**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+--------------------------------------+----+--------------------------+
| In the Matter of                     | *  | IB Docket No. 06-123     |
|                                      | *) |                          |
| The Establishment of Policies and    | ** |                          |
| Service Rules for the                |    |                          |
| Broadcasting-Satellite Service at    | *  |                          |
| the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band and | *) |                          |
| at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band  | ** |                          |
| Internationally, and at the          |    |                          |
| 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for   | *  |                          |
| Fixed Satellite Services Providing   | *) |                          |
| Feeder Links to the                  | ** |                          |
| Broadcasting-Satellite Service and   |    |                          |
| for the Satellite Services Operating | *  |                          |
| Bi-directionally in the 17.3-17.8    | *) |                          |
| GHz Frequency Band                   | ** |                          |
|                                      |    |                          |
|                                      | *  |                          |
|                                      | *) |                          |
|                                      | ** |                          |
|                                      |    |                          |
|                                      | *  |                          |
|                                      | *) |                          |
|                                      | ** |                          |
|                                      |    |                          |
|                                      | *  |                          |
|                                      | *) |                          |
|                                      | ** |                          |
|                                      |    |                          |
|                                      | *  |                          |
|                                      | *) |                          |
|                                      | ** |                          |
|                                      |    |                          |
|                                      | *  |                          |
|                                      | *) |                          |
|                                      | ** |                          |
|                                      |    |                          |
|                                      | *  |                          |
|                                      | *) |                          |
|                                      | ** |                          |
+--------------------------------------+----+--------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted:** May 2, 2007 **Released:** May 4, 2007

**Comment Date:** (75 days after Federal Register publication)

**Reply Comment Date:** (105 days after Federal Register publication)

By the Commission: Commissioner McDowell issuing a statement;
Commissioner Adelstein approving in part, dissenting in part, and
issuing a separate statement.

Table of Contents

Paragraph No.

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. background 2

III\. discussion 6

A. Licensing and Processing Procedures 6

1\. Licensing Framework 6

2\. Safeguards Against Speculation 12

3\. Non-U.S.-Licensed Satellite Operators 17

4\. Licensing at Co-Located 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS Orbital Locations 24

5\. License Terms 26

6\. Replacement Satellites 29

7\. Annual Reporting Requirement 33

8\. Fees 37

B. Public Interest and Other Statutory Obligations 38

1\. Public Interest Obligations 38

2\. Equal Employment Opportunities 45

3\. Geographic Service Rules 47

4\. Emergency Alert System 50

C. Use of BSS Spectrum at 17.7-17.8 GHz 55

D. Orbital Spacing and Minimum Antenna Diameter and Performance
Standards 66

1\. Orbital Spacing 66

a\. Background 66

b\. Discussion 70

2\. Reference Interference Baseline 75

3\. Minimum Antenna Diameter and Performance Standards 77

E. Technical Requirements for Intra-Service Operations 82

1\. Uplink Power Levels 82

2\. Downlink Power Limits 97

F. Other Technical Requirements 105

1\. Tracking, Telemetry and Command (TT&C) Frequencies 106

2\. Polarization and Full Frequency Re-Use Requirements 109

3\. Cross-Polarization Isolation Requirements 110

4\. Spectrum Allocation Issue 114

G. Technical Requirements for Inter-Service Operations 116

1\. Sharing in the 24 GHz Band 116

a\. Coordination Procedure 116

b\. Coordination Threshold 122

2\. Sharing in the 17 GHz Band 129

H. Pending Applications 140

IV\. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 148

A. Ground-Path Interference in Reverse Band Operations 149

1\. Background 149

2\. Grandfathering Existing DBS Uplink Facilities 150

3\. Protection Zones for Existing DBS Uplink Facilities 152

4\. Upgrades To Grandfathered Facilities 156

5\. Coordination Between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS Operators 158

a\. Background 158

b\. Coordination Zone 159

c\. Coordination Methodology 166

6\. Other Measures to Protect 17/24 GHz BBS Operations 170

a\. Background 170

b\. Power Level Limits 172

c\. Restrictions on Placement of New DBS Earth Stations 174

d\. Technical Showing Requirement for Co-Located Earth Stations 176

e\. Shielding 179

B. Space Path Interference in Reverse Band Operations 180

V. CONCLUSION 189

VI\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 190

A. Ex Parte 190

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 191

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 192

D. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 193

E. Comment Filing Procedures 194

VII.ORDERING CLAUSES 202

APPENDIX A -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

APPENDIX B -- Final Rules

APPENDIX C -- Technical Characteristics of Radiolocation Systems in the
15.7-17.3 GHz Band

APPENDIX D -- List of Parties

APPENDIX E -- List of Pending Applications

APPENDIX F -- List of Orbital Locations

APPENDIX G -- Currently Authorized Earth Stations Operating in the
17.3-17.7 GHz Band

APPENDIX H -- Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# INTRODUCTION

1.  With this Report and Order (*R&O*), we adopt processing and service
    rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS).[^1]
    This service will introduce a new generation of broadband services
    to the public, providing a mix of local and domestic video, audio,
    data, video-on-demand, and multi-media services to U.S. consumers.
    In some cases, these services will complement existing Direct
    Broadcast Satellite (DBS) services. Specifically, we adopt a
    first-come, first-served licensing procedure for the 17/24 GHz BSS,
    as well as various safeguards, reporting requirements, and licensee
    obligations. We also adopt geographic service rules to require 17/24
    GHz BSS licensees to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii as
    discussed herein. In addition, we establish rules and requirements
    for orbital spacing, minimum antenna diameter, and antenna
    performance standards. Also, we establish limits for uplink and
    downlink[^2] power levels to minimize the possibility of harmful
    interference. Finally, we stipulate criteria to facilitate sharing
    in the 24 GHz and 17 GHz bands. We also initiate a Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking (*FNPRM*) to address technical issues related to
    potential interference unique to the "reverse band" operating
    environment. By these actions, we facilitate the introduction of new
    and innovative services to consumers in the United States and
    promote increased competition among satellite and terrestrial
    services.

# background

2.  In June 2006, the Commission released a *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* ("*NPRM*") in this proceeding, which proposed processing
    and service rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^3] Eight parties filed
    comments in response to the *NPRM*, and six parties filed reply
    comments.[^4]

3.  As the Commission explained in the *NPRM*, the 1992 World
    Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) of the International
    Telecommunication Union (ITU)[^5] adopted an additional frequency
    allocation for BSS in Region 2.[^6] In 2000, the Commission
    implemented, in large part, the ITU Region 2 allocation for BSS
    domestically.[^7] The Commission recognized that although the
    allocation would not become effective for several years, its action
    would provide interested parties with sufficient notice and time to
    design their systems to use this spectrum in the most efficient
    manner.[^8] Specifically, the Commission adopted the following
    allocations and designations, which took effect on April 1,
    2007: (1) allocated the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, on a primary basis, to
    the BSS for downlink transmissions,[^9] recognizing that although
    the ITU Region 2 allocation apportioned the 17.3-17.8 GHz band for
    BSS use, the U.S. allocation would be limited to 17.3-17.7 GHz to
    retain spectrum at 17.7-17.8 GHz for the relocation of fixed service
    (FS) facilities which were being displaced as a result of the new
    BSS allocation;[^10] (2) allocated 300 megahertz of spectrum at
    24.75-25.05 GHz on a primary basis for the Fixed-Satellite Service
    (FSS) (uplink) and limited FSS uplink operations in this band to BSS
    feeder links;[^11] and (3) allocated 200 megahertz of spectrum at
    25.05-25.25 GHz for co-primary use between the 24 GHz Fixed Service,
    formerly known as Digital Electronic Messaging Service (DEMS), and
    BSS feeder links.[^12] The Commission's objective was to accommodate
    new satellite services while providing adequate spectrum for
    existing FS operations.[^13]

4.  In the *NPRM,* the Commission proposed and sought comment on a
    variety of rules to facilitate the licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS space
    stations, and various obligations and requirements that will be
    applied to licensees. Also, the *NPRM* sought comment on technical
    rules designed to minimize interference and facilitate sharing in
    certain bands. The rules adopted in this Order establish licensing
    procedures and technical parameters that will enable prompt delivery
    of 17/24 GHz BSS satellite services to the public.

5.  Four entities -- DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. (DIRECTV), Pegasus
    Development DBS Corp. (Pegasus), EchoStar Satellite LLC (EchoStar),
    and Intelsat North America LLC (Intelsat) -- have filed applications
    for 17/24 GHz BSS space station licenses.[^14] These applications
    represent a wide range of system designs and business plans, from
    complementing existing DBS services to providing a new suite of
    services which will include standard-definition and high-definition
    formats. We adopt in this Order a method for processing these
    applications and accommodating entry by other qualified applicants.

# discussion

## Licensing and Processing Procedures

### Licensing Framework

6.  ***First-Come, First-Served Licensing Approach Adopted:*** In the
    *NPRM*, the Commission sought comment on the appropriate licensing
    approach to adopt for the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^15] The *NPRM* noted that,
    in the *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order*,[^16] the
    Commission adopted new licensing procedures for all satellite
    services except DBS and Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS).[^17] The
    Commission did not explain, however, whether 17/24 GHz BSS should be
    treated like DBS or other satellite services for purposes of
    processing applications.[^18] Thus, the *NPRM* sought comment on
    whether to process applications for the 17/24 GHz BSS space stations
    under the first-come, first-served licensing approach adopted in the
    *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order* for geostationary
    satellite orbit (GSO)-like[^19] space station applications. Under
    this approach, GSO-like satellite applications are processed on a
    first-come, first-served basis. Thus, the Commission will grant a
    GSO-like application provided the applicant is qualified and the
    proposed system is not technically incompatible with a
    previously-licensed satellite or with a satellite proposed in a
    previously-filed application.[^20] Alternatively, we asked whether
    some other licensing approach would be more appropriate.[^21] In
    this regard, the *NPRM* specifically sought comment as to whether,
    pursuant to Section 309(j)[^22] of the Communications Act, a
    competitive bidding system, or auction, could be designed to assign
    mutually exclusive applications for the use of this spectrum. The
    *NPRM* also sought comment on whether and how such an auction could
    be implemented consistent with the ORBIT Act,[^23] the D.C.
    Circuit's *Northpoint* ruling,[^24] and ITU procedures.[^25]

7.  The majority of commenters maintain that the first-come,
    first-served licensing queue should be employed for processing
    applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations.[^26] EchoStar,
    however, argues that 17/24 GHz BSS applications should not be
    processed under this approach, contending that this method does not
    result in the award of licenses to the applicant that is most able
    to put the spectrum to productive use.[^27] EchoStar believes that
    we should instead award 17/24 GHz BSS licenses by auction or by a
    processing round approach.[^28] To facilitate auctions, consistent
    with the ORBIT Act and the *Northpoint* ruling, EchoStar suggests
    that the Commission could limit 17/24 GHz BSS spectrum rights to the
    provision of domestic service if all competing applicants agree.
    Alternatively, EchoStar suggests that the Commission could require a
    percentage, such as 80%, of the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite's capacity
    be devoted to serving the United States.[^29] EchoStar further
    suggests that, if the Commission decides against an auctions
    approach, it should adopt a processing round procedure combined with
    strict financial requirements.[^30] No other commenters support the
    use of auctions or processing rounds.[^31]

8.  We find that the first-come, first-served licensing approach is
    well-suited for processing applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space
    stations.[^32] As noted in the *NPRM*, the proposed 17/24 GHz BSS
    space stations would provide services similar to those provided by
    the direct-to-home fixed satellite service (DTH FSS) satellites. We
    also note that all 17/24 GHz BSS applicants propose to operate GSO
    satellites. Because GSO satellites and constellations of
    non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) satellites cannot generally
    share the same spectrum, and because, as evidenced by the pending
    applications, GSO technology is better suited to providing DTH video
    services, we limit operations in the 17/24 GHz BSS to GSO
    satellites. The Commission licenses GSO satellites and most other
    satellite services on a first-come, first-served basis. As both
    Intelsat and DIRECTV point out, the first-come, first-served
    processing method has proven to be an efficient approach for
    licensing GSO satellites.[^33] Indeed, our experience has shown that
    this licensing method has allowed the Commission to dramatically
    reduce the length of time required to process GSO applications.
    Moreover, with its associated package of safeguards, the first-come,
    first-served approach has increased the probability that those
    awarded licenses actually construct and launch their satellite
    systems. As commenters have noted, prompt deployment in this band is
    particularly important in light of the fact that the 17/24 GHz BSS
    spectrum became available for use on April 1, 2007.[^34] In
    addition, the first-come, first-served licensing approach works well
    in conjunction with the ITU processes for unplanned bands, such as
    this one.[^35]

9.  We disagree with EchoStar that the first-come, first-served approach
    is legally unsound or that such an approach will be more likely to
    result in spectrum warehousing, speculation, and gamesmanship.[^36]
    To the contrary, as mentioned, this approach has reduced the number
    of speculative applications. Further, we have previously addressed
    the Commission's legal authority to adopt a first-come, first-served
    procedure.[^37] EchoStar has not provided any basis for revisiting
    that issue here.

10. We also are not persuaded that EchoStar's comments warrant a
    conclusion in this instance that a competitive bidding system would
    best serve the public interest. Although auctions have proven to be
    an efficient means of assigning licenses for scarce spectrum
    resources to those parties that are able to use these resources
    efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the public, we
    conclude that restricting the provision of international service
    solely to remove 17/24 GHz BSS from the auction prohibition of the
    ORBIT Act is not in the public interest. We are concerned that such
    a restriction would likely interfere with applicants' business plans
    and would thus be an impediment to the efficient deployment of
    service to consumers. Indeed, as Intelsat notes, three current
    applicants, including EchoStar, propose to provide international
    service.[^38] Thus, the record does not support agreement by
    competing applicants to provide 17/24 GHz BSS domestic service only.
    Further, such restrictions could put U.S.-licensed operators at a
    competitive disadvantage to foreign-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS systems,
    which are not similarly restricted in their own domestic markets.
    For these reasons, we will not award licenses for 17/24 GHz BSS
    space stations by auction.

11. Further, we are not persuaded by EchoStar's proposal to adopt a
    processing round procedure.[^39] Prior to the adoption of the *First
    Space Station Licensing Reform Order* in 2003, we employed a
    processing round procedure in licensing GSO-like applications. Under
    this procedure, it normally took several years to issue satellite
    licenses, in one case nearly four years.[^40] Eliminating this
    regulatory delay was one of our primary motives in adopting the
    first-come, first served approach.[^41] Since the first-come,
    first-served approach has been adopted, the average processing time
    for GSO-like applications has decreased drastically and the backlog
    of applications is at an all-time low.[^42] The first-come,
    first-served processing queue provides a workable framework for
    timely and prompt processing of applications in this band and
    thereby facilitates the provision of service to the public.
    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we will adopt the
    first-come, first-served procedure for processing 17/24 GHz BSS
    applications.

### Safeguards Against Speculation

12. ***Space Station Reform Safeguards Adopted, Including Bonds,
    Milestones, and Limits on the Number of Pending Applications:*** In
    the *NPRM*, the Commission noted that the *First Space Station
    Licensing Reform Order* adopted a package of safeguards designed to
    discourage speculative applications and to ensure that licensees
    remain committed and able to proceed with system implementation in a
    timely manner.[^43] Applying these safeguards to the 17/24 GHz BSS
    would require licensees to post a \$3 million bond with the
    Commission within 30 days of license grant[^44] and construct and
    launch the satellite consistent with the milestone schedule
    specified in Section 25.164 of the Commission's rules.[^45] The bond
    becomes payable if a licensee fails to meet a milestone, rendering
    the license null and void.[^46] Further, GSO-like applicants are
    limited to a total of five pending applications and/or licensed but
    unlaunched satellites in a particular frequency band at any one
    time,[^47] and must submit substantially complete applications or
    face dismissal,[^48] and cannot sell their place in the processing
    queue.[^49] In the *NPRM,* the Commission requested comment on
    whether we should apply this package of safeguards if we decide to
    use the first-come, first-served processing approach for 17/24 GHz
    BSS.[^50] The Commission also sought comment on whether there are
    any public interest rationales for imposing a higher performance
    bond and/or tighter limits on the number of pending applications and
    licenses for unbuilt satellites that applicants for 17/24 GHz
    systems may have at any one time.[^51]

13. Commenters generally support applying the first-come, first-served
    approach safeguards to the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^52] Intelsat states that
    applying the bond requirement and milestone policies should be
    sufficient to deter speculative filings in the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^53]
    Intelsat also notes that prohibiting the sale of places in the queue
    will further deter speculative applications.[^54] DIRECTV also
    supports the application of the safeguards that apply to other
    GSO-like services, *i.e.,* milestones and performance bonds, to
    17/24 GHz BSS systems.[^55] The Department of Telecommunications of
    the Government of Bermuda (Bermuda) notes that, although it does not
    support excessive reliance on the attainment of milestones nor the
    use of performance bonds for discouraging speculation, it supports
    the right of each administration to establish its own mechanisms to
    find a reasonable balance between commercial adventure and undue
    speculation.[^56] EchoStar raises concerns about the use of bonds
    and milestones to deter speculation and recommends reinstating the
    financial qualification rules applicable to FSS licensees prior to
    2003.[^57] EchoStar contends that strict financial qualifications
    are needed because given the relatively limited number of orbital
    locations for operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS, the bond and milestone
    requirements are not enough to protect against speculation and could
    still result in an orbital location remaining fallow for several
    years.[^58]

14. We adopt our proposal in the *NPRM* to apply the safeguards in place
    under the first-come, first-serve licensing approach to the 17/24
    GHz BSS. Contrary to EchoStar's assertions, our experience with
    these safeguards has shown them to be an effective measure for
    discouraging speculative applications. Indeed, the Commission
    adopted the bond requirement because the financial qualification
    requirements it had been using -- and which EchoStar asks us to
    reinstate -- did not accurately reflect whether a licensee would
    proceed with construction and launch of its space station. The
    Commission found requiring a surety company to assess the risk that
    a licensee would default on a bond would provide a more accurate
    market--driven determination of a licensee's ability to proceed than
    would a regulatory determination.[^59] EchoStar has not provided any
    evidence to support its assertion that the previously-used financial
    standard was more effective. Consequently, we will not adopt
    EchoStar's proposal. Further, the record does not support more
    stringent bond requirements or different limits on the number of
    pending applications/unbuilt satellites for the 17/24 GHz BSS. Thus,
    we will apply the requirements in place for other GSO-like
    applicants to 17/24 GHz BSS applicants.

15. Accordingly, we will apply the same safeguards in place for other
    GSO-like bands to the 17/24 GHz BSS. These safeguards include
    requiring licensees to post a \$3 million bond with the Commission
    within 30 days of license grant; to construct and launch satellite
    system(s) consistent with the milestone schedule for GSO satellites;
    to limit to five, the number of pending applications and/or licenses
    for unbuilt satellites in this band at any one time; and to file
    substantially complete applications. The safeguards also prohibit
    applicants from selling their places in the queue.

16. With respect to the \"substantially complete\" requirement, we
    require applications to be complete in substance, and to provide all
    the information required in the application form.[^60] Furthermore,
    applications must not be defective under the Commission\'s rules,
    meaning that the applications must be complete with respect to
    answers to questions and informational showings, and must be free of
    internal inconsistencies.[^61] To be substantially complete, a 17/24
    GHz BSS satellite application must include a complete Form 312[^62]
    and Schedule S, and all the information requested in Section
    25.114(d) of the Commission\'s rules.[^63] As amended in Appendix B
    of this Order, Section 25.114(d) requires 17/24 GHz BSS satellite
    applicants to show that the proposed satellite will be able to
    function in a four-degree spacing environment.[^64] Applicants will
    be required to demonstrate that they comply with the pfd limits in
    new Section 25.208(v), or, if they do not, to demonstrate how they
    will affect adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks, and that the
    operators of those networks agree to the applicant\'s proposed
    operations. Applicants whose proposed orbital locations are offset
    from the 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations listed in Appendix F will
    be required to show that they do not cause more interference than if
    they operated at an exact location listed in Appendix F, and that
    their satellite network\'s performance objectives will be met
    assuming that adjacent operators are operating at the maximum
    allowed power flux density levels.

### Non-U.S.-Licensed Satellite Operators

17. ***DISCO II Market Access Standard Adopted:*** The Commission's
    *DISCO II Order*[^65] implemented the market-opening commitments
    made by the United States in the World Trade Organization ("WTO")
    Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Service ("WTO Basic Telecom
    Agreement"). In particular, the *DISCO II Order* established a
    framework under which the Commission will consider requests for
    non-U.S.-licensed space stations to serve the United States.[^66]
    This analysis considers the effect on competition in the United
    States,[^67] eligibility and operating requirements,[^68] spectrum
    availability,[^69] and national security, law enforcement, foreign
    policy, and trade concerns.[^70]

18. Under *DISCO II*, the Commission evaluates the effect of foreign
    entry on competition in the United States in one of two ways. First,
    in cases where the non-U.S.-licensed space station is licensed by a
    country that is a member of the WTO and will provide services
    covered by the U.S. commitments under the WTO Basic Telecom
    Agreement, the Commission presumes that entry will further
    competition in the United States. The U.S. commitments include
    Mobile-Satellite Services (MSS) and many fixed-satellite services,
    but specifically exclude DTH, DBS, and DARS.[^71] In contrast, the
    Commission conducts an "ECO-Sat" analysis for non-U.S.-licensed
    space stations licensed by countries that are not WTO members and
    where the foreign operator, regardless of its licensing country\'s
    WTO status, proposes to provide a non-covered service. Under this
    analysis, applicants seeking to access a foreign space station must
    provide an analysis as part of their application[^72] demonstrating
    that U.S.-licensed space stations have effective competitive
    opportunities to provide analogous services in the country in which
    the space station is licensed ("home" market) and in all countries
    in which communications with the U.S. earth station will originate
    or terminate ("route" markets).[^73] In particular, the Commission
    examines whether there are any *de jure* or *de facto* barriers to
    entry in the foreign country for the provision of analogous services
    and whether any such barriers cause competitive distortions in the
    U.S. market. In the *NPRM*, the Commission proposed to apply this
    framework to non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite operators
    seeking to access the U.S. market.

19. With respect to eligibility requirements, the Commission also
    proposed, in the *NPRM*, to extend to 17/24 GHz BSS operators the
    *DISCO II* policy that requires foreign-licensed space stations and
    operators to meet the same legal, technical, and financial
    requirements that we require U.S. applicants to meet. These include
    any requirements adopted in this proceeding, such as bond
    requirements, milestone requirements, geographic service
    requirements, public interest obligations, and spacecraft
    end-of-life disposal requirements.

20. Further, as in other satellite services, the Commission also
    proposed to require entities requesting authority to serve the U.S.
    market from a non-U.S. satellite to provide the same information
    concerning the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite as U.S. applicants must
    provide when applying for a space station license.[^74] This allows
    us to determine whether the foreign-licensed satellite complies with
    all Commission technical and service requirements, and whether it
    may cause interference to satellites providing authorized services
    to U.S. customers.

21. The commenters generally support this approach.[^75] EchoStar and
    SES Americom suggest that we should strictly enforce the ECO-Sat
    test because it allows us to ensure that U.S.-licensed operators
    have the same opportunity to provide 17/24 GHz BSS services to
    foreign countries as the satellites licensed by foreign countries
    have to serve the United States.[^76] In contrast, however, Bermuda
    notes that consumers would benefit if there was an increased
    presumption in all cases that entry to the market will further
    competition.[^77]

22. We adopt the Commission's proposal in the *NPRM* to evaluate the
    applications of non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite operators
    seeking to access the U.S. market under the *DISCO II* framework.
    Thus, our analysis will consider the effect on competition in the
    United States, eligibility and operating requirements, spectrum
    availability, and national security, law enforcement, foreign
    policy, and trade concerns. We note in particular that all
    applications seeking authority to provide DTH services from
    non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS operators to the U.S. market must
    include an ECO-Sat analysis. We will not eliminate this analysis in
    favor of a presumption that entry, in all cases, will further
    competition, as Bermuda suggests. The ECO-Sat analysis assures us
    that a foreign entrant will not have a competitive advantage over
    U.S.-licensed operators derived from their ability to serve
    countries and customers that U.S. operators may be precluded from
    serving. Bermuda has not explained why, or to what extent, the 17/24
    GHz BSS is so different from other services that we need not be
    concerned about ensuring a level playing field among these systems.
    Further, any evaluation of whether to continue to apply the ECO-SAT
    analysis to non-covered services in general is beyond the scope of
    this proceeding.

23. Last, as with all other services, we require all 17/24 GHz BSS
    operators seeking authority to serve the U.S. market from a non-U.S.
    satellite to provide the same information concerning their proposed
    17/24 GHz BSS space stations as U.S. applicants must provide when
    applying for a space station license.[^78] This includes filing FCC
    Form 312, information required in Schedule S, and all other
    information required by Section 25.114 of the Commission\'s
    rules.[^79] In addition, all non-U.S-licensed satellite operators
    must meet the requirements adopted in this proceeding, including but
    not limited to bond requirements, milestone requirements, geographic
    service requirements, public interest obligations and spacecraft
    end-of-life disposal requirements.

### Licensing at Co-Located 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS Orbital Locations 

24. ***No Prohibition Adopted:*** EchoStar argues that we should award
    licenses for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites that will be co-located with
    DBS satellites only to existing DBS licensees at those
    locations.[^80] According to EchoStar, this restriction would
    minimize the risk of harmful interference which will occur when
    17/24 GHz BSS satellites are located at or near the same orbital
    locations as DBS satellites.[^81] SES Americom and Intelsat oppose
    this proposal, claiming that it is anti-competitive and would block
    new entrants from the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^82]

25. We agree with SES Americom and Intelsat. The effect of accepting
    EchoStar's argument would be an expansion of the authorizations of
    DBS licensees to include authority to operate in the 17/24 GHz BSS
    on the same channel and orbital location at which they are currently
    operating. We find that providing such rights to existing DBS
    licensees would hinder competition while conferring a benefit on
    existing DBS licensees.[^83] Further, we note that, in the *FNPRM*
    section of this document below, we invite comment on various methods
    for coordinating DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites when located near
    each other in the geostationary orbit, perhaps as close as 0.2° or
    0.3° to each other.[^84] In light of this, we find that EchoStar\'s
    proposal to prohibit non-DBS operators from applying for 17/24 GHz
    BSS licenses at DBS orbital locations is not necessary to prevent
    harmful interference between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites.

### License Terms

26. ***Fifteen-Year and Eight-Year License Terms Adopted, Respectively,
    for Non-Broadcast and Broadcast 17/24 GHz Licensees:*** In the
    *NPRM*, the Commission sought comment on the license term it should
    apply to 17/24 GHz licenses. The Commission noted that Section
    25.121 of the Commission's rules provides that licenses for space
    stations will be issued for a period of 15 years, except licenses
    for DBS space stations.[^85] DBS space stations licensed as
    broadcast facilities are issued licenses for eight- year terms, and
    those DBS space stations not licensed as broadcast facilities have
    10-year terms.[^86] The Communications Act provides for a maximum
    licensing term of eight years for broadcasting facilities and allows
    the Commission to determine license terms for particular classes of
    stations, including satellite space and earth stations.[^87] In the
    *NPRM,* the Commission proposed to adopt a 10-year license term for
    all non-broadcast 17/24 GHz BSS satellites.[^88] For 17/24 GHz BSS
    satellites that will operate as broadcast facilities, the Commission
    proposed an eight-year license term, as provided under Section
    307(c)(1) of the Communications Act.

27. DIRECTV, Intelsat, and Bermuda support a 15-year license term for
    17/24 GHz systems.[^89] Bermuda states that most commercial
    satellites being planned or built today are intended for a service
    life-expectancy of longer than eight years, and notes that a 15-year
    term would also be consistent with international practices.[^90]

28. Pursuant to our statutory authority to implement license terms for
    different classes of space and earth stations, with the exception of
    DBS stations, we adopt a 15-year license term for all non-broadcast
    17/24 GHz BSS licenses and an eight-year license term for 17/24 GHz
    BSS licensees operating as broadcasters.[^91] As noted by the
    parties, satellites being built today are intended for longer
    service life expectancy than in the past and should therefore be
    assigned a longer license term.[^92] A 15-year license term for
    non-broadcast 17/24 GHz BSS satellites accurately reflects the
    useful life of most GSO satellites today and therefore, we will
    extend the license terms applicable to other non-broadcast GSO-like
    licensees to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees.

### Replacement Satellites

29. ***Streamlined Procedures Adopted:*** While the Commission has
    consistently said that all orbital assignments confer no permanent
    rights of use to the licensee, it has recognized the importance of
    giving satellite operators some assurance that they will be able to
    continue to serve their customers from the same orbital location as
    older satellites are retired.[^93] The Commission has stated that,
    without this assurance, operators may be discouraged from investing
    the hundred of millions of dollars needed to construct, launch, and
    operate each satellite. Further, the Commission has said that
    without follow-on capacity at the same orbit location, customers
    could experience service disruptions.[^94] When an orbit location
    remains available for a U.S. satellite with the technical
    characteristics of the proposed replacement satellite, we will
    generally authorize the replacement satellite at the same
    location.[^95]

30. To facilitate grant of replacement satellites, the Commission has
    historically processed applications for replacement satellites as
    they are filed, rather than subjecting them to the procedures that
    otherwise govern applications for new satellites.[^96] Thus,
    Commission practice is to immediately consider an application for a
    replacement satellite \-- and grant it if the applicant is qualified
    \-- without subjecting the application to a \"processing queue\" or
    other procedure by which it considers other applications that may be
    mutually exclusive with the replacement satellite application.[^97]
    To further expedite replacement satellite licensing, the Commission
    considers unopposed replacement satellite applications with
    technical characteristics consistent with those of the satellite to
    be retired are processed under a grant-stamp procedure.[^98] In the
    *NPRM*, we proposed to treat replacement satellite applications in
    the 17/24 GHz BSS under these streamlined procedures.

31. DIRECTV and Intelsat support this proposal.[^99] Bermuda also
    supports a replacement policy that allows operators to replace "like
    with like," *i.e*., replace a satellite after a premature in-orbit
    failure (such as caused by solar activity or manufacturing flaw) but
    cautions against abuses in the satellite replacement grant-stamp
    process.[^100]

32. In order to facilitate grant of 17/24 GHz BSS replacement satellite
    applications, we adopt the streamlined procedures applicable to the
    majority of the replacement satellite applications considered by the
    Commission.[^101] We have found that the grant-stamp procedure is an
    efficient method of processing replacement satellite applications
    and will apply this procedure to unopposed applications for
    replacement satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Further, the procedure
    contains mechanisms against abuse. We will place 17/24 GHz
    replacement applications on Public Notice, as we do with replacement
    satellite applications in other services.[^102] Thus, interested
    parties will have an opportunity to comment on all applications. We
    will address any concerns raised when processing the replacement
    application and will issue an Order, instead of a grant stamp, when
    appropriate.

### Annual Reporting Requirement

33. ***Annual Reporting Requirements Adopted:*** In the *NPRM*, the
    Commission noted that most space station operators are subject to
    annual reporting requirements on June 30 of each year. These reports
    must include, among other things, the status of space station
    construction and anticipated launch dates.[^103] The Commission
    requested comment on whether we should require 17/24 GHz BSS
    U.S.-licensees and 17/24 GHz BSS non-U.S. operators that are
    authorized to access the United States to submit similar annual
    reports.

34. Bermuda and Intelsat support a reporting requirement, stating that
    annual reports can be useful for monitoring the progress of
    milestone compliance and helping to deter speculative
    applications.[^104] Bermuda adds that licensees should file reports
    regardless of whether they are U.S. operators or non-U.S.
    operators.[^105] Bermuda also states that requiring operators to
    report at intervals of less than one year would provide an increased
    opportunity to monitor progress.[^106] No party objects to a
    reporting requirement for 17/24 GHz BSS operators.

35. We adopt the Commission's proposal to require 17/24 GHz BSS
    U.S.-licensees and 17/24 GHz BSS non-U.S. operators that are
    authorized to access the United States to submit annual reports
    similar to the annual reports required of most FSS satellite
    operators to the Commission on June 30 of each year.[^107] We
    believe such reports, filed on an annual basis, will help keep us
    apprised of the status of the space station, both while it is being
    built and once it is in-orbit. We are not convinced that more
    frequent reporting is needed to achieve this objective. In addition
    to annual reports, licensees must file documentation that they have
    met various milestones at each milestone deadline. This provides the
    most timely way to monitor licensees' compliance with the milestone
    conditions in their licenses. We also note that the Commission may
    request at any time additional information if such request is
    warranted.[^108]

36. Operators should file their annual reports with the Commission's
    International Bureau and the Commission's Columbia Operations Center
    in Columbia, Maryland. Specifically, the annual reports must
    include: (1) status of satellite construction and anticipated launch
    date, including any major problems or delays encountered; (2) a
    listing of any non-scheduled transponder outages for more than 30
    minutes and the cause or causes of such outage; (3) a detailed
    description of the utilization made of each transponder on each of
    the in-orbit satellites, including 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; and (4) identification of any transponder
    not available for service or otherwise not performing to
    specifications, the cause of these difficulties, and the date any
    space station was taken out of service or the malfunction
    identified.

### 8. Fees {#fees .unnumbered}

37. ***NPRM Proposal Adopted:*** In the *NPRM,* the Commission proposed
    that applicants for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites should pay fees
    associated with the "Space Stations (Geostationary)" service in
    Section 1.1107 of the Commission's rules.[^109] In addition, we
    proposed that applicants seeking authority to operate earth stations
    in the 17/24 GHz BSS should pay fees associated with the "Fixed
    Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations" in Section 1.1107.[^110]
    There were no comments on our filing fee proposals and we adopt our
    fee proposals.

## Public Interest and Other Statutory Obligations

### Public Interest Obligations

38. ***DBS and DTH Public Interest Obligations Adopted for 17/24 GHz
    BSS:*** Section 25.701 of our rules requires DBS providers to comply
    with certain political broadcast requirements and children's
    television advertising limits, and to set aside four percent of
    channel capacity for noncommercial, educational or informational
    programming.[^111] The entities subject to Section 25.701 include
    entities licensed to operate satellites in the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz DBS
    frequency bands;[^112] entities licensed pursuant to Part 25 of the
    Commission's rules to provide FSS via the Ku-band,[^113] that sell
    or lease transponder capacity to a video program distributor that
    offers a specified number of DTH video channels to consumers; and
    non-U.S. licensed satellites providing DBS or DTH-FSS services in
    the United States.[^114] The *NPRM* proposed that, to the extent a
    17/24 GHz BSS space station is used to provide video programming to
    consumers in the United States (DBS-like services),[^115] the
    licensee should be subject to the public interest obligations
    contained in Section 25.701. We invited comment on this
    proposal.[^116]

39. Commenters generally support applying public interest requirements
    to the 17/24 GHz BSS. SES Americom, however, contends that such
    requirements should be imposed only on 17/24 GHz BSS licensees that
    distribute programming to end users, and not on 17/24 GHz BSS
    licensees that are strictly satellite operators with no programming
    control, because they are not in a position to comply with the
    obligations.[^117] In reply, EchoStar states that if public interest
    obligations are imposed on any 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, they should
    be imposed uniformly on all such licensees.[^118] DIRECTV also
    believes that public interest obligations should be imposed equally
    on all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, and states that the Commission has
    previously addressed and rejected SES Americom's arguments.

