
    NGSO FSS gateway downlinks in the *NGSO FSS Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    1173-74 ¶ 82).

[^262]: *See Notice*, 14, FCC Rcd at 4866 ¶ 52. *See also Establishment
    of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service
    in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band*, IB Docket No. 95-91, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 1, 22 ¶ 71 (1995) (citing *Amendment
    of Parts 2, 22 and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum for and to Establish Other Rules and Policies Pertaining to
    the Use of Radio Frequencies in a Land Mobile Satellite Service for
    the Provision of Various Common Carrier Services*, GEN Docket No.
    84‑1234, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 4 FCC Rcd
    6041, 6050 ¶¶ 61-62 (1989) (*AMSC Order*), *tentative decision on
    remand*, 6 FCC Rcd 4900 (1991), *final decision on remand*, 7 FCC
    Rcd 266 (1992), *aff\'d sub nom.*, *Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v.
    FCC*, 983 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).

[^263]: *Id.* at 4866 n.99. The "conventional" bands used to provide FSS
    in the United States are the 3700-4200 MHz/5925‑6425 MHz bands
    (C‑band) and the 11.7-12.2 GHz/14.0‑14.5 GHz bands (Ku-band).

[^264]: *See, e.g.*, *AMSC Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 6052-53 ¶¶ 76-78.

[^265]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4866 ¶ 52.

[^266]: Globalstar 2 GHz MSS Application at 30-31.

[^267]: PanAmSat and GE Americom argue that the Commission should not
    allow 2 GHz MSS systems to operate GSO feeder links in the
    conventional Ku-band because these bands are already congested, with
    more congestion imminent from NGSO FSS systems seeking access to GSO
    FSS spectrum and the inherent difficulties involved in NGSO/GSO
    sharing. *See* PanAmSat Comments at 1-3 & Reply at 4; GE Americom
    Reply at 3.

[^268]: *See* GE Americom Reply at 6 (claiming that Globalstar cannot be
    awarded a Ku-band orbital location outside a processing round).

[^269]: GE Americom believes that the Commission should permit such
    agreements, since the FSS provider could determine whether it could
    accommodate MSS feeder link capacity consistent with other FSS
    traffic on the satellite. *Id*. On the other hand, PanAmSat believes
    the Commission should not allow such agreements, as it would allow
    FSS licensees to "convert the public benefit of FSS spectrum to
    private gain." PanAmSat Comments at 3. *But see id.* at n.7 (should
    the Commission allow such private agreements between FSS licensees
    and MSS operators, the Commission "should require that (i) the MSS
    proponent reaches agreement with an existing FSS licensee to use its
    licensed spectrum; (ii) the MSS proponent can operate on a
    non-interference basis with respect to all other FSS users and
    facilities, both terrestrial and in-orbit; and (iii) the MSS
    system's operations will not unreasonably constrain the future
    development of FSS networks (including VSAT networks).").

[^270]: GE Americom's Ku-band GE-5 satellite is assigned to 79° W.L.,
    and Nahuelsat, S.A. intends to use the 81° W.L orbit location
    pursuant to authority granted by the Comision Nacional de
    Communicaciones of the Republic of Argentina. *See* GE Americom
    Reply at 6; Letter from Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and
    Radiocommunication Division, to Karis A. Hastings, Esq., Hogan &
    Hartson L.L.P. (March 28, 2000). For more information regarding the
    Commission's two-degree spacing policy, see *Licensing Space
    Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service*, 48 Fed. Reg.
    40233, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 577 (1983) and *Televisa International,
    LLC.*, Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 10074, 10076-77 ¶¶ 7-9
    (Int'l Bur. 1997).

[^271]: Globalstar states that its requested feeder link requirements
    can be accommodated in the alternative GSO MSS feeder link spectrum
    suggested by the Commission, with a caveat that it could modify its
    feeder links if the Ku-band feeder links are available. Globalstar
    Comments at 28-29. *See also* PanAmSat Reply at 4.

[^272]: *See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the
    Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band,
    to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules
    and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed
    Satellite Services*, CC Docket No. 92-297, First Report and Order
    and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 19005 (1996)
    (*Ka-Band First Report and Order*).

[^273]: *See 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 Bands
    for Broadcast Satellite-Service Use*, IB Docket No. 98-172, Report
    and Order, FCC 00-212 (rel. June 22, 2000) (*18 GHz Report and
    Order*). U.S. Government satellite systems also operate in the
    17.8‑20.2 GHz band, and the standard process of coordination between
    Government and non-Government operations continues to remain in
    effect. *See id.* at ¶ 4; NTIA Comments at 20. The U.S. Government
    systems operate in accordance with footnote US334 in the United
    States Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 n.US334.
    *See generally Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum for the Fixed-Satellite Service in the
    17.8-20.2 GHz Band for Government Use*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9931 (1995).

[^274]: *Ka-Band First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19023-38 ¶¶
    41-81.

[^275]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.257, 25.258.

[^276]: We retained the NGSO MSS and FS co-primary designation in the
    19.3-19.7 GHz band in the *18 GHz Report and Order*, FCC 00-212, at
    ¶¶ 53-54.