40. We find that the obligations imposed on DBS providers by Section
    25.701[^119] should apply uniformly if the 17/24 GHz BSS space
    station is used to provide video services to consumers in the United
    States. SES Americom's argument that program distributors using
    satellite capacity should be ultimately responsible for fulfilling
    these obligations was specifically addressed and rejected by the
    Commission when it originally adopted the public interest rules and
    on reconsideration of those rules.[^120] We see no reason to adopt a
    different approach for operations in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Accordingly,
    we adopt the proposal to amend Section 25.701 to apply to any 17/24
    GHz BSS licensee, to the extent that the space station is used to
    provide video programming to consumers in the United States.

41. Although Media Access Project supports the Commission's proposal to
    impose public interest obligations on 17/24 GHz BSS licensees that
    provide DBS-like services, it argues that the Commission should
    increase the amount of programming that service providers in this
    band are required to reserve for non-commercial programming of an
    educational or informational nature. It argues that, given the
    expansion of spectrum capacity being offered to service providers in
    this proceeding, the Commission should require that licensees offer
    an accompanying increase in their public interest programming from
    the statutory minimum of four percent to the statutory maximum of
    seven percent. According to Media Access Project, the increase would
    provide value to the public in return for their use of the scarce
    public resources of spectrum and orbital locations.[^121] EchoStar
    argues that a public interest programming set-aside requirement of
    seven percent would be a disincentive to development of the 17/24
    GHz BSS and would "significantly limit" the capacity available for
    sought-after services such as local-into-local television broadcast
    stations and high-definition programming.[^122]

42. To the extent that Media Access Project is arguing that the channel
    reservation requirement should be increased for all DBS providers,
    including those originally covered by Section 25.701, that issue is
    beyond the scope of this proceeding. With respect to any argument
    that the reservation be increased for only licensees in the 17/24
    GHz BSS, we find that this might prove detrimental to development of
    this band by placing greater burdens on these licensees than those
    operating in others bands. Thus, we require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees
    to reserve four percent of their channel capacity, as defined in
    Section 25.701, for use by qualified programmers for noncommercial
    programming of an educational or informational nature.[^123]

43. The *NPRM* also sought comment on whether licensees in the 17/24 GHz
    BSS qualify to use the compulsory copyright licenses granted under
    Sections 119 and 122 of the Copyright Act and, if so, whether
    broadcast carriage requirements should apply.[^124] These statutory
    licenses permit satellite carriers, as defined in the Copyright Act,
    to provide television broadcast signals to their subscribers.
    Section 119 of the Copyright Act defines "satellite carrier" as an
    entity that uses a satellite operating in the FSS or DBS service for
    point-to-multipoint distribution of television signals.[^125] This
    section of the Copyright Act allows satellite carriers to offer
    distant broadcast signals under certain circumstances. Section 122
    of the Copyright Act provides a license for local-into-local service
    and defines "satellite carrier" by reference to the definition in
    Section 119.[^126]

44. Both DIRECTV and EchoStar, as well as NAB, support allowing 17/24
    GHz BSS licensees to qualify to use the compulsory copyright
    licenses.[^127] DIRECTV asserts that while the 17/24 GHZ BSS service
    is not totally in either the DBS or FSS frequency bands, the uplink
    for this service is in a frequency band allocated to FSS and,
    therefore, the copyright license could be construed to cover 17/24
    GHz BSS. Alternatively, DIRECTV asserts that the Commission could
    amend its definition of "DBS" to include use of the 17/24 GHz BSS
    downlink band.[^128] Although we will not offer an opinion on the
    appropriate construction of the Copyright Act, we believe that
    Sections 338 and 339 of the Communications Act would apply to 17/24
    GHz BSS licensees and that operators in this band, to the extent
    that they provide DBS-like service, qualify for use of the statutory
    copyright licenses. These licensees will provide point-to-multipoint
    service, in part using FSS frequencies, and thus they appear to come
    within the definition of a satellite carrier. Licensees availing
    themselves of the statutory copyright licenses must, of course,
    abide by the accompanying broadcast carriage requirements in the
    statute and in Commission rules,[^129] and, if they offer service to
    more than 5 million customers, must provide television broadcast
    signals to subscribers in Alaska and Hawaii.[^130]

### Equal Employment Opportunities

45. ***EEO Requirements Adopted:*** The *NPRM* noted that Section 25.601
    of the Commission's rules requires an entity that owns or leases an
    FSS or DBS service facility to provide video programming directly to
    the public on a subscription basis to comply with the equal
    employment opportunity (EEO) requirements. These requirements are
    set forth in Part 76 of the Commission's rules and apply if the
    entity exercises control over the video programming it
    distributes.[^131] We proposed to apply Section 25.601 to 17/24 GHz
    BSS licensees to the extent such licensees provide DBS-like
    services. In addition, we proposed to require 17/24 GHz BSS
    licensees to comply with any other EEO requirements that may be
    subsequently adopted or enforced by the Commission for broadcasters
    and multichannel video service distributors (MVPDs). We sought
    comment on this proposal.

46. EchoStar states that if we impose EEO obligations on 17/24 GHz BSS
    licensees, we should apply them uniformly to all licensees.[^132]
    Bermuda states generally that it supports our proposals.[^133] We
    find that it is in the public interest to apply Section 25.601 of
    our rules to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to the extent such licensees
    provide DBS-like services, as well as to require 17/24 GHz BSS
    licensees to comply with any other EEO requirements that may be
    subsequently adopted or enforced by the Commission for broadcasters
    and MVPDs. Accordingly, we will apply Section 25.601 of our rules to
    17/24 GHz BSS licensees to the extent such licensees provide
    DBS-like services, and 17/24 GHz BSS licensees will be required to
    comply with any other EEO requirements that may be subsequently
    adopted or enforced by the Commission for broadcasters and MVPDs.

### Geographic Service Rules

47. ***Service Requirements for Alaska and Hawaii Adopted:*** The
    Commission is committed to establishing policies and rules that will
    promote service to all regions in the United States, particularly to
    traditionally underserved areas, such as Alaska and Hawaii, and
    other remote areas. To achieve these goals, the *NPRM* proposed to
    apply geographic service rules for the states of Alaska and Hawaii
    in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Specifically, to the extent that 17/24 GHz BSS
    space stations are used to provide video programming to consumers in
    the United States, we proposed to adopt rules analogous to those in
    effect for DBS satellites in Section 25.148(c) of the Commission\'s
    rules.[^134] These rules require DBS licensees to provide service to
    Alaska and Hawaii where such service is technically feasible from
    the authorized orbital location. DBS applicants who do not propose
    to serve Alaska and Hawaii at the licensing stage must provide
    technical analyses to the Commission demonstrating that such service
    is not feasible as a technical matter or that, while technically
    feasible, such service would require so many compromises in
    satellite design and operation as to make it economically
    unreasonable. The Commission sought comment on this proposal. In
    addition, the *NPRM* noted that it is likely that many of the
    satellite operators in the 17/24 GHz BSS will operate multiple
    satellites. We asked whether, in such instances, we should apply
    geographic service rules at each orbital location or on a
    system-wide basis.[^135]

48. Commenters generally support adopting rules analogous to the DBS
    rules.[^136] DIRECTV and EchoStar also support applying the rules on
    a system-wide basis rather than on an orbital location basis.[^137]
    DIRECTV states that applying the rules on a system-wide basis will
    provide flexibility without compromising the goal of comparable
    service to all regions of the United States.[^138] EchoStar notes
    that the technical feasibility of service from a particular orbital
    location may not be the same for the 12 GHz and 17 GHz bands.

49. Accordingly, 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, to the extent that such
    licensees provide DBS-like services, are required to certify that
    they will provide service to Alaska and Hawaii comparable to that
    provided to locations in the 48 contiguous United States (CONUS),
    unless such service is not technically feasible or not economically
    reasonable from the authorized orbit location.[^139] In addition, we
    require applicants to design and configure 17/24 GHz BSS satellites
    to be capable of providing service to Alaska and Hawaii that is
    comparable to the service that such satellites will provide to CONUS
    subscribers.[^140] Furthermore, we require applicants to design and
    configure these satellites to be able to provide service to Alaska
    and Hawaii from any orbital location capable of providing service to
    either Alaska or Hawaii to which they may be relocated in the
    future. Thus, regardless of the location to which the satellite is
    initially authorized to operate from, if moved to a location capable
    of providing coverage to Alaska and Hawaii, the satellite will be
    configured to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii at the new
    orbital location. Applying geographic service requirements to 17/24
    GHz BSS operators in this manner will best ensure that 17/24 GHz BSS
    service provided to Alaska and Hawaii is comparable to that provided
    to CONUS locations. Although we are applying these requirements to
    each satellite where technically feasible instead of on a
    system-wide basis as proposed by DIRECTV and EchoStar, we believe
    that operators will have sufficient flexibility to design their
    systems in a manner that will be both technically and economically
    efficient. We also require licensees to certify that replacement and
    relocated satellites at locations from which service to Alaska and
    Hawaii had been provided by another 17/24 GHz BSS satellite will
    have the capability to provide at least the same level of service to
    Alaska and Hawaii as the previous 17/24 GHz BSS satellite at that
    location. 17/24 GHz BSS applicants who do not intend to provide
    service to Alaska and Hawaii must provide, in their initial
    application, technical analyses to the Commission demonstrating that
    such service is not feasible as a technical matter or that, while
    technically feasible, such service would require so many compromises
    in satellite design and operation as to make it economically
    unreasonable.

### Emergency Alert System

50. ***EAS Requirements Adopted:*** In the *NPRM*, the Commission noted
    that, in the *EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice,* the
    Commission amended Part 11 of its rules to require participation in
    the Emergency Alert System (EAS) by digital broadcast stations,
    digital cable systems, DBS services, and DARS.[^141] The *NPRM* also
    noted that in the *EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice*,
    the Commission defined DBS broadly to include the "vast majority of
    DTH services, particularly those which viewers may have expectations
    as to available warnings based on experience with broadcast
    television services."[^142] Because the same concerns the Commission
    addressed in the *EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice* are
    presented with the introduction of services by 17/24 GHz BSS
    providers, the *NPRM* proposed to apply the EAS requirements to
    providers of those services to the extent that 17/24 GHz BSS
    licensees provide DBS-like services.[^143]

51. Commenters disagree as to whether the Commission should apply EAS
    requirements to all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees. SES Americom and
    Intelsat maintain that EAS requirements should apply only to 17/24
    GHz BSS licensees that distribute programming to end users and not
    to FSS licensees that provide satellite capacity, such as SES
    Americom and Intelsat.[^144] According to SES Americom, FSS
    operators have conclusively demonstrated that placing EAS
    obligations on the licensee instead of the programming distributor
    impairs the effectiveness of the EAS program and prevents the
    Commission from penalizing a programming distributor that fails to
    deliver a required alert.[^145] SES concludes that if the Commission
    decides to apply EAS requirements to the 17/24 GHz BSS, it should
    ensure that they are placed only on programming distributors and not
    on the underlying satellite operators.[^146]

52. EchoStar and DIRECTV disagree with SES Americom and Intelsat. On
    reply, EchoStar and DIRECTV argue that all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees,
    whether they provide programming or underlying capacity, should be
    subject to EAS requirements.[^147] DIRECTV also notes that the
    Commission has previously determined that satellite licensees, such
    as Intelsat, should be subject to EAS requirements for other
    satellite services.[^148] Consequently, DIRECTV argues, unless the
    Commission changes its policy regarding the application of EAS
    requirements to other services it should not adopt Intelsat and SES
    Americom's proposal for the 17/24 GHz service alone.[^149]

53. Bermuda also submitted comments in support of applying EAS
    requirements to all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees that provide DBS-like
    services. Bermuda argues that imposing this requirement not only
    insures that all satellite operators providing DTH-like or DBS-like
    services will be subject to the same requirements, but also means
    that consumers will receive equal services in the event of an
    emergency. Bermuda further states that in the broader context of
    EAS, it has concerns regarding extreme weather conditions and
    recognizes that resilient communications are necessary for the
    dissemination of vital information to the public in times of
    emergency.[^150]

54. We believe that customers of the new 17/24 GHz BSS services would
    likely have similar expectations regarding these services as they do
    towards those other satellite services where video programming is
    provided directly to consumers. The particular band in which DTH
    services are offered has no relevance to customers' expectations
    regarding their ability to receive warnings. In other words, the EAS
    obligations for these services should be uniform no matter what
    portion of spectrum a particular provider chooses for its services.
    In this regard, we note that, pursuant to the rules adopted in the
    *EAS First Report and Order*, entities providing DBS services as
    defined by Section 25.701(a) of the Commission's rules,[^151] will
    be subject to the Part 11 EAS rules effective May 31, 2007. In light
    of this precedent and the reasons stated above, we conclude that,
    where 17/24 GHz BSS space stations are used to provide video
    services directly to consumers, the EAS requirements will apply.
    This will ensure consistent application of the EAS requirements
    irrespective of the different spectrum being used. We note, however,
    that PanAmSat Corporation, SES Americom, Inc. and Intelsat, Ltd.
    (collectively the "FSS Group") filed a petition for partial
    reconsideration of the *EAS First Report and Order*,[^152] making
    arguments essentially identical to those raised in their comments in
    this proceeding.[^153] We will address these issues in an Order
    dealing with the reconsideration petitions in the EAS proceeding.

## Use of BSS Spectrum at 17.7-17.8 GHz

55. ***17.7-17.8 GHz BSS Spectrum Limited to International Service and
    TT&C Operations Not Prohibited Just Below 17.7 GHz:*** Although the
    international allocation for Region 2 BSS in the space-to-Earth
    direction extends from 17.3-17.8 GHz, in the *18 GHz Report and
    Order*, the Commission extended the domestic allocation to the BSS
    only to 17.7 GHz.[^154] As discussed in the *Notice*, the Commission
    based its decision in part upon the ubiquitous nature of
    broadcasting-satellite services which we believed would preclude
    successful coordination with a terrestrial service that was
    similarly widely deployed, and taking into account the amount of
    terrestrial fixed spectrum being lost as a result of that
    proceeding.[^155] In the *NPRM*, the Commission recognized that U.S.
    satellite operators might wish to use the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band to
    provide service to receiving earth stations located within ITU
    Region 2, but outside of the United States.[^156] Accordingly, the
    Commission proposed to permit U.S. operators to use the
    international allocation to the BSS, but to limit use of the
    downlink to international service only, *i.e*., to receiving earth
    stations located outside of the U.S. and its possessions.[^157] The
    *NPRM* sought comment on this proposal and any rule changes that
    might be necessary to effect its implementation.[^158] Recognizing
    that the footprint of satellite beams serving nearby Region 2
    countries could illuminate portions of the United States, the *NPRM*
    also proposed to adopt Power Flux Density (pfd) limits in order to
    protect terrestrial service antennas from co-frequency interference
    from space station transmissions. Specifically, it proposed to adopt
    the same pfd limits that were imposed on FSS transmissions in the
    17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band by Section 25.208(c) of the Commission's
    rules[^159] prior to the adoption of the *18 GHz Report and
    Order*[^160] in 2002, and are also the same limits that Article 21
    of the ITU Radio Regulations currently imposes on FSS operators in
    this band.[^161] The *NPRM* sought comment on extension of these
    proposed pfd limits to the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^162]

56. Commenters responding to this issue consistently favor the
    Commission's proposal to permit use of the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band
    outside of the United States and its possessions.[^163] However,
    many argue that the Commission's proposal did not go far enough with
    regard to domestic service. DIRECTV and EchoStar both request that
    the Commission also allow satellite operators to provide service to
    U.S.-based receiving earth stations on a non-protected,
    non-interference basis, arguing that there is very little chance
    that downlink transmissions from a BSS satellite would interfere
    with the much stronger terrestrial service transmissions in this
    portion of the band and stating that spectrum should not be required
    to remain fallow in areas where there is little terrestrial
    use.[^164] Intelsat further argues that coordination with Fixed
    Service (FS) operators in the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band is feasible
    particularly if FS deployment is frozen after a certain date to
    permit BSS operators to deploy their earth stations with full
    knowledge of the locations of FS earth stations.[^165]
    Alternatively, Intelsat suggests that the Commission could grant BSS
    and FS co-primary status and protect receive earth station sites on
    a case-by-case basis while permitting FS deployment in the band to
    continue.[^166] Finally, SES Americom states that the Commission
    should entertain requests for a waiver of the Commission's rules to
    permit use of the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band on a case-by-case
    basis.[^167]

57. The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) opposes satellite
    operators' requests for authority to provide domestic service in the
    17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band.[^168] The FWCC claims that the FS used the
    band heavily even prior to the 1998 *18 GHz Report and Order*[^169]
    and that the number of FS links continues to increase. It argues
    that such an action on the Commission's part would be both bad
    policy and contrary to law as the *NPRM* expressly took such a
    possibility off the table.[^170] The FWCC further argues that
    satellite operators seek to reopen the issue of terrestrial service
    and satellite service sharing that has already been thoroughly aired
    and considered, and urges the Commission to state that the matter is
    closed.[^171] FiberTower also opposes 17/24 GHz BSS domestic use of
    the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band, stating that it would not be possible to
    effect coordination with ongoing FS operations in the band and that
    such a reallocation would once again disrupt FS operations in order
    to rechannelize the 18 GHz band.[^172]

58. In the *NPRM*, the Commission made clear that it did not intend to
    reexamine the question of BSS and FS sharing in the 17.7 --17.8 GHz
    band in this rulemaking.[^173] We believe that undertaking
    examination of such a technically complex issue would only result in
    a protracted and contentious rulemaking. As stated in the *NPRM*,
    this could only disserve our goal of establishing technical and
    service rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS in a timely manner, particularly
    recognizing the April 1, 2007 date at which the allocation became
    effective. Moreover, the Commission also stated that no applicant
    had provided either convincing evidence that terrestrial FS spectrum
    relocation requirements are less demanding than predicted, or a
    compelling argument that coordination of widely deployed terrestrial
    services with ubiquitously located 17/24 GHz BSS receivers would be
    readily feasible.[^174] That remains true to date. For these
    reasons, we agree with the FWCC's assertion that reopening the issue
    in this rulemaking is not appropriate, and we decline to consider
    requests to make the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band available for domestic
    BSS operations as a part of this proceeding.

59. EchoStar, DIRECTV and SES Americom all suggest that reception of
    some non-protected BSS transmissions at U.S. earth stations might be
    accommodated successfully in the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band. EchoStar
    notes that a similar approach has been undertaken successfully with
    FSS DTH antennas in the extended Ku-bands.[^175] In certain
    instances, FSS applicants seeking to use extended Ku-band spectrum
    for domestic service, have obtained waivers of the Commission's
    rules and agreed to accept all interference from FS stations as a
    condition of authorization.[^176] However, in the extended Ku-bands,
    there is an existing primary allocation to the FSS in the 10.95 --
    11.2 GHz and 11.45 -- 11.7 GHz bands, although footnote NG 104 to
    the United States Table of Frequency Allocations (Table of
    Allocations) limits FSS use to international systems only.[^177] In
    the case of the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band, neither a primary nor a
    secondary domestic allocation to the BSS exists in the
    space-to-Earth direction. The Commission will not modify the Table
    of Allocations to provide a secondary allocation to the BSS in this
    band for the reasons stated above -- we do not intend to reexamine
    BSS/FS sharing issues in this rulemaking.

60. Commenters also support the adoption of pfd limits in the 17.7 --
    17.8 GHz band to protect terrestrial networks. SES Americom and
    Intelsat agree with the Commission's proposal to apply the pfd
    limits of Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations for FSS systems
    operating in the 17.7 -- 19.7 GHz band to BSS downlink transmissions
    in the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band.[^178] DIRECTV, although proposing a
    different (graduated) set of pfd values for 17/24 GHz BSS downlink
    transmissions in general, states that the ITU Article 21 pfd limits
    are sufficient to protect terrestrial services from
    interference.[^179] EchoStar also proposes a graduated set of pfd
    values for the entire 17.3 -- 17.8 GHz band and compares its
    proposed values to the limits proposed in the *NPRM,* noting that at
    low elevation angles its values are actually 8 dB more stringent
    than those of Article 21, hence sufficient to protect terrestrial
    services from interference.[^180] Accordingly, as proposed in the
    *NPRM*, we extend the FSS pfd limits of Article 21 of the ITU Radio
    Regulations to 17/24 GHz BSS in the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band.
    Consistent with other pfd requirements in our rules,[^181] the
    maximum values will apply to elevation angles (δ) between 25º and
    90º above the horizontal plane. We will restrict pfd values by a
    factor of (δ-5)/2 for elevation angles between 5º and 25º above the
    horizontal plane, and to values of 10 dB lower for elevation angles
    between 0º and 5º above the horizontal plane.

61. The *NPRM* also sought comment on Tracking, Telemetry and Command
    (TT&C) operations in the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band.[^182] Section
    25.202(g) of the Commission's rules requires that TT&C functions for
    all U.S. domestic satellites be conducted at either or both edges of
    the allocated band(s).[^183] In the case of the 17.3 -- 17.7 GHz
    allocation, this rule would permit TT&C operations at frequencies
    just above 17.3 GHz or just below 17.7 GHz. The Commission's rules
    would not permit TT&C operations into U.S.-based earth stations at
    frequencies just below 17.8 GHz. Recognizing that reliance upon
    foreign-based TT&C facilities for on-station operations could
    adversely affect the U.S. operator's ability to maintain control of
    its spacecraft, the *NPRM* sought comment on how best to accommodate
    TT&C operations for those applicants seeking to use the 17.7 -- 17.8
    GHz band for international service.[^184] The *NPRM* asked further
    whether there was sufficient spectrum available above 17.3 GHz to
    accommodate these operations, particularly in light of the
    reverse-band sharing situation, and potential for out-of-band
    interference from radar systems operating just below 17.3 GHz.[^185]

62. EchoStar proposes that the Commission set aside 10 MHz guardbands at
    the edges of the 17/24 GHz bands for on-station TT&C operations. In
    the 17 GHz band, EchoStar asks us to define a guardband at the lower
    band edge near 17.3 GHz, but not at frequencies near 17.7 GHz
    because of the planned use by many operators of the entire 17.3-17.8
    GHz bandwidth. Rather, EchoStar asserts that the upper guardband is
    better defined at 17.790-17.800 GHz.[^186] At present, Section
    25.202(g) of our rules does not set aside any specific bandwidth for
    TT&C transmissions. Instead, it requires only that these functions
    be conducted at the edges of the allocated band. In the case of DBS
    satellites, the ITU Radio Regulations' Region 2 BSS and feederlink
    Plans of Appendices 30 and 30A do designate 12 MHz guardbands at
    either edge of the allocated band, and our rules require DBS
    operations to be in accordance with the technical characteristics
    contained in these appendices.[^187] However, the planned-band
    guardbands are set out in the larger context of a channelization
    scheme over the entire allocated bandwidth. Similarly, EchoStar
    makes its request for designated TT&C guardbands in the context of
    its more general request that the 24 MHz channelization scheme used
    for DBS satellites be applied to 17/24 GHz BSS satellites.[^188] The
    possibility of channelization schemes are addressed in more detail
    in this Order below, where the Commission declines to enforce a
    particular channelization scheme for the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^189]

63. Moreover, we do not believe that it is practicable to plan for TT&C
    operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Our rules require that TT&C
    operations take place at the edges of the *allocated band*. Although
    we may authorize operators to provide international service in the
    17.7-17.8 GHz band, there is no domestic allocation to the BSS in
    the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, and we have declined to modify the Table of
    Allocations to provide for one. Accordingly, we do not propose to
    designate guardbands limited to on-station TT&C operations for 17/24
    GHz BSS systems. For these reasons we will make no changes to
    Section 25.202(g).[^190]

64. Both EchoStar and Intelsat urge the Commission not to permit TT&C
    operations at the band edge just below 17.7 GHz, arguing that such
    transmissions would fall within band for those operators seeking to
    use the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band, and as a result, TT&C
    transmissions of one operator could be incompatible with the
    communications transmissions of another operator.[^191] However,
    this request is made in conjunction with their assertions that the
    Commission should permit domestic BSS operations in the 17.7-17.8
    GHz band. Commenters do not offer alternatives in the event that the
    Commission declines this request. In addition, although commenters
    believe TT&C operations should occur at edge of the 17.7-17.8 GHz
    band segment, they do not address where to accommodate the TT&C
    transmissions of future applicants who choose not to provide
    international service in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. In addition, the
    *NPRM* recognized significant interference potential from both
    adjacent band and secondary in-band government radar systems at
    frequencies just above 17.3 GHz.[^192] DIRECTV cautions that higher
    frequencies correspond with higher reliability for TT&C operations
    due to their separation from government radar systems.[^193] For
    these reasons, we believe that operators should be afforded
    sufficient bandwidth, particularly at higher frequencies, to provide
    for flexibility and reliability in planning their TT&C operations.

65. Moreover, we are not convinced that TT&C transmissions will present
    a significant interference problem to the communications
    transmissions of adjacent satellite operators using the 17.7-17.8
    GHz band. The worst interference case likely will occur into
    small-diameter earth station antennas that receive off-axis
    telemetry signal transmissions from nearby 17/24 GHz BSS satellites.
    However, TT&C transmissions are relatively narrow-band -- typically
    a few megahertz -- and the resulting interference would be averaged
    across the much wider bandwidth of the typical BSS signal. In
    addition, at four degrees or greater of orbital separation the
    interfering telemetry signal power should be significantly reduced.
    A somewhat analogous situation occurs in the extended Ku-bands
    between 11.45-11.7 GHz and the standard Ku-band between 11.7-12.2
    GHz. Although the adjacent, extended Ku-band (11.45-11.7 GHz) may be
    used to provide international service, and many operators choose to
    make use of the entire 11.45-12.2 GHz bandwidth, the Commission does
    not preclude TT&C operations at frequencies just above 11.7 GHz.
    Accordingly, we will not prohibit TT&C operations at frequencies
    just below 17.7 GHz.

## Orbital Spacing and Minimum Antenna Diameter and Performance Standards

### Orbital Spacing

#### Background 

66. ***Four Degree Spacing Framework Adopted:*** The *NPRM* sought
    comment on whether the Commission should adopt an orbital spacing
    policy in the 17/24 GHz BSS, and if so, what separation would be
    appropriate.[^194] We asked specifically how best to balance our
    conflicting goals of making available the maximum GSO orbital
    capacity while simultaneously minimizing interference into
    small-diameter receiving antennas.[^195] Most commenters recognize
    the importance of adopting a well-considered orbital spacing policy,
    noting the critical role that spacing plays in determining required
    receive antenna diameters, quality of service, efficiency of design
    and types of services possible to deliver that result as a
    consequence of orbital separation. Only Bermuda differs in its view,
    advocating that the Commission should remove the minimum orbital
    separation requirement from all services, including DBS services,
    and instead should allow operators to coordinate their services
    using the procedures in the ITU Radio Regulations.[^196] Bermuda
    does not address how operators within the same administration should
    reconcile instances of interference arising among each other, which
    is a primary objective we seek to address by developing appropriate
    requirements within this proceeding.

67. In their comments, DIRECTV, SES Americom, and Intelsat all propose
    orbital-separation schemes of four degrees, expressing a preference
    for alignment with existing Ku- and Ka-band FSS locations, some of
    which are currently used to provide DTH-FSS services.[^197] DIRECTV
    maintains that four degrees of orbital separation will support
    deployment of the 60 cm diameter antennas it plans to
    implement.[^198] SES Americom and Intelsat maintain that a
    four-degree separation scheme will permit their planned use of 45 cm
    antennas.[^199] DIRECTV also argues that a separation scheme of four
    degrees will facilitate use of hybrid BSS-FSS satellites enabling
    operators to capture the inherent efficiencies associated with these
    platforms thereby significantly reducing the cost of providing
    services.[^200] Intelsat supports a four-degree orbital separation
    scheme, stating that it offers a good balance between the use of
    small diameter antennas and the need to achieve good coverage of the
    United States from a reasonable number of orbital positions.[^201]

68. In contrast, EchoStar, in its comments, advocates a 4.5-degree
    orbital separation scheme centered upon current DBS locations.[^202]
    EchoStar plans to employ low-cost single-feed, dual-frequency (12/17
    GHz) 45 cm diameter subscriber antennas, utilizing a system design
    predicated upon near co-location with its DBS satellites.[^203]
    EchoStar argues that a spacing scheme based on four degrees is not
    workable due to heavy use of many of the integer orbital locations
    for FSS satellites, and that non-integer (constant offset) spacing
    would be incompatible with Region 2 BSS Plan assignments used by DBS
    satellites at many orbital locations.[^204] However, in its Reply
    Comments, EchoStar relaxes its position, stating that what is of
    primary importance is *near* co-location with conventional DBS
    positions, and that the differences between four-degree and
    4.5-degree spacing can easily be reconciled.[^205]

69. To this end, EchoStar and SES Americom propose a mutually-agreed
    orbital assignment framework for the portion of the geostationary
    arc between 56.9º W.L. and 147.6º W.L.[^206] This proposal seeks to
    reconcile the differing business models, system designs and
    accompanying concerns raised by the various commenters. The proposed
    orbital locations place new 17/24 GHz BSS satellites close enough to
    selected U.S. DBS locations to permit single-feed earth stations to
    simultaneously access downlink transmissions from both.
    Additionally, the proposal seeks to provide sufficient flexibility
    to allow alignment with FSS orbital positions as well as to permit
    any adjustments necessary to avoid other presumed unsuitable
    satellite positions, including those designated for non-U.S. DBS
    satellites.[^207] The orbital positions proposed by EchoStar and SES
    Americom range from 4° to 5.9° in separation. In contrast, DIRECTV
    submits a proposal for the portion of the geostationary arc between
    83º W.L. and 123º W.L. that assigns in-orbit satellites at
    four-degree spacing intervals. DIRECTV argues that this framework
    accommodates most commenters' proposals to co-locate 17/24 GHz BSS
    satellites with FSS satellites.[^208] DIRECTV also submits that its
    proposed framework would preserve the flexibility to locate 17/24
    GHz BSS satellites near certain U.S. DBS locations[^209] while
    avoiding orbital locations that are too close to Appendices 30 and
    30A[^210] Plan assignments of other Region 2 administrations.
    Intelsat similarly supports assigning satellites at four-degree
    spacing. Later, in an *ex parte* statement, DIRECTV, EchoStar, and
    Intelsat proposed another spacing scheme, in which the proposed
    orbital positions ranged from 4° to 6.5° in separation between 81°
    and 124° W.L.[^211]

#### Discussion

70. All operators agree that orbital separations as small as four
    degrees are feasible and will permit deployment of consumer antennas
    of a size consistent with their system designs and marketing
    strategies. Even EchoStar, who initially argued for a 4.5-degree
    separation requirement, agrees that four degrees of separation can
    be implemented if we allow some flexibility and in this context
    supports use of 45 cm antennas.[^212] After studying the technical
    discussions presented, we concur that a minimum orbital separation
    of four degrees between 17/24 GHz BSS satellites is feasible, and
    that it best affords all applicants the flexibility to design and
    deploy systems consistent with their stated plans. Moreover, we
    believe that such a minimum spacing requirement realizes our mutual
    goals of maximizing orbital capacity while accommodating
    small-diameter receiving antennas. Accordingly, we will require that
    BSS satellite networks operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS be capable of
    operating at four-degree orbital spacing.

71. In discussing orbital spacing policy, all commenters stress the need
    for some flexibility relative to mandating adherence to a rigid
    in-orbit spacing grid.[^213] While we agree that some flexibility is
    beneficial, uniform orbital spacings maximize use of scarce orbital
    resources and opportunities for competitive entry. Indeed, uniform
    two-degree spacing has been the cornerstone of the Commission\'s
    licensing framework for GSO FSS satellites since 1983, and has
    served to create a competitive and interference-free operating
    environment.[^214] Therefore, we will require 17/24 GHz BSS
    licensees to place their satellites in orbit so that all 17/24 GHz
    BSS satellites are placed at multiples of four degrees away from
    each other, as set forth in Appendix F of this Order. Allowing
    complete flexibility in orbital spacing would result in inefficient
    use of scarce geostationary satellite orbit resources and limit
    opportunities for competitive entry.

72. Parties opposing uniform four-degree orbital spacing do not provide
    adequate justification for their positions. First, we find concerns
    regarding co-location with DBS to be unpersuasive. In the *FNPRM*
    below, we note that commenters argue that DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS
    satellites should be able to operate as close as 0.2° to 0.4° away
    from each other. Furthermore, we find concerns that the orbital
    assignment plan may need revision in the future to be speculative at
    best. In any case, the potential need for revision at some time in
    the future does not warrant allowing inefficient use of the
    geostationary orbit and limiting opportunities for competitive entry
    in the interim. Finally, we conclude that parties\' concerns
    regarding potential physical interference between satellites
    operating with overlapping station-keeping volumes are misplaced.
    17/24 GHz BSS satellite licensees will be able to offset their
    satellites in order to address any undesirable operational
    constraints arising from satellite co-location.

73. Consequently, we will adopt the orbital spacing framework set forth
    in Appendix F of this Order. This orbital spacing scheme is
    consistent with the locations of FSS satellites in the Ku-band and
    Ka-band, as recommended by DIRECTV and Intelsat.[^215] Moreover, we
    agree with DIRECTV that this framework will accommodate most
    commenters\' proposals for the portion of the geostationary arc
    between 83° W.L. and 123° W.L.[^216] No one has suggested in the
    record another four-degree spacing configuration that accommodates
    other commenters\' proposals better than DIRECTV\'s proposal.

74. However, we also agree to some extent with the commenters who argue
    for some flexibility in orbital assignments. In particular, we
    recognize that it may not be possible to locate a 17/24 GHz BSS
    satellite precisely at some of the orbital locations specified in
    Appendix F, *e.g.*, because there are undesirable operational
    constraints required to coordinate physical operations with
    co-located satellites, or because there is a DBS or other ITU Region
    2 BSS satellite receiving feeder-link signals in the 17.3-17.8 GHz
    band at or very near that location. Thus, we will not require that
    17/24 GHz BSS satellites be located precisely at the orbital
    locations specified in Appendix F. However, an applicant seeking an
    authorization to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS satellite at a location
    offset from an orbital location specified in Appendix F will be
    required to make a technical showing that the proposed satellite
    will not cause any more interference to any 17/24 GHz BSS satellite
    operating at a location specified in Appendix F, and in compliance
    with the rules for this service, than if the proposed satellite were
    positioned precisely at the Appendix F orbital location. In
    addition, such applicants must also agree to accept any increased
    interference that may result from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space
    stations that are operating in compliance with the rules for this
    service. As with all applicants, such applicants must also make a
    technical showing demonstrating that their system design
    accommodates any additional interference from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS
    space stations operating at the maximum allowed pfd levels, and
    otherwise in compliance with the rules for this service, that may
    result from the location offset of their proposed satellite.
    Applicants that have reached a coordination agreement with an
    operator at an Appendix F 17/24 GHz BSS orbital location up to 10°
    away from the location listed in Appendix F from which their
    proposed satellite is offset to allow that operator to exceed the
    pfd levels specified in the rules for this service must use those
    higher pfd levels for the purposes of this showing.[^217]

### Reference Interference Baseline

75. ***DIRECTV's*** ***Reference Interference Baseline Not Adopted:***
    In its reply comments, DIRECTV advocates a broad approach proposing
    that the Commission define a "reference interference baseline" for
    the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^218] Under this proposal, we would establish
    routine processing standards for satellite applications. A 17/24 GHz
    BSS satellite applicant would be allowed to receive routine
    processing even if it deviates from standard parameters set forward
    in the rules, provided it makes offsetting changes to create no
    additional interference beyond the reference situation. DIRECTV also
    advocates that applicants be able to receive routine processing by
    obtaining consent through coordination to operate outside of the
    reference situation parameters, and that more flexible requirements
    would apply outside of the domestic arc (*i.e*., at least four
    degrees below 83º W.L. or above 123º W.L.).[^219] DIRECTV argues
    that this approach would create opportunities for individual
    flexibility, eliminate the burden and delay of unnecessary
    coordination while maintaining the stability of the overall
    environment.[^220]

76. We decline to adopt DIRECTV's approach of defining a reference
    interference baseline to be used for routine processing of satellite
    applications in this proceeding. There is little information or
    comment on the record to develop or to support what would amount to
    a rather extensive set of interdependent values. Nor is DIRECTV
    specific in its proposal other than to say that the baseline should
    assume four-degree spacing and receiving antennas compliant with ITU
    Recommendation BO.1213.[^221] Accordingly, we find that DIRECTV has
    not adequately supported its proposal.

### Minimum Antenna Diameter and Performance Standards

77. ***45 cm/ITU-R Recommendation BO.1213-1 Minimum Antenna Standards
    Adopted:*** The *NPRM* sought comment on what minimum diameter earth
    stations the Commission should seek to accommodate in formulating
    service rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^222] In addition, the *NPRM*
    also asked whether we should afford interference protection to 17/24
    GHz BSS systems only to the extent that they meet certain
    receive-antenna performance characteristics.[^223] The Commission
    also noted that it has typically chosen not to explicitly regulate
    receive-only antenna characteristics, but rather has opted to
    regulate other characteristics shaping the interference environment,
    thereby leaving the choice of antenna characteristics to the
    operator. However, the *NPRM* recognized that receiving earth
    station antenna off-axis discrimination performance will affect the
    interference experienced by BSS subscribers arising from other
    systems and we asked whether in this instance we should depart from
    our established policy.[^224] In particular, the *NPRM* requested
    comment on what types of antenna performance regulation, if any,
    might be appropriate.[^225]

78. Most commenters support accommodating a minimum antenna diameter of
    45 cm[^226] and Intelsat proposes that the Commission adopt a
    specific 45 cm minimum antenna size requirement.[^227] EchoStar and
    SES Americom advocate less stringent approaches, urging the
    Commission to adopt rules and policies that would facilitate the
    deployment of receiving antennas as small as 45 cm[^228] or afford
    interference protection only to receiving antennas no smaller than
    45 cm.[^229] DIRECTV expressed the view that 60 cm is the minimum
    antenna diameter that the Commission should accommodate when
    considering an orbital spacing policy.[^230] DIRECTV notes that 60
    cm dishes have become more prevalent in recent years and have long
    been the consumer standard in Europe and elsewhere.[^231] DIRECTV
    states further that BSS operators needing to combine capacity from
    multiple orbital locations will likely require multi-feed receive
    antennas with an effective diameter greater than 60 cm.[^232]
    Alternatively, SES Americom argues that limiting interference
    protection to 17/24 GHz BSS receiving antennas that are greater than
    45 cm would preclude new BSS entrants from successfully competing
    with established DBS operators for a customer base.[^233] SES
    Americom asserts that affording interference protection to receiving
    antennas as small as those commonly used for DBS today (45 cm) is
    critical to ensuring the usefulness of the band for new
    competition.[^234]

79. As a general matter, commenters also favor adoption of reference
    antenna performance characteristics that will ensure sufficient
    interference protection for subscriber antennas and to establish a
    baseline for protection in licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS systems.[^235]
    Although advocating different minimum antenna diameters, SES
    Americom, DIRECTV, and Intelsat all propose that the reference
    antenna pattern given in ITU-R Recommendation BO.1213-1 be used as
    an appropriate standard for the protection of receiving antennas in
    the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^236] DIRECTV cautions that while protection
    should be granted only to the extent that receiving antennas conform
    to the ITU-R standard, the Commission should continue its policy of
    letting operators retain the discretion to determine the
    characteristics of their equipment. As such, DIRECTV believes
    operators should remain free to deploy non-conforming antennas, but
    with the understanding that they must accept any resulting increase
    in interference levels.[^237] Bermuda, in contrast, argues that the
    Commission should not regulate 17/24 GHz BSS receiving antenna
    performance characteristics, but rather that they should be
    determined by the requirements of the system in which they are
    deployed.[^238]

80. Although the Commission has historically chosen not to regulate the
    antenna performance characteristics of non-transmitting earth
    stations, we recognize that the 17/24 GHz BSS confronts an operating
    environment different from the one in which most other GSO satellite
    services, must operate. In particular, the reverse-band sharing
    situation that exists between BSS receiving antennas and
    transmitting DBS feeder link earth stations in the 17 GHz band
    creates significant potential for interference from sources other
    than neighboring co-frequency space stations. Such an interference
    environment may not be as satisfactorily managed by the Commission's
    more traditional approach to regulating the downlink interference
    environment by establishing an orbital separation scheme and
    accompanying pfd limits, particularly given the widespread
    deployment of such small-diameter receiving antennas in a
    four-degree spacing environment. We agree with DIRECTV that
    establishing performance standards for receiving antennas could help
    to create a more stable and predictable interference environment.
    Moreover, we note that the majority of commenters concur as
    evidenced by their support for inclusion of the ITU antenna
    performance standards of Rec. BO.1213-1 in the Commission's rules.
    Accordingly, we adopt a rule that 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth
    stations 45 cm or greater in diameter may claim protection from
    interference, but only to the extent that they meet the antenna
    performance characteristics given in ITU-R Recommendation
    BO.1213-1.[^239] This rule does not apply to 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry
    earth stations that are subject to the antenna performance
    requirements of Section 25.209.

81. In adopting this rule, we recognize that we have already bounded the
    downlink interference environment by establishing a minimum orbital
    separation requirement in combination with the downlink pfd limits
    addressed in Section III. E. Thus, by specifying a minimum antenna
    diameter and reference antenna pattern for interference protection,
    we are departing from past practice in our treatment of receive-only
    earth stations and adding an additional interference mitigation
    requirement. However, as discussed above, we concur with commenters'
    concerns regarding the need to establish a predictable environment,
    particularly in light of the unique reverse-band frequency
    operations in the 17 GHz band. In addition we support DIRECTV's
    request to preserve operator discretion with regard to choice of
    antenna characteristics. We note that this new antenna performance
    standard does not preclude operators from deploying receiving earth
    stations smaller than 45 cm, or antennas that do not conform to the
    reference patterns in the ITU-R Recommendation. However, the
    operator must accept the additional levels of interference that
    results from its use of the non-conforming antenna.

## Technical Requirements for Intra-Service Operations

### 1. Uplink Power Levels {#uplink-power-levels .unnumbered}

82. ***Standards For Routine/Non-Routine Licensing of Feeder Link
    Antennas*** ***Adopted:*** In the *NPRM*, the Commission stated that
    successful implementation of any orbital spacing scheme in the 17/24
    GHz BSS will likely require adoption of uplink power density and
    antenna off-axis performance standards similar to those established
    for the FSS.[^240] However, we also recognized that space stations
    in the 17/24 GHz BSS are likely to operate at orbital separations
    greater than those existing in the FSS, and that feeder uplink earth
    stations typically operate with larger diameter antennas that
    exhibit good off-axis rejection properties.[^241] Both of these
    factors will tend to mitigate the problem of off-axis interference
    into neighboring space stations. Consequently, we sought comment on
    the need to establish uplink off-axis power limits for this
    service.[^242] Additionally, the Commission's rules currently
    provide for routine licensing of FSS earth stations when specific
    antenna performance standards and uplink power levels are met.[^243]
    The *NPRM* sought comment on whether analogous criteria might be
    developed to expedite licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link
    stations, and if so, what criteria might be appropriate.[^244]

83. Because, by definition, feeder links operate in the FSS, the *NPRM*
    stated that the antenna performance standards of Section
    25.209[^245] could be applied to 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth
    stations. The Commission proposed to apply these off-axis
    performance standards in combination with the highest uplink
    Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) density proposed by
    an applicant*, i.e*., 5.6 dBW/Hz.[^246] We sought comment on this
    proposal, recognizing that absent a clearly defined orbital
    separation scheme at that time, the resulting contribution to
    adjacent satellite interference would be difficult to
    determine.[^247] We also asked what form any uplink off-axis power
    density requirement should take, and whether it would be most
    appropriate to specify separate off-axis antenna performance
    standards and uplink power density requirements, or a single
    composite off-axis EIRP density curve.[^248]

84. Commenters in general acknowledge the need to apply uplink off-axis
    uplink EIRP limits to 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link stations,
    recognizing that such limits would help to address off-axis
    interference concerns as well as facilitate coordination with other
    services.[^249] Intelsat initially stated that such requirements
    were unnecessary,[^250] but, in its reply comments, provides
    off-axis EIRP density limits that it believes would be
    adequate.[^251]

85. Commenters addressing this issue support applying the Ka-band FSS
    uplink off-axis power density requirements contained in Section
    25.138(a)(1) -- (4)[^252] of our rules to feeder link earth stations
    in the 17/24 GHz BSS.[^253] Commenters assert that this rule has
    been effective in the Ka-band,[^254] sets limits that are consistent
    with levels proposed in applications already before the
    Commission,[^255] and will successfully address adjacent satellite
    interference concerns.[^256] Commenters also agree that in the case
    of the 17/24 GHz BSS, these values should be scaled to a 1 MHz
    reference bandwidth rather than the 40 kHz resolution specified in
    our current rule.[^257] In addition, commenters suggest expressing
    the requirement as a limit on the off-axis EIRP density (rather than
    as separate off-axis antenna requirements and uplink power density
    limits) such that the operators must meet this EIRP density value
    regardless of on-axis absolute EIRP or actual antenna
    performance.[^258]

86. Although the off-axis EIRP density limits favored by commenters are
    approximately 3 dB greater than those tentatively proposed by the
    Commission,[^259] we agree with the commenters that the higher level
    has proven effective in the Ka-band FSS two-degree spacing
    environment and will effectively mitigate adjacent satellite
    interference in the 17/24 GHz BSS four-degree spacing environment.
    Accordingly, for routine processing of feeder link antennas
    transmitting to GSO satellites in the 24.75- 25.25 GHz band, we
    adopt the off-axis antenna performance requirements of Section
    25.138(a) scaled to a 1 MHz reference bandwidth as follows:

\(1\) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral density
for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values, within
±3º of the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions:

32.5 -- 25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 2º ≤ θ ≤ 7º

11.4 dBW/MHz for 7º ≤ θ ≤ 9.2º

35.5 -- 25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 9.2º ≤ θ ≤ 48º

3.5 dBW/MHz for 48º ≤ θ ≤ 180º

Where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe.

\(2\) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral density
for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values, for all
directions other than within ±3º of the GSO arc, under clear sky
conditions:

35.5 -- 25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 2º ≤ θ ≤ 7º

14.4 dBW/MHz for 7º ≤ θ ≤ 9.2º

38.5 -- 25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 9.2º ≤ θ ≤ 48º

6.5 dBW/MHz for 48º ≤ θ ≤ 180º

Where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe.

\(3\) The values given in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section may
be exceeded by 3 dB, for values of θ \> 10º, provided that the total
angular range over which this occurs does not exceed 20º when measured
along both sides of the GSO arc.

\(4\) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral density
for cross-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values, in
all directions other relative to the GSO arc, under clear sky
conditions:

22.5 -- 25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 2º ≤ θ ≤ 7º

1.4 dBW/MHz for 7º ≤ θ ≤ 9.2º

Where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe.

87. The off-axis EIRP density curves given in Section 25.138(a)(1) --
    (4)[^260] of our rules include the term N, which is defined as the
    likely maximum number of simultaneously transmitting co-frequency
    earth stations in the receive beam of the satellite. Commenters do
    not include this term in their proposed formulae and we have chosen
    not to include it in our rules. Section 25.138 addresses *blanket
    licensing* of FSS earth stations where a number of co-frequency
    earth stations may be transmitting simultaneously in cases where
    contention protocols or CDMA may be used. We do not anticipate
    multiple simultaneous co-frequency transmissions from 17/24 GHz BSS
    feeder link earth stations, and as a consequence, these access
    schemes likely will not be relevant. Commenters do not explicitly
    address EIRP density envelopes for directions other than within 3
    degrees of the GSO arc. Neither do they specifically address
    envelopes for cross-polarized signals or allowable exceedences, as
    contained in other parts of Section 25.138. Rather, they make more
    general references to a rule modeled on the framework of Section
    25.138. We include these requirements here on the strength of those
    comments, and also because they are consistent with the Commission's
    approach to off-axis EIRP density limits in general.[^261]

88. The *NPRM* also recognized that in some instances applicants might
    seek to operate at higher EIRP density levels than those permitted
    under the above requirement.[^262] Our current rules provide a
    mechanism for licensing such non-conforming systems operating in the
    FSS by placing the burden on the applicant to provide a technical
    showing to the Commission, and to coordinate its non-conforming
    operations with adjacent operators.[^263] We proposed a similar
    approach to licensing non-conforming systems in the 17/24 GHz BSS
    and sought comment on whether our proposal was appropriate to
    adopt.[^264] We also asked over what angular distance coordination
    should be required, recognizing that the orbital spacing in the
    17/24 GHz service could very likely be greater than the two-degree
    separation typical of the FSS.[^265]

89. Commenters consistently favor allowing a mechanism by which
    operators could be licensed for non-conforming systems seeking to
    operate at higher off-axis power levels than those permitted for
    routine licensing. All commenters favor the general approach
    employed for FSS systems whereby applicants for non-conforming earth
    stations must submit the necessary technical showing to the
    Commission and coordinate their non-conforming operations with
    adjacent space station operators.[^266] At present, our rules
    require non-compliant FSS operators to coordinate with potentially
    affected neighboring operations over an angular arc of six degrees,
    corresponding to up to three adjacent positions on each side.[^267]
    At an orbital separation of six degrees, off-axis power levels are
    decreased by nearly 12 dB relative to those at the nearest neighbor
    at two degrees, and at a separation of eight degrees, power levels
    relative to the two-degree neighbor are decreased by more than 13
    dB. [^268] These values are true for an antenna that complies with
    FSS antenna gain envelope rules of 29-25\*log10 ().[^269]
    Accordingly, we believe that an angular arc of ±8 degrees, which in
    a four-degree spacing environment corresponds to the two nearest
    possible neighboring co-frequency space stations, is sufficient.

90. Commenters differ somewhat on the precise angular separation over
    which operators should be required to coordinate their
    non-conforming operations. DIRECTV and SES Americom, both of whom
    favor a four-degree orbital spacing scheme, propose coordination
    arcs of ±8 degrees and ±9 degrees, respectively.[^270] EchoStar
    proposes a slightly more complex coordination arc requirement
    whereby operators would be required to obtain the agreement only of
    the immediate neighboring satellites (spaced at approximately four
    degrees away) for exceedences up to 3 dB, with the additional
    agreement of the second adjacent operator for exceedences up to 6
    dB; no exceedence greater than 6 dB would be permitted.[^271] We
    find that EchoStar's proposal affords significant interference
    protection to adjacent co-frequency satellites, while reducing the
    coordination burden on both the conforming and non-conforming
    parties. However, we also recognize that space stations may not
    always be located along a perfectly spaced four-degree grid, but
    sometimes may be offset from the orbital locations specified in
    Appendix F. To accommodate such instances, we will extend the
    angular coordination distance proposed by EchoStar by two degrees.

91. Accordingly, we will adopt a requirement that each applicant for an
    earth station license that proposes off-axis EIRP density levels in
    excess of those defined above shall certify that all potentially
    affected parties acknowledge and do not object to the use of the
    applicant's higher power densities. For proposed power levels less
    than 3 dB in excess of the limits defined above, the affected
    parties shall be those co-frequency operators authorized to provide
    service to the U.S. at up to ±6 degrees away; for excesses of
    greater than 3 dB and up to 6 dB, affected parties shall be all
    those co-frequency U.S. licensed operators at up to ±10 degrees
    away. We will not permit exceedences greater than 6 dB above the
    limits defined above. Although we take a slightly more flexible
    approach with regard to coordination of downlink pfd
    excedeences,[^272] we believe that the sharing situation with 24 GHz
    fixed service systems requires a somewhat more conservative
    approach.[^273] In addition, we require non-compliant operators to
    coordinate with any future applicants or licenses over these same
    orbital separation distances. We also require a non-compliant
    licensee to reduce its power levels should a coordination agreement
    not be reached. In addition, non-conforming applicants will be
    required to submit link budget analyses of the operations proposed
    along with a detailed written explanation of how they have derived
    each uplink and each transmitted satellite carrier density figure.
    Applicants will also be required to submit a narrative summary that
    must indicate whether there are margin shortfalls in any other
    licensee's current baseline services as a result of the addition the
    applicant's higher power service, and if so, how the applicant
    intends to resolve those margin shortfalls.

92. The *NPRM* also sought comment on the need for uplink adaptive power
    control, particularly in presence of rain fade,[^274] noting that
    Section 25.204(g)[^275] of our rules requires all Ka-band FSS earth
    stations to employ adaptive power control or other methods of rain
    fade compensation.[^276] Commenters recognize the need for uplink
    power control in the event of rain fade and cite the specification
    already contained in our rules[^277] as appropriate for the 17/24
    GHz BSS.[^278] We realize that systems operating in the 24 GHz band
    can suffer significant signal attenuation in the event of
    precipitation and concur that some provision for adaptive uplink
    power control is necessary. Accordingly, we amend our rules to
    require 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations to employ adaptive uplink power
    control or other methods of fade compensation. We also adopt a
    requirement for the 17/24 GHz BSS analogous to the Ka-band FSS
    requirement of Section 25.138(a)(5).[^279] This rules provides
    that (1) the required clear-sky uplink off-axis power limits may be
    exceeded by up to 20 dB in the presence of uplink fading due to
    precipitation; (2) that the amount of this increase relative to the
    excess attenuation over the clear sky propagation conditions shall
    not exceed 1.5 dB or 15% of the of the actual amount, which ever is
    greater; and (3) that this should occur with a confidence level of
    90% except for transient periods of no more that 0.5% during which
    the excess shall be no more than 4.0 dB.

93. Some commenters also object to requiring applicants to provide
    measured radiation patterns as specified in Section 25.138(d)[^280]
    of our rules as a means of demonstrating compliance with off-axis
    EIRP limits.[^281] Intelsat argues that the requirement to provide
    measured radiation patterns for antennas not yet built is often not
    practical and unduly burdens the applicant.[^282] Intelsat asserts
    that, instead, the Commission's evaluation process for earth
    stations in the 17/24 GHz service should follow the approach for
    earth stations on vessels (ESVs) contained in Section 25.221.[^283]
    That approach requires the applicant to submit a series of charts or
    tables calculated for a production earth station antenna, based on
    measurements taken on a calibrated antenna range.[^284] DIRECTV
    agrees that it is impractical to submit measured data, and argues
    further that because these very large feeder link antennas are
    typically assembled on site, it is simply not necessary to test
    these antennas on a range.[^285] Instead, DIRECTV proposes that
    17/24 GHz BSS feeder link antennas be tested as they are built,
    using in-orbit satellite resources, with the earth station operator
    responsible for certifying after licensing that the tests were
    satisfactorily performed, as part of its notification to the
    Commission that construction has been completed.[^286] DIRECTV's
    proposed approach is based on a proposal submitted by the Satellite
    Industry Association in the *Biennial Review* docket,[^287] and are
    founded in part upon existing rules for large C- and Ku-band earth
    stations.[^288]

94. At present, our rules extend different earth station licensing
    requirements to different satellite services. Typically, C- and
    Ku-band GSO FSS applicants are required to meet the antenna
    performance requirements of Section 25.209[^289] and may not exceed
    specified uplink power density levels and minimum antenna
    diameters.[^290] Those C- and Ku-band applicants who do not meet
    these requirements may still be licensed via the rules outlined in
    Section 25.220.[^291] In contrast, Ka-band earth station applicants
    must meet the off-axis EIRP density requirements of Sections
    25.138(a)(1)-(4)[^292] and demonstrate such by providing the antenna
    radiation pattern measurements specified in Section 25.138(d).[^293]
    The earth station licensing requirement to submit with its
    application a series of measured test values over a range of
    frequencies is applied to any FSS earth station other than ESVs not
    meeting the antenna performance requirements of Section 25.209, as
    well as to all earth stations operating in the 20/30 GHz service. We
    find that it will be generally unnecessary to constrain feeder link
    earth stations applicants in the 24 GHz band in this manner,
    particularly since such large-diameter earth stations generally
    comply easily with existing antenna performance requirements.
    Moreover, we agree with commenters that such a requirement could be
    both impractical and burdensome for very large diameter antennas
    typically used for feeder link operations. Accordingly, we do not
    restrict 17/24 GHz BSS earth station applicants to the approach of
    Section 25.138(d). However, we will retain the option to allow
    non-compliant applicants to submit measured data.

95. We will require applicants for feeder link earth station licenses
    operating in the 24.75 -- 25.25 GHz band to provide the particulars
    of operation identified on Form 312 and associated Schedule B, which
    may include an affirmative response that the earth station antenna
    conforms to the gain pattern criteria of Section 25.209(a) and (b)
    and that combined with the input power density entered in schedule
    B, demonstrates that the off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set
    forth above will be met.[^294] Alternately, an applicant that does
    not meet the antenna performance requirements of Section 25.209(a)
    and (b) may demonstrate that it meets the required off-axis EIRP
    spectral density requirements by providing: (i) a copy of the
    manufacturer's range test plots of the antenna gain patterns as
    specified in Section 25.132(b)(3) as revised in this Order; and (ii)
    a series of EIRP density charts or tables similar to the current
    requirements for ESVs as set forth in Section 25.222(b)(1).[^295]
    Finally, an applicant that meets the antenna performance
    requirements of Section 25.209(a) and (b), but does not provide an
    input power density value in schedule B that will satisfy the
    off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set forth above, may also
    demonstrate its compliance by providing a series of EIRP density
    charts or tables. Applicants seeking to operate with off-axis power
    density values in excess of the specified envelope are subject to
    the coordination process discussed above.

96. In addition, Section 25.132 of our rules sets forth the process for
    verification of earth station performance requirements. This rule is
    applicable to earth stations operating in the 24 GHz uplink
    band.[^296] Paragraph (a)(1) of this rule requires applicants to
    submit manufacturer certification of measurements demonstrating that
    the antenna is compliant with the requirements of Section 25.209,
    and stipulates that the applicant be prepared to demonstrate these
    measurements to the Commission upon request. For non-compliant
    antennas, as discussed above, the requirements of Section
    25.132(b)(3), as revised in Appendix B of this Order, will
    apply.[^297] Finally, Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section
    recognize that while testing is typically performed at the
    manufacturer's facility, very large earth stations that are
    assembled on-site may require on-site measurements.[^298]
    Paragraph (d) specifies the on-site verification measurements that
    must be performed for each new or modified transmitting antenna over
    three meters in diameter. Thus, for large-diameter 17/24 GHz BSS
    feeder link antennas, applicants must submit on-site verification
    measurements to the Commission as part of the notification of
    completion of the construction process as required in Section
    25.133.[^299]

### 2. Downlink Power Limits {#downlink-power-limits .unnumbered}

97. ***Geographical Downlink PFD Limits Adopted:*** The downlink power
    levels transmitted by adjacent co-frequency satellites, when
    combined with the off-axis performance characteristics of the
    receiving antenna will determine the carrier-to-interference (C/I)
    value resulting from adjacent satellite interference.[^300] The
    *NPRM* sought comment on whether we should adopt pfd or other
    downlink power limits in the 17.3 -- 17.7 GHz band to ensure that
    receiving antennas are not subject to unforeseen levels of adjacent
    satellite interference, particularly as newer-generation,
    higher-powered satellites are brought into use.[^301] The *NPRM*
    asked, in particular, whether the ITU Radio Regulations' pfd limit
    applicable to FSS systems in the 17.7 -- 19.7 GHz band would be
    appropriate for BSS transmissions in the 17.3 -- 17.7 GHz
    band.[^302]

98. Commenters favor adopting pfd limits in the 17.3 -- 17.7 GHz band to
    protect against unforeseen levels of adjacent satellite interference
    and to obviate the need for time-consuming coordination among
    co-frequency networks.[^303] Intelsat favors adopting the ITU FSS
    pfd limits and maintains that these limits would satisfy the
    operational requirements in the band, provided that they are no more
    restrictive than the FSS pfd limits of Article 21 of the ITU Radio
    Regulations.[^304] All other commenters advocate adopting a system
    of graduated pfd limits.[^305] Under this approach, pfd limits would
    vary over different geographic regions of the United States,
    primarily to allow for the resulting signal attenuation arising from
    the variation in rainfall in different regions of the country.[^306]
    In formulating this approach, commenters considered the planned
    deployment of both wide-area beams, and more localized, high-power
    spot beams by 17/24 GHz BSS operators. Due to the expected higher
    antenna gain for spot beams, in a given geographic area, EIRP
    imbalances of 10 dB or more may be anticipated between adjacent
    satellite transmissions. Potentially, the resulting interference
    could significantly affect quality of service to those consumers
    receiving lower-power, wide-area beam signals. The various
    proposals' utilization of graduated pfd levels in differing regions
    seeks to balance the competing goals of permitting sufficient
    flexibility to spot beam operations while simultaneously protecting
    wide-area beams from unacceptable interference levels. This approach
    also considers the need to allow higher-power downlink transmissions
    in regions of the country where they are most needed in order to
    overcome rain fade effects. As a result, all proposals to adopt
    graduated power levels for downlink transmissions in the 17/24 GHz
    BSS recognize the need for the highest power limits in the
    Southeastern region of the United States, with lower levels in the
    Northeast and the lowest levels in the West.[^307]

99. Although the various proposals to adopt graduated pfd limits are
    similar in their general approach, they differ in certain respects.
    EchoStar's proposal advocates four geographic regions with the
    highest pfd level in the Southeast of -113 dBW/m^2^/MHz; -114.5
    dBW/m^2^/MHz in the Northeast; -116 dBW/m^2^/MHz in the Upper
    Midwest; and -118 dBW/m^2^/MHz in the West. The westernmost region
    is defined by the 103º West Longitude line; the northern regions are
    above the 40º North Latitude line; and the 85º West Longitude line
    divides the Northeast Region from the Upper Midwest Region.[^308]
    For areas outside of the Contiguous United States (CONUS) including
    Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, the pfd limit would be -113
    dBW/m^2^/MHz.[^309] EchoStar notes that its proposal does not differ
    significantly from that of DIRECTV, discussed further below, and
    maintains that the somewhat lower power limits proposed by DIRECTV
    result from its plan to offer service using 60 cm diameter antennas
    contrasted with the 45 cm antennas planned by EchoStar, SES Americom
    and Intelsat.[^310] Accordingly, EchoStar urges the Commission to
    accommodate the requirements of all operators and to permit pfd
    levels on the higher side.[^311] SES Americom supports EchoStar's
    proposal.[^312]

100. DIRECTV proposes adopting three geographic regions, with the
     highest power level in the Southeast of -115 dBW/m^2^/MHz; -118
     dBW/m^2^/MHz in the Northeast; and -121 dBW/m^2^/MHz in the West.
     In DIRECTV's proposal the far western region is defined by the 100º
     West Longitude line and the Northeast and Southeast Regions are
     divided by the 38º North Latitude line.[^313] DIRECTV argues that
     its somewhat lower pfd levels are more appropriate because CONUS
     beams cannot match the higher power levels of -113 dBW/m^2^/MHz
     proposed by EchoStar and SES Americom, and should the Commission
     adopt pfd values this high, the result would only be to codify the
     power disparity between wide-area and spot beams.[^314] Later, in
     an *ex parte* statement, DIRECTV, EchoStar, and Intelsat proposed a
     jointly-agreed scheme, which proposed geographic regions and pfd
     levels in a four-degree spacing environment consistent with the
     values proposed in DIRECTV's original proposal as discussed above.
     This new scheme also proposes a formula by which pfd levels could
     be allowed to vary as a function of orbital separation.[^315]

101. We agree that there is merit in considering graduated pfd limits in
     differing regions of the country. We recognize the need to employ
     both wide-area and spot beams in the 17/24 GHz BSS and appreciate
     the inherent difficulties encountered in attempting to balance the
     requirements of both applications. While we wish to protect the
     more vulnerable wide-area beam receivers from adjacent satellite
     downlink interference, we also want to permit licensees the
     flexibility to achieve the power and spectral efficiencies
     attainable with spot beam transmissions, particularly when
     broadcasting local programming to restricted geographic areas. We
     concur with DIRECTV, EchoStar and SES Americom that the use of
     regional pfd values best balances these competing goals. Although
     it presents a somewhat more complex regulatory mechanism than does
     a uniform pfd limit, this approach has been applied to other
     services, notably MVDDS.[^316] Thus, after carefully considering
     the various regional pfd schemes, and recognizing the agreement
     among many of the commenting parties with regard to the regional
     boundaries and pfd levels, we believe that the proposal originally
     put forward by DIRECTV most successfully balances our goals of
     accommodating both beam technologies while best meeting the needs
     of all operators. Accordingly, we adopt the three-region graduated
     pfd plan presented by DIRECTV. We note that a key difference
     between DIRECTV's proposal and the approach contained in the *Joint
     Ex Parte Statement*, is the proposed use of formulae to determine
     the variation in pfd levels that would be permitted as a function
     of orbital separation.[^317] We decline to adopt this approach.
     Rather, we will adopt pfd levels consistent with a four-degree
     spacing environment, but will permit licensees to operate at higher
     levels subject to coordination, as discussed below.

102. In most cases, commenters propose pfd limits for the entire 17.3 --
     17.8 GHz band and do not separate the question of pfd limits in the
     17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band from the issue of pfd limits for BSS downlink
     transmissions in the 17.3 -- 17.7 GHz band. In adopting the
     graduated pfd scheme discussed above, the Commission seeks to
     facilitate intra-service operations by establishing a relatively
     homogeneous transmitting environment that will accommodate both
     wide-area and spot beam operations. Because U.S. domestic service
     is not allocated in the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band, we do not believe
     these intra-service sharing challenges will be present to the same
     extent. In contrast, pfd limits in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band are
     intended to facilitate inter-service sharing by protecting
     terrestrial service receivers from satellite transmissions serving
     other Region 2 countries, but that may illuminate portions of the
     United States. We believe that the pfd limits that are adopted in
     Section III.C. of this Order, that vary as a function of elevation
     angle, will best accomplish that goal.[^318] Accordingly, we
     clarify here that the graduated pfd limits adopted above will apply
     only to the 17.3 -- 17.7 GHz band, and that the
     elevation-angle-based pfd limits adopted in Section III.C. will
     apply in the 17.7-17.8 GHz BSS GHz band.

103. Commenters also advocate applying the pfd levels in the 17.3 --
     17.7 GHz band in a manner similar to the Ka-band FSS requirement in
     Section 25.138(a)(6).[^319] Under this approach an applicant
     seeking to operate outside the required pfd levels must submit a
     technical showing to the Commission that includes detailed link
     budgets and a narrative summary indicating whether there are margin
     shortfalls resulting from the applicant's higher powers, and if so,
     an explanation of how these shortfalls will be addressed. In
     addition, a non-conforming applicant must certify that its
     operations have been coordinated with all affected parties.
     EchoStar proposes that for non-conforming 17/24 GHz BSS operations,
     the angular separation over which coordination is required should
     be linked to the magnitude of the power excess.[^320] Specifically,
     EchoStar proposes that given the wider orbital spacing in the 17/24
     GHz BSS as compared to the Ka-band FSS, the agreement of the
     immediately adjacent operators should be sufficient for excesses of
     no greater than 3 dB, and that coordination with the second
     adjacent neighboring satellite should also be required for excesses
     between 3 dB and 6 dB. EchoStar also proposes prohibiting power
     levels greater than 6 dB.[^321] DIRECTV and SES Americom support
     EchoStar's proposal, although DIRECTV argues that power exceedences
     of greater than 6 dB should be permitted if a coordination
     agreement can be reached, however unlikely that may be.[^322]

104. The Commission has always sought to afford satellite operators the
     maximum flexibility to design and operate their systems while
     simultaneously protecting other licensees from unacceptable levels
     of interference. Thus, we concur with commenter's proposals to
     provide a mechanism for licensing and coordinating systems
     operating with non-compliant pfd levels. We also agree that there
     are advantages in linking the angular separation over which
     coordination is required to the degree of the power excess, as this
     approach may avoid placing an unnecessary coordination requirement
     on the parties. Accordingly, we adopt a requirement for
     non-compliant systems in the 17/24 GHz BSS similar to the Ka-band
     requirement of Section 25.138(b). However, to account for the
     different orbital spacing rules that we adopt for the 17/24 GHz BSS
     environment, as well as the possibility of offset from the
     locations specified in Appendix F, we will require applicants to
     coordinate with adjacent satellites within an angular separation of
     ±6 degrees for exceedences of up to 3 dB, and to coordinate with
     adjacent operators within an angular separation of ±10 degrees for
     exceedences of more than 3 dB. In addition, consistent with the
     Ka-band FSS requirement of Section 25.138(c), we require
     non-compliant operators to coordinate with any future applicants or
     licensees over these same orbital separation distances. We also
     require a non-compliant licensee to reduce its power levels should
     a coordination agreement not be reached.