[^277]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^278]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4865 ¶ 50 (feeder link table); *id.*
    at 4872 ¶ 65. Reverse-band working involves authorizing satellite
    communications links in a direction opposite to the direction for
    which the band is allocated. Thus, in the 19.3-19.6 GHz band, which
    is allocated for downlinks, uplinks would operate on a
    \"reverse-band working\" basis.

[^279]: *Ka-Band First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19031-32 ¶ 63.

[^280]: *Id.* at 19037 ¶ 80.

[^281]: *See* Celsat Reply at 22; Celsat Amendment to Application, IBFS
    File No. SAT-AMD-19980123-00009, File No. 88-SAT-AMEND-98 (filed
    January 23, 1998); Public Notice, Report No. SAT-00012 (rel. March
    16, 1999).

[^282]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4872 ¶ 64. GSO FSS systems may operate
    uplinks in the following 28 GHz sub-bands: 27.50-28.35 GHz (850 MHz,
    secondary with respect to LMDS);

    28.35-28.60 GHz (250 MHz, exclusive primary);

    28.60-29.10 GHz (500 MHz, secondary with respect to NGSO FSS);

    29.25-29.50 GHz (250 MHz, co-primary with respect to NGSO MSS feeder
    links); and

    29.50-30.00 GHz (500 MHz, exclusive primary).

    *See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's
    Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate
    the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies
    for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite
    Services*, CC Docket No. 92-297, Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd
    22310, 22326-27 ¶¶ 40-42 (1997).

    In the recently-released *18 GHz Report and Order*, we eliminated
    all secondary designations in the 18 GHz band, and thus, GSO FSS
    systems may operate downlinks in the following 18 GHz sub-bands on a
    primary or co-primary basis:

    18.30-18.58 GHz (280 MHz, co-primary with respect to FS);

    18.58-18.80 GHz (220 MHz, exclusive primary); and

    19.70-20.20 GHz (500 MHz, exclusive primary).

    *See 18 GHz Report and Order*, FCC 00-212, at ¶ 28.

[^283]: GE Americom Reply at 6; Hughes Comments at 6 & Reply at 2;
    PanAmSat Comments at 6 & Reply at 5; Pegasus Comments at 3-4.
    Although not specified in its filings, we believe Hughes is
    referring to the pairing of 19.7‑20.2 GHz and 29.5-30.0 GHz as the
    "core" GSO FSS spectrum. Hughes Comments at 5 (citing *Ka-Band First
    Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19036 ¶ 78).

[^284]: PanAmSat Comments at 6 & Reply at 5. *See also* Hughes Comments
    at 2-3 & Reply at 4-5.

[^285]: Pegasus Comments at 3 (Ka‑band GSO FSS will provide more
    ubiquitous services directly to consumers vs. feeder link service to
    limited number of gateways); *accord* GE Americom Reply at 7.

[^286]: Hughes Comments at 2. *Accord* PanAmSat Comments at 6 (reject
    any application that proposes a frequency use that deviates from the
    Ka-band plan).

[^287]: Celsat Comments at 24-25 (citing *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4872 ¶
    64).

[^288]: Hughes Comments at 4 & Reply at 3; PanAmSat Reply at 5 n.17.

[^289]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4872 ¶ 64; *see also* GE Americom
    Reply at 7 (claiming that all Ka-band orbital locations in the range
    identified by Celsat have been assigned).

[^290]: Hughes Comments at 7; Celsat Reply at 23 n.43.

[^291]: Hughes Comments at 8 & n.25; *but see* KaStar Satellite
    Communications Corp. Reply at 3-4 (Hughes' suggestion does not
    comply with the Commission's two-degree spacing requirements for GSO
    satellites).

[^292]: *Accord* Globalstar Comments at 26 n.28 (Commission should defer
    Celsat's feeder link requests until resolution of the Ka-band second
    processing round).

[^293]: Celsat Reply 24.

[^294]: Celsat Comments at 25; Hughes Comments at 6; Pegasus Comments at
    4.

[^295]: WinStar Communications, Inc. (WinStar) Comments at 2-4 & Reply
    at 1-3; Bosch Telecom, Inc. Comments at 1; Personal Communications
    Industry Association Comments at 2-3; Wireless Communications
    Association International, Inc. (WCA) Reply at 5.

[^296]: WinStar Comments at 3 and Reply at 4 (MSS operator would have to
    turn off its feeder link even if the LMDS licensee installs
    equipment after a MSS provider begins operations); *accord* WCA
    Reply at 5.

[^297]: WinStar Reply at 4; FWCC Comments at 6 n.15.

[^298]: Hughes Comments at 6-7; Pegasus Comments at 4-5.

[^299]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.258.

[^300]: *See DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24161 ¶ 156.

[^301]: *See* TMI 2 GHz MSS LOI, at Attachment 2, Table 1. TMI's
    proposed GSO feeder link frequencies are subject to Appendix 30B of
    the ITU Radio Regulations, which contains a GSO FSS plan allotting
    the given frequency bands to each Administration at specific orbital
    locations. We note that Canada has completed the Appendix 30B
    procedures for an orbital location at 106.5° W.L., where TMI
    proposes to locate its 2 GHz MSS system. TMI states that should a
    U.S.-located gateway be contemplated, it will complete the required
    Appendix 30B procedures to accommodate feeder link stations in the
    United States being able to access TMI's satellite. *See* TMI
    Comments at 8.