## Other Technical Requirements 

105. The *NPRM* sought comment on several additional technical matters,
     including issues relating to Tracking Telemetry and Control (TT&C)
     frequencies, full frequency re-use, polarization requirements,
     cross-polarization isolation requirements, and channelization
     requirements.

### Tracking, Telemetry and Command (TT&C) Frequencies

106. ***No Additional TT&C Rules Adopted:*** With regard to TT&C
     frequencies, the *NPRM* recognized the present lack of 17/24 GHz
     ground facilities to support launch, transfer and testing
     operations, and sought comment on how best to address the
     issue.[^323] Commenters suggest that the Commission should take a
     flexible approach toward TT&C requirements, particularly
     recognizing the absence of the ground network necessary for support
     during critical launch and early operation phases.[^324] DIRECTV
     also points out that because the 17/24 GHz bands are not allocated
     for use by BSS satellites outside of Region 2, it is unlikely that
     such facilities will be deployed in other parts of the world.[^325]
     Commenters generally encourage the Commission to consider requests
     to use alternate TT&C frequencies on the merits of each individual
     application, but maintain that applicants should demonstrate their
     need for such non-standard uses and must coordinate their
     operations.[^326] Accordingly, we make no changes to our existing
     rules, but will consider the merits and needs for 17/24 GHz BSS
     systems to use alternate TT&C frequencies on a case-by-case waiver
     basis. Applicants seeking alternative TT&C frequencies should
     include a request for waiver in their applications.

107. The *NPRM* also sought comment on the problem of reverse-band
     interference between receiving 17 GHz telemetry stations and DBS
     feeder uplink transmissions, and in particular on the ramifications
     to TT&C operations when such operations are co-located or located
     in close proximity to one another.[^327] DIRECTV states that with
     careful planning it is possible to coordinate the operations of the
     two services, even to the point that the earth stations may be
     co-located.[^328] Thus, DIRECTV requests that the Commission not
     limit operator flexibility by precluding such co-location, or by
     requiring a minimum separation distance.[^329] Rather, DIRECTV
     supports the Commission's proposal to require that applicants
     submit a technical showing demonstrating its ability to maintain
     sufficient telemetry link margin in the presence of the interfering
     DBS signal.[^330] Bermuda also supports this proposal, stating that
     the applicant could demonstrate compliance through a technical
     showing and urges the Commission not to preclude the possibility of
     co-locating DBS feeder link earth stations with 17/24 GHz BSS
     telemetry stations.[^331] EchoStar also argues that interference
     can be avoided by careful frequency planning.[^332]

108. At this time, we will not modify our rules to preclude co-location
     of DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C facilities, nor will we require a
     minimum separation distance between TT&C facilities for the two
     services. Although there was support for our proposal to require a
     technical showing on the part of applicants seeking to operate
     co-located earth stations, we are not prepared to adopt such a
     requirement at this time. Rather, we recognize that the question of
     interference into 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry receivers from DBS feeder
     link transmissions is not separate from the larger issue of
     reverse-band, ground path interference into 17/24 GHz BSS receiving
     antennas in general. For this reason, we will not adopt specific
     rules concerning the question of DBS ground path interference into
     17/24 GHz BSS telemetry stations in this Order, but will address
     this issue in the further notice, within the larger context of
     ground path interference in the presence of reverse-band
     operations.[^333] We believe that this approach will better permit
     us to develop the record more fully, treat the issue within its
     larger context, and ultimately adopt the most appropriate
     requirements.

### Polarization and Full Frequency Re-Use Requirements

109. ***Full Frequency Re-Use Required:*** The *NPRM* sought comment on
     requirements relating to antenna polarization and full frequency
     re-use.[^334] Most commenters agreed that the Commission should
     mandate full-frequency re-use for 17/24 GHz BSS systems, but that
     it should maintain flexibility with regard to channelization and
     polarization, and therefore should not adopt any specific
     channelization or polarization requirements.[^335] DIRECTV argues,
     however, that all transmissions from a given orbital location
     should be of the same type,[^336] and SES Americom urges the
     Commission not to divide the spectrum at a given orbital location
     among multiple entrants as was done for the DBS service.[^337] Only
     EchoStar proposes a standardized polarization and channelization
     scheme in which the co-frequency polarization senses are alternated
     among adjacent satellites across the geostationary arc.[^338]
     EchoStar asserts that such a scheme would yield about 1 dB of
     reduction in adjacent-satellite interference through judicious
     placement of the guardbands of an interfering satellite within the
     transponder bandwidth of the victim satellite.[^339] DIRECTV notes
     that applicants have all proposed to implement different
     channelization schemes, and argues that the cost to re-engineer
     their business plans cannot justify the modest 1 dB of interference
     reduction.[^340] We concur with DIRECTV that the potential for 1 dB
     of interference reduction does not compensate for the accompanying
     loss of flexibility in system design that the Commission has
     historically sought to afford satellite operators. Accordingly, we
     will not mandate a polarization or channelization scheme for 17/24
     GHz BSS systems. We will, however, mandate full frequency re-use,
     through either the use of orthogonal polarizations within the same
     beam and/or through the use of spatially independent beams.

### Cross-Polarization Isolation Requirements

110. ***25 dB Space Station Cross-Polarization Isolation Requirements
     Adopted:*** Commenters generally support some relaxation of the
     current FSS requirement for 30 dB cross-polarization isolation
     contained in Section 25.210(i) of the Commission's rules.[^341] All
     commenters believe that this rule is too restrictive and should be
     relaxed for 17/24 GHz BSS systems, although they differ in the
     degree of relaxation that should be provided. SES Americom proposes
     a reduction of the cross-polarization isolation requirement from 30
     dB to 25 dB, stating that this value will adequately protect
     adjacent operators and that licensees will be able to manage any
     accompanying intra-system interference (*i.e.,*
     "self-interference").[^342] DIRECTV also proposes a less strict
     value of 27 dB, arguing that this value is more than sufficient to
     avoid excess levels of intra-system interference, particularly in
     light of recent advances in digital transmission technology that
     reduce system sensitivity to cross-polarization interference.[^343]
     EchoStar argues that the Commission's existing FSS requirement is
     too stringent and notes that most antennas fail to meet this level
     in only a small part of their service area, usually by no more than
     a few dB.[^344] Accordingly, EchoStar initially proposes a
     multipart scheme wherein operators would be required to meet the 30
     dB level over 90% of the land within its service area, and a value
     of at least 26 dB within the remaining 10%.[^345] In its Reply
     Comments, EchoStar proposed a compromise to take into account the
     comments from other parties and amended its proposal to require 27
     dB cross-polarization isolation over 90% of the land within its
     service area and at least 25 dB within the remaining 10%.[^346] In
     its Reply Comments, DIRECTV offered support for EchoStar's original
     proposal.[^347]

111. The Commission adopted its 30 dB FSS cross-polarization isolation
     requirement in an environment where satellites were predominantly
     using analog transmissions. Along with the C-band analog video
     frequency plan of Section 25.211(a)[^348] and the polarization
     switchability requirement of Section 25.210(c),[^349] the
     cross-polarization requirement serves to minimize the interference
     between adjacent satellites when both are carrying analog video
     signals that have highly varying (peaked) power density levels. In
     addition, the cross polarization requirement serves to limit the
     level of self-interference, thus assuring that operators do not
     allocate an inordinate proportion of the interference budget to
     themselves. In this context, it is worth noting that the cross
     polarization performance of the satellite receive antenna has
     negligible effect on the interference into other systems.

112. Moreover, in a four-degree spacing environment, the
     cross-polarization performance of the downlink satellite antenna
     has only a second-order effect on the interference into the
     neighboring system. The impact of the satellite downlink antenna's
     cross polarization transmission is to raise slightly the
     interference level into the downlink of the victim satellite's
     wanted polarization. Thus, the earth station receiving the signal
     from the neighboring victim satellite receives a co-polar
     interfering signal at a level defined by its own antenna co-polar
     sidelobe performance. In addition, in the same polarization, it
     also receives a much lower interfering signal whose level is
     defined by the interfering satellite's downlink cross-polarization
     performance. If the satellite antenna meets the 30 dB FSS
     requirement of Section 25.210(i) and if it transmits at the same
     level in both polarizations, this cross-polarization contribution
     will increase the co-polar interference level into the adjacent
     satellite's downlink signal by one part per thousand. This increase
     corresponds to a decrease in carrier-to-interference ratio (C/I) of
     0.004 dB. For 17/24 GHz BSS satellites meeting a cross-polarization
     isolation requirement of 25 dB, the co-polar interference will
     increase by about 3 parts per thousand with a corresponding C/I
     decrease of 0.014 dB.[^350] This level of increased interference
     resulting from the satellite downlink antenna's more relaxed
     performance remains negligible relative to the main interfering
     signal.

113. We anticipate that 17/24 GHz BSS system will operate almost
     exclusively with digital transmissions. We also accept that
     operators will be able to manage intra-system interference if a
     more relaxed requirement is adopted. In addition, we agree with the
     commenters that a more relaxed off-axis cross-polarization
     isolation requirement should yield only a negligible increase in
     interference to adjacent satellite systems. Thus, we agree that the
     30 dB antenna cross-polarization isolation requirement originally
     designed for the analog transmission environment is unnecessarily
     stringent for 17/24 GHz BSS systems. Moreover, we recognize that
     the Commission has frequently waived the cross-polarization
     requirement of Section 25.210(i) for FSS applicants, allowing these
     systems to operate with isolation levels less that 30 dB.[^351]
     Consequently, we adopt the 25 dB antenna cross-polarization
     isolation requirement proposed by SES Americom.

### Spectrum Allocation Issue

114. ***Footnote NG176 Unchanged:*** The *NPRM* also proposed to modify
     footnote NG167 of the Domestic Table of Frequency Allocations[^352]
     in order to permit use of the 24.75 -- 25.25 GHz FSS allocation
     (Earth-to-space) by feeder links operating with the BSS in
     frequency bands other than 17 GHz, *e.g*., the 12 GHz DBS
     band.[^353] Only Intelsat supports this proposal asserting that
     this increase in flexibility of spectrum use would help alleviate
     groundpath interference problems associated with reverse-band
     operations.[^354] EchoStar disagrees strongly with the proposal,
     arguing that it would preclude co-location of 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS
     satellites, and would also be inconsistent with its planned uses of
     both multiple spot-beam technology, and the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz
     band.[^355] Finally, DIRECTV responds that, although the
     flexibility to use this alternative uplink spectrum could be useful
     in avoiding ground-path interference problems associated with
     reverse-band operations in the DBS uplink band (17.3-17.8 GHz),
     users of this band already face the challenges of sharing spectrum
     with co-primary commercial and government systems.[^356] DIRECTV
     also states that 17/24 GHz BSS operators will likely require more
     uplink locations than do traditional DBS systems due to the
     increased atmospheric attenuation at these higher frequencies,
     which will result in increased site-diversity requirements, further
     increasing the potential burdens on systems sharing the band.[^357]
     Accordingly, DIRECTV cautions the Commission to weigh carefully the
     offsetting disadvantages of increased interference in the
     band.[^358] Intelsat disagrees with DIRECTV's comments, which it
     believes overstate the difficulties associated with additional use
     of the 24 GHz band. Intelsat argues that, given the limited number
     of 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link sites anticipated overall, any
     increase in use of spectrum could still be easily
     accommodated.[^359]

115. In light of the limited support in the record for this proposal, we
     decline to adopt the *NPRM* proposal to permit the additional use
     of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band by DBS feeder uplink earth stations.
     Specifically, only Intelsat offers any support for this proposal,
     and bases that support on a speculative assumption regarding growth
     of 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link sites. As a result, in this case, we
     find DIRECTV\'s and EchoStar\'s concerns regarding the potential
     complexities created by changing the spectrum allocation to be more
     persuasive.

## Technical Requirements for Inter-Service Operations

### Sharing in the 24 GHz Band

#### Coordination Procedure

116. ***-114 dBW/m^2^/MHz PFD Coordination Threshold Adopted at Edge of
     FS License Area:*** Feeder uplinks for satellites operating in the
     17/24 GHz BSS are allocated use of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band on a
     primary basis in both the U.S. Table of Allocations and the
     International Tables of Allocations.[^360] Domestically, the upper
     portion of this band from 25.05 -- 25.25 GHz is also allocated on a
     primary basis to the Fixed Service (FS).[^361] Fixed service
     operations in the band include Digital Electronic Message Service
     (DEMS)[^362] systems as well as a variety of other fixed services
     licensed throughout the United States by Economic Areas
     (EAs).[^363] In the *18 GHz Report and Order,* the Commission
     amended the Table of Allocations to allocate spectrum in the 24.75
     -- 25.25 GHz band for use by BSS feeder links consistent with the
     international allocation made at the 1992 World Administrative
     Radiocommunication Conference.[^364] The Commission adopted this
     shared allocation[^365] in part based on the belief that
     co-frequency operation would be feasible given the limited number
     of anticipated feeder link earth stations. It noted, however, that
     the successful implementation of this allocation would require the
     development of sharing criteria in a future rulemaking.[^366]

117. Recognizing the potential for 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth
     stations operating in this portion of the band to interfere with
     existing and future 24 GHz FS operations, the *NPRM* sought comment
     on rules we might adopt to facilitate co-frequency operations of
     these two services. Specifically we asked whether the antenna
     off-axis performance requirements of Section 25.209[^367] in
     combination with earth station power limits in Section 25.204[^368]
     would afford sufficient protection to 24 GHz FS systems, or whether
     changes to our rules are required.[^369] The *NPRM* also recognized
     certain conditions unique to the 24 GHz band that may either
     facilitate or complicate inter-service sharing, including the
     relatively small number of anticipated BSS feeder uplink stations,
     their large diameters and accompanying good off-axis discrimination
     characteristics,[^370] as well as the geographic area licensing of
     24 GHz FS systems wherein licensees are not required to file
     site-specific data.[^371]

118. Commenters' responses were similar among the terrestrial and
     satellite communities. Satellite commenters generally believe that
     co-frequency operation of 24 GHz FS systems and 17/24 GHz BSS
     feeder link earth stations should be feasible, given the
     Commission's well-established procedures for coordination between
     terrestrial operations and satellite earth stations, in combination
     with the large-diameter and relatively small number of feeder link
     antennas, and the large regions of the country where no FS systems
     are licensed to operate.[^372] Terrestrial service commenters
     assert that the tests and analyses necessary to understand the
     inter-service sharing situation will be time-consuming and costly,
     and that the cost of complying with coordination procedures that
     are eventually developed will be substantial.[^373]

119. FiberTower asserts that the technical data and assumptions before
     the Commission are outdated, and that Section 25.204(b) is overly
     permissive as it does not take into account present-day equipment
     evolution.[^374] FiberTower maintains that reliable answers
     concerning band sharing criteria will only become available
     following the substantial expenditure of time and resources devoted
     to that end.[^375] FiberTower details many questions that it
     believes need to be answered, and additional information it
     believes must be made available in the record, in order to begin
     the necessary sharing studies.[^376] Consequently, FiberTower
     asserts that the best course of action is to require 17/24 GHz BSS
     feeder link earth stations to locate well beyond the boundaries of
     the FS licensed areas until such studies can be completed and
     non-interference to FS operations can be assured.[^377]
     Specifically, FiberTower urges the Commission to require 17/24 GHz
     BSS earth stations to locate at least 100 miles from the edge of
     any FS licensed area.[^378] In addition, FiberTower maintains that
     the Commission may also need to limit the number of BSS feeder
     links allowed to no more than five nationally until mutually
     acceptable analyses and supporting data are available to
     demonstrate that additional BSS feeder links are actually
     necessary, and that they can be operated without causing
     interference to 24 GHz FS systems in existing license areas.[^379]
     The FWCC supports FiberTower's proposals, arguing that the
     characteristics of the BSS feeder links are not well known, and
     adding that FS operations are subject to recent developments in
     available equipment and architectures.[^380]

120. DIRECTV and EchoStar take issue with FiberTower's argument that
     coordination between 24 GHz FS systems and 17/24 GHz BSS feeder
     link earth stations is unduly complicated. These commenters object
     to FiberTower's proposals to restrict feeder link earth stations to
     distances greater than 100 miles from a 24 GHz license area and to
     limit the number to no more that five. EchoStar and DIRECTV argue
     that such severe constraints are inequitable given the co-primary
     status of both services in the band and state further that these
     restrictions would place undue burden on 17/24 GHz operators.
     [^381] DIRECTV argues further that such draconian rules are
     unnecessary and that it is possible to establish interference
     protection criteria between 24 GHz FS and 17/24 GHz BSS
     systems.[^382]

121. We agree that FiberTower's proposed restrictions on BSS earth
     stations are too severe. This approach would obviate the
     coordination process traditionally employed in other frequency
     sharing situations, by placing the entire burden of interference
     mitigation onto the BSS earth station operator. Such a requirement
     is not consistent with the Commission's approach to frequency
     sharing among co-primary services wherein we have typically sought
     to distribute any coordination burden in an equitable manner among
     all affected parties. Nor is it consistent with our approach to
     efficient use of spectrum resources. Rather, the Commission has
     historically relied upon coordination among affected parties to
     resolve interference issues, only resorting to less
     spectrum-efficient methods such as geographic separation in cases
     where coordination was not considered feasible (*e.g*.,
     ubiquitously-deployed, small-diameter earth stations.) In addition,
     we note that many of the technical parameters that FiberTower
     claims are required to fully understand the frequency sharing
     situation are best made available as part of the coordination
     process itself. Accordingly, we continue to believe that
     coordination is a viable approach to resolving inter-service
     interference issues in this band, and note that this is also the
     approach 24 GHz FS licensees use to resolve interference issues
     among themselves.[^383] As all commenters agree, FS facilities are
     not operating in large parts of the country.[^384] These regions
     will be the likely locations for the majority of BSS feeder link
     earth stations so that the issue of coordination should be raised
     relatively infrequently. Moreover, given the relatively small
     number of anticipated feeder link earth stations in combination
     with their large-diameter antennas, we do not believe that the
     coordination burden on either party will be overly severe.

#### Coordination Threshold

122. SES Americom states that Commission rules are sufficient to effect
     coordination and to protect 24 GHz FS operations, and consequently
     urges the Commission to adopt no new requirements.[^385] However,
     EchoStar and DIRECTV both propose an additional requirement to
     facilitate sharing in the case of 24 GHz FS and 17/24 GHz BSS earth
     station operations.[^386] They note that the Commission's rules
     already establish interference protection criteria between adjacent
     terrestrial license areas in the 24 GHz band.[^387] Specifically,
     Section 101.509(e) includes a recommendation that coordination is
     not necessary if the pfd at the boundary of the adjacent
     terrestrial licensing area is less than -114 dBW/m^2^/MHz, and that
     licensees should be able to deploy with a pfd of up to -94
     dBW/m^2^/MHz at the boundary of the relevant adjacent area without
     negatively affecting the operations of the adjacent area
     licensee.[^388] EchoStar and DIRECTV urge the Commission to adopt
     this same approach for 24 GHz FS and 17/24 GHz BSS systems. They
     assert that it has worked well among 24 GHz terrestrial service
     licensees for many years and argue that it will work equally well
     in the present case.[^389] In conjunction with this proposal,
     commenters submit analyses to demonstrate that with worst-case
     assumptions, separation distances required to meet this
     coordination threshold are typically on the order of 50
     miles.[^390]

123. In its reply comments FiberTower submits a technical analysis to
     demonstrate the need for a minimum separation of 100 miles from the
     edge of a 24 GHz FS licensing area.[^391] FiberTower states that
     the results of its preliminary study indicate that pfd level
     specified in Section 101.509(e) of our rules is insufficient and
     should be reduced from -114 dBW/m^2^/MHz to at least -142
     dBW/m^2^/MHz to protect FS operations.[^392] Consequently,
     FiberTower asserts that substantial changes are needed in the
     Commission's rule.[^393] Although FiberTower continues to urge the
     Commission to adopt a 100-mile exclusion zone at the edges of the
     FS license areas, it proposes as an alternative that the pfd
     criterion specified in Section 101.509(e) should be changed to -142
     dBW/m^2^/MHz, and outlines an accompanying approach for determining
     compliance with this pfd limit.[^394]

124. We adopt a pfd level as a coordination threshold at the edge of the
     FS license area. Under such a scheme, the operator of a 17/24 GHz
     BSS feeder link earth station that produces a pfd level greater
     than the specified threshold value at the boundary of a 24 GHz FS
     license area would be required to coordinate its operations with
     the affected FS operations. Such an approach is relatively
     straightforward, and distributes the burden of coordination
     equitably among all parties. In addition, it is consistent with the
     approach currently contained in our rules to permit licensing of
     co-frequency 24 GHz FS operations in adjacent Economic Areas
     (EA's). In contrast to requiring an absolute separation distance,
     this approach will allow operators to take into account the various
     interference-mitigating factors that will vary at different
     locations around the country including foliage or
     terrain-shielding, as well as regional differences in
     precipitation. Moreover, such an approach will permit operators the
     flexibility to implement various mitigation techniques and to
     mutually resolve their coordination problems with as little input
     from the Commission as possible.

125. DIRECTV and EchoStar assert that the current pfd level in Section
     101.509(e) can be successfully extended to the case of BSS feeder
     link earth station transmissions to serve as a threshold for FS/BSS
     coordination.[^395] FiberTower, however, argues that this pfd level
     should be reduced by 28 dB to afford sufficient protection to 24
     GHz FS operations.[^396] The pfd coordination threshold of Section
     101.509(e) was adopted in the *24 GHz Report and Order* to
     facilitate coordination between U.S. licensed 24 GHz FS
     operations.[^397] The Commission adopted a -114 dBW/m^2^/MHz value
     to be consistent with the coordination threshold value in the U.S.
     and Canada agreement for coordination between administrations in
     the border areas.[^398] Consequently, FiberTower's proposal would
     create more extensive difficulties in the general ability of 24 GHz
     FS licensees to coordinate with each other, and possibly with
     co-frequency operations across the border with Canada as well.
     Thus, changing the pfd threshold of Section 101.509(e) has
     ramifications far beyond the question of FS/BSS coordination and
     raises issues well outside the scope of this rulemaking.
     Accordingly, we decline to reduce the pfd coordination threshold of
     Section 101.509(e) in this rulemaking. Nor do we believe that there
     is justification for adopting a pfd coordination threshold for
     17/24 GHz BSS operations different from the one applied to the
     transmissions of other co-frequency operations. For these reasons,
     we extend the pfd coordination threshold value of -114 dBW/m^2^/MHz
     value now specified in our rules for coordination of fixed service
     operations, to BSS feeder link earth stations seeking to operate in
     the 24 GHz band. Further, to fully protect 24 GHz FS operations
     from multiple feeder link earth stations, any pfd level used as a
     coordination threshold at the FS license boundary must be
     cumulative. Accordingly, when determining whether the pfd threshold
     limit is exceeded at the 24 GHz FS licensing boundary, a feeder
     link earth station applicant must take into account not only the
     transmissions from its own antenna(s), but also those from any
     previously authorized feeder link earth stations. Thus, if the
     cumulative pfd level at the FS license boundary is in excess of
     -114 dBW/m^2^/MHz, the earth station applicant must either modify
     its proposed operations such that this value is not exceeded, or
     enter into coordination with the affected FS licensee.

126. Commenters raise the question of methodology used to compute the
     pfd level at the boundary of the FS license area. EchoStar states
     that the pfd calculation should be based on the actual
     characteristics of the proposed earth station, use a realistic
     propagation model such as ITU-R Recommendation P.452, with a
     reasonable probability of occurrence (*e.g*., 1%), and take into
     account the topography around the earth station.[^399] FiberTower
     asserts that the pfd should be determined at the boundary of the 24
     GHz FS license area by establishing the EIRP of the earth station
     toward the horizon on the azimuth toward the FS boundary, and then
     applying the spreading loss for the distance between the feeder
     link station and the FS boundary.[^400] If transmit power control
     is used, the EIRP value used in the calculation should be the
     maximum value.[^401] We agree with FiberTower that in cases where
     adaptive uplink power control is used the EIRP value used for
     calculation should be the maximum.[^402] We also agree with
     EchoStar that calculations should be based on the actual
     characteristics of the proposed earth station. Consistent with our
     other pfd requirements,[^403] we also take into account only
     free-space propagation loss when computing the pfd level at the FS
     license area. Although we recognize that many factors including
     terrain, atmospheric attenuation and climactic variations will
     likely further decrease pfd levels, we believe that a coordination
     threshold should be as simple and straightforward a calculation as
     possible. Other interference-mitigating factors may be taken into
     account should the coordination process be invoked.

127. We are establishing a procedure whereby 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link
     earth stations may be licensed, subject to coordination with 24 GHz
     FS licensees when warranted. This procedure presumes that the earth
     station's location is outside of the 24 GHz FS license area. We
     need not address the case where 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations and 24
     GHz FS systems might operate in the same EA since we do not intend
     to license 17/24 GHz BSS feeder links to operate in an existing 24
     GHz FS license area. Such a sharing situation is considerably more
     complicated, and in this instance, we agree that more information
     and study is necessary to develop appropriate sharing
     criteria.[^404] Moreover, we recognize that at some point in the
     future, additional 24 GHz FS licenses may be awarded, and that
     these operators may wish to consider locating their operations
     within an EA where a feeder link earth station has previously been
     licensed. Commenters have raised the possibility that BSS and FS
     working groups should complete the necessary technical studies and
     develop sharing criteria.[^405] The Commission supports all such
     efforts by the industry. It is possible that after further study
     and the development of more detailed sharing criteria, we may
     reconsider these requirements.

128. As noted above, we anticipate that additional 24 GHz FS systems may
     be authorized subsequent to future Commission action. Such systems
     locating near an authorized 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth station
     may not claim protection from interference from the feeder link
     earth station's transmissions, provided that these transmissions
     are compliant with our rules. Rather, future 24 GHz FS applicants
     will be required to take into account the transmissions from the
     previously authorized earth station when considering system
     designs, including the choice of location for its license area. To
     make these decisions, future FS applicants must have access to
     relevant feeder link earth station characteristics. Accordingly, we
     make clear that all applicants for 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth
     stations are subject to the information filing requirements of
     Sections 25.203 and 25.251 of our rules, whether or not
     coordination is required on the basis of the pfd levels adopted
     above.

### Sharing in the 17 GHz Band

129. ***Coordination with NTIA Encouraged:*** The Radiolocation Service
     is allocated use of the 15.7-17.3 GHz band on a primary basis, and
     the 17.3-17.7 GHz band on a secondary basis for U.S. Government
     systems.[^406] As stated in the *NPRM*, military services are the
     largest users of the 15.7-17.3 GHz band and their radiolocation
     operations include a large number of radar systems, particularly
     high-powered synthetic aperture radars operating near the 17.3 GHz
     band edge.[^407] The Commission, noting similar concerns of the
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),
     anticipated that unwanted emissions from high-power, adjacent-band
     radiolocation systems, could pose a significant harmful
     interference threat to 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber earth
     stations.[^408] The Commission also recognized that discussions
     between the radiolocation and BSS communities could help to resolve
     potential adjacent band interference issues between the two
     services. In the *NPRM,* the Commission noted its encouragement of
     operator-to-operator discussions as a means of resolving
     interference issues, and sought comment on this approach.
     Specifically, the Commission asked how best to address the issue of
     potential adjacent-band interference into 17/24 GHz BSS
     receivers.[^409]

130. The *NPRM* also made available information that NTIA had provided
     concerning technical and operating characteristics of certain
     adjacent-band radiolocation systems that it considers likely to
     impact 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations.[^410] We sought
     comment on the general applicability of the NTIA's findings to
     planned 17/24 GHz BSS systems.[^411] The *NPRM* also sought comment
     on anticipated BSS receiver sensitivity to unwanted adjacent-band
     emissions, on the level of protection required, and on any measures
     17/24 GHz BSS operators might adopt in order to mitigate such
     interference.[^412] Specifically, it asked whether the Commission
     should adopt requirements to limit 17/24 GHz BSS receiver
     susceptibility to unwanted emissions, and specifically what
     requirements might be appropriate.[^413]

131. Finally, the *NPRM* recognized that Federal Government systems use
     the Radiolocation Service secondary allocation in the 17.3-17.7 GHz
     band by operating numerous types of radiolocation stations.[^414]
     NTIA indicates that radiolocation systems may seek to continue
     operating in this spectrum regardless of their allocation status
     with respect to the BSS, albeit at limited geographic areas and in
     limited portions of the band.[^415] The *NPRM* sought comment on
     approaches by which BSS operations could co-exist with secondary
     radiolocation operations.[^416]

132. Commenters agree that radar interference into 17/24 GHz BSS
     receivers is a serious issue that must be addressed as early as
     possible.[^417] Commenters recognized the need for further exchange
     of information between industry and federal government concerns to
     better analyze the extent of the interference problem, and to
     develop appropriate mitigation strategies.[^418] Accordingly,
     commenters encourage the Commission to facilitate this
     process.[^419]

133. EchoStar states that both in-band and adjacent-band interference
     mechanisms will prevent 17/24 GHz BSS receivers from operating when
     the radiolocation signal is present.[^420] EchoStar maintains that
     out-of-band interference will most severely affect those
     frequencies closest to 17.3 GHz, but that frequencies up to 100 MHz
     from the band edge are likely to be seriously impaired;[^421] the
     in-band interference will prevent receiver function on all channels
     while the signal is present.[^422]

134. DIRECTV presents a generalized, worst-case analysis as well as a
     detailed examination of four interference scenarios for
     adjacent-band interference from airborne radar systems.[^423] The
     interference scenarios consider different antenna couplings between
     the radar and the BSS earth station: mainbeam-to-mainbeam antenna
     coupling, mainbeam-to-sidelobe antenna coupling,
     sidelobe-to-mainbeam antenna coupling, and sidelobe-to-sidelobe
     antenna coupling. The analysis results for mainbeam-to-mainbeam
     antenna coupling show significant interference from the adjacent
     band radars, but the estimated probability of this interference
     scenario occurring is 3x10^-8^ and the interference event only
     occurs for approximately 2 seconds.[^424] For the
     mainbeam-to-sidelobe and sidelobe-to-mainbeam antenna coupling
     again interference is shown, but the estimated probability of this
     scenario occurring is 2x10^-4^ and again the duration of the
     interference is around 2 seconds. From the DIRECTV analysis the
     most likely interference scenario is sidelobe-to-sidelobe antenna
     coupling. In this scenario the analysis shows that
     interference-to-carrier ratios as high as 9.1 dB may result, but
     that interference is limited primarily to the first transponder. In
     general, the analysis results indicate that for a single radar and
     BSS receiver interaction that the probability of interference is
     low and the duration of interference is relatively short. However,
     if the radars are operated over long durations and large geographic
     areas the probability and duration of interference can increase.
     DIRECTV believes that in order to fully evaluate the potential
     impact on BSS receivers additional information is needed on the
     current and future radar systems in the 15.7-17.3 GHz band. We
     agree with DIRECTV that further exchanges of information are
     necessary in order to fully assess the potential impact on BSS
     receiver operations. We encourage the industry representatives to
     work directly with NTIA to obtain this information.

135. DIRECTV also states that, in the measurement results presented by
     NTIA, a key finding was that the maximum interference tolerance is
     directly related to the ratio of the interference pulse length to
     the information signal length. DIRECTV questions whether error
     correction coding or data interleaving could significantly mitigate
     the effects of radar interference as the symbol rates of planned
     17/24 GHz BSS systems will result in signal lengths on the order of
     1000 times less than those planned for the radar systems.[^425] The
     DIRECTV assessment of the NTIA measurements is based on the in-band
     pulse characteristics (pulse width and pulse repetition frequency)
     of the radar systems provided by NTIA. However, the out-of-band
     radar signal that appears after the front-end filtering of a BSS
     earth station receiver may not have the same characteristics as the
     in-band radar signal (*e.g*., the pulse width may be shorter).
     Measurements of the effects of out-of-band pulsed interference on
     the BSS receiver could serve to quantify this effect. For example,
     as part of the above-mentioned discussion and information exchange
     between industry and NTIA, equipment representative of the 17/24
     GHz BSS earth station receivers could be provided to NTIA for
     testing and evaluation.[^426]

136. Another sharing scenario was raised by NTIA in a letter dated March
     21, 2007.[^427] In that letter, NTIA, on behalf of the Department
     of Defense (DoD), requested that we adopt the following footnote to
     the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations:

     "US402 - In the band 17.3-17.7 GHz, existing Federal satellites and
     associated earth stations in the fixed-satellite service
     (Earth-to-space) are authorized to operate on a primary basis in
     the frequency bands and areas listed below. Receiving earth
     stations in the broadcasting-satellite service within the bands and
     areas listed below shall not claim protection from Federal earth
     stations in the fixed-satellite service.

     \(a\) 17.600-17.700 GHz for stations within a 120 km radius of
     38º49´N latitude and 76º52´W longitude.

     \(b\) 17.375-17.475 GHz for stations within a 160 km radius of
     39º42´N latitude and 104º45´W longitude."[^428]

     Additionally, NTIA states that Government Footnote G117 should be
     modified to limit Federal fixed-satellite use of these bands to
     military systems.

137. NTIA states that the U.S. Government's implementation of this
     allocation supports military functions as well as specific national
     security interests of the United States and further asserts that
     this allocation is essential for these federal space systems to
     perform satisfactorily.[^429] In addition, NTIA states that
     non-federal operations in this band are currently limited to
     existing transmitting feeder links for the BSS and future receiving
     BSS earth stations. According to NTIA, the federal operations are
     limited to two sites and only utilize a portion of the 17.3-17.7
     GHz band and have operated compatibly with the BSS feeder links for
     many years. We agree with NTIA that protecting these Federal
     operations at this time will ensure that BSS operators have
     sufficient time to design their future space-to-Earth systems
     accordingly.[^430]

138. Based on the foregoing, we find that this change to the U.S. Table
     of Frequency Allocations is related to the exercise of military
     functions of the United States in support of urgent national
     security interests. Consequently, we also find that notice and
     public comment procedures are, for good cause shown, impracticable,
     unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the
     Commission is authorized to waive the public notice provisions of
     the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 47 C.F.R.
     Sections 1.412(b)(1) and 1.412(c).[^431] Based on the
     representations of NTIA that adoption of a national footnote and an
     amendment of a government footnote specifically supports essential
     military functions of the national defense, we find that the public
     interest will best be served by accommodating NTIA's request to
     expeditiously add United States Footnote US402 to the U.S. Table of
     Frequency Allocations and amend Government Footnote G117 of the
     U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations.

139. Finally, with regard to the secondary in-band interference issue,
     DIRECTV notes the lack of sufficient technical information
     necessary to perform an analysis of the problem, but suggests that
     given more information exchange between industry and the Federal
     Government it may be possible to adopt case-by-case solutions to
     accommodate such operations.[^432] We agree with DIRECTV that
     further exchanges of information are necessary in order to develop
     solutions to this issue. We encourage the parties to talk with NTIA
     directly to develop solutions to this issue.

## Pending Applications

140. ***Pending Applications Treated as Filed Simultaneously; Amendments
     Required to Conform to Rules Adopted Herein; Freeze Imposed on New
     Applications:*** As noted, we adopted a first-come, first-served
     licensing procedure for GSO-like applications and a modified
     processing round approach for NGSO-like applications in the *First
     Space Station Licensing Reform Order*. In doing so, we recognized
     that retroactively applying these procedures to all applications
     pending at that time may not best serve the public interest. Thus,
     we stated that we would apply the procedures "in cases where doing
     so will help further the goals of this proceeding to expedite
     service to the public and discourage speculation."[^433] We decided
     to treat most pending GSO-applications under the first-come,
     first-served procedure. In other words, in most cases, we would
     grant a pending application if the applicant was qualified and if
     the proposed system would not cause harmful interference to any
     previously licensed satellite or to any satellite proposed in a
     previously filed application. The Commission adopted a somewhat
     different procedure for V-band applications, which had been filed
     pursuant to a processing round cut-off. [^434] There, the
     Commission treated all pending GSO V-band applications as though
     they were filed at the same time and entitled to concurrent
     consideration. This meant that if two or more V-band applications
     were mutually exclusive, the Commission would divide the available
     spectrum equally among the qualified licensees. The Commission
     employed a third processing approach for pending Ka-band NGSO
     applications. There, the Commission had already issued a *Notice of
     Proposed Rulemaking* in which it proposed a technical solution that
     would resolve mutual exclusivity and allow NGSO systems to share
     the same spectrum.[^435] Consequently, we determined that we did
     not need to use the band-splitting approach we adopted for
     mutually-exclusive NGSO applications in the *First Space Station
     Reform Order*.[^436] Instead, we granted each qualified NGSO
     Ka-band applicant authority to operate throughout the available
     spectrum.[^437]

141. DIRECTV, EchoStar, and Intelsat make various suggestions as to how
     to process the pending 17/24 GHz space station applications. [^438]
     DIRECTV generally proposes that we should process the applications
     under the first-come, first-served approach. [^439] Nevertheless,
     they request that we exempt them from the rule[^440] that requires
     us to treat their amended applications as newly filed. Newly filed
     applications move to the bottom of the processing queue. In
     contrast, Intelsat recommends that we allow each applicant to amend
     a single application at a time, in order of the entity's date of
     filing its first application, "round-robin" style. This means that
     the entity with the oldest filing would be given the opportunity to
     file an amended application, with its choice of orbital location,
     first. The next entity to pick would be the remaining entity with
     the oldest application, and so on. Once all applicants had amended
     one application, each would be given an opportunity, in turn, to
     amend a second, third, fourth, and fifth application as
     warranted.[^441] Intelsat suggests that a "round-robin" procedure
     will ensure that orbital locations are assigned in a manner that
     promotes competition.[^442] For the reasons discussed below, we
     adopt another approach that treats all pending applications as
     filed simultaneously

142. There are 22 pending applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space station
     authorizations.[^443] Most of these filings are not at a
     four-degree-compliant location or request an orbit location less
     than 4 degrees away from a location sought by another entity. As a
     result, under any processing method used for the pending
     applications, we will not be able to grant all the applications as
     originally filed. We further recognize that applicants will be
     required to amend their pending applications to conform to the new
     service and technical rules, including the rule limiting applicants
     to five pending 17/24 GHz BSS applications.[^444] At the same time,
     we will require applicants to select a location conforming to the
     four-degree spacing framework adopted today.[^445] Moreover, some
     applicants may choose not to continue prosecuting their pending
     applications due to changed business plans. Consequently, we expect
     the amended applications to look materially different than the
     pending applications.

143. In light of these anticipated material changes and the new rules
     for the 17/24 GHz BSS, we will treat the applications before us, as
     amended, as though they were filed at the same time. [^446]
     Accordingly, as in the V-band proceeding, where two or more
     applications are mutually exclusive, we will divide the available
     spectrum equally among the applicants pursuant to Section
     25.158(d). To the extent necessary, we will waive Sections 25.116
     and 25.155(c) of our Rules to process the applications in this
     manner.[^447] We find that this approach best serves the public
     interest by most equitably balancing our goals of maximizing use of
     scarce spectrum and orbital resources while at the same time
     retaining opportunities for competitive entry and speeding service
     to the public.

144. We recognize that where the spectrum will be divided, the
     authorizations issued under this procedure may not be exactly what
     the applicants expected. This, by itself, would not bar the
     adoption of this procedure. [^448] As we explained in the *First
     Space Station Reform Order*, the Commission has the authority to
     apply new procedures to pending applications if doing so does not
     impair the rights an applicant possessed when it filed its
     application, increase an applicant\'s liability for past conduct,
     or impose new duties on applicants with respect to "transactions
     already completed."[^449] Applicants do not gain any vested right
     merely by filing an application.[^450] Merely filing an application
     cannot be considered a "transaction already completed" for purposes
     of this analysis. It would be within our authority to dismiss all
     the pending applications entirely and start the licensing process
     anew.[^451] Such an action, however, would not serve the policy
     goals articulated above. Thus, we conclude that there is no legal
     barrier to our processing the pending applications as filed
     simultaneously.

145. To implement our decision here, we direct the Bureau to release a
     Public Notice shortly after these rules become effective, inviting
     applicants to amend the applications pending as of the date of this
     order consistent with the rules we adopt today. Applicants can
     amend their choice of orbital locations consistent with our spacing
     rules adopted today to reduce the likelihood of mutual exclusivity.
     In addition, applicants are limited to five pending 17/24 GHz BSS
     applications.[^452] Any application that is not amended by the date
     specified by the Bureau will be dismissed as defective.[^453] The
     Bureau will review the amended applications to determine whether
     they are substantially complete and acceptable for filing. The
     Bureau will place acceptable applications on public notice. The
     Bureau will return to the applicant as defective any amended
     applications that are not substantially complete.[^454] In the
     event that two or more amended applications are mutually exclusive,
     we direct the Bureau to consider the applications together and, if
     the applicants are qualified, to license them to operate in an
     equal portion of the spectrum.[^455]

146. To facilitate the amendment process, we require each applicant to
     notify the Commission by letter, within 45 days of release of this
     Order, whether it intends to go forward with each of its pending
     applications. If an applicant fails to file a notification of its
     intent to proceed with a particular application, we will dismiss
     that application. By identifying applications that will not be
     pursued in advance of the amendment deadline, the remaining
     applicants may be in a better position to reach a compromise
     regarding their orbital assignment requests and minimize, or avoid,
     mutually exclusive situations.

147. Finally, from the release date of this Order until a date and time
     designated by the Bureau after the pending applications are
     amended, we establish a freeze on new applications. The freeze on
     17/24 GHz BSS applications applies to any application for authority
     to provide service to the United States using the 17.3-17.7 GHz
     (space-to-Earth) and 24.75-25.25 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency
     bands or to provide international satellite service using the
     17.7-17.8 GHz (space-to-Earth) frequency band. This freeze is
     limited to applications for licenses for new space stations or for
     new requests for market access by foreign-licensed space stations.
     Further, the freeze does not apply to amendments to the 22 pending
     applications.

# FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

148. In the *NPRM*, the Commission sought comment on what measures were
     needed to address issues concerning reverse band operations. These
     included measures to mitigate against space-path interference
     between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites (space-path interference)
     and to protect 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers from DBS feeder links
     (ground-path interference). The record on these issues is
     insufficient to develop requirements. While most commenters
     advocate certain general approaches, we need more information to
     build on the generalities and derive specific requirements. Thus,
     we seek further comment on the issues concerning reverse band
     operations.

## Ground-Path Interference in Reverse Band Operations

### Background

149. As discussed in the *NPRM*,[^456] ground path interference will
     occur when the signals from transmitting DBS[^457] feeder link
     earth stations operating in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band are detected at
     the receiving earth stations of 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers. This
     interference situation will be the most severe in areas surrounding
     the DBS feeder uplink stations. In addition, 17/24 GHz BSS
     operators who choose to co-locate their TT&C earth stations with
     DBS TT&C earth stations systems may experience difficulty in
     receiving the downlinked telemetry signal from the 17/24 GHz BSS
     spacecraft. Although at present there are a relatively small number
     of DBS feeder link and TT&C earth stations, the *NPRM* recognized
     that DBS feeder link earth stations that transmit in the
     Earth-to-space direction may increasingly locate in populated
     areas, thereby escalating the potential for interference into 17/24
     GHz BSS subscriber antennas.[^458] The *NPRM* also anticipated that
     future entrants, such as short-spaced DBS systems, or non-U.S. DBS
     satellites serving the U.S. market, could result in the deployment
     of an even greater number of feeder link earth stations at multiple
     sites within the United States.[^459] The *NPRM* also raised
     concerns that the interference problem could be further exacerbated
     by the proliferation of small-diameter 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber
     receiving antennas with relatively poor off-axis discrimination
     properties.[^460]

### Grandfathering Existing DBS Uplink Facilities

150. ***Tentatively Conclude that Existing DBS Feeder Link Earth
     Stations Should Not be Subject to New Interference-Mitigation
     Requirements:*** DIRECTV notes that, although DBS operators have
     recently sought authority for additional feeder link earth stations
     to uplink local broadcast signals from regional collection sites,
     the number of such sites is still very small.[^461] DIRECTV states,
     by way of illustration, that it operates DBS feeder links from only
     four sites across the country, and has no plans for additional
     regional sites. DIRECTV proposes that we "grandfather" licensed and
     operating DBS uplink facilities so that they may continue to
     operate in the manner in which they were designed in reliance on
     the rules then in effect.[^462] Accordingly, DIRECTV does not
     support off-axis EIRP density or other transmitting power limits
     for existing DBS feeder link antennas, or a requirement that such
     be shielded.[^463] EchoStar also advocates "grandfathering" of
     existing DBS feeder link earth stations, arguing that there are
     relatively few in number, and that the majority are located in less
     populated areas do that they pose little problem.[^464]

151. The Commission did not discuss this issue in the *NPRM*.
     Nevertheless, based on the record, we tentatively conclude that
     existing DBS feeder link earth stations should not be subject to
     new interference-mitigation requirements imposed as a result of
     this rulemaking. Accordingly, we intend to define an area around
     existing DBS feeder link earth stations that transmit in the 17.3 -
     17.7 GHz band,[^465] within which 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth
     stations cannot claim protection from the DBS feeder uplink
     transmissions. We discuss this issue in more detail below.

### Protection Zones for Existing DBS Uplink Facilities

152. ***Comment Invited on Two Protection Zone Options:*** We propose to
     limit any protection zone to some area surrounding the specific
     geographic location and frequencies within the 17.3 -- 17.7 GHz BSS
     band in which the DBS feeder link earth station licensee is already
     authorized to transmit. In addition, we agree that the feeder link
     operator should have some ability to upgrade facilities at existing
     sites, as long as the modification does not cause any increase in
     interference to 17/24 GHz BSS receiving antennas outside of the
     defined protection zone.

153. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and on how a
     protection zone should be defined. One option is to define the
     boundary of the protection zone as a fixed distance away from the
     coordinates of the DBS Feeder Link Earth Station. DIRECTV presents
     an analysis demonstrating that, in the absence of shielding, the
     separation distance between a DBS feeder link earth station and a
     receiving 17/24 GHz subscriber antenna can become significant,
     *i.e*., on the order of 22 miles.[^466] EchoStar suggests that
     likely separation distances necessary to mitigate groundpath
     interference are on the order of 10 to 60 miles.[^467] SES Americom
     states that levels of interference could be harmful if the
     subscriber earth station is located within 20-30 km (12.5-18.6
     miles) of the DBS feeder link station.[^468]

154. We note too that the DBS feeder link earth station's transmissions
     will not be equal in all directions, but will vary in part as a
     function of azimuth and elevation angle, and this picture may be
     complicated by the presence of multiple transmitting antennas at a
     particular site. In addition, we recognize that different areas of
     the country will have differing climate, rainfall and terrain
     conditions that will also mitigate groundpath interference.
     Accordingly, a second option is to employ a more detailed
     methodology that takes into account these site-specific
     characteristics, rather than imposes a uniform radius around the
     earth station coordinates. Parties supporting this approach should
     explain in detail how exactly they would adjust for climate,
     rainfall, or terrain conditions, or any other variables that they
     believe should be reflected in the protection zone.

155. Thus, we invite comment on each of the two protection zone options
     set forth above: (1) to set the boundary at some fixed distance
     from the DBS feeder link earth station; or (2) to adjust that
     boundary to account for climate, terrain, or other considerations.
     We also seek comment on any other approaches we might adopt.
     Commenting parties should provide specific details on any such
     proposal.

### Upgrades To Grandfathered Facilities

156. ***Comments Sought on Extension of Grandfathered Facilities:***
     EchoStar urges the Commission to make clear that any protection is
     afforded to existing DBS uplink *sites*, and not just to currently
     licensed earth stations to protect the operator's ability to expand
     their existing uplink sites.[^469] EchoStar argues that this
     approach would promote efficiency by reducing the number of new
     geographically diverse sites.[^470] Specifically, EchoStar proposes
     that "grandfathering" would apply both to existing earth stations
     and to new earth stations located "within a mile of the
     easternmost, westernmost, northernmost and southernmost coordinates
     of existing earth stations in each site."[^471] We seek comment on
     EchoStar's proposal to extend "grandfathered" status to any new
     earth stations located within a mile of an existing earth station
     site.[^472] Parties commenting on this proposal should explain in
     detail the reasons for their positions. Among other things, we
     invite comment on whether, and to what extent, adding new DBS
     feeder link earth stations within a mile of an existing DBS feeder
     link earth station is likely to increase the probability of harmful
     interference to 17/24 GHz BSS receivers.

157. As an alternative approach, we could define a pfd level at the
     boundary of the protection zone that would take into account the
     cumulative effect of any modified operations of the existing earth
     station site. If these modified operations do not exceed this pfd
     level, the modification would not be subject to the new
     coordination requirements. We seek comment on this approach. We
     also seek comment on what pfd level at the boundary might be
     suitable.

### Coordination Between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS Operators

#### Background

158. Commenters addressing the issue of new DBS feeder link earth
     stations recognize that to protect the interests of 17/24 GHz BSS
     consumers, these earth stations will need to be subject to some
     restrictions.[^473] As detailed below, we seek comment on
     developing a coordination zone and a coordination methodology.

#### Coordination Zone

159. ***Comment Sought on Coordination Zones:*** In the *NPRM*, the
     Commission observed that its rules do not contain a procedure to
     coordinate co-frequency, DBS feeder link earth stations with BSS
     subscriber terminals.[^474] Consequently, the Commission proposed
     to establish "coordination zones" or, in other words, areas around
     DBS feeder link earth stations in which coordination would be
     required. The Commission proposed to define these areas based on
     the methodology outlined in Annex 3 of Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio
     Regulations.[^475]

160. The Commission further observed that it had used Appendix 7 as the
     basis of other coordination rules it had adopted.[^476] The
     Commission also noted, however, that Table 9b of Appendix 7, which
     includes data needed for determining the coordination zone for
     services in several frequency bands, does not include some data
     needed for determining the coordination zone for services in the
     17.3-17.8 GHz band.[^477] Accordingly, the Commission invited
     parties to recommend data for a table based on Table 9b that would
     allow operators to calculate coordination areas for the 17.3-17.8
     GHz band in a way comparable to the method operators in other
     frequency bands use Table 9b to determine their coordination
     distances.

161. Consistent with our proposal in the *NPRM,* we tentatively conclude
     that use of the procedure in Table 9b to establish the coordination
     zone for DBS feeder link earth stations and BSS subscriber
     terminals is appropriate. In this *FNPRM*, we seek comment on the
     specific values for Table 9b as set forth below. We seek comment on
     the appropriateness of this approach. Parties proposing an
     alternative set of values should provide a detailed justification
     for those values.

**Table 9b**

**Parameters required for the determination of coordination distance for
a transmitting earth station in bands shared bidirectionally with
receiving earth stations**

+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
| **Param   |         | *    | **Description**                        |
| eter(s)** |         | *Val |                                        |
|           |         | ue** |                                        |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
| Orbit     |         | GSO  | Orbit in which the space service in    |
|           |         |      | which receiving earth station operates |
|           |         |      | (GSO or NGSO)                          |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
| M         |         | N    | Analog or digital                      |
| odulation |         |      |                                        |
| at        |         |      |                                        |
| receiving |         |      |                                        |
| earth     |         |      |                                        |
| station   |         |      |                                        |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
| Receiving | *p~0~   | 0    | Percentage of the time during which    |
| earth     | (%)*    | .003 | interference from all sources may      |
| station   |         |      | exceed the threshold value             |
| int       |         |      |                                        |
| erference |         |      |                                        |
| p         |         |      |                                        |
| arameters |         |      |                                        |
| and       |         |      |                                        |
| criteria  |         |      |                                        |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
|           | *N*     | 2    | Number of equivalent, equal level,     |
|           |         |      | equal probability entries of           |
|           |         |      | interference, assumed to be            |
|           |         |      | uncorrelated for small percentages of  |
|           |         |      | the time                               |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
|           | *p(%)*  | 0.   | Percentage of the time during which    |
|           |         | 0015 | the interference from one source may   |
|           |         |      | exceed the permissible interference    |
|           |         |      | power value; since the entries of      |
|           |         |      | interference are not likely to occur   |
|           |         |      | simultaneously, *p=p~0~/n*             |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
|           | *N~L~   | 1    | Link noise contribution                |
|           | (dB)*   |      |                                        |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
|           | *M~s~   | 5    | Link performance margin                |
|           | (dB)*   |      |                                        |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
|           | *W      | 0    | A thermal noise equivalence factor for |
|           | (dB)*   |      | interfering emissions in the reference |
|           |         |      | bandwidth; it is positive when the     |
|           |         |      | interfering emissions would cause more |
|           |         |      | degradation than thermal noise         |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
| Receiving | *G~m~   | 36   | On-axis gain of the receive earth      |
| earth     | (dBi)*  |      | station antenna                        |
| station   |         |      |                                        |
| p         |         |      |                                        |
| arameters |         |      |                                        |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
|           | *G~r~*  | 10   | Horizon antenna gain for the receive   |
|           |         |      | earth station                          |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
|           | *       | 5º   | Minimum elevation angle of operation   |
|           | ε~min~* |      | in degrees                             |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
|           | *T~e~   | 300K | The thermal noise temperature of the   |
|           | (K)*    |      | receiving system at the terminal of    |
|           |         |      | the receiving antenna. *See* § 2.1 of  |
|           |         |      | Annex 7 to Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio |
|           |         |      | Regulations which provides a default   |
|           |         |      | value for two earth stations operating |
|           |         |      | in opposite directions of transmission |
|           |         |      | at frequencies greater than 17/24 GHz. |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
| Reference | *B      | 1    | Reference bandwidth (Hz), *i.e.,* the  |
| Bandwidth | (Hz)*   | .0x1 | bandwidth in the receiving station     |
|           |         | 0^6^ | that is subject to the interference    |
|           |         |      | and over which the power of the        |
|           |         |      | interfering emission can be averaged   |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+
| Pe        | *       | -1   | Permissible interference power of the  |
| rmissible | P~r~(p) | 39.5 | interfering emission (dBW) in the      |
| int       | (dBW)   |      | reference bandwidth to be exceeded no  |
| erference | in B*   |      | more than p% of the time at the        |
| power     |         |      | receiving antenna terminal of a        |
|           |         |      | station subject to interference, from  |
|           |         |      | a single source of interference, using |
|           |         |      | the general formula:                   |
|           |         |      |                                        |
|           |         |      | *P~r~(p) = 10 log (k T~e~ B) + N~L~ +  |
|           |         |      | 10 log (10 ^Ms/10^ -1) -- W*           |
+-----------+---------+------+----------------------------------------+

162. DIRECTV proposes that the Commission establish a coordination zone
     around any new DBS feeder uplink earth stations and that within
     this zone, a new the DBS operator would be required to coordinate
     its operations with 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber earth stations.[^478]
     DIRECTV asserts further that this process would be greatly
     facilitated if new DBS uplink facilities were required to operate
     with strict pfd limits on transmissions toward the horizon and/or
     to employ shielding.[^479] Although DIRECTV suggests that this
     coordination zone could be relatively large (*e.g*., 10 km)[^480]
     it proposes no specific methodology for how such a zone might be
     defined, nor does it propose pfd limits in the direction of the
     horizon.

163. However, EchoStar proposes that, rather than defining a
     coordination zone, the Commission should define an area around any
     new DBS feeder link earth station within which 17/24 GHz BSS earth
     stations would become, in effect, secondary to the DBS operation
     and thus would required to accept all interference.[^481] For this
     reason, EchoStar contends that the methodology of Appendix 7 is not
     likely to determine particularly realistic separation distances, as
     it is intended to calculate threshold separations to initiate
     coordination.[^482] EchoStar also contends that there are several
     other methodologies that the Commission might consider for
     determining the spacing between DBS feeder link stations and 17/24
     GHz BSS earth stations. Specifically, EchoStar suggests that ITU-R
     Recommendation P.452 defines a general propagation model that could
     be applied, and ITU-R Recommendation S.1712, although intended for
     the 14 GHz band, might provide additional useful methodologies that
     could be extrapolated to the 17 GHz band.[^483] In addition,
     EchoStar proposes that the choice of methodology for computing the
     separation distance should be left to the operators
     concerned.[^484]

164. Accordingly, we seek comment on the above proposals, and which, if
     any we should adopt to facilitate reverse-band operations in the 17
     GHz band. As an initial matter, we request interested parties to
     discuss whether the Commission should adopt a coordination zone of
     any type, or whether the defined zone should be an area in which
     the 17/24 GHz BSS is secondary to DBS as EchoStar recommends. We
     invite interested parties to discuss whether they prefer to define
     such a zone using a methodology based on Appendix 7, Annex 3 as
     proposed in the *NPRM*, or based on one of the ITU recommendations
     suggested by EchoStar (*i.e*., ITU-R Recommendation P.452 or
     S.1712). We request comment on all these proposals, and invite
     commenters to propose different coordination or separation
     distances, provided that they can provide adequate justification on
     the record for their proposals.

165. In addition, we seek comment on whether we should permit operators
     to determine jointly among themselves the choice of methodology to
     calculate the corresponding separation distance as EchoStar
     suggests. We also seek comment on how, under this approach,
     established 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber antennas might be protected
     from interference from newer DBS feeder link operations seeking to
     locate nearby. Such parties should explain in detail why they
     support their preferred methodology, and why they believe their
     methodology is superior to other options. Finally, we invite
     parties to recommend the appropriate parameter values necessary to
     employ the method they support.

#### Coordination Methodology

166. ***Comment Sought on Coordination Methodology:*** We invite comment
     here on the methodology to be used within that zone to coordinate
     DBS feeder links and 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations, should the
     Commission adopt a coordination zone as discussed above. The *NPRM*
     envisioned that both DBS operators and 17/24 GHz BSS operators will
     be deploying new earth stations over time, so that new stations of
     one service will continually be established among existing stations
     from the other.[^485] The Commission made a similar observation in
     the *MVDDS Second R&O*,[^486] in which it addressed a frequency
     sharing situation that presented ground path interference issues
     and gradual build-out of interspersed earth stations similar to
     those we envision in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band.[^487]

167. In the *MVDDS Second R&O*, the Commission concluded that careful
     MVDDS system design and the use of various mitigation techniques
     could achieve successful sharing of the 12 GHz frequency band by
     both services.[^488] To accomplish this goal, the Commission
     adopted, among other things, a coordination procedure that requires
     that a MVDDS operator entering a market where DBS receivers are
     already established must satisfy certain requirements in order to
     protect these customers.[^489] In addition, a mechanism is
     established for information exchange between the operators of both
     services, in particular to take into account recently acquired DBS
     customers.[^490] The *NPRM* sought comment on whether we should
     adopt a similar approach to sharing between DBS feeder link earth
     stations and 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations.[^491] We seek
     further comment here. Specifically we ask whether we should adopt
     service rules similar to those in Section 25.203(c), requiring all
     applications for new (non-grandfathered) DBS feeder link earth
     stations or new 17 GHz transmitting TT&C stations to complete prior
     frequency coordination with existing and planned 17/24 GHz BSS
     receiving stations.

168. The Commission recognizes that requiring 17/24 GHz BSS operators to
     make available a list of their subscriber earth stations raises
     issues of sensitive customer information, particularly if the DBS
     feeder link applicant is also a competitor. Accordingly, we
     tentatively conclude that use of a neutral, third-party frequency
     coordinator is appropriate to assuage such concerns. Thus, we
     propose that, prior to filing an application with the Commission, a
     DBS operator planning a new feeder link earth station or 17 GHz
     transmitting TT&C station must provide certain specified technical
     information to a qualified frequency coordinator. The frequency
     coordinator would make this technical information available to all
     licensed 17/24 GHz operators. Interested parties could obtain both
     a list of potentially-affected and active 17/24 GHz BSS customer
     locations that are within a defined coordination area, as well as a
     list of potentially-affected 17/24 GHz TT&C earth stations for
     which applications are on file with the Commission within the
     defined coordination area. The 17/24 GHz BSS operators would be
     required to provide these lists within 30 days upon receipt of the
     new DBS feeder link earth station technical information and the
     notice. A DBS operator would be allowed to file an application with
     the Commission for a new DBS feeder link or TT&C transmitting earth
     station within 6 months of successfully completing coordination
     with all stations on these lists. If the Commission grants a
     license for the newly proposed 17 GHz transmitting station, any
     17/24 GHz receiving earth station not on these lists would be
     unable to claim protection from this new DBS feeder link earth
     station. We seek comment on this proposal, and on the method that
     should be employed to calculate such a coordination area.

169. We also seek comment on the types of technical information DBS
     feeder link earth station operators should make available for the
     purposes of earth station coordination with 17/24 GHz BSS
     operators. In the case of satellite and terrestrial earth station
     coordination, Commission rules now require that all transmitting
     satellite earth station applicants submit an interference analysis
     as required by Section 25.203 of the Commission's rules.[^492]
     Section 25.203(c)(2) requires that the earth station applicant
     provide each terrestrial station licensee with specific technical
     details. Similarly, we propose that DBS feeder link earth station
     applicants provide the following information to the qualified
     frequency coordinator:[^493]

> \(i\) The geographical coordinates of the proposed earth station
> antenna(s);
>
> \(ii\) Proposed operating frequency band(s) and emission(s);
>
> \(iii\) Antenna diameter (meters)
>
> \(iv\) Antenna center height above ground and ground elevation above
> mean sea level;
>
> \(v\) Antenna gain pattern(s) in the plane of the main beam;
>
> \(vi\) Longitude range of geostationary satellite orbit (GSO)
> satellites at which an antenna may be pointed, for proposed earth
> station antenna(s) accessing GSO satellites;
>
> \(vii\) Horizon elevation plot;
>
> \(viii\) Antenna horizon gain plot(s) determined in accordance with
> the procedure in Section 2.1 of Annex 5 to Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio
> Regulations;
>
> \(ix\) Minimum elevation angle;
>
> \(x\) Maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) density
> in the main beam in any 1 MHz[^494] band;
>
> \(xi\) Maximum available RF transmit power density in any 1 MHz[^495]
> band at the input terminals of the antenna(s);
>
> \(xii\) A plot of the coordination distance contour(s) and rain
> scatter coordination distance contour(s) as determined by Table 2 of
> Section 3 to Appendix 7.

We ask what reference bandwidths would be appropriate in items (x) and
(xi). In addition, we seek comment on whether the parameters listed here
or other technical information would be appropriate to provide in order
to facilitate coordination between new DBS feeder link earth stations
and receiving 17/24 GHz BSS antennas.

### Other Measures to Protect 17/24 GHz BBS Operations 

#### Background

170. ***Comment Sought on Other Measures, Including Power Level Limits,
     Geographic Restriction of Earth Stations, Showing Requirements for
     Co-Location and Earth Station Shielding:*** In addition to the
     protection zone and coordination requirements proposed above, some
     commenters assert that further measures are necessary to protect
     17/24 GHz BSS earth stations from harmful interference from DBS
     feeder link earth stations. Those measures include: (1) limits on
     DBS feeder link earth station EIRP toward the horizon; (2)
     placement of new DBS feeder link facilities in low-population
     density areas; (3) technical showing requirements for co-located
     DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations; and (4) antenna shielding
     requirements.[^496] These proposed approaches are not necessarily
     mutually exclusive, and it is entirely possible that we might
     employ several methods in combination with each other, as well as
     adopting the protection zone and coordination requirements
     discussed above. Moreover, as DIRECTV correctly notes, a decision
     to employ one approach may influence the extent to which we
     simultaneously apply another.[^497] However, no commenter has been
     specific in its proposals, nor provided a comprehensive approach
     necessary to definitively address the issue. Consequently, we do
     not believe that the record is sufficiently developed so that we
     may determine whether to adopt requirements at this time.

171. Accordingly, we invite further comment on each of the additional
     measures suggested by commenters. In particular, commenters
     supporting any of these proposals should explain in detail why that
     additional measure would be necessary to protect 17/24 GHz BSS
     earth stations from harmful interference, in the event that we
     adopt coordination procedures of the kind discussed above.
     Moreover, such commenters should discuss whether they support
     adoption of all the additional measures discussed here, or whether
     some of the additional measures would provide adequate protection
     from harmful interference.

#### Power Level Limits

172. In the *NPRM*, the Commission noted that Section 25.204(b) of the
     Commission's rules places limits on earth station EIRP in bands
     above 15 GHz shared coequally with terrestrial radiocommunication
     services, in order to facilitate sharing with these services.[^498]
     The Commission sought comment on whether the Commission should
     extend this requirement to new DBS feeder link earth stations
     operating in the entire 17.3-17.7 GHz band.[^499] The Commission
     also asked whether the EIRP density limits in Sections 25.204(b)
     through (e) would be sufficient to protect 17/24 GHz BSS earth
     stations, or if DBS feeder link earth stations should meet some
     more stringent requirements.[^500] We seek further comment on these
     questions.

173. Under EchoStar's power limit proposal, new DBS earth stations would
     be constrained only in terms of EIRP density toward the
     horizon.[^501] We invite comment on whether any such limit would be
     necessary if we adopt a coordination procedure as discussed above.
     Alternatively, we ask whether the adoption of EIRP density limits
     toward the horizon would obviate the need for coordination
     procedures. Advocates of EIRP density limits should include a
     specific limit in their discussions, and advocates of both
     approaches should provide adequate justification for their
     recommendations.

#### Restrictions on Placement of New DBS Earth Stations

174. DIRECTV and EchoStar advocate requiring DBS feeder link earth
     station operators to locate their earth stations only in areas of
     low population density.[^502] Although neither define precisely how
     such sparely populated locations would be determined, DIRECTV notes
     that counties with populations less that ten people per square mile
     comprise a significant portion of the contiguous United
     States.[^503] We seek comment on this approach, either alone, or in
     conjunction with other proposals, and ask how the Commission should
     determine what constitutes a low-population density site. We also
     request parties to explain how DBS feeder link operators would be
     able to protect 17/24 GHz BSS consumer earth stations that are
     already deployed in these areas.

175. EchoStar makes its proposal to restrict new DBS feeder link earth
     stations to low population-density areas in conjunction with its
     proposal to require those earth stations to meet strict off-axis
     EIRP density limits towards the horizon.[^504] Presumably however,
     even areas of low population density may contain 17/24 GHz BSS
     subscribers. Thus, although this approach might be applied to new
     DBS feeder uplink stations locating in areas yet unoccupied by
     17/24 GHz BSS subscriber earth stations, EchoStar does not make
     clear how subscriber terminals would be protected if the DBS
     applicant sought to locate in an area where 17/24 GHz BSS consumer
     earth stations were already deployed. We request commenters to
     address this issue.

#### Technical Showing Requirement for Co-Located Earth Stations

176. The *NPRM* also addressed groundpath interference that may occur
     between transmitting DBS feeder uplinks and the receiving telemetry
     stations of 17/24 GHz BSS systems that choose to locate their TT&C
     facilities at or near to existing DBS feeder uplink sites.[^505]
     The Commission recognized that choice of facility site is a system
     design parameter that is under the control of the operator, and
     does not necessarily require a Commission action to remedy.
     Moreover, given the large financial investment required to launch
     and operate a satellite, we believe that 17/24 GHz BSS operators
     have strong incentive to make correct technical decisions with
     regard to their choice of TT&C facility sites and equipment design.
     However, the *NPRM* also recognized that interference into TT&C
     systems can present a serious problem due to the potential for loss
     of satellite control, and sought comment on whether the Commission
     should adopt requirements to guard against such scenarios.[^506]

177. Specifically, the Commission proposed to require earth station
     applicants planning to co-locate their 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C stations
     with DBS feeder link earth stations to make a technical showing to
     the Commission demonstrating their ability to maintain sufficient
     margin in their telemetry links in the presence of the interfering
     DBS signal.[^507] Similarly, the Commission proposed to require DBS
     feeder link earth station applicants planning to co-locate with
     their 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry earth stations to make an analogous
     technical showing to the Commission.[^508] The Commission sought
     comment on these proposals and asked what parameters would be
     appropriate in such a showing.[^509] It also asked whether it
     should preclude co-location of 17 GHz BSS TT&C and DBS feeder link
     facilities altogether, or whether it should require some minimum
     separation between such facilities.[^510]

178. DIRECTV responds that, with careful planning, it should be possible
     to coordinate the operations of these two services, even to the
     point where the facilities can be co-located.[^511] Accordingly,
     DIRECTV does not believe that the Commission should limit operator
     flexibility by precluding such co-location or by requiring some
     minimum separation distance. Rather, DIRECTV supports the
     Commission's proposal that operators seeking to co-locate such
     facilities should be required to make a technical showing
     demonstrating their ability to maintain sufficient margin in the
     17/24 GHz BSS telemetry links in the presence of the interfering
     DBS signal. DIRECTV asserts that this will enable those operators
     who want to capture the efficiencies of co-location to do so,
     provided they can prove to the Commission that receipt of critical
     17/24 GHz BSS telemetry data will not be subject to
     disruption.[^512] EchoStar also believes that such interference can
     be avoided by careful frequency planning of the 17 GHz uplink and
     downlink signals, and believes that this frequency planning can be
     conducted by the operator alone, within its own earth station
     complex.[^513] Accordingly, we will restate the proposal to require
     a technical showing to the Commission in the event of co-location
     of DBS feeder link and 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry earth stations, and
     seek any further comment on the issue.