[^302]: Although space station applicants generally seek TT&C
    frequencies within their requested feeder link bands, TMI describes
    its Canadian-licensed MSS system as using feeder links within the
    10.7‑10.95 GHz, 11.2-11.45 GHz, and 12.75-13.25 GHz bands, and TT&C
    links within the 11.7-11.75 GHz, 12.15-12.2 GHz, 14.0-14.05 GHz and
    14.45‑14.5 GHz bands. *See* TMI 2 GHz MSS LOI, at Attachment 2,
    Table 1.

[^303]: Section 25.202(g) states that TT&C functions for U.S. domestic
    satellites "shall be conducted at either or both edges of the
    allocated band(s)," *i.e.*, at either or both edges of a frequency
    band assigned to a satellite licensee for communication. 47 C.F.R. §
    25.202(g).

[^304]: PanAmSat Reply at 6.

[^305]: For the same reason, we have no jurisdiction to address NTIA's
    requests to adopt power and out-of-band emission limits on TMI's
    potential use of the 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2-11.45 GHz bands for MSS
    feeder downlinks, or TMI's potential use of the 12.75-13.25 GHz band
    for MSS feeder uplinks. *See* NTIA Comments at 19-20 & 21-22.

[^306]: *See, e.g.*, *SatCom Systems, Inc. and TMI Communications and
    Company, L.P.*, Order and Authorization, 14 FCC Rcd 20798, 20823-24
    ¶¶ 55-58, 20829-45 Appendix A (1999); *Airtouch Communications, Inc.
    and Vodafone Group, PLC.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 99-1200,
    16 Communications Reg. (P&F) 125, at ¶¶ 20-24 & Appendix A (WTB
    1999).

[^307]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4873 ¶ 67.

[^308]: NTIA Comments at 8-9; Globalstar Comments at 30; PanAmSat
    Comments at 6.

[^309]: *Cf. U.S. Electrodynamics, Inc.*, Order and Authorization, DA
    99-1249, at ¶ 18 (Int'l Bur. rel. June 24, 1999) (provisionally
    allowing TT&C communications in the United States for ICO's proposed
    2 GHz MSS system in frequency bands well inside the bands specified
    for feeder links, rather than at the edges of the band, to
    facilitate ICO's global TT&C operations and coordination with
    Globalstar's Big LEO system also operating in the band).

[^310]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.279(b). Pursuant to Section 25.279, we require
    all relevant entities to cooperate fully and make every reasonable
    effort to coordinate and resolve technical problems and conflicts
    that may inhibit effective and efficient use of the radio spectrum.
    *Id.* § 25.279(b)(2).

[^311]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4874 ¶ 70.

[^312]: *See* NTIA Comments at 17. *See also* Globalstar Comments at 30
    (stating its willingness to coordinate use of its ISS links with
    Government and non-Government users).

[^313]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.279(a) ("Any non-geostationary satellite
    communicating with other space stations may use frequencies in the
    inter-satellite service as indicated . . . .").

[^314]: Globalstar Comments at 30.

[^315]: *See Big LEO Report & Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6000 ¶ 170.

[^316]: *Id* at 5945 ¶ 15.

[^317]: *See, e.g.*, *Lockheed Martin Corporation*, Order and
    Authorization, 12 FCC Rcd 23014, 23021-22 ¶ 24 (Int'l Bur. 1997)
    (Astrolink, a Ka-band satellite system, plans to use inter-satellite
    links between adjacent GSO satellites).

[^318]: *See, e.g.*, Globalstar 2 GHz MSS Application at 37.

[^319]: Globalstar 2 GHz MSS Application at 31.

[^320]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.203, 101.103.

[^321]: *See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Additional Spectrum to the Inter-Satellite, Fixed, and Mobile
    Services and to Permit Unlicensed Devices to Use Certain Segments in
    the 50.2-50.4 GHz and 51.4-71.0 GHz Bands*, ET Docket No. 99-261,
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 12473, 12481-82 ¶¶ 9-10
    (1999) (*Millimeter Wave Notice*).

[^322]: *Id* at 12481 ¶ 9. *See also* NTIA Comments at 17 (requesting
    that, within the 54.25-71 GHz range, the Commission require that
    NGSO ISS links be limited to the 65-71 GHz bands).

[^323]: Globalstar Comments at 30.

[^324]: Boeing 2 GHz MSS Application at 3-6 & Attachment Two.

[^325]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4873 ¶ 68.

[^326]: NTIA Comments at 19. *Accord* Iridium Comments at 30 (opposing
    operations of any kind that would compromise the integrity and
    accuracy of the GPS system).

[^327]: Boeing Reply at 12

[^328]: *See also* Iridium Comments at 30 (arguing that Boeing's GPS
    augmentation request is beyond the scope of this proceeding).
    Indeed, Boeing describes its proposed NAS system separately from its
    proposed 2 GHz MSS system. *See* Boeing 2 GHz MSS Application,
    Attachment 1 (description of proposed 2 GHz MSS system) and
    Attachment 2 (description of proposed NAS system).

[^329]: NTIA Comments at 4-6 (citing, *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 25.213(b)).

[^330]: Boeing Comments at 14.