#### Shielding

179. We also seek comment on whether we should impose any additional
     requirements on either DBS feeder link earth station operators or
     on 17/24 GHz BSS operators in order to mitigate interference into
     17/24 GHz BSS subscriber receiving antennas. We ask whether, as
     most commenters suggest,[^514] a requirement to employ shielding
     should be adopted in conjunction with any of the approaches
     discussed above, and if so what form such a requirement might take.

## Space Path Interference in Reverse Band Operations

180. ***Comment Sought on Protection Method for DBS Satellite and
     Associated BSS Information Required to Effect Protection:*** The
     *NPRM* sought comment on how best to manage the problem of space
     path interference arising when the transmitted signals from 17/24
     GHz BSS satellites are received by the feeder link receivers on
     satellites operating in the DBS service.[^515] In addition, the
     *NPRM* sought comment on the particular instance where applicants
     sought to locate within the same cluster as co-frequency receiving
     DBS satellites and asked whether this was feasible at all, and if
     so what measures might be required to facilitate such
     co-clustering.[^516] The Commission also sought comment on the more
     general question of locating 17/24 GHz BSS satellites at close
     distances to co-frequency DBS satellites and asked what measures,
     including a minimum orbital separation requirement, off-axis EIRP
     limits, antenna discrimination requirements, or other requirements
     might be adopted to protect DBS receiving antennas from
     unacceptable interference.[^517] Finally the *NPRM* sought comment
     on the particular problem of interference to DBS TT&C transmissions
     in the 17 GHz band that could result in loss of satellite
     control.[^518] The Commission proposed to require 17/24 GHz BSS
     space station applicants seeking to co-locate with DBS satellites
     to make a technical showing demonstrating their ability to
     sufficiently minimize interference such that adequate margin is
     maintained in the DBS telecommand links.[^519] An analogous
     requirement was proposed for any future DBS applicant seeking to
     co-locate with 17/24 BSS satellites to make a similar technical
     showing demonstrating its ability to maintain sufficient TT&C link
     margin.[^520]

181. Commenters addressing these issues all realize the potential for
     space path interference between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS satellites,
     but generally maintain that co-location is feasible at relatively
     small orbital separations, typically on the order of a few tenths
     of a degree.[^521] EchoStar asserts that a separation of 0.4
     degrees is sufficient, however only if the DBS and 17/24 BSS
     satellites are operated by the same licensee.[^522] EchoStar argues
     that the risk of interference in such situations is most severe,
     and is best avoided by assigning space-to-Earth frequencies at that
     location only to the 17/24 GHz BSS operator that uses these same
     frequencies in the Earth-to-space direction for its DBS feeder link
     operations.[^523] DIRECTV also believes that co-frequency operation
     may be possible at small orbital separations, but that this will
     depend upon a number of factors including the gain toward the GSO
     of both transmitting and receiving satellites as well as the
     desired protection level of the DBS system.[^524] DIRECTV also
     believes that given the many uncertainties involved, it is best to
     permit only operators who control transmissions in both directions
     at a given location to locate in close proximity as they can best
     "self coordinate" their operations.[^525] DIRECTV also suggest that
     the Commission may want to consider a strict off-axis gain
     specification for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites wishing to locate within
     a certain distance of a DBS satellite.[^526]

182. SES Americom and Intelsat oppose the idea that 17/24 GHz BSS
     satellites seeking to operate at the same frequency and location as
     DBS satellites should only be licensed to the corresponding DBS
     licensee, arguing that this restriction is unnecessary and unfairly
     favors incumbent DBS operators.[^527] SES Americom believes that
     spacepath interference issues can be resolved through the use of
     offset orbital locations and coordination between operators.[^528]
     Similarly, Intelsat believes that a four-degree orbital spacing
     plan with small offsets in combination with coordination between
     operators will be sufficient to mitigate spacepath interference
     issues between closely spaced 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS
     satellites.[^529] In Section III. D. of this Order, we require
     17/24 GHz BSS satellite licensees to design their satellites to be
     capable of operating in a four-degree spacing environment. We will
     license satellites in this band only if they comply with the
     orbital spacing rules we adopt in this Order.

183. EchoStar also proposes that the spacepath interference into DBS
     receivers can be managed by establishing a pfd value at the victim
     (*i.e*., DBS) receiver above which coordination is required.
     Specifically, EchoStar proposes a pfd threshold level at the victim
     satellite receiver of -93 dBW/m^2^/24 MHz and derives this value
     from the ITU 6% T/T requirement used to determine the need for
     coordination between Administrations, contained in Appendix 30A of
     the Radio Regulations.[^530] EchoStar also proposes that the
     Commission should require a minimum separation between DBS and
     17/24 GHz BSS satellites of at least 0.2-0.3 degrees, although
     these parameters might be relaxed in the event of agreement among
     all affected parties.[^531]

184. We concur with EchoStar's proposed approach to managing spacepath
     interference between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS satellites by requiring
     coordination when pfd values are exceeded at the DBS satellite
     receiver. This approach is consistent with the method used by the
     ITU[^532] and has proved workable for international coordination of
     satellite systems. However, as EchoStar notes, its proposed pfd
     value depends in part on certain assumptions about the DBS off-axis
     receiving antenna gain[^533] and may not afford sufficient to
     protection to all systems, particularly as DBS off-axis antenna
     gain patterns are not necessarily well known.[^534] Accordingly, in
     order to protect receiving DBS satellites from unacceptable levels
     of interference, we propose to adopt an off-axis pfd coordination
     trigger of -93 dBW/m^2^/24 MHz at the DBS receiving antenna.
     Coordination with affected co-frequency licensees, both existing
     and planned, would be required in the event that the 17/24 GHz BSS
     satellite exceeds this level at the DBS receiving antenna;
     coordination would not be required in cases where no frequency
     overlap occurs. We seek comment on this proposal and ask whether it
     is sufficient to protect existing DBS operations from interference,
     or whether some other approach or additional requirement might
     better protect DBS receiving antennas from unwanted spacepath
     interference. We also ask how such a requirement might apply to
     future DBS operations that might be affected, including in
     particular any replacement satellites.

185. We also seek comment on the particular information that 17/24 GHz
     BSS applicants should be required to submit to the Commission.
     Clearly, reliable information concerning the off-axis transmitting
     antenna gain of the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite will need to be made
     available. Presumably this information will need to include *all*
     frequencies in the 17.3 -- 17.7(8) GHz range so that any future DBS
     applicant will also have sufficient information to protect its
     operations from unwanted interference. We seek comment on what form
     this information should take (*i.e.,* measured data, charts,
     graphs). We ask whether off-axis gain in the plane of the GSO is
     sufficient and over what angular range it should be provided
     (*e.g*., ±30, ±45 with respect to the plane passing through the x-
     and y-axes of the satellite.)

186. In its reply comments EchoStar also proposes the Commission adopt a
     minimum orbital separation between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS satellites
     of 0.2-0.3 degrees.[^535] SES Americom also believes that an
     orbital offset of at least 0.2-0.3 degrees is necessary for
     co-frequency operation of DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites.[^536]
     DIRECTV however indicates that a minimum orbital separation value
     as small as 0.05 degrees would be sufficient to permit co-frequency
     operation, provided modest care in satellite antenna design is
     employed.[^537] We seek comment on EchoStar's proposal to require a
     minimum orbital separation between co-frequency operation of DBS
     and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites, and we ask what separation value is
     appropriate should we adopt such a requirement. We also seek
     comment on whether such a requirement is necessary should we adopt
     the pfd threshold and coordination requirements discussed above,
     particularly if, as EchoStar suggests, this separation value might
     be relaxed by agreement among the affected operators.

187. Finally, the *NPRM* sought comment on our proposal to protect DBS
     TT&C operations, particularly in recognition of the potential for
     loss of satellite control. DIRECTV comments on this proposal,
     asserting that the Commission should allow co-location of 17/24 GHz
     BSS and DBS space stations only if the affected DBS operator gives
     its consent, and only if the 17/24 GHz BSS applicant demonstrates
     its ability to maintain sufficient margin in the DBS telecommand
     links in the presence of the interfering 17/24 GHz BSS
     signal.[^538] We believe this proposal has merit, for both 17/24
     GHz BSS operators seeking to locate in close proximity to DBS
     satellites, and also in the case where DBS operators may seek to
     locate in close proximity to established 17/24 BSS GHz satellites.
     Accordingly, we propose to adopt a requirement that a 17/24 GHz BSS
     applicant proposing to locate its satellite in the vicinity of a
     DBS space station make a technical showing to the Commission
     demonstrating its ability to sufficiently minimize interference
     into the DBS systems, such that adequate margin is maintained in
     the DBS telecommand links in the presence of the interfering BSS
     signal. Similarly we will require that a DBS applicant proposing to
     locate its satellite in the vicinity of existing 17/24 GHz BSS
     space station make a technical showing to the Commission
     demonstrating its ability to maintain sufficient margin in its
     telecommand links in the presence of the interfering BSS signal. We
     seek comment on these proposals. We ask under what circumstances
     such a technical showing should be required, *e.g*., co-location at
     less than some minimum distance, or on the basis of a threshold pfd
     value. We seek comment on whether the threshold pfd level of -93
     dBW/m^2^/MHz proposed above is also a suitable coordination trigger
     for DBS telecommand links, or whether some other value might be
     more appropriate. We also seek comment the maximum orbital
     separation distance at which would be appropriate to require such a
     technical showing.

188. SES Americom also commented on 17/24 GHz BSS interference into DBS
     telecommand links, stating that issues relating to space path
     interference can be resolved through offset of orbital locations
     and coordination between the involved operators with respect to
     TT&C frequencies.[^539] SES Americom also stated that it believes
     that a frequency separation of as little as 500 kHz is adequate to
     prevent interference from the beacon of a 17/24 GHz BSS satellite
     into the command carrier of a DBS space station.[^540] We seek
     comment on whether some minimum frequency separation is required
     between the signals transmitted by a 17/24 GHz BSS space station
     and the telecommand frequencies of DBS space station located in
     close proximity to the 17/24 GHz BSS space station, or a
     combination of frequency separation and pfd limits, and what the
     appropriate parameters would be.

# CONCLUSION

189. With this Report and Order, we adopt licensing and service rules
     for the 17/24 GHz BSS that will facilitate the deployment of new
     broadband services. These rules include a first-come, first-served
     processing approach for licensing 17/24 GHz BSS applications,
     several safeguards (*e.g.*, bond requirements, milestones, and
     limit on number of applications), geographic service requirements
     to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii, and various public service
     obligations. We also adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
     to seek comment on technical issues related to reverse band
     operations to address potential interference concerns.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Ex Parte

190. This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose"
     proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
     rules.[^541] Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
     reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain
     summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a
     listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence
     description of the views and arguments presented is generally
     required.[^542] Other rules pertaining to oral and written
     presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the
     Commission's rules as well.

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

191. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^543] an Initial
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the
     *NPRM*. The Commission sought written public comments on the
     possible significant economic impact of the proposed policies and
     rules on small entities in the *NPRM,* including comments on the
     IRFA*.* No one commented specifically on the IRFA. Pursuant to the
     RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is contained in
     Appendix A.

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

192. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^544] the
     Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
     (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
     entities by the proposals considered in this *Further Notice of
     Proposed Rulemaking* ("*FNPRM*"). The text of the IRFA is set forth
     in Appendix H. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
     Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines
     for comments on the *FNPRM*, and they should have a separate and
     distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The
     Commission will send a copy of the *Further Notice of Proposed
     Rulemaking*, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
     of the Small Business Administration.[^545]

## Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

193. *Paperwork Reduction Act.* The actions contained herein have been
     analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 at the
     initiation of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding,
     and we have previously received approval of the associated
     information collection requirements from the Office of Management
     and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 3060-1097. The Report and
     Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain
     any new or modified "information collection burden for small
     business concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the
     Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
     *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

## Comment Filing Procedures

194. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s rules,
     *47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419,* interested parties may file comments
     in response to this *FNPRM* no later than on or before 75 days
     after Federal Register publication. Reply comments to these
     comments may be filed no later than on or before 105 days after
     Federal Register publication. All pleadings are to reference IB
     Docket No. 06-123. Comments may be filed using the Commission\'s
     Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
     Parties are strongly encouraged to file electronically. *See
     Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed.
     Reg. 24,121 (1998).*

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

196. Parties choosing to file by paper must file an original and four
     copies of each filing in IB Docket No. 06-123. Filings can be sent
     by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or
     by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we
     continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
     mail). If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the
     caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional
     copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. The
     Commission\'s mail contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive
     hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
     Commission\'s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite
     110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are
     8:00 a.m. to 7:00p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
     with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
     before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than
     U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to
     9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal
     Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be
     addressed to 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. All
     filings must be addressed to the Commission\'s Secretary, Office of
     the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

197. Comments submitted on diskette should be on a 3.5 inch diskette
     formatted in an IBM-compatible format using Word for Windows or
     compatible software. The diskette should be clearly labeled with
     the commenter\'s name, proceeding (including the docket number, in
     this case, IB Docket No. 06-123), type of pleading (comment or
     reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic
     file on the diskette. The label should also include the following
     phrase \"Disk Copy - Not an Original.\" Each diskette should
     contain only one party\'s pleadings, preferably in a single
     electronic file.

198. All parties must file one copy of each pleading electronically or
     by paper to each of the following: (1) The Commission\'s
     duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
     Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554, telephone (202)
     488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at
     <FCC@BCPIWEB.COM>.

199. Comments and reply comments and any other filed documents in this
     matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., in person
     at 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554, via
     telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via
     e-mail at <FCC@BCPIWEB.COM>. The pleadings will be also available
     for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in
     the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth
     Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 and through the Commission\'s
     Electronic Filing System (ECFS) accessible on the Commission\'s
     World Wide Website, [www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/).

200. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise
     summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading.
     Comments and reply comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and
     all other applicable sections of the Commission\'s rules.[^546] All
     parties are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, and to
     include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on
     each page of their submission. We also strongly encourage that
     parties track the organization set forth in this *NPRM* in order to
     facilitate our internal review process.

201. Commenters who file information that they believe is proprietary
     may request confidential treatment pursuant to Section 0.459 of the
     Commission\'s rules. Commenters should file both their original
     comments for which they request confidentiality and redacted
     comments, along with their request for confidential treatment.
     Commenters should not file proprietary information electronically.
     *See* Examination of Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of
     Confidential Information Submitted to the Commission, *Report and
     Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 24816 (1998), *Order on Reconsideration*, 14 FCC
     Rcd 20128 (1999). Even if the Commission grants confidential
     treatment, information that does not fall within a specific
     exemption pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) must be
     publicly disclosed pursuant to an appropriate request. *See* 47
     C.F.R. § 0.461; 5 U.S.C. § 552. We note that the Commission may
     grant requests for confidential treatment either conditionally or
     unconditionally. As such, we note that the Commission has the
     discretion to release information on public interest grounds that
     does fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

202. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority
     contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f),
     303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934,
     as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303(c),
     303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), 308, this *Report and Order* IS
     ADOPTED.

203. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 25 of the Commission's rules IS
     AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B. An announcement of the
     effective date of these rule revisions will be published in the
     Federal Register.

204. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that from the release date of this Order
     until a date and time designated by the International Bureau, no
     applications for authority to provide service to the United States
     using the 17.3-17.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 24.75-25.25 GHz
     (Earth-to-space) frequency bands or to provide international
     satellite service using the 17.7-17.8 GHz (space-to-Earth)
     frequency band will be accepted for filing. The freeze does not
     apply to amendments to the pending applications listed in Appendix
     E to conform the applications to the rules adopted in this Order.

205. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the International Bureau is delegated
     authority to issue Public Notices consistent with this *Report and
     Order*.

206. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
     Governmental Affairs 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, in accordance with Section
     603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601*, et seq.*
     (1981).

207. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
     sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of
     1934, as amended, [47 U.S.C. §§
     154(i)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.02&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=47USCAS154&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw),
     [303(r)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.02&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=47USCAS303&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw),
     and
     [309(j)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.02&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=47USCAS309&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw),
     this *Further* *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* IS ADOPTED.

208. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
     Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall
     send a copy of this *Further* *Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking*,
     including the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to the Chief
     Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in
     accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
     [5 U.S.C. § 601, *et seq*.
     (1981)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.02&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=5USCAS601&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw).

209. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this
     *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in a
     report to be sent to Congress and the General Accountability Office
     pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. §
     801(a)(1)(A).

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary
>
> **APPENDIX A**

**FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^547] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band and
at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the
24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Satellite Services Providing
Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for the Satellite
Services Operating Bi-Directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*NPRM*), adopted on June 21, 2006.[^548]
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
*NPRM,* including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^549]

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

The objective of the Report and Order is to adopt processing and service
rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). This
service will introduce a new generation of broadband services to the
public, providing a mix of local and domestic video, audio, data,
video-on-demand, and multimedia services to consumers in the United
States. In some cases, these services will complement existing Direct
Broadcast Satellite (DBS) services. Specifically, we adopt a first-come,
first-served licensing procedure for the 17/24 GHz BSS, as well as
various safeguards, reporting requirements, and licensee obligations. We
also adopt geographic service rules to require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees
to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii. In addition, we establish rules
and requirements for orbital spacing, minimum antenna diameter, and
antenna performance standards. Also, we establish limits for uplink and
downlink power levels to minimize the possibility of harmful
interference. Finally, we stipulate criteria to facilitate sharing in
the 24 GHz and 17 GHz bands. By these actions, we facilitate the
introduction of new and innovative services to consumers in the United
States and promote increased competition among satellite and terrestrial
services.

> **B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
> Response to the IRFA**

There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the IRFA.

> **C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
> Rules Will Apply**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules adopted herein.[^550] The RFA generally defines
the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the terms
\"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small governmental
jurisdiction.\"[^551] In addition, the term \"small business\" has the
same meaning as the term \"small business concern\" under the Small
Business Act.[^552] A small business concern is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).[^553] Below, we further describe
and estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be affected
by the adopted rules.

***Satellite Telecommunications.*** The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for the two broad census categories of "Satellite
Telecommunications" and "Other Telecommunications." Under both
categories, a business is considered small if it has \$13.5 million or
less in annual receipts.[^554] The category of Satellite
Telecommunications "comprises establishments primarily engaged in
providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications."[^555] For this
category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of
371 firms that operated for the entire year.[^556] Of this total, 307
firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 26 firms had
receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^557] Consequently, we
estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are
small entities that might be affected by our action.

The category of Other Telecommunications "comprises establishments
primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized telecommunications
applications, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and
radar station operations; or (2) providing satellite terminal stations
and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more
terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite
systems."[^558] For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year.[^559]
Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million and
15 firms had annual receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^560]
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications
firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.

***Space Stations (Geostationary).*** Commission records reveal that
there are 44 space station licensees. We do not request nor collect
annual revenue information concerning such licensees, and thus are
unable to estimate the number of geostationary space station licensees
that would constitute a small business under the SBA definition cited
above, or apply any rules providing special consideration for
geostationary space station licensees that are small businesses.

***17 GHz Transmitting Earth Stations.*** Currently there are
approximately 47 operational earth stations in the 17.3-17.7 GHz bands.
The Commission does not request or collect annual revenue information,
and thus is unable to estimate the number of earth stations that would
constitute a small business under the SBA definition.[^561]

***Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.*** The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees.[^562] According to Census Bureau data for 2002, in this
category there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year.[^563]
Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and
19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^564] Thus, under
this category and size standard, the majority of firms can be considered
small.

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

Under the Commission's existing rules, all requests for space station
authorizations are required to be in the form of a comprehensive
proposal submitted on the relevant FCC forms.[^565] Similarly, to obtain
an earth station authorization, applicants must file the appropriate
forms as required by the Commission's rules.[^566] In addition to our
existing requirements, in this Report and Order, we adopt certain
specific requirements for 17/24 GHz BSS earth and space station
applications.

*Space Station Applications.* The rules adopted will require an
applicant proposing a satellite to be located at one of the orbit
locations specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order and proposing
to operate in the 17.3-17.7 GHz frequency band to provide a
demonstration that the proposed space station shall comply with the
power flux density limits set forth in Section 25.208(v) of the
Commission's rules. In cases where an applicant will not comply with the
power flux density limits set forth in Section 25.208(v), the applicant
will be required to provide a certification that all potentially
affected parties acknowledge and do not object to the use of the
applicant's higher power flux densities.

In cases where the proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station will be operated
in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, or operated to provide international service
in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, and cannot be located precisely at one of the
nominal 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations specified in Appendix F of the
Report and Order, the applicant must provide a demonstration that the
proposed space station will not cause more interference to other 17/24
GHz BSS satellite networks operating in compliance with the rules for
this service than if it were located at the precise 17/24 GHz BSS
orbital location from which its proposed location is offset.

An applicant proposing a 17/24 GHz BSS space station to be located at
one of the orbit locations specified in Appendix F of the Report and
Order and proposing to provide international service in the 17.7-17.8
GHz band, must demonstrate that it will meet the power flux density
limits set forth in Section 25.208(c) of the Commission's rules.

An applicant proposing a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that proposes to
provide \"DBS-like service\" within the meaning of Section 25.225 of the
Commission's rules, must either certify that it will meet the
requirements of Section 25.225, or include as an attachment to its
application a technical analysis demonstrating that comparable DBS-like
service is not feasible as a technical matter or that, while technically
feasible, such service would require so many compromises in satellite
design and operation as to make it economically unreasonable.

An applicant proposing a 17/24 GHz BSS space station must provide an
interference analysis to demonstrate the compatibility of its proposed
system 4° from any current or future authorized space station in the
17/24 GHz BSS that complies with the Commission's technical rules.

*Earth Station Applications.* Applications for feeder link earth
stations operating in the 24.75 -- 25.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space) and
providing service to geostationary satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS must
include, for each earth station antenna type, in addition to the
particulars of operation identified on FCC Form 312 and associated
Schedule B, a series of EIRP density charts or tables, calculated for a
production earth station antenna, based on measurements taken on a
calibrated antenna range at 25 GHz, with the off-axis EIRP envelope set
forth in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of Section 25.115 of
the Commission's rules. These charts or tables should show (i) off-axis
co-polarized EIRP spectral density in the azimuth plane, for off-axis
angles from minus 10° to plus 10° and from minus 180° to plus 180°; (ii)
off-axis co-polarized EIRP spectral density in the elevation plane, at
off-axis angles from 0° to plus 30°; (iii) off-axis cross-polarized EIRP
spectral density in the azimuth plane, at off-axis angles from minus 10°
to plus 10°; and (iv) off-axis cross-polarized EIRP spectral density in
the elevation plane, at off-axis angles from minus 10° to plus 10°. In
lieu of providing such charts or tables, applicants may provide a
certification on Schedule B that the antenna conforms to the gain
pattern criteria of Sections 25.209(a) and (b) of the Commission's
rules, that when combined with input power density (computed from the
maximum on-axis EIRP density per carrier less the antenna gain entered
in Schedule B), demonstrates that the off-axis EIRP spectral density
envelope set forth in Sections 25.223(b)(1) through (4) of the
Commission's rules will be met.

Earth station applicants seeking authority to use an antenna that does
not meet the standards set forth in Sections 25.209(a) and (b) of the
Commission's rules, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section
25.220 or Section 25.223(c), are required to submit a copy of the
manufacturer\'s range test plots of the antenna gain patterns specified
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

An applicant for an earth station license that proposes levels in excess
of those defined in the new Section 25.223(b) of the Commission's rules,
shall (1) submit link budget analyses of the operations proposed along
with a detailed written explanation of how each uplink and each
transmitted satellite carrier density figure is derived; and (2) submit
a narrative summary which must indicate whether there are margin
shortfalls in any of the current baseline services as a result of the
addition of the applicant\'s higher power service, and if so, how the
applicant intends to resolve those margin short falls;

The Commission does not expect significant costs to be associated with
these rules. Therefore, we do not anticipate that the burden of
compliance would be greater for smaller entities.

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

The RFA requires that, to the extent consistent with the objectives of
applicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss significant alternatives
such as: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule
for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for small entities.[^567]

The rules adopted herein are necessary for the efficient operation of
the 17/24 GHz BSS, which is expected to introduce a new generation of
broadband services to the public. The technical rules adopted here are
designed to be the least intrusive in terms of compliance requirements
and the most effective in terms of facilitating the licensing of
operations in the 17/24 GHz BSS without causing harmful interference to
other authorized radiocommunication services. We have considered
alternatives and believe these are the most equitable solutions to the
potential interference problems posed by the operations in 17/24 GHz
BSS. By requiring that technical showings be made prior to operation, we
anticipate that there will be far fewer instances of harmful
interference. This will have a positive economic impact on all satellite
space station and earth station licensees, including small entities.

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

None.

**[Report to Congress:]{.underline}** The Commission will send a copy of
the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the
Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report
and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
Federal Register.[^568]

**APPENDIX B**

**FINAL RULES**

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 2 and 25 of title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

**PART 2 -- Frequency ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS**

1\. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

**Authority**: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.

2\. Section 2.106 is amended as follows:

a.  Revise page 48.

b.  In the list of United States (US) Footnotes, add footnote US402.

c.  In the list of Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, revise
    footnotes NG163 and NG167.

d.  In the list of Federal Government (G) Footnotes, revise footnote
    G117.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

**[§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations]{.underline}.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

+-----------+-----------+------------+---------+-----------+--------+
| 1         |           |            | 15.     |           |        |
| 5.35-15.4 |           |            | 35-15.4 |           |        |
|           |           |            |         |           |        |
| EARTH     |           |            | EARTH   |           |        |
| EXP       |           |            | EXPLORA |           |        |
| LORATION- |           |            | TION-SA |           |        |
| SATELLITE |           |            | TELLITE |           |        |
| (passive) |           |            | (p      |           |        |
|           |           |            | assive) |           |        |
| RADIO     |           |            |         |           |        |
| ASTRONOMY |           |            | RADIO   |           |        |
|           |           |            | AS      |           |        |
| SPACE     |           |            | TRONOMY |           |        |
| RESEARCH  |           |            | US74    |           |        |
| (passive) |           |            |         |           |        |
|           |           |            | SPACE   |           |        |
| 5.340     |           |            | R       |           |        |
| 5.511     |           |            | ESEARCH |           |        |
|           |           |            | (p      |           |        |
|           |           |            | assive) |           |        |
|           |           |            |         |           |        |
|           |           |            | US246   |           |        |
+-----------+-----------+------------+---------+-----------+--------+
| 1         |           |            | 15.     |           | Av     |
| 5.4-15.43 |           |            | 4-15.43 |           | iation |
|           |           |            |         |           | (87)   |
| AER       |           |            | AERON   |           |        |
| ONAUTICAL |           |            | AUTICAL |           |        |
| RADION    |           |            | R       |           |        |
| AVIGATION |           |            | ADIONAV |           |        |
|           |           |            | IGATION |           |        |
| 5.511D    |           |            | US260   |           |        |
|           |           |            |         |           |        |
|           |           |            | US211   |           |        |
+-----------+-----------+------------+---------+-----------+--------+
| 15        |           |            | 15.4    | 15        | Sat    |
| .43-15.63 |           |            | 3-15.63 | .43-15.63 | ellite |
|           |           |            |         |           | Co     |
| FIXED     |           |            | AERON   | FIXED     | mmunic |
| SATELLITE |           |            | AUTICAL | SATELLITE | ations |
| (Earth-   |           |            |         | (Earth-   |        |
| to-space) |           |            | R       | to-space) | \(25\) |
| 5.511A    |           |            | ADIONAV |           |        |
|           |           |            | IGATION | AER       | Av     |
| AER       |           |            | US260   | ONAUTICAL | iation |
| ONAUTICAL |           |            |         |           | (87)   |
| RADION    |           |            | 5.511C  | RADION    |        |
| AVIGATION |           |            | US211   | AVIGATION |        |
|           |           |            | US359   | US260     |        |
| 5.511C    |           |            |         |           |        |
|           |           |            |         | 5.511C    |        |
|           |           |            |         | US211     |        |
|           |           |            |         | US359     |        |
+-----------+-----------+------------+---------+-----------+--------+
| 1         |           |            | 15.     |           | Av     |
| 5.63-15.7 |           |            | 63-15.7 |           | iation |
|           |           |            |         |           | (87)   |
| AER       |           |            | AERON   |           |        |
| ONAUTICAL |           |            | AUTICAL |           |        |
| RADION    |           |            | R       |           |        |
| AVIGATION |           |            | ADIONAV |           |        |
|           |           |            | IGATION |           |        |
| 5.511D    |           |            | US260   |           |        |
|           |           |            |         |           |        |
|           |           |            | US211   |           |        |
+-----------+-----------+------------+---------+-----------+--------+
| 15.7-16.6 |           |            | 15      | 15.7-17.2 | P      |
|           |           |            | .7-16.6 |           | rivate |
| RADI      |           |            |         | Radi      | Land   |
| OLOCATION |           |            | RADIOL  | olocation | Mobile |
|           |           |            | OCATION |           | (90)   |
| 5.512     |           |            | G59     |           |        |
| 5.513     |           |            |         |           |        |
+-----------+-----------+------------+---------+-----------+--------+
| 16.6-17.1 |           |            | 16      |           |        |
|           |           |            | .6-17.1 |           |        |
| RADI      |           |            |         |           |        |
| OLOCATION |           |            | RADIOL  |           |        |
|           |           |            | OCATION |           |        |
| Space     |           |            | G59     |           |        |
| research  |           |            |         |           |        |
| (deep     |           |            | Space   |           |        |
| space)    |           |            | r       |           |        |
| (Earth-   |           |            | esearch |           |        |
| to-space) |           |            | (deep   |           |        |
|           |           |            | space)  |           |        |
| 5.512     |           |            |         |           |        |
| 5.513     |           |            | (E      |           |        |
|           |           |            | arth-to |           |        |
|           |           |            | -space) |           |        |
+-----------+-----------+------------+---------+-----------+--------+
| 17.1-17.2 |           |            | 17      |           |        |
|           |           |            | .1-17.2 |           |        |
| RADI      |           |            |         |           |        |
| OLOCATION |           |            | RADIOL  |           |        |
|           |           |            | OCATION |           |        |
| 5.512     |           |            | G59     |           |        |
| 5.513     |           |            |         |           |        |
+-----------+-----------+------------+---------+-----------+--------+
| 17.2-17.3 |           |            | 17      | 17.2-17.3 |        |
|           |           |            | .2-17.3 |           |        |
| EARTH     |           |            |         | Radi      |        |
| EXP       |           |            | EARTH   | olocation |        |
| LORATION- |           |            | EXPLO   |           |        |
| SATELLITE |           |            | RATION- | Earth     |        |
| (active)  |           |            |         | exp       |        |
|           |           |            | SA      | loration- |        |
| RADI      |           |            | TELLITE | satellite |        |
| OLOCATION |           |            | (       | (active)  |        |
|           |           |            | active) |           |        |
| SPACE     |           |            |         | Space     |        |
| RESEARCH  |           |            | RADIOL  | research  |        |
| (active)  |           |            | OCATION | (active)  |        |
|           |           |            | G59     |           |        |
| 5.512     |           |            |         |           |        |
| 5.513     |           |            | SPACE   |           |        |
| 5.513A    |           |            | R       |           |        |
|           |           |            | ESEARCH |           |        |
|           |           |            | (       |           |        |
|           |           |            | active) |           |        |
+-----------+-----------+------------+---------+-----------+--------+
| 17.3-17.7 | 17.3-17.7 | 17.3-17.7  | 17      | 17.3-17.7 | Sat    |
|           |           |            | .3-17.7 |           | ellite |
| FIXED-    | FIXED-    | FIXED      |         | FIXED-    | Co     |
| SATELLITE | SATELLITE | -SATELLITE | Radiol  | SATELLITE | mmunic |
| (Earth-   | (Earth-   | (Earth     | ocation | (Earth-   | ations |
| to-space) | to-space) | -to-space) | US259   | to-space) |        |
|           |           |            | G59     |           | \(25\) |
| 5.516     | 5.516     | 5.516      |         | US271     |        |
| (space-   |           |            | US402   |           |        |
| to-Earth) | BROA      | Rad        | G117    | BROA      |        |
| 5.516A    | DCASTING- | iolocation |         | DCASTING- |        |
|           | SATELLITE |            |         | SATELLITE |        |
| 5.516B    |           | 5.514      |         |           |        |
|           | Radi      |            |         | US402     |        |
| Radi      | olocation |            |         | NG163     |        |
| olocation |           |            |         |           |        |
|           | 5.514     |            |         | US259     |        |
| 5.514     | 5.515     |            |         |           |        |
|           | 5.517     |            |         |           |        |
+-----------+-----------+------------+---------+-----------+--------+

Page 48

[United States (US) Footnotes]{.smallcaps}

[\* \* \* \* \*]{.smallcaps}

US402 In the band 17.3-17.7 GHz, existing Federal satellites and
associated earth stations in the fixed-satellite service
(Earth-to-space) are authorized to operate on a primary basis in the
frequency bands and areas listed below. Receiving earth stations in the
broadcasting-satellite service within the bands and areas listed below
shall not claim protection from Federal earth stations in the
fixed-satellite service.

\(a\) 17.600-17.700 GHz for stations within a 120 km radius of 38° 49\'
N latitude and 76° 52\' W longitude.

\(b\) 17.375-17.475 GHz for stations within a 160 km radius of 39° 42\'
N latitude and 104° 45\' W longitude.

[Non-Federal government (NG) Footnotes]{.smallcaps}

[\* \* \* \* \*]{.smallcaps}

NG163 The allocation to the broadcasting-satellite service in the band
17.3-17.7 GHz shall come into effect on 1 April 2007. Use of the
17.3-17.7 GHz band by the broadcasting-satellite service is limited to
geostationary satellite orbit systems.

[\* \* \* \* \*]{.smallcaps}

NG167 The use of the fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) in the
band 24.75-25.25 GHz is limited to feeder links for the
broadcasting-satellite service. The allocation to the fixed-satellite
service (Earth-to-space) in the band 24.75-25.25 GHz shall come into
effect on 1 April 2007.

[\* \* \* \* \*]{.smallcaps}

[Federal government (G) Footnotes]{.smallcaps}

[\* \* \* \* \*]{.smallcaps}

G117 In the bands 7.25-7.75 GHz, 7.9-8.4 GHz, 17.3-17.7 GHz, 17.8-21.2
GHz, 30-31 GHz, 33-36 GHz, 39.5-41 GHz, 43.5-45.5 GHz and 50.4-51.4 GHz,
the Federal fixed-satellite and mobile-satellite services are limited to
military systems.

[\* \* \* \* \*]{.smallcaps}

**PART 25 -- SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS**

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

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies Sections 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.

4\. Amend Section 25.114 by revising paragraph (d)(7) and adding
paragraphs (d)(15) and (d)(16) to read as follows**:**

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

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) \* \* \*

\(7\) Applicants for authorizations for space stations in the
fixed-satellite service must also include the information specified in
§§ 25.140(b)(1) and (2) of this Part. Applicants for authorizations for
space stations in the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service must also
include the information specified in §§ 25.140(b)(1) and (3) of this
Part.

\* \* \*

\(15\) Each applicant for a space station license in the 17/24 GHz BSS
shall include the following information as an attachment to its
application:

> \(i\) Except as set forth in paragraph (d)(15)(ii) of this Section, an
> applicant proposing to operate in the 17.3-17.7 GHz frequency band,
> must provide a demonstration that the proposed space station will
> comply with the power flux density limits set forth in § 25.208(v) of
> this Part.
>
> \(ii\) In cases where the proposed space station will not comply with
> the power flux density limits set forth in § 25.208(v) of this Part,
> the applicant will be required to provide a certification that all
> potentially affected parties acknowledge and do not object to the use
> of the applicant\'s higher power flux densities. The affected parties
> with whom the applicant must coordinate are those GSO 17/24 GHz BSS
> satellite networks located up to ±6º away for excesses of up to 3 dB
> above the power flux-density levels specified in § 25.208(v) of this
> Part, and up to ±10º away greater for excesses greater than 3 dB above
> those levels.
>
> \(iii\) In cases where the proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station will
> be operated in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, or operated to provide
> international service in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, and cannot be located
> precisely at one of the nominal 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations
> specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order, adopted March XX,
> 2007, IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-xxx, the applicant must provide a
> demonstration that the proposed space station will not cause more
> interference to other 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks operating in
> compliance with the rules for this service than if it were located at
> the precise 17/24 GHz BSS orbital location from which its proposed
> location is offset.
>
> \(iv\) An applicant proposing to provide international service in the
> 17.7-17.8 GHz band must demonstrate that it will meet the power flux
> density limits set forth in § 25.208(c) of this Part.

\(16\) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (d)(15) of this
Section, each applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space
station that will be used to provide video programming directly to
consumers in the United States, that will not meet the requirements of §
25.225 of this Part, must include as an attachment to its application a
technical analysis demonstrating that providing video programming
service to consumers in Alaska and Hawaii that is comparable to the
video programming service provided to consumers in the 48 contiguous
United States (CONUS) is not feasible as a technical matter or that,
while technically feasible, such service would require so many
compromises in satellite design and operation as to make it economically
unreasonable.

5\. Amend Section 25.115 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

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

**\* \* \* \* \***

\(g\) Applications for feeder link earth stations operating in the 24.75
-- 25.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space) and providing service to
geostationary satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS must include, in addition
to the particulars of operation identified on Form 312 and associated
Schedule B, the information specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or
(g)(2) below for each earth station antenna type:

> \(1\) A series of EIRP density charts or tables, calculated for a
> production earth station antenna, based on measurements taken on a
> calibrated antenna range at 25 GHz, with the off-axis EIRP envelope
> set forth in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of this section
> superimposed, as follows:
>
> \(i\) Showing off-axis co-polarized EIRP spectral density in the
> azimuth plane, for off-axis angles from minus 10° to plus 10° and from
> minus 180° to plus 180°;
>
> \(ii\) Showing off-axis co-polarized EIRP spectral density in the
> elevation plane, at off-axis angles from 0° to plus 30°;
>
> \(iii\) Showing off-axis cross-polarized EIRP spectral density in the
> azimuth plane, at off-axis angles from minus 10° to plus 10°; and
>
> \(iv\) Showing off-axis cross-polarized EIRP spectral density in the
> elevation plane, at off-axis angles from minus 10° to plus 10°.

\(2\) A certification on Schedule B that the antenna conforms to the
gain pattern criteria of §§ 25.209(a) and (b), that when combined with
input power density (computed from the maximum on-axis EIRP density per
carrier less the antenna gain entered in Schedule B), demonstrates that
the off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set forth in §§ 25.223(b)(1)
through (4) of this Part will be met.

6\. Amend Section 25.121 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

**§ 25.121 License term and renewals.**

\(a\) License Term.

> \(1\) Except for licenses for DBS space stations and 17/24 GHz BSS
> space stations licensed as broadcast facilities, licenses for
> facilities governed by this part will be issued for a period of 15
> years.
>
> \(2\) Licenses for DBS space stations and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations
> licensed as broadcast facilities will be issued for a period of 8
> years. Licenses for DBS space stations not licensed as broadcast
> facilities will be issued for a period of 10 years.
>
> \* \* \* \* \*

7\. Amend Section 25.132 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:

**§** **25.132 Verification of earth station antenna performance
standards.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

(3) Applicants seeking authority to use an antenna that does not meet
    the standards set

> forth in §§ 25.209(a) and (b) of this Part, pursuant to the procedure
> set forth in § 25.220 or § 25.223(c) of this Part, are required to
> submit a copy of the manufacturer\'s range test plots of the antenna
> gain patterns specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

\* \* \* \* \*

8\. Amend Section 25.140 by revising paragraph (b)(2) and adding
paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) to read as follows:

**§** **25.140 Qualifications of fixed-satellite space station
licensees.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(2\) Except as set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, all
applicants must provide an interference analysis to demonstrate the
compatibility of their proposed system 2° from any authorized space
station. An applicant should provide details of its proposed r.f.
carriers which it believes should be taken into account in this
analysis. At a minimum, the applicant must include, for each type of
r.f. carrier, the link noise budget, modulation parameters, and overall
link performance analysis. (*See, e.g*., appendices B and C to Licensing
of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service (available at
address in Sec. 0.445)).

\(3\) Applicants for licenses for satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS must
provide an interference analysis of the kind described in paragraph
(b)(2) of this Section, except that the applicant must demonstrate the
compatibility of its proposed system 4° from any current or future
authorized space station in the 17/24 GHz BSS that complies with the
technical rules in this Part. The link budget must take into account
longitudinal stationkeeping tolerances and any existing orbital location
offsets from the nominal 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations of the adjacent
prior-authorized 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. In addition, any 17/24
GHz BSS satellite applicant that has reached a coordination agreement
with an operator of another 17/24 GHz BSS satellite located up to ±10°
away to allow that operator to exceed the pfd levels specified in the
rules for this service, must use those higher pfd levels for the
purposes of this showing.

\(c\) Any space station applicant for a space station authorization in
the 17/24 GHz BSS must design its satellite network to be capable of
operating with another 17/24 GHz BSS satellite as close as four degrees
away from its 17/24 GHz BSS satellite.

9\. Revise Section 25.201 to add a definition for 17/24 GHz Broadcasting
Satellite Service, to read as follows:

**§ 25.201 Definitions**.

*17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service*. A radiocommunications
service using geostationary satellites between one or more feeder link
earth stations and other earth stations, in the 17.3 - 17.7 GHz
(space-to-Earth) (domestic allocation), 17.3 -- 17.8 GHz (international
allocation) and 24.75 - 25.25 GHz frequency bands. This service is also
known as \"17/24 GHz BSS.\" For purposes of the application processing
provisions of this Part, 17/24 GHz BSS is a GSO-like service. For
purposes of the technical requirements of this Part, we will treat 17/24
GHz BSS as if it were FSS. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the
17/24 GHz BSS systems are subject to the rules in this Part applicable
to FSS.

10\. Amend Section 25.202 by revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding
paragraph (a)(9), to read as follows:

**§ 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance and emission limitations.**

Section (a)(1), modify the table as follows:

\(1\) Add the following two entries to the right-hand column as follows:

24.75-25.05 GHz ^\\18\\^

25.05-25.25 GHz ^\\1\\18\\^

\(2\) Append the following footnote to the end of the footnote section:

> ^18^ Use of the band 24.75-25.25 GHz by the fixed-satellite service
> (Earth-to-space) is limited to feeder links for space stations in the
> broadcasting-satellite service, and the sub-band 25.05-25.25 GHz is
> shared co-equally with terrestrial fixed services. The allocation to
> the fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) in the band 24.75-25.25
> GHz shall come into effect on 1 April 2007.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(9\) The following frequencies are available for use by the
Broadcasting-Satellite Service

after 1 April 2007:

> 17.3-17.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) ^\\1\\^
>
> 17.7-17.8 GHz (space-to-Earth) ^\\2\\^
>
> ^\\1\\^ Use of the 17.3-17.7 GHz band by the broadcasting-satellite
> service is limited to geostationary satellite orbit systems.
>
> ^\\2\\^ Use of the 17.7 - 17.8 GHz band (space-to-Earth) by the
> broadcasting-satellite service is limited to transmissions from
> geostationary satellite orbit systems to receiving earth stations
> located outside of the United States and its Possessions. In the
> United States and its Possessions, the 17.7 - 17.8 GHz band is
> allocated on a primary basis to the Fixed Service.

11\. Amend Section 25.203 by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:

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

\*\*\*\*\*

\(l\) Applicants for feeder link earth station facilities operating in
the 25.05 -- 25.25 GHz band may be licensed only in Economic Areas where
no existing FS licensee has been authorized, and shall coordinate their
operations with 24 GHz fixed service operations if the power flux
density of their transmitted signal at the boundary of the fixed service
license area is equal to or greater than -114 dBW/m^2^ in any 1 MHz.

\(1\) When uplink adaptive power control is used, the EIRP used for
calculation of the

> power flux density level should be the maximum possible, taking into
> account the adaptive power increase.
>
> \(2\) The power flux density levels should be calculated based on the
> actual off-axis gain

characteristics of the earth station antenna, and should assume free
space propagation

conditions.

\(3\) When determining whether the power flux density threshold limit is
exceeded at the 24 GHz FS licensing boundary, a feeder link earth
station applicant must take into account not only the transmissions from
its own antenna(s), but also those from any previously authorized feeder
link earth stations. Thus, if the cumulative power flux density level at
the FS license boundary is in excess of -114 dBW/m^2^/MHz, the earth
station applicant must either modify its proposed operations such that
this value is not exceeded, or enter into coordination with the affected
FS licensee.

12\. Amend Section 25.204 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

**§ 25.204 Power limits.**

\*\*\*\*\*

\(g\) All earth stations in the Fixed Satellite Service in the 20/30 GHz
band, and feeder link earth stations operating in the 24.75 - 25.25 GHz
band (Earth-to-space) and providing service to geostationary satellites
in the 17/24 GHz BSS, shall employ uplink adaptive power control or
other methods of fade compensation such that the earth station
transmissions shall be conducted at the power level required to meet the
desired link performance while reducing the level of mutual interference
between networks.

13\. Amend Section 25.208 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph
(v) to read as follows:

**§** **25.208 Power flux density limits.**

\*\*\*\*\*

\(c\) In the 17.7-17.8 GHz, 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.3-19.7 GHz, 22.55-23.00
GHz, 23.00-23.55 GHz, and 24.45-24.75 GHz frequency bands, the power
flux density at the Earth\'s surface produced by emissions from a space
station for all conditions for all methods of modulation shall not
exceed the following values:

> \(1\) -115 dB (W/m^2^) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
> 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane.
>
> \(2\) -115 + 0.5 (δ-5) dB (W/m^2^) in any 1 MHz band for angles of
> arrival δ (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal
> plane.
>
> \(3\) -105 dB (W/m²) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival between
> 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(v\) The power flux density at the Earth\'s surface produced by
emissions from a 17/24 GHz BSS space station operating in the 17.3 -
17.7 GHz band for all conditions, including clear sky, and for all
methods of modulation shall not exceed the regional power flux density
levels defined below.

> \(1\) In the region of the contiguous United States, located south of
> 38º North Latitude and east of 100º West Longitude: -115 dBW/m^2^/MHz.
>
> \(2\) In the region of the contiguous United States, located north of
> 38º North Latitude and east of 100º West Longitude: -118 dBW/m^2^/MHz.
>
> \(3\) In the region of the contiguous United States, located west of
> 100º West Longitude:
>
> -121 dBW/m^2^/MHz.
>
> \(4\) For all regions outside of the contiguous United States
> including Alaska and Hawaii:
>
> -115 dBW/m^2^/MHz.

14\. Amend Section 25.209 by redesignating paragraph (c) as (c)(1), and
adding new paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

**§** **25.209 Antenna performance standards.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(2\) 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry earth stations are protected from harmful
interference caused by other space stations to the extent set forth in
paragraph (c)(1) of this Section. Receive-only earth stations in the
17/24 GHz BSS are protected from harmful interference caused by other
space stations to the extent set forth in Section 25.224 of this Part.

15\. Amend Section 25.210 by revising paragraphs (f) and (i) to read as
follows:

**§ 25.210 Technical requirements for space stations in the
Fixed-Satellite Service.**

\*\*\*\*\*

\(f\) All space stations in the Fixed Satellite Service in the 3600-3700
MHz, 3700-4200 MHz, 5091-5250 MHz, 5825-5925 MHz, 5925-6425 MHz,
6425-6525 MHz, 6525-6700 MHz, 6700-7025 MHz, 10.7-10.95 GHz, 10.95-11.2
GHz, 11.2-11.45 GHz, 11.45-11.7 GHz, 11.7-12.2 GHz, 12.2-12.7 GHz,
12.75-13.15 GHz, 13.15-13.2125 GHz, 13.2125-13.25 GHz, 13.75-14.0 GHz,
14.0-14.5 GHz,15.43-15.63 GHz, and 24.75-25.25 GHz bands, or in the
Broadcasting-Satellite Service in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band
(space-to-Earth), shall employ state-of-the-art full frequency reuse
either through the use of orthogonal polarizations within the same beam
and/or the use of spatially independent beams.

\*\*\*\*\*

(i)(1) Space station antennas in the Fixed-Satellite Service, other than
antennas in the 17/24 GHz BSS, must be designed to provide a
cross-polarization isolation such that the ratio of the on axis co-polar
gain to the cross-polar gain of the antenna in the assigned frequency
band shall be at least 30 dB within its primary coverage area.

> \(2\) Space station antennas in the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite
> Service must be designed to provide a cross-polarization isolation
> such that the ratio of the on axis co-polar gain to the cross-polar
> gain of the antenna in the assigned frequency band shall be at least
> 25 dB within its primary coverage area.

16\. Amend Section 25.212 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

**§ 25.212 Narrowband analog transmissions, digital transmissions, and
video transmissions in the GSO Fixed-Satellite Service.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) In the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, an earth station that meets the
antenna gain pattern requirements set forth in §§ 25.209(a) and (b) of
this Part may be routinely licensed if the maximum power density into
the antenna does not exceed 3.5 dBW/MHz.

17\. Amend Section 25.220 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:

**§25.220 Non-conforming transmit/receive earth station operations**.

(a)(1) This section applies to earth station applications other than ESV
and 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link applications in which:

18\. Amend Part 25 by adding Section 25.223 to read as follows:

**§ 25.223 Off-axis EIRP spectral density limits for feeder link earth
stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS.**

\(a\) This section applies to all applications for earth station
licenses in the 17/24 GHz BSS frequency bands, except for applications
in which the proposed antenna does not conform to the standards of
§§25.209(a) and (b), and/or the proposed power density levels are in
excess of those specified in §25.212(f) of this Part.

\(b\) All applications for earth station licenses in the 24.75-25.25 GHz
portion of 17/24 GHz BSS shall be routinely processed if they meet the
following requirements:

> \(1\) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral
> density for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following
> values, within ±3º of the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions:

32.5 -- 25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 2º ≤ θ ≤ 7º

11.4 dBW/MHz for 7º ≤ θ ≤ 9.2º

35.5 -- 25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 9.2º ≤ θ ≤ 48º

> 3.5 dBW/MHz for 48º ≤ θ ≤ 180º
>
> Where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe.
>
> \(2\) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral
> density for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following
> values, for all directions other than within ±3º of the GSO arc, under
> clear sky conditions:
>
> 35.5 -- 25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 2º ≤ θ ≤ 7º

14.4 dBW/MHz for 7º ≤ θ ≤ 9.2º

38.5 -- 25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 9.2º ≤ θ ≤ 48º

6.5 dBW/MHz for 48º ≤ θ ≤ 180º

Where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe.

> \(3\) The values given in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section
> may be exceeded by 3 dB, for values of θ \> 10º, provided that the
> total angular range over which this occurs does not exceed 20º when
> measured along both sides of the GSO arc.
>
> \(4\) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral
> density for cross-polarized signals shall not exceed the following
> values, in all directions greater than [+]{.underline}3° relative to
> the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions:
>
> 22.5 -- 25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 2º ≤ θ ≤ 7º

1.4 dBW/MHz for 7º ≤ θ ≤ 9.2º

Where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe.

\(c\) Notwithstanding § 25.220 of this Part, each applicant for earth
station license(s) that proposes levels in excess of those defined in
paragraph (b) of this section shall:

> \(1\) submit link budget analyses of the operations proposed along
> with a detailed written explanation of how each uplink and each
> transmitted satellite carrier density figure is derived;
>
> \(2\) submit a narrative summary which must indicate whether there are
> margin shortfalls in any of the current baseline services as a result
> of the addition of the applicant\'s higher power service, and if so,
> how the applicant intends to resolve those margin short falls;
>
> \(3\) certify that all potentially affected parties acknowledge and do
> not object to the use of the applicant\'s higher power densities. For
> proposed power levels less than or equal to 3 dB in excess of the
> limits defined above, the affected parties shall be those co-frequency
> U.S. licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks that are located at
> angular separations of up to ±6º away; for power levels greater than 3
> dB and less than or equal to 6 dB in excess of the limits defined
> above, affected parties shall be all those co-frequency U.S. licensed
> operators at up to ±10º away. No power levels greater than 6 dB in
> excess of the limits defined above shall be permitted.

\(d\) Licensees authorized pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section
shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future applicants or
licensees whose proposed compliant operations at 10 degrees or smaller
orbital spacing, as defined by paragraph (b) of this section, is
potentially or actually adversely affected by the operation of the
non-compliant licensee. If no good faith agreement can be reached,
however, the non-compliant licensee shall reduce its earth station EIRP
spectral density levels to be compliant with those specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.

\(e\) For earth stations employing uplink power control, the values in
paragraphs (b) (1), (2), and (4) of this section may be exceeded by up
to 20 dB under conditions of uplink fading due to precipitation. The
amount of such increase in excess of the actual amount of monitored
excess attenuation over clear sky propagation conditions shall not
exceed 1.5 dB or 15 % of the actual amount of monitored excess
attenuation in dB, whichever is larger, with a confidence level of 90
percent except over transient periods accounting for no more than 0.5%
of the time during which the excess is no more than 4.0 dB.

19\. Amend Part 25 by adding Section 25.224 to read as follows:

**§ 25.224 Protection of receive-only earth stations in the 17/24 GHz
BSS.**

\(a\) Notwithstanding Section 25.209(c) of this Part, receive-only earth
stations operating in the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service can
claim no greater protection from interference than they would receive if
the equivalent antenna diameter were equal to or greater than 45 cm and
the antenna meets the co-polar and cross-polar performance patterns
represented by the following set of formulas (adopted in Recommendation
ITU-R BO.1213-1, dated November 2005) that are valid for D/λ ≥ 11:

> \(1\) Co-polar pattern:
>
> ![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.44375in"
> height="0.5277777777777778in"}for 0 \< ~m~

where:

![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.44375in" height="0.4861111111111111in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.69375in" height="0.6111111111111112in"}

*G*~1~ = 29 -- 25 log *~r~*, and
![](media/image4.wmf){width="0.7638888888888888in"
height="0.4305555555555556in"}

*Gco* () *G*1 for *~m~* \< *~r~*

*Gco* () 29 -- 25 log for *~r~* *~b~* where *~b~* = 10^(34/25)^

*Gco* () --5 dBi for *~b~* 70

*Gco* () 0 dBi for 70 180

\(2\) Cross-polar pattern:

*Gcross* () *Gmax* -- 25 for 0 0.25 ~0~

where:

~0~ ![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.0694444444444444in"
height="0.4861111111111111in"} 3 dB beamwidth

![](media/image6.wmf){width="2.8333333333333335in"
height="0.5277777777777778in"} for 0.25 ~0~ 0.44 ~0~

*Gcross* () *Gmax* -- 17 for 0.44 ~0~ ~0~

*G~cross~* () *= G~max~* -- 17 +
*C*![](media/image7.wmf){width="0.5965277777777778in"
height="0.5277777777777778in"} for ~0~ ≤ \< ~1~ where
![](media/image8.wmf){width="1.2222222222222223in"
height="0.4305555555555556in"}

and *C* = 21--25 log(~1~)--(*G~max~*--17)

*Gcross* () 21 -- 25 log for ~1~ \< where = 10^(26/25)^

*Gcross* () --5 dBi for ~2~ 70

*Gcross* () 0 dBi for 70º 180º

where:

*D*: equivalent antenna diameter

: wavelength expressed in the same unit as the diameter

: off-axis angle of the antenna relative to boresight (degrees)

η: antenna efficiency.

\(b\) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to 17/24 GHz BSS
telemetry earth stations. Those earth stations are subject to the
antenna performance standards of §§ 25.209(a) and (b) of this Part.

20\. Amend Part 25 by adding Section 25.225 to read as follows:

**§ 25.225 Geographic Service Requirements for 17/24 GHz Broadcasting
Satellite Service**

(a) Each operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is used to
    provide video programming directly to consumers in the 48 contiguous
    United States (CONUS) must provide comparable service to Alaska and
    Hawaii , unless such service is not technically feasible or not
    economically reasonable from the authorized orbital location.

(b) Each operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station subject to
    paragraph (a) of this section must design and configure its space
    station to be capable of providing service to Alaska and Hawaii,
    that is comparable to the service that such satellites will provide
    to CONUS subscribers, from any orbital location capable of providing
    service to either Alaska or Hawaii to which it may be located or
    relocated in the future.

    \(c\) If an operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is used
    to provide video programming directly to consumers in the Unites
    States relocates or replaces a 17/24 GHz BSS space station at a
    location from which service to Alaska and Hawaii had been provided
    by another 17/24 GHz BSS space station, the operator must use a
    space station capable of providing at least the same level of
    service to Alaska and Hawaii as previously provided from that
    location.

21\. Amend Part 25 by adding Section 25.262 to read as follows:

**§ 25.262 Space station coordination requirements in the 17/24 GHz
BSS.**

\(a\) Any space station licensee operating a space station in the 17/24
GHz BSS, and required to provide information in its application pursuant
to § 25.114(d)(15)(ii) of this Part, shall bear the burden of
coordinating with any future co-frequency applicants or licensees under
the following circumstances:

> \(1\) If the licensee\'s operations exceed the power flux-density
> limits set forth in § 25.208(v) of this Part by 3 dB or less, the
> licensee shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future
> applicants or licensees proposing a satellite in compliance with power
> flux-density limits set forth in § 25.208(v) of this Part and located
> within [+]{.underline} 6 degrees of the licensee\'s satellite.
>
> \(2\) If the licensee\'s operations exceed the power flux-density
> limits set forth in § 25.208(v) of this Part by more than 3 dB, the
> licensee shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future
> applicants or licensees proposing a satellite in compliance with power
> flux-density limits set forth in § 25.208(v) of this Part and located
> within [+]{.underline} 10 degrees of the licensee\'s satellite.
>
> \(3\) If no good faith agreement can be reached, the operator of the
> 17/24 GHz satellite that does not comply with § 25.208(v) of this Part
> shall reduce its space station power flux-density levels to be
> compliant with those specified in § 25.208(v) of this Part.

\(b\) Any space station licensee operating a space station in the 17/24
GHz BSS, and required to provide information in its application pursuant
to § 25.114(d)(15)(iii) of this Part, must accept any increased
interference that may result from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space stations
that are operating in compliance with the rules for this service.

22\. Amend Section 25.601 by revising it to read as follows:

**§ 25.601 Equal employment opportunities**

Notwithstanding other EEO provisions within these rules, an entity that
uses an owned or leased fixed-satellite service or direct broadcast
satellite service or 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service facility
(operating under this part) to provide video programming directly to the
public on a subscription basis must comply with the equal employment
opportunity requirements set forth in part 76, subpart E, of this
chapter, if such entity exercises control (as defined in part 76,
subpart E, of this chapter) over the video programming it distributes.
Notwithstanding other EEO provisions within these rules, a licensee or
permittee of a direct broadcast satellite station operating as a
broadcaster must comply with the equal employment opportunity
requirements set forth in part 73.

23\. Amend Section 25.701 by revising paragraph (a)(3) and adding
paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) to read as follows:

**§ 25.701 Public interest obligations**

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(3\) Non U.S. licensed satellite operators in the Ku band that offer
video programming directly to consumers in the United States pursuant to
an earth station license issued under part 25 of this title and that
offer a sufficient number of channels to consumers so that four percent
of the total applicable programming channels yields a set aside of one
channel of non commercial programming pursuant to paragraph (e) of this
section, or

\(4\) Entities licensed to operate satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS that
offer video programming directly to consumers or that sell or lease
capacity to a video programming distributor that offers service directly
to consumers providing a sufficient number of channels so that four
percent of the total applicable programming channels yields a set aside
of at least one channel of non commercial programming pursuant to
paragraph (e) of this section, or

\(5\) Non U.S. licensed satellite operators in the 17/24 GHz BSS that
offer video programming directly to consumers in the United States or
that sell or lease capacity to a video programming distributor that
offers service directly to consumers in the United States pursuant to an
earth station license issued under part 25 of this title and that offer
a sufficient number of channels to consumers so that four percent of the
total applicable programming channels yields a set aside of one channel
of non commercial programming pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.

\* \* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX C**

**Technical Characteristics of Radiolocation Systems**

**in the 15.7-17.3 GHz Band**

Table C-1 shows technical characteristics of radar systems that will
likely impact the 17/24 GHz BSS earth station receivers, namely, the
airborne ground-mapping radars. The lower power radars of "System 1" are
included because of wider antenna beamwidths (e.g., mainbeam and
sidelobe), which could increase the potential for interference. These
systems currently tend to operate in the sub-band 16.2-17.3 GHz by
provision of National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency
Management Section 8.2.46, but this could change at any time to also
allow ground-based radars. The airborne radar systems tend to have
antenna pointing capabilities such that mainbeam-to-mainbeam coupling
can occur with BSS subscriber earth station antennas. The information
provided in Table C-1 should be sufficient for general calculation to
assess the compatibility between these radars and BSS systems.

Table C-1. Characteristics of Radar Systems Operating in the\
16.2-17.3 GHz Frequency Range

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Characteristics**   **System 1**             **System 2**
  --------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------
  Function              Search, track and        Search, track and
                        ground-mapping radar     ground-mapping radar
                        (multi‑function)         (multi‑function)

  Platform type         Airborne,\               Airborne,\
                        low power                high power

  Tuning range (GHz)    16.2-17.3                16.29-17.21

  Modulation            Linear FM pulse          Linear and non-Linear FM
                                                 pulse

  Transmit peak power   \< 80                    \< 3260
  (W)                                            

  Pulse width (s)       18.2; 49                 120-443

  Pulse rise/fall time  20                       4
  (ns)                                           

  Pulse repetition rate 2041; 5495               900‑1600
  (pps)                                          

  Duty Cycle            4-25%                    \< 50%

  Output device         Travelling wave tube     Travelling wave tube

  Antenna pattern type  Fan/pencil               Fan

  Antenna type          Slotted waveguide        Phased array

  Antenna polarization  Linear vertical          Linear vertical

  Mainbeam Antenna gain 25.6                     38.0
  (dBi)                                          

  Antenna elevation     9.7                      2.5
  beamwidth (deg)                                

  Antenna azimuthal     6.2                      2.2
  beamwidth (deg)                                

  Antenna horizontal    0-30 deg/s               0-5 deg/s
  scan rate                                      

  Antenna horizontal    ±45 deg to ±135 deg\     ±30 deg\
  scan type             (mechanical)             (electronic, conical)
  (continuous, random,                           
  sector, etc.)                                  

  Antenna vertical scan 0-30 deg/s               0-5 deg/s
  rate                                           

  Antenna vertical scan --10 to --50 deg\        0 to --90 deg\
  type.(\*)             (mechanical)             (electronic, conical)

  Antenna 1st side-lobe 10 dBi @ 31 deg          18 dBi @ 1.7 deg
  gain level                                     

  Antenna height        Aircraft altitude        Aircraft altitude

  Chirp bandwidth (MHz) \< 640                   \< 1200

  Transmitter RF        \< 622\                  \< 1200\
  emission\             \< 725\                  \< 1220\
  bandwidth             \< 868\                  \< 1300\
  (MHz).(\*\*)\         \< 1040                  \< 1400
  --3 dB\                                        
  --20 dB\                                       
  ‑40 dB\                                        
  ‑60 dB                                         
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

(\*) 0 degrees represents a horizontal orientation. Angles below
horizontal are negative.

> (\*\*) The radar center frequency is lowered if necessary to ensure
> that the -20 dB bandwidth is contained below 17.3 GHz. This may cause
> radar emissions to fall below 16.2 GHz, but they will still be within
> the allocated band.