[^331]: Application of Lockheed Martin Corporation, File Nos.
    SAT-LOA-19990427-0045 through SAT-LOA-19990427-0050 (filed April 27,
    1999). *See* Public Notice, Report No. SAT-00018 (rel. May 27,
    1999).

[^332]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4875 ¶ 73.

[^333]: 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(5).

[^334]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(44).

[^335]: *Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 4875-76 ¶ 74.

[^336]: Constellation Comments at 23; Globalstar Comments at 31; ICO
    Comments at 15; Inmarsat Comments at 16; Iridium Comments at 31-32 &
    Reply at 26-27; TMI Comments at 9.

[^337]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4875-76 ¶ 74.

[^338]: *Domestic Fixed Satellite Transponder Sales*, CC Docket No.
    82-45, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 90 F.C.C.2d
    1238, 1254-55 (1982), *aff'd, Wold Communications, Inc. v. FCC,* 735
    F.2d 1465 (D.C. Cir. 1984), *modified*, *Martin Marietta
    Communications Systems*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 Rad. Reg.
    (P&F) 2d 779 (1986).

[^339]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4876 ¶ 75.

[^340]: Globalstar Comments at 31-32. *See also* Iridium Comments at
    31-32; TMI Comments at 9.

[^341]: ICO Comments at 15.

[^342]: ICO Comments at 15-16 (arguing that any other treatment would
    place ICO at a competitive disadvantage *vis-à-vis* Big LEOs);
    Iridium Comments at 31.

[^343]: Mobile earth terminals are mobile earth stations intended to be
    used while in motion or during halts at unspecified points. 47
    C.F.R. § 25.201.

[^344]: Gateways are earth stations located at a specified fixed point
    or within a specified area on land to provide a feeder link for the
    mobile satellite service. 47 C.F.R. § 25.201.

[^345]: Tracking, telemetry and control earth stations are earth
    stations that operate in either the feeder link or service link
    bands for determination of orbit, velocity or instantaneous position
    of an object in space by means of radiodetermination, transmission
    of measurements made in the space station, including functioning of
    the space station, and transmission of signals to a space station to
    initiate, modify or terminate function of the equipment on a space
    station. 47 C.F.R. § 25.201.

[^346]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4877-78 ¶¶ 77-78.

[^347]: Section 332(d)(1) of the Communications Act defines "commercial
    mobile service" as "any mobile service . . . that is provided for
    profit and makes interconnected service available (A) to the public
    or (B) to such class of eligible users as to be effectively
    available to a substantial portion of the public, as specified by
    regulation of the Commission." 47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1).

[^348]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4877-78 ¶ 77.

[^349]: *CMRS Second Report &* Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1457 ¶ 108. PMRS is
    defined as any service that does not meet the definition of CMRS or
    is not the functional equivalent of CMRS. *Id.* at 1447 ¶ 179.

[^350]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.15. *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1)(A).

[^351]: Constellation Comments at 23-24; Globalstar Comments at 31;
    Inmarsat Comments at 15; Iridium Comments at 31; TMI Comments at 9.

[^352]: Globalstar Comments at 31.

[^353]: Constellation Comments at 23-24 (non-common carrier treatment
    for gateway earth stations is appropriate because they will be use
    as a private network for TT&C and system control operations);
    Inmarsat Comments at 16; Iridium Comments at 31; TMI Comments at 9.

[^354]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4854 ¶ 17.

[^355]: This follows the single-step processing and licensing policy
    that has been used for satellites since 1980. *See Assignment of
    Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite
    Service,* Order and Authorizations, 11 FCC Rcd 13788 (1996).

[^356]: *Id.* at 4878-79 ¶ 79.

[^357]: ICO Comments at 16.

[^358]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4879 ¶ 80.

[^359]: The Telecommunication Act of 1996 amended the Communications Act
    to modify the statutory license term limit of ten years by granting
    the Commission authority to "prescribe the period or periods for
    which licenses shall be granted and renewed . . . ."
    Telecommunication Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Title II, § 203,
    110 Stat. 56, 112 (1996) (amending Section 307 of the Communications
    Act to eliminate ten-year term and creating new Section 307(c)(1)
    granting the Commission authority to determine license terms for
    particular classes of stations, including satellite space and earth
    stations).

[^360]: Boeing Comments at 37; IUSG Comments at 41; ICO Comments at 23;
    Iridium Comments at 27.

[^361]: Boeing Comments at 37; IUSG Comments at 41; Inmarsat Comments at
    17.

[^362]: Boeing Comments at 38; Inmarsat Comments at 17; Iridium Comments
    at 33 & Reply Comments at 28.

[^363]: Boeing Comments at 37; IUSG Comments at 41; ICO Comments at 23;
    Iridium Comments at 27.

[^364]: ICO Comments at 16.

[^365]: Technically identical satellites must have identical satellite
    antenna footprints and transmission parameters. They need not,
    however, have the identical physical structure or microelectronics.
    47 C.F.R. § 25.143(c).

[^366]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4879-80 ¶ 81.

[^367]: *Id.* at 4880 ¶ 82.

[^368]: *See Big LEO Reconsideration*, 11 FCC Rcd at 12878 ¶ 51.

[^369]: *See, e.g.*, *Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations
    in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6972, 6976 n.31 (1988).

[^370]: ICO Comments at 23.

[^371]: Iridium Comments at 33.

[^372]: IUSG Comments at 41.

[^373]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4881 ¶ 83.

[^374]: *Id.* at 4882 ¶ 86.

[^375]: *Accord Advanced Communications Corporation v. FCC*, 84 F.3d
    1452 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished disposition; text
    available at 1996 WL 250460); *Norris Satellite Communications,
    Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22299 (1997);
    *National Exchange Satellite, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8
    FCC Rcd 636 (1993); *NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C.*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, DA 00-1264 (Int'l Bur., June 26, 2000); *Morning Star
    Satellite Company, L.L.C.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 00-1265
    (Int'l Bur., June 26, 2000); *PanAmSat Licensee Corp.*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, DA 00‑1266 (Int'l Bur., June 26, 2000).

[^376]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.161, 25.163.

[^377]: Globalstar Comments at 40; ICO Comments at 17-18; Iridium
    Comments at 35-36; IUSG Comments at 39; TMI Comments at 19.

[^378]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4882 ¶ 88. As discussed in Section
    III.B., *supra*, we will initiate milestones upon authorization of
    service link spectrum, whether or not a system has obtained adequate
    feeder link or inter-satellite link assignments, to encourage the
    pursuit of attainable feeder links and discourage *de facto*
    milestone delays.

[^379]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(e)(1), as amended herein. *See* Appendix D.
    *See also* Section III.C.4, *infra*.

[^380]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(e)(3), as amended herein. *See* Appendix D.

[^381]: IUSG Comments at 40 & Reply at 39; ICO Comments at 17.

[^382]: Globalstar Comments at 37-39.

[^383]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.16.

[^384]: IUSG Comments at 39.

[^385]: Constellation Comments at 25.

[^386]: 47 U.S.C. § 319(d). Under this statutory authority, the
    Commission has eliminated the requirement that applicants be granted
    construction permits for space stations and earth stations under
    Part 25, Sections 25.113(f), (b). *Streamlining the Commission\'s
    Rules and Regulations for Satellite Application and Licensing
    Procedures*, IB Docket No. 95-117, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd
    21581, 21584-85, 21590-91 ¶¶ 8, 23 (1996) (elimination of the
    construction permit requirement for space stations and MSS earth
    stations, respectively, will accelerate the provision of
    satellite-delivered services, and eliminate administrative burdens
    and potential delays).

[^387]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.113(f).

[^388]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4884 ¶ 91.

[^389]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143 (e).

[^390]: *See* Section III.A.1.d., *supra*.

[^391]: *Cf.* Iridium Comments at 38 (suggesting that the Commission not
    require system utilization reporting) and ICO Comments at 19
    (supporting non-duplicative reporting requirements).

[^392]: ICO Comments at 18.

[^393]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4884 ¶ 92.

[^394]: These fees are now assessed based on system status as of
    September 30. The Commission does not currently have statutory
    authority to assess annual regulatory fees in connection with
    non-licensed systems.

[^395]: Iridium Comments at 38.

[^396]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.

[^397]: Iridium Comments at 38.

[^398]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.

[^399]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4884-85 ¶ 93.

[^400]: Compulsory equipment carriage requirements are established in
    portions of the Commission\'s rules as well as by statute. *See,
    e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.801, *et seq.*; Ch. IV, International
    Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, 32 U.S.T. 47, T.I.A.S. 9700
    (1974).

[^401]: The Commission explained that Big LEO operators providing safety
    and rescue services should coordinate with the Interagency Committee
    on Search and Rescue (ICSAR) and all other similar domestic and
    international search and rescue organizations. *Big LEO Report &
    Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6013 ¶ 200.

[^402]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(f).

[^403]: IUSG Comments at 42; ICO Comments at 19; NTIA Comments at 17;
    TMI Comments at 10; Globalstar Reply at 17.

[^404]: The United States Coast Guard (USCG) points out that the NSARC
    was formerly known as the Interagency Committee on Search and Rescue
    (ICSAR). USCG explains that NSARC is a federal interagency standing
    committee chartered to oversee the National Search and Rescue Plan,
    coordinate development of interagency policies and positions on
    search and rescue matters, provide a forum for coordinated
    development of compatible procedures and equipment to increase the
    effectiveness and standardization of search and rescue. USCG states
    that NSARC formed the Commercial Satellite Services Working Group
    (CMSS) to enable MSS providers to better understand the needs of
    search and rescue and disaster support operations and for the search
    and rescue and disaster support communities to learn more about the
    capabilities of MSS for their communications needs. USCG Comments at
    3.

[^405]: NTIA Comments at 18.

[^406]: *Id.*

[^407]: USCG Comments at 10, attachment 2.

[^408]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(f), as amended herein. *See* Appendix D.

[^409]: On November 25, 1999, the International Maritime Organization
    adopted Resolution A.888(21), Criteria for the Provision of Mobile
    Satellite Communication Systems in the Global Maritime Distress and
    Safety System which describes the requirements for operators to be
    recognized as part of the GMDSS. This resolution is available from
    the International Maritime Organization at 4 Albert Embankement,
    London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom. *See also* http://www.imo.org.

[^410]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4885-86 ¶ 94. *See also Big LEO Report &
    Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6012-13 ¶ 199.

[^411]: *Revision of the Commission\'s Rules To Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems*, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC
    Rcd 18676 (1996) (*E911 Report & Order*) (imposing Basic 911 and
    E911 transmission requirements on certain covered CMRS carriers),
    *aff\'d on recon.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22665
    (1997) (*E911 Reconsideration*). Basic 911 requires covered carriers
    to transmit all wireless 911 calls without validation to a Public
    Safety Answering Point (PSAP), thereby providing any 911 wireless
    caller with a voice connection to request emergency response
    services in localities that provide such services. 47 C.F.R. §
    20.18(b). E911 requires that, in addition to Basic 911, covered
    carriers transmit certain information with 911 calls to help the
    PSAP find the location of the caller. 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d)-(k). For
    purposes of this *Report and Order*, E911 includes Basic 911.

[^412]: *E911 Report & Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18718 ¶ 83.

[^413]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(a).

[^414]: *E911 Report & Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18718 ¶ 83; *E911
    Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22706‑08 ¶¶ 87‑89. The E911
    requirements are imposed in two phases and are not triggered until
    the PSAP requests service and is capable of utilizing the
    information. In Phase I, which began April 1, 1998, covered carriers
    are to transmit the 911 caller's callback number and cell site or
    base station location. In Phase II, which begins October 1, 2001,
    covered carriers are to provide the location of a 911 call by
    longitude and latitude in accordance with certain accuracy standards
    and timetables that depend on the technology used. *Revision of the
    Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems*, CC Docket No. 94-102, Third Report and
    Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17388, 17420-21 ¶ 72 (1999) (*E911 Third Report &
    Order)*, *modified on recon.*, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    14 FCC Rcd 20850, 20866-67 ¶¶ 38-40 (1999).

[^415]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4885 ¶ 94.

[^416]: APCO Comments at 2; BellSouth Comments at 6 & Reply at 8; Celsat
    Comments at 30 & Reply at 27-28; NTIA Comments at 16; USCG Comments
    at 4-5.

[^417]: APCO Comments at 2-3; BellSouth Comments at 6; NTIA Comments at
    16; USCG Comments at 4-5.

[^418]: USCG Comments at 8.

[^419]: *Id.* at 9.

[^420]: *Id.* at 5.

[^421]: *Id.* at 5-6.

[^422]: APCO Comments at 2-3; NTIA Reply at 8-9.

[^423]: APCO Comments at 3; BellSouth Comments at 6; Celsat Comments at
    30.

[^424]: USCG Comments at 10; NTIA Reply at 11.

[^425]: Boeing Comments at 19; IUSG Comments at 43; Constellation
    Comments at 26; Globalstar Comments at 40; ICO Comments at 19;
    Iridium Comments at 38-40; SIA Comments at 2; TMI Comments at 10;
    and Inmarsat Reply at 20. Celsat initially supported the adoption of
    E911 requirements but states in its reply comments that the issue
    may be more appropriate for a Further NPRM and Report and Order to
    avoid delay in authorizing the 2 GHz MSS. Celsat Reply at 27-28.

[^426]: IUSG Comments at 43; Constellation Comments at 27; Globalstar
    Comments at 43; Iridium Comments at 38-40; Inmarsat Reply at 20.

[^427]: Constellation Comments at 26-27; Globalstar Comments at 42; ICO
    Comments at 19; TMI Comments at 10 (complex cost recovery and
    potential liability issues); SIA Comments at 2 (increase cost,
    handset size, and reduced operating time due to presence of GPS
    hardware and interference); Inmarsat Reply at 19.

[^428]: *See E911 Third Report &* Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17388, 17397-98 ¶
    18.

[^429]: *See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile
    Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of
    Understanding and Arrangements*, IB Docket No. 99-67, Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 5871 (1999) (*GMPCS Notice*).

[^430]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18 (b)-(e).

[^431]: *Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 4887 ¶ 96.

[^432]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(g).

[^433]: *Cf.* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(c).

[^434]: ICO Comments at 21.

[^435]: *Id.* *See also* paragraph 9, *supra*.

[^436]: IUSG Comments at 46.

[^437]: *Id*.

[^438]: *See, e.g.*, *KaStar 73 Acquisition, LLC, and KaStar 109.2
    Acquisition, LLC*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1615
    (Int'l Bur. 1999).

[^439]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143 (g) (Big LEO trafficking rule); 47 C.F.R. §
    25.145 (d) (Ka-Band trafficking rule).

[^440]: Iridium Comments at 43.

[^441]: *Id.* at 43-44.

[^442]: ICO Reply at 24-25; Inmarsat Reply at 13.

[^443]: ICO Reply at 24-25.

[^444]: Inmarsat Reply at 13.

[^445]: *DISCO II Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 24158 ¶ 149, 24162-63 ¶ 159,
    24168-69 ¶ 173.

[^446]: *Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4887-88 ¶¶ 97-102.

[^447]: *Id.* at 4887-88 ¶¶ 98-100 & 4901-03 (Draft U.S.
    Government/Industry Orbital Debris Mitigation Practices).

[^448]: *Id.* at 4888 ¶ 100.

[^449]: TMI Comments at 11; Boeing Comments at 40-41.

[^450]: *See e.g.*, PanAmSat Comments at 7.

[^451]: DoD Comments at 1.

[^452]: *Id.*

[^453]: *Id.*

[^454]: *Id.*

[^455]: *Id.*

[^456]: Recommendation ITU-R S.1003.

[^457]: *Notice,* 14 FCC Rcd at 4889 ¶ 103.

[^458]: Exclusionary arrangements, as defined in our rules, can take the
    form of concessions, contracts, understandings, or working
    arrangements, to which a licensee or any persons or companies
    controlling or controlled by the licensee are parties.

[^459]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.142 (d) (Non-voice, non-geostationary MSS
    prohibition of certain agreements); 47 C.F.R. § 25.143 (h) (Big LEOs
    prohibition of certain agreements); 47 C.F.R. § 25.145 (e) (Ka-band
    prohibition of certain agreements).

[^460]: *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24166 ¶ 166. A policy that
    prohibits exclusive agreements promotes the goal of fair and
    effective competition and is consistent with the WTO commitments
    made by the United States because it is applied equally to U.S. and
    non-U.S.-licensed systems. *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24165-66
    ¶¶ 166-167.

[^461]: As stated in the *Notice* and the *DISCO II Order*, we recognize
    that certain countries may not yet have mechanisms in place by which
    to authorize competitive systems. In these cases, consistent with
    the *DISCO II Order*, we will allow non-U.S.-licensed systems to
    access the U.S. market but will prohibit service between the U.S.
    and the country with which it has the exclusionary arrangement.

[^462]: ORBIT Act at Section 648. Section 648 of the ORBIT Act states as
    follows:

    IN GENERAL.---No satellite operator shall acquire or enjoy the
    exclusive right of handling telecommunications to or from the United
    States, its territories or possessions, and any other country or
    territory by reason of any concession, contract, understanding, or
    working arrangement to which the satellite operator or any persons
    or companies controlling or controlled by the operator are parties.

    EXCEPTIONS.---In enforcing the provisions of this section, the
    Commission---

    > \(1\) shall not require the termination of existing satellite
    > telecommunications services under contract with, or tariff
    > commitment to, such satellite operator; but
    >
    > \(2\) may require the termination of new services only to the
    > country that has provided the exclusive right to handle
    > telecommunications, if the Commission determines the public
    > interest, convenience, and necessity so requires.

[^463]: ORBIT Act, Section 624 (1) creating specific additional
    licensing criteria with respect to Inmarsat privatization with
    respect to ties between Inmarsat and ICO, including a prohibition on
    exclusive arrangements.

[^464]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4889-90 ¶ 104.

[^465]: *See* Constellation Comments at 29; TMI Comments at 11.

[^466]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.115(d). This authorization would include
    authority for operation of transceivers owned by both Government and
    non-Government customers.

[^467]: *See* Constellation Comments at 29; Inmarsat Comments at 17;
    Iridium Comments at 47-48.

[^468]: *See* Constellation Comments at 29; Globalstar Comments at
    48-50; ICO Comments at 22-23.

[^469]: *See* TMI Comments at 11.

[^470]: *See GMPCS Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 5871.

[^471]: *See DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24173 ¶ 185.

[^472]: MCHI Comments at 19; Boeing Reply at 17-18.

[^473]: Iridium Comments at 48-51 & Reply at 7-8; Globalstar Comments at
    48; MCHI Comments at 19-21.

[^474]: EC Reply at 3-4; ICO Reply at 27.

[^475]: ICO Reply at 27.

[^476]: *See Big LEO Report & Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6018 ¶ 211.

[^477]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.111.

[^478]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.143(h) and *DISCO II Order*.

[^479]: *See* Conference of European Postal And Telecommunications
    Administrations: European Radiocommunications Committee Decision on
    the Harmonized Use of Spectrum for Satellite Personal Communication
    Services (S-PCS) operating within the bands 1610-1626.5 MHz,
    2483.5-2500 MHz, 1980-2010 MHz, and 2170-2200 MHz, ERC/DEC/(97/03)
    ("ERC Decision").

[^480]: *See 2 GHz MSS Allocation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7406 ¶ 42
    (citing *Emerging Technologies Proceeding*).

[^481]: *Id.* at 7406-07 ¶¶ 42-43.

[^482]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4892 ¶ 113.

[^483]: *See* API Reply at 7.

[^484]: *See* Iridium Comments at 52-53; MCHI Comments at 23.

[^485]: *2 GHz Second R&O and Second MO&O*, FCC 00-233.

[^486]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.202(f).

[^487]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4892 ¶ 114.

[^488]: In response to petition form NTIA, we proposed in the *GMPCS
    Notice* to impose certain limits on out-of-band emissions from MSS
    terminals transmitting in the L-band in order to protect aircraft
    reception of aeronautical radionavigation signal in the 1559-1605
    MHz band. *See GMPCS Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 5896-97 ¶¶ 61-62.

[^489]: *See* ARINC Comments at 7; Boeing Comments at 38; ICO Reply at
    7-8; Iridium Comments at 53.

[^490]: *See* NTIA Comments at 20.

[^491]: *See id.* at 23.

[^492]: *See* Boeing Comments at 38-39.

[^493]: *See* FCC Proceeding RM-9740.

[^494]: *See* WCA Comments at 5.

[^495]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 21.904, 21.908 for definition of MDS spectral
    mask.

[^496]: *See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint
    Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service
    Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions*, MM Docket No.
    97-217, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19112, 19138 ¶ 49 (1998).

[^497]: *Id.*

[^498]: *See* WCA Comments at 8-9.

[^499]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 21.904, 21.908, 35.202(f).

[^500]: *See* ARINC Comments at 7; Iridium Comments at 53.

[^501]: *See* NTIA Comments at 10. TDMA systems divide the radio
    frequency spectrum into time slots in which at any one time only one
    terminal can transmit.

[^502]: *See id.* at 12.

[^503]: *See* Globalstar Reply at 24-25; ICO Reply at 26.

[^504]: *See* Inmarsat Reply at 15.

[^505]: *See Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4893-94 ¶ 116; *GMPCS Notice*, 14
    FCC Rcd at 5906-07 ¶¶ 94-96.

[^506]: *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).

[^507]: *The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band*, IB Docket No. 99-81, 14 FCC
    Rcd 4843, 4895-97 (1999) (*Notice*).

[^508]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604, as amended by the CWAAA.

[^509]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
    Code 4899.

[^510]: U.S. Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census
    of Transportation, Communications, Utilities, UC92-S-1, Subject
    Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 2D, Employment Size of
    Firms: 1992, SIC Code 4899 (issued May 1995).

[^511]: Globalstar Comments at 12 & n.14.

[^512]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 151 (mandating that the Commission "make
    available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United
    States . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire
    and radio communication service with adequate facilities at
    reasonable charges."). The Commission has taken other notable action
    this summer to increase access to telecommunications services in
    unserved areas. *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service:
    Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved
    Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas*, 12th Report and Order
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-208 (rel. June 30, 2000);
    *Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands*,
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC
    99-266 (rel. June 30, 2000).

[^513]: The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)
    reports that there were 43 million wireless 911 calls made in 1999,
    nearly 120,000 each day. *See* \<
    [http://www.wow-com.com/statsurv/e911/\>](http://www.wow-com.com/statsurv/e911/>).

[^514]: *See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems*, Third Report and
    Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17388 (1999) (revising our location rules to allow
    handset-based technologies to compete with network-based
    technologies).

[^515]: *See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile
    Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of
    Understanding and Arrangements*, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14
    FCC Rcd 5871 (1999).

[^516]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 151; *Order* at ¶¶ 31-35.

[^517]: *See The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
    Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band*, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 99-81, 14 FCC Rcd 4843, ¶ 95 (1999).

[^518]: *See id*.

[^519]: It is also not completely clear that the Notice was legally
    sufficient. *See Fertilizer Inst. v. EPA*, 935 F.2d 1303, 1311
    (D.C.Cir.1991) (holding 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3) to mean that "an
    agency\'s notice must provide sufficient detail and rationale for
    the rule to permit interested parties to comment meaningfully.");
    *Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. v. Browner*, 16 F.3d
    1246, 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (stating that an agency is obligated to
    "describe the range of alternatives being considered with reasonable
    specificity. Otherwise, interested parties will not know what to
    comment on, and notice will not lead to better-informed agency
    decision-making.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

[^520]: Certainly, we are sensitive to the need of making use of the
    spectrum as quickly as possible. By addressing the set-aside and
    eligibility in a further notice, however, even under the majority's
    approach the Commission could still provide immediate access to
    almost 90 percent of the spectrum, but could also ensure that the
    last piece of "expansion" spectrum is distributed fairly without
    undue regulatory constraints or requirements. Indeed, the majority
    is not even accepting applications for the expansion spectrum until
    one year after the first 2 GHz MSS authorization is issued; plenty
    of time to provide adequate notice. There are also readily available
    alternatives that would make all of the spectrum available for
    licensing immediately, while allowing us to consider meaningful
    incentives for service to rural areas. For example, a further notice
    could have explored the use of rural service incentives for the
    redistribution of "abandoned" spectrum. As the Order provides,
    \"there is a probability that additional spectrum will become
    available as some authorized systems are not able to implement
    service.\" *Order* at ¶ 18. But the item does not establish a policy
    for the redistribution of abandoned or forfeited spectrum. It seems
    to push that off to a further proceeding. A further notice would
    have had at least two additional benefits: (1) it would get the ball
    rolling on establishing a policy for the redistribution of abandoned
    spectrum, with the potential of making it available to those truly
    motivated to serve rural areas; and (2) even if only one applicant
    dropped out, this process would consider more spectrum (3.88 MHz vs.
    3.5 MHz) than the majority's set aside approach. This would also
    avoid holding hostage the sliver of "expansion" spectrum for a
    second processing round involving an uncertain and prolonged review
    of service contracts by the FCC more than a year from now. And,
    based on the comments about their current business plans, almost all
    applicants could eventually get the spectrum anyway since they are
    planning to serve these areas. *See* *id.* at ¶ 33.

[^521]: *See, e.g.,* *id.* at ¶ 32.

[^522]: *See id.* at ¶¶ 35-38. However, requests for expansion spectrum
    will not be accepted until one year after the first 2 GHz system is
    authorized. *Id*. at ¶ 38.