**APPENDIX D**

**LIST OF PARTIES**

> [Parties Filing Comments]{.underline}
>
> Government of Bermuda, Department of Telecommunications
>
> DIRECTV, INC.
>
> EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.
>
> FiberTower Corporation
>
> Intelsat North America LLC
>
> National Association of Broadcasters
>
> Media Access Project, on behalf of The National Hispanic Media
> Coalition, The New America Foundation, Hawaii Consumers, Prometheus
> Radio Project, Media Alliance, the Benton Foundation and U.S. PRIG
> (collectively, NHMC, *et al*.)
>
> SES Americom, Inc.
>
> [Parties Filing Reply Comments]{.underline}
>
> DIRECTV, Inc.
>
> EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.
>
> FiberTower Corporation
>
> Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition
>
> Intelsat North America LLC
>
> SES Americom, Inc.
>
> [Parties Making Ex Parte Filings]{.underline}
>
> DIRECTV, Inc., EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.,
>
> and Intelsat North America LLC -- Joint Proposal (March 14, 2007)
>
> Pegasus Development DBS Corporation (March 26, 2007)
>
> FiberTower Corporation (April 3, 2007)
>
> DIRECTV, Inc. (April 26, 2007)
>
> EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (April 26, 2007)

**APPENDIX E**

**17/24 GHz BSS Applications and Amendments Pending before the
Commission.**

+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| **Filings (Earliest  | *     | **Applicant**              | *        |
| to Most Recent)**    | *Call |                            | *Orbital |
|                      | S     |                            | Lo       |
|                      | ign** |                            | cation** |
|                      |       |                            |          |
|                      |       |                            | **(all   |
|                      |       |                            | W.L.)**  |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2242 | DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC   | 96.5^◦^  |
| T-LOA-19970605-00049 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   |       |                            |          |
| T-AMD-20051118-00226 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2243 | DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC   | 101^◦^   |
| T-LOA-19970605-00050 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   |       |                            |          |
| T-AMD-20051118-00225 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2244 | DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC   | 105.5^◦^ |
| T-LOA-19970605-00051 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   |       |                            |          |
| T-AMD-20051118-00224 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2440 | EchoStar Satellite         | 119^◦^   |
| T-LOA-20020328-00050 |       | Operating Corporation      |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   |       |                            |          |
| T-AMD-20051118-00247 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2441 | EchoStar Satellite         | 114.5^◦^ |
| T-LOA-20020328-00051 |       | Operating Corporation      |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   |       |                            |          |
| T-AMD-20051118-00246 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2442 | EchoStar Satellite         | 110^◦^   |
| T-LOA-20020328-00052 |       | Operating Corporation      |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   |       |                            |          |
| T-AMD-20051118-00245 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2659 | Intelsat North America LLC | 67.5^◦^  |
| T-LOA-20050210-00028 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   |       |                            |          |
| T-AMD-20051118-00241 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2660 | Intelsat North America LLC | 121^◦^   |
| T-LOA-20050210-00029 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   |       |                            |          |
| T-AMD-20051118-00240 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2661 | Intelsat North America LLC | 97^◦^    |
| T-LOA-20050210-00030 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   |       |                            |          |
| T-AMD-20051118-00239 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2662 | Intelsat North America LLC | 89^◦^    |
| T-LOA-20050210-00031 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   |       |                            |          |
| T-AMD-20051118-00238 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2698 | Pegasus Development DBS    | 91^◦^    |
| T-LOA-20060412-00042 |       | Corporation                |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2699 | Pegasus Development DBS    | 101^◦^   |
| T-LOA-20060412-00043 |       | Corporation                |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2700 | Pegasus Development DBS    | 110^◦^   |
| T-LOA-20060412-00044 |       | Corporation                |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2711 | DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC   | 99^◦^    |
| T-LOA-20060908-00099 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2712 | DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC   | 103^◦^   |
| T-LOA-20060908-00100 |       |                            |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2723 | EchoStar Satellite         | 61.9^◦^  |
| T-LOA-20070105-00001 |       | Operating Corporation      |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2724 | EchoStar Satellite         | 67^◦^    |
| T-LOA-20070105-00002 |       | Operating Corporation      |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2725 | EchoStar Satellite         | 77.2^◦^  |
| T-LOA-20070105-00003 |       | Operating Corporation      |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2726 | EchoStar Satellite         | 86.3^◦^  |
| T-LOA-20070105-00004 |       | Operating Corporation      |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2727 | EchoStar Satellite         | 124^◦^   |
| T-LOA-20070105-00005 |       | Operating Corporation      |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2728 | EchoStar Satellite         | 128.6^◦^ |
| T-LOA-20070105-00006 |       | Operating Corporation      |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+
| SA                   | S2729 | EchoStar Satellite         | 147.6^◦^ |
| T-LOA-20070105-00007 |       | Operating Corporation      |          |
+----------------------+-------+----------------------------+----------+

**APPENDIX F**

**ORBITAL ASSIGNMENTS -- All W.L.**

  ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  43.00º     63.00º     83.00º     103.00º    123.00º    143.00º    163.00º

  47.00º     67.00º     87.00º     107.00º    127.00º    147.00º    167.00º

  51.00º     71.00º     91.00º     111.00º    131.00º    151.00º    171.00º

  55.00º     75.00º     95.00º     115.00º    135.00º    155.00º    175.00º

  59.00º     79.00º     99.00º     119.00º    139.00º    159.00º    179.00º
  ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

**APPENDIX G**

**Currently Authorized Earth Stations Operating in the 17.3-17.7 GHz
band.**

  --------------- ----------------------- -------------------- ----- --------------
  Call Sign       Licensee                Coordinates          NAD   Location

  E060003         EchoStar Satellite      33°21'53.6"N         83    Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'53.6"W              

  E980174         EchoStar Satellite      33°21'55.3"N               Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'48.2"W              

  E970394         EchoStar Satellite      33°21'55.3"N         27    Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'49.7"W              

  E020307         EchoStar Satellite      33°21'55.3"N         83    Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'51.4"W              

  E050017         EchoStar Satellite      33°21'55.9"N         83    Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'50"W                

  E010241         EchoStar Satellite      33°21'56.1"N         83    Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'50.7"W              

  E980180         EchoStar Satellite      33°21'56.5"N               Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'48.2"W              

  E980178         EchoStar Satellite      33°21'56.5"N         27    Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'49.7"W              

  E020306         EchoStar Satellite      33°21'59.8"N         83    Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'52.3"W              

  E010242         EchoStar Satellite      33°21'59.9"N         83    Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'51.6"W              

  E070014         EchoStar Satellite      33°22'0.8"N          83    Gilbert, AZ
                  Operating Corp          111°48'54.7"W              

  E050340         DIRECTV Enterprises,    39°33'36"N           83    Englewood, CA
                  LLC                     104°51'50"W                

  E980285         DIRECTV Enterprises,    33°58'56.5"N         83    Los Angeles,
                  LLC                     118°25'31.2"W              CA

  E990159         DIRECTV Enterprises,    33°58'56"N           27    Los Angeles,
                  LLC                     118°25'28.5"W              CA

  E980338         DIRECTV Enterprises,    33°59'0"N            27    Los Angeles,
                  LLC                     118°25'27"W                CA

  E980340         DIRECTV Enterprises,    33°59'0"N            83    Los Angeles,
                  LLC                     118°25'29"W                CA

  E010129         DIRECTV Enterprises,    33°59'1"N            83    Los Angeles,
                  LLC                     118°25'27"W                CA

  E970336         SES Americom, Inc.      34°19'31"N           27    Moorpark, CA
                                          118°59'41"W                

  E990323         PanAmSat Licensee Corp  39°16'35"N           83    Castle Rock,
                                          104°48'23.9"W              CO

  E010130         DIRECTV Enterprises,    39°16'37"N           83    Castle Rock,
                  LLC                     104°48'24"W                CO

  E930304         DIRECTV Enterprises,    39°16'37"N           83    Castle Rock,
                  LLC                     104°48'29"W                CO

  E930191         DIRECTV Enterprises,    39°16'38"N           83    Castle Rock,
                  LLC                     104°48'18.5"W              CO

  E020172         DIRECTV Enterprises,    39°16'38"N           83    Castle Rock,
                  Inc                     104°48'20.5"W              CO

  E030105         DIRECTV Enterprises,    39°16'38"N           83    Castle Rock,
                  LLC                     104°48'26.5"W              CO

  E930229         DIRECTV Enterprises,    33°39'50"N           83    Ellenwood, GA
                  LLC                     84°16'24"W                 

  E010112         PanAmSat Licensee Corp. 33°39'53"N           83    Ellenwood, GA
                                          84°16'19"W                 

  E930485         DIRECTV Enterprises,    44°59'36"N           83    Oakdale, MN
                  LLC                     92°58'43"W                 

  E030102         Rainbow DBS Company LLC 40°44'39"N           83    Bethpage, NY
                                          73°29'39.3"W               

  E010320         Pegasus Development     42°47'52"N           83    Cohoes, NY
                  Corporation             73°43'40"W                 

  E980195[^569]   Loral Skynet            41°27'50"N 75°7'44"W       Hawley, PA
                  Corporation                                        

  E980196[^570]   Loral Skynet            41°27'51"N 75°7'45"W       Hawley, PA
                  Corporation                                        

  E020248[^571]   EchoStar Satellite LLC  44°11'14.2"N         83    Rapid City, SD
                                          103°20'7.5"W               

  E060004         EchoStar Satellite      29°45'35.9"N         83    
                  Operating Corp          98°3'48.1"W                

  E050373         EchoStar Satellite      38°43'22.4"N         83    Quicksburg, VA
                  Operating Corp          78°39'58.5"W               

  E030117         DIRECTV Enterprises,    39°7'55.4"N          83    Winchester, VA
                  LLC                     78°12'5.5"W                

  E050374         EchoStar Satellite      47°35'31.8"N         83    Spokane, WA
                  Operating Corp          117°33'2.5"W               

  E990138         EchoStar Satellite      41°38'52"N 72°54'8"W 27    Cheyenne, WY
                  Operating Corp                                     

  E990139         EchoStar Satellite      41°38'52"N 72°54'8"W 27    Cheyenne, WY
                  Operating Corp                                     

  E980005         EchoStar Satellite      41°7'56.4"N          27    Cheyenne, WY
                  Operating Corp          104°44'10.4"W              

  E980142         EchoStar Satellite      41°7'56.6"N          83    Cheyenne, WY
                  Operating Corp          104°44'15.6"W              

  E990309         EchoStar Satellite      41°7'56.8"N          27    Cheyenne, WY
                  Operating Corp          104°44'11.2"W              

  E950287         EchoStar Satellite      41°7'56"N 104°44'7"W 27    Cheyenne, WY
                  Operating Corp                                     

  E950288         EchoStar Satellite      41°7'56"N 104°44'9"W 27    Cheyenne, WY
                  Operating Corp                                     

  E990310         EchoStar North America  41°7'56.8"N          27    Cheyenne, WY
                  Corp                    104°44'11.2"W              

  E980143         EchoStar Satellite      41°7'57.5"N          27    Cheyenne, WY
                  Operating Corp          104°44'14.3"W              

  E980081[^572]   EchoStar Satellite      41°7'58.3"N                Cheyenne, WY
                  Operating Corp          104°44'9.1"W               

  E980082[^573]   EchoStar Satellite      41°7'58.3"N                Cheyenne, WY
                  Operating Corp          104°44'9.1"W               
  --------------- ----------------------- -------------------- ----- --------------

> **APPENDIX H**

**INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^574] the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this item, the Establishment of Policies and Service Rules
for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency
Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the
24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Satellite Services Providing
Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for the
Broadcasting Satellite Service Operating Bi-Directionally in the
17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (*R*&*O* *and* *FNPRM*).[^575] Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on
the *FNPRM* provided in paragraph 194 of this *NPRM*. The Commission
will send a copy of the *FNPRM*, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^576]
In addition, the *FNPRM* and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.[^577]

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

The objective of the proposed rules is to address potential interference
scenarios which arise in the reverse band operating environment. In the
*NPRM,* we sought comment on what measures were needed to address issues
concerning reverse band operations. These included measures to mitigate
against space-path interference between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites
(space-path interference) and to protect 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers from
DBS feeder links (ground-path interference). The record on these issues
is insufficient to develop requirements. While most commenters advocate
certain general approaches, we need more information to build on the
generalities and derive specific requirements. Thus, we seek further
comment on the issues concerning reverse band operations.

The two types of interference which might occur in the reverse band
operating environment are ground path interference space path
interference. Ground path interference will occur when the signals from
transmitting DBS feeder link earth stations operating the 17.3-17.7 GHz
band are detected at the receiving earth stations of 17/24 GHz BSS
subscribers. This interference will be the most severe in areas
surrounding the DBS feeder uplink stations. Space path interference will
occur when the transmitted signals from 17/24 GHz BSS satellites are
received by the feeder link receivers on satellites operating in the DBS
service.

In order to mitigate against ground path and space path interference, we
are proposing a variety of measures, such as the establishment of
protection zones, coordination zones, power level limits, geographic
restrictions of earth stations, informational requirements for
coordination, and required technical showings.

**B. Legal Basis**

This *NPRM* is adopted pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 301, 303(c),
303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301,
303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), 308.

> **C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
> the Proposals Will Apply**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules adopted herein.[^578] The RFA generally defines
the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the terms
\"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small governmental
jurisdiction.\"[^579] In addition, the term \"small business\" has the
same meaning as the term \"small business concern\" under the Small
Business Act.[^580] A small business concern is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).[^581] Below, we further describe
and estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be affected
by the adopted rules.

***Satellite Telecommunications.*** The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for the two broad census categories of "Satellite
Telecommunications" and "Other Telecommunications." Under both
categories, a business is considered small if it has \$13.5 million or
less in annual receipts.[^582] The category of Satellite
Telecommunications "comprises establishments primarily engaged in
providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications."[^583] For this
category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of
371 firms that operated for the entire year.[^584] Of this total, 307
firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 26 firms had
receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^585] Consequently, we
estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are
small entities that might be affected by our action.

The category of Other Telecommunications "comprises establishments
primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized telecommunications
applications, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and
radar station operations; or (2) providing satellite terminal stations
and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more
terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite
systems."[^586] For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year.[^587]
Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million and
15 firms had annual receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^588]
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications
firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.

***Space Stations (Geostationary).*** Commission records reveal that
there are 44 space station licensees. We do not request nor collect
annual revenue information concerning such licensees, and thus are
unable to estimate the number of geostationary space station licensees
that would constitute a small business under the SBA definition cited
above, or apply any rules providing special consideration for
geostationary space station licensees that are small businesses.

***17 GHz Transmitting Earth Stations.*** Currently there are
approximately 47 operational earth stations in the 17.3-17.7 GHz bands.
The Commission does not request or collect annual revenue information,
and thus is unable to estimate the number of earth stations that would
constitute a small business under the SBA definition.[^589]

***Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.*** The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees.[^590] According to Census Bureau data for 2002, in this
category there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year.[^591]
Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and
19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^592] Thus, under
this category and size standard, the majority of firms can be considered
small.

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

In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission invites
comment on various issues related to the mitigation of harmful
interference in the reverse band operating environment, which is unique
to operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS. None of the proposed methods are
intended to increase the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements.

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

The RFA requires that, to the extent consistent with the objectives of
applicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss significant alternatives
such as: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule
for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for small entities.[^593]

The measures proposed are necessary to mitigate against space-path
interference between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites (space-path
interference) and to protect 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers from DBS feeder
links (ground-path interference). The measures include the establishment
of protection zones, coordination zones, power level limits, geographic
restrictions of earth stations, and technical showings. We believe that
these proposals are the most equitable solutions to the potential
interference problems posed by operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS. We seek
comment on viable alternatives to these rules or their reporting
requirements that would lessen the economic impact on small entities. We
also seek comment on the establishment of differing compliance or
reporting requirements that take into account the resources available to
small entities.

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

None.

**[STATEMENT OF]{.underline}**

**[COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL]{.underline}**

RE: The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band and
at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the
24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Satellite Services Providing
Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for the Satellite
Services Operating Bi-directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band,
IB Docket No. 06-123, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking*, FCC 07-76

Today, the Commission takes a constructive step forward to open a new
window of opportunity for more competition in the satellite industry.
The services offered in the 17/24 GHz band will include
standard-definition and high-definition formats, and will provide a mix
of advanced, multi-media services to residential and business
subscribers located not only in the continental United States, but in
Alaska and Hawaii as well. I am particularly pleased that our new rules
require operators to construct each satellite to accommodate the
provision of service to Alaska and Hawaii in the event the satellite
reaches, or is moved to, an orbital location that would provide this
coverage.

In addition, our order adopts a four-degree orbital spacing plan and
associated technical rules to implement the plan, while also permitting
flexibility to the extent that proposed offset locations do not increase
the potential for interference to other systems. We also adopt technical
rules to protect receive-only consumer antennas, which would shield
incumbents and their customers from harmful interference, while creating
a means for roll-out of new, innovative products and facilities.
Finally, we are proceeding mindful of the need to protect the operations
of terrestrial systems that have co-primary rights in certain of the
bands at issue here.

Because we implement a light regulatory touch, our action will ease the
ability of diverse entrants to introduce exciting new services to
American consumers living in urban, rural and insular areas. This is
precisely the type of action the Commission must continuously take to
provide the certainty necessary for America's entrepreneurs to forge
ahead with advanced broadband offerings. Our work will result in more
choices for consumers and more competition among different broadband
platforms. This should, in turn, result in lower prices for consumers
and a corresponding increase in delivery to consumers living and working
in *all* areas of our country.

Finally, I thank the International Bureau for its comprehensive,
thoughtful work.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

**APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART**

*Re: The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band and
at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the
24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Satellite Services Providing
Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for the Satellite
Services Operating Bi-directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band;
IB Docket No. 06-123; Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking,* FCC-07-76

I support the vast bulk of this decision. In particular, I am very
pleased that we have concluded a large portion of this proceeding in a
relatively short time frame given that the 17/24 GHz BSS allocation
became effective on April 1, 2007. I want to ensure that our satellite
services have prompt access to this new allocation, and I appreciate
very much the work of the International Bureau in bringing this item
forward on a timely basis.

The 17/24 GHz BSS band holds great promise for operators to introduce a
new generation of innovative satellite services to American consumers --
providing a mix of video, audio, data, and multimedia services to
residential and business subscribers. Indeed, the spectrum already is in
high demand with over 20 applications on file for a variety of orbital
locations. Because we adopt an orbital spacing requirement of four
degrees, the item allows these applicants an opportunity to amend their
applications to conform to the new orbital spacing framework and new
technical rules. Our decision puts in place a freeze on the filing of
new 17/24 GHz BSS applications until some time after the pending
applications are amended.

It is the keen interest in the 17/24 GHz BSS allocation and our somewhat
unique application situation that gives me some pause in this
proceeding. I believe that our experience with the existing bond
requirements and the Commission's already dubious track record of bond
enforcement warrant for a far more aggressive approach with respect to
the 17/24 GHz BSS band to ensure that the spectrum is promptly put to
use.[^594] This is a new allocation of a large swath of free spectrum
that counsels for a higher bond obligation and a commitment from this
Commission that it will hold 17/24 GHz BSS applicants accountable for
their bond requirements. This spectrum is far too valuable to have it
fall in the hands of speculators or those with anti-competitive
interests. Like others, I am unsure that our existing safeguards against
speculation are sufficient.

Finally, I am concerned that we have not considered more seriously the
argument to increase the amount of programming that service providers in
the 17/24 GHz BSS band are required to reserve for non-commercial
programming of an educational or informational nature. Given the
additional spectrum capacity being offered service providers by this new
allocation, I believe we should have taken a harder look at the merits
of increasing public interest programming to the maximum of seven
percent.

For all of these reasons, I must approve in part, dissent in part.

[^1]: BSS is the international term used for a radiocommunication
    service in which signals transmitted or retransmitted by space
    stations are intended for direct reception by the general public.
    *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1. In this item, the term "17/24 GHz BSS"
    generally refers to the broadcasting-satellite service operating on
    space-to-Earth (downlink) frequencies in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band and
    the corresponding Earth-to-space (uplink) frequencies in the
    24.75-25.25 GHz band.

[^2]: For this service, the downlink (space-to-Earth) frequencies,
    17.3-17.7 GHz, are radiocommunication links that provide signals to
    consumers and are frequencies allocated to the Broadcasting
    Satellite Service (BSS). The uplink (Earth-to-space) frequencies,
    24.75-25.25 GHz, are radiocommunication links that provide the
    source of the BSS signals retransmitted by the satellite and are
    frequencies allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS).

[^3]: The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
    Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band
    and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the
    24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Satellite Services
    Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for
    the Satellite Services Operating Bi-directionally in the 17.3-17.8
    GHz Frequency Band, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* IB Docket No.
    06-123, 21 FCC Rcd 7426 (2006) ("*17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*" or "*NPRM*").

[^4]: These parties are listed in Appendix D.

[^5]: The ITU, based in Geneva, Switzerland, is a United Nations
    specialized organization that deals with international
    communications issues.

[^6]: International Telecommunication Union, Final Acts of the World
    Administrative Radio Conference (Malaga-Torremolinos, 1992). The ITU
    Radio Regulations divide the world into three regions. Generally,
    Region 1 includes Africa, Europe, and northern and western portions
    of Asia; Region 2 includes the Americas and Greenland; Region 3
    includes southern portions of Asia, Australia, and the South
    Pacific. *See* ITU Radio Regulations, Article 5, Section 1.

[^7]: 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, *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd
    13430, 13482 (2000) ("*18 GHz Report and Order"*).

[^8]: *18 GHz Report & Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 13478.

[^9]: *18 GHz Report & Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 13476, 13478.

[^10]: *18 GHz Report & Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 13477-78.

[^11]: *18 GHz Report & Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 13476, 13479.

[^12]: *18 GHz Report & Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 13476, 13479-80.

[^13]: *18 GHz Report & Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 13476, 13479-80.

[^14]: *See* Appendix E.

[^15]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7431-32, paras. 7-9.

[^16]: Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and
    Policies, *First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 02-34, 18 FCC Rcd 10760, 10764, n. 4
    (2003) ("*First Space Station Licensing Reform Order"*) (*petitions
    for reconsideration pending*). These rules became effective on
    August 27, 2003.

[^17]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7431, para. 7.

[^18]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7431, para. 7.

[^19]: "GSO-like space station" is defined as a geostationary satellite
    orbit space station designed to communicate with earth stations with
    directional antennas. Examples of GSO-like space stations are those
    which use earth stations with antennas with directivity towards the
    space stations, such as FSS, and feeder link receiving space
    stations on GSO mobile-satellite service (MSS) satellites. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 25.158(a).

[^20]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.158. *See* EchoStar Satellite, LLC, *Order*,
    DA 05-1955 (rel. July 6, 2005) (denying an application that would
    conflict with a previously licensed satellite), *petition for
    reconsideration pending*.

[^21]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7431, para. 8.

[^22]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).

[^23]: Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International
    Telecommunications Act, Pub. L. No. 106-180, 114 Stat. 48 (2000),
    *as amended,* Pub. L. No. 107-233, 116 Stat. 1480 (2002), *as
    amended,* Pub. L. No. 108-228, 118 Stat. 644 (2004), *as amended,*
    Pub. L. No. 108-371, 118 Stat. 1752 (2004). The ORBIT Act amended
    the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, 47 U.S.C. § 701 *et seq.*
    (Satellite Act) and is *codified at* 47 U.S.C. § 761 *et seq.*
    Section 647 of the ORBIT Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 765f,
    prohibits the Commission from using competitive bidding to assign
    "orbital locations or spectrum used for the provision of
    international or global satellite communications services."

[^24]: *See Northpoint Technology, Ltd. And Compass Systems, Inc. v.
    Federal Communications Commission,* 412 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir.2005)
    (*Northpoint*). In this decision, the appellate court vacated and
    remanded the section of the Commission's Order that concluded that
    DBS was not subject to the auction prohibition of the ORBIT Act.
    Auction of Direct Broadcast Satellite Licenses, *Order,* 19 FCC Rcd
    820 (2004). The court found that the Commission's characterization
    of DBS as a "predominantly domestic" service was undermined by its
    *DISCO I Order,* which the court interpreted as actively promoting
    international service, and by the Commission's authorization of
    EchoStar's service to Mexico City, which the court viewed as
    implementing a policy of encouraging international service.
    *Northpoint,* 412 F.3d at 153-154 (*citing* EchoStar Satellite
    Corporation, Application for Minor Modification of Direct Broadcast
    Satellite Authorization, Launch and Operating Authority for EchoStar
    7, *Order and Authorization,* 17 FCC Rcd 894 (2002)).

[^25]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7432, para. 9.

[^26]: DIRECTV Comments at 16; Intelsat Comments at 2; SES Americom
    Comments at 23; Bermuda Comments at 2. In addition, Intelsat points
    out that the use of a competitive bidding system for DBS remains in
    question relying upon our recently released Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking in Docket No. 06-160. Intelsat Comments at 2-4 (*citing*
    Amendment of the Commission's Policies and Rules for Processing
    Applications in the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, Feasibility
    of Reduced Orbital Spacing for Provision of Direct Broadcast
    Satellite Service in the United States, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking,* 21 FCC Rcd 9443, 9455, para. 23 (released August 18,
    2006) ("*Reduced Spacing NPRM"*)).

[^27]: EchoStar Comments at 17-18, EchoStar Reply Comments at 19-20.

[^28]: EchoStar Comments at 13-19. Given the scarcity of the
    orbit-spectrum resource, the Commission used \"processing rounds\"
    to license most satellites from 1983-2003. Under this approach, the
    Commission would place a space station application on Public Notice
    and designate a \"cut-off\" date by which other applicants could
    file applications to be considered concurrently with the first-filed
    application. *See, e.g.,* Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space
    Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 3 FCC Rcd 6972 (1988) ("*1988 Processing
    Order*") and Licensing Space Stations in the Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite Service, *Report and Order*, CC Docket No. 85-395,
    58 Rad. Reg. 2d 1267, 1278 (para. 78) (rel. Aug. 29, 1985).

[^29]: EchoStar Comments at 14.

[^30]: EchoStar Comments at 18-19.

[^31]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 7-8, Intelsat Reply Comments at 2, SES
    Americom Reply Comments at 10.

[^32]: DIRECTV Comments at 17, Intelsat Comments at 4-5, SES Americom
    Comments at 23, Bermuda Comments at 2.

[^33]: Intelsat Comments at 4-5.

[^34]: DIRECTV Comments at 17.

[^35]: A "planned" band is a frequency band for which the ITU has
    assigned frequencies at certain orbital locations to particular
    countries. For example, the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, also referred to as
    the DBS band, is a planned band. In the 17/24 GHz BSS service and
    feeder link bands, the Radio Regulations require ITU member nations
    to bring their proposed satellite systems into use within seven
    years of the date the nation informs the ITU of its intent to
    construct and operate the satellite system. Failure to meet the
    bringing-into-use date causes the member nation to lose its priority
    relative to other member nations' proposed satellite systems. *See*
    No. 11.44 of the ITU Radio Regulations. Thus, an efficient licensing
    method that does not require further proceedings will facilitate
    each licensee's ability to obtain date priority at the ITU.

[^36]: EchoStar Comments at 17.

[^37]: *See* *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at
    10800-04, paras. 99-107.

[^38]: Intelsat Comments at 3, n. 7.

[^39]: EchoStar Comments at 18.

[^40]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 10 (*citing* Second Round Assignment of
    Geostationary Satellite Orbit Locations to Fixed Satellite Service
    Space Stations in the Ka-band, *Order,* 16 FCC Rcd 14389 (2001)).

[^41]: *Space Station Reform NPRM,* 17 FCC Rcd at 3852, para. 11.

[^42]: *See* Intelsat Comments at 4 (*citing* International Bureau 2004
    Annual Report (January 13, 2005) available online at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/presentations/2005/011305/ib/ppt>;
    International Bureau 2005 Annual Report (January 20, 2006) available
    online at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/presentations/2005/012006/ib/ppt>).

[^43]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7433, para. 10.

[^44]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(a)(2).

[^45]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.164(a). Under this milestone schedule, the
    licensee must enter into a binding, non-contingent construction
    contract within one year of grant; complete critical design review
    within two years; begin construction within three years; and launch
    and operate the satellite within five years of grant.

[^46]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.165.

[^47]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.159. *See* *First Space Station Licensing Reform
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 10846-51, paras. 228-39.

[^48]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.112.

[^49]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.158(c). *See* *First Space Station Licensing
    Reform Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 10851-52, paras. 241-43.

[^50]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7433, para 10.

[^51]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7433, para 10.

[^52]: Intelsat Comments at 6, DIRECTV Comments at 17. *See also* SES
    Americom Comments at 24 (generally concurring on the use of the
    first-come, first-served approach but with no mention of
    safeguards).

[^53]: Intelsat Comments at 6.

[^54]: Intelsat Comments at 6.

[^55]: DIRECTV Comments at 17.

[^56]: Bermuda Comments at 3.

[^57]: EchoStar Comment at 18.

[^58]: EchoStar Comments at 18.

[^59]: *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    10825.

[^60]: *See Space Station Reform NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 3875-76, para. 84.

[^61]: Section 25.112(a)(1) of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    25.112(a)(1).

[^62]: *See* note 139 below regarding the new certification requirement
    on Form 312.

[^63]: Section 25.114(d) of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    25.114(d).

[^64]: In particular, we have revised Part 25 in this Order to require
    all 17/24 GHz BSS applicants to submit link budget analyses to
    demonstrate that their proposed system will meet its performance
    objectives in the presence of the worst-case interference that can
    be expected from neighboring 17/24 GHz BSS space stations.

[^65]: 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, *Report and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 24094 (1997) ("*DISCO II Order"*).

[^66]: To implement this framework, the Commission, among other things,
    established a procedure by which a service provider in the United
    States could request immediate access to a foreign in-orbit space
    station that would serve the U.S. market. *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC
    Rcd at 24174, para. 186. This procedure allows a non-U.S.-licensed
    earth station operator seeking to communicate with a
    non-U.S.-licensed space station to file an earth station application
    for an initial license or for a modification of its existing earth
    station license, listing the foreign-licensed space station as a
    permitted point of communication. Because the Commission does not
    issue duplicative U.S. licenses for space stations licensed by other
    countries, a U.S. earth station application often represents the
    Commission's first opportunity to evaluate whether the
    foreign-licensed space station complies with the Commission's
    technical, legal, and financial qualification requirements.

[^67]: *DISCO II Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 24107-56, paras. 30-145.

[^68]: *Id.* at 24159-69, paras. 151-74.

[^69]: *Id.* at 24157-59, paras. 146-50.

[^70]: *Id.* at 24169-72, paras. 175-82.

[^71]: *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24104, para. 25. The United
    States' exemptions to the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement can be found
    at
    <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/telecom_commit_exempt-list_e.htm>
    (exempting "One-way satellite transmission of DTH and DBS
    transmission services and of digital audio services").

[^72]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.137.

[^73]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.137(a).

[^74]: *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at
    10872, para. 300. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.137. Thus, foreign entities
    must file a Schedule S and a narrative exhibit providing all the
    information required in Section 25.114 (d) of the Commission\'s
    rules. 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(d).

[^75]: EchoStar Comments at 21, SES Comments at 24, Intelsat Comments at
    6, Bermuda Comments at 4, DIRECTV Comments at 18.

[^76]: EchoStar Comments at 21; SES Comments at 24.

[^77]: Bermuda Comments at 4.

[^78]: *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at
    10872, para. 300. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.137. Thus, foreign entities
    must file a Schedule S, providing all the information required in
    Section 25.114 (c) of the Commission\'s rules. 47 C.F.R. §
    25.114(c).

[^79]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.114. *See also* para. 16 above for a discussion of
    the requirement that applications be substantially complete.

[^80]: EchoStar Comments at 10.

[^81]: EchoStar Comments at 10.

[^82]: SES Americom Reply Comments at 2; Intelsat Reply Comments at 14.

[^83]: *See, e.g*., 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; Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the
    12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees and Their
    Affiliates, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and
    Order*, ET Docket No. 98-206, RM-9147, RM-9245, 17 FCC Rcd 9614,
    9711-13 (2002) (declining to provide terrestrial rights in the
    12.2-12.7 GHz band to existing DBS licensees solely because DBS
    licensees already held authorizations in this band for their space
    station operations).

[^84]: *See* Section IV.B. below.

[^85]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.121(a).

[^86]: *Id*. Changes in the license terms for DBS space stations were
    initially addressed in the *DBS Auction Order*, which adopted a
    ten-year license term for non-broadcast DBS space stations. *See*
    *DBS Auction Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 9762, para. 130*.*

[^87]: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted the Commission
    authority to "prescribe the period or periods for which licenses
    shall be granted and renewed ... ." Telecommunications 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)).

[^88]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7434, para. 13.

[^89]: DIRECTV Comments at 17, Intelsat Comments at 6, Bermuda Comments
    at 3. DIRECTV "sees no reason" to limit the license terms of 17/24
    GHz BSS systems to 10 years.

[^90]: Bermuda Comments at 3.

[^91]: Similar to DBS, we expect 17/24 GHz BSS operators to offer
    subscription service on a non-broadcast, non-common carrier basis,
    however, there is a possibility that a licensee may choose to
    provide service on a broadcast or common-carrier basis. *See, e.g.*,
    In the Matter of Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast
    Satellite Service, *Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 11331 at para. 5
    (2002) (noting that subscription video service is neither broadcast
    nor common carrier).

[^92]: *See, e.g*., Bermuda Comments at 3.

[^93]: *See, e.g.,* Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite Service, 50 Fed.Reg. 36071 (Sept. 5, 1985), at para.
    27.

[^94]: *Id.*

[^95]: *Fifth Space Station Licensing Reform Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    12657, para. 54, *citing Space Station Reform NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at
    3887, para. 119, *citing 1988 Orbit Assignment Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at
    6976 n. 31; *GE Americom Replacement Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 13775-76,
    para. 6.

[^96]: The Commission most recently discussed its \"replacement
    expectancy\" policy in the *Space Station Licensing Reform Order.
    Fifth Space Station Reform Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 12657, para. 54,
    *citing Space Station Reform NPRM*, 17 FCC Rcd at 3887, para. 119,
    *citing 1988 Orbit Assignment Order*, 3 FCC Rcd at 6976 n. 31; *GE
    Americom Replacement Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 13775-76, para. 6. In
    preserving the expectancy, the Commission also adopted a rule
    codifying the definition of a replacement satellite. Section
    25.165(e) of the Commission\'s rules defines a replacement satellite
    as one that is \"authorized to be operated at the same orbit
    location, in the same frequency bands, and with the same coverage
    area as one of the licensee\'s existing satellites\" and is
    \"scheduled to be launched so that it will be brought into use at
    approximately the same time, but no later than*,* the existing
    satellite is retired.\" 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(e)(1) and (2). *See*
    Columbia Communications Corp, Application to Launch and Operate a
    Geostationary C-band Replacement Satellite in the Fixed-Satellite
    Service at 37.5º W.L., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd
    20,176 (Int\'l Bur. 2001), at 20,180, para. 14, and 20,181, para.
    19; MCI Communications Corp., Application for Extensions of Time to
    Construct and Launch Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite
    Service, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 233, 235 n. 6
    (1987) (\"\[s\]hould replacement satellites fail to be implemented,
    the orbital locations occupied by the older satellites will become
    available for reassignment to another qualified licensee at the end
    of the license term of those satellites\").

[^97]: *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    10854-56, paras. 250-254.

[^98]: *Fifth Space Station Licensing Reform Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    12657, para. 54, *citing First Space Station Licensing Reform
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 10856, paras. 253-54.

[^99]: DIRECTV Comments at 17, n. 22, Intelsat Comments at 6, Bermuda
    Comments at 4.

[^100]: Bermuda Comments at 4. In addition, Bermuda contends that, the
    "grant stamp" replacement procedure should be selectively applied
    and should recognize ITU procedures for extending the life of
    network notifications.

[^101]: *See First Space Station Licensing Reform Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at
    10854-56, paras. 250-54. *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(e).

[^102]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.151.

[^103]: *See, e.g*., 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.143(e) (reporting requirements for
    1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service (MSS) and 2 GHz MSS); 25.144(c)
    (reporting requirements for satellite digital audio radio service
    (SDARS); 25.145(f) (reporting requirements for the NGSO
    fixed-satellite service in the 20/30 GHz bands); 25.210(l)
    (reporting requirements for FSS). Other elements of the annual
    reports include a listing of non-scheduled transponder outages that
    last more than 30 minutes and identification of transponders not
    available for service or not performing to specifications. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 25.210(l).

[^104]: Intelsat Comments at 6, Bermuda Comments at 3.

[^105]: Bermuda Comments at 3.

[^106]: Bermuda Comments at 3.

[^107]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(l).

[^108]: *See,* *e.g.*, 47 U.S.C. §§ 5(i) and 403.

[^109]: *17/24 BSS GHz NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7432, para. 8. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 1.1107, 9.

[^110]: *17/24 BSS GHz NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7432, para. 8. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 1.1107, 3.

[^111]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.701. *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 335.

[^112]: In 2002, the Commission released a *Report and Order*
    eliminating Part 100 of the Commission's Rules. The Commission moved
    Section 100.5 to Section 25.701 and eliminated the reference to
    entities licensed pursuant to Part 100. Instead, the new rule in
    section 25.701 (a)(1) defines "DBS Providers" as entities licensed
    to operate satellites in the 12.2-12.7 DBS frequency bands. *See*
    Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service,
    *Report and Order,* 17 FCC Rcd 11331, 11344-45, paras. 22-24 (2002)
    (*"Part 100 Report & Order"*). For purposes of this section of the
    *Report and Order*, any reference to Part 100 licensees means
    entities defined in Section 25.701(a)(1).

[^113]: The Ku-band frequencies referenced in the statute are 11.7
    GHz-12.2 GHz and 14.0 GHz-14.5 GHz.

[^114]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.701(a).

[^115]: In the *NPRM*, we used the term "DBS-like services." For
    purposes of this proceeding, DBS-like services are those provided by
    satellite for point to multipoint distribution of video programming
    to consumers in the United States.

[^116]: *17/24 BSS GHz NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7436-37, para. 20.

[^117]: SES Americom Comments at 24-26.

[^118]: EchoStar Reply Comments at 21.

[^119]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.701.

[^120]: *See* Implementation of Section 25 of the Cable Television
    Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Direct Broadcast
    Satellite Public Interest Obligations, *Report and Order,* 13 FCC
    Rcd 23254 (1998); Implementation of Section 25 of the Cable
    Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, *Second
    Order on Reconsideration of First Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd
    5647, 5653 (2004).

[^121]: Media Access Project Comments at 1-3 and 7-9. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    335(b)(1).

[^122]: EchoStar Reply Comments at 22.

[^123]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.701(c).

[^124]: *See 17/24 BSS GHz NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7437, para. 21. *See
    also* 17 U.S.C. §§ 119, 122.

[^125]: 17 U.S.C. §119(d)(6). *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 339.

[^126]: 17 U.S.C. §122 (j)(3). *See* *also* 47 U.S.C. § 338.

[^127]: DIRECTV Comments at 39-40, EchoStar Comments at 22, and NAB
    Comments at 1-3.

[^128]: DIRECTV Comments at 12-13. "DBS" is defined in the Commission's
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.201, as follows: "A radiocommunication service
    in which signals transmitted or retransmitted by space stations,
    using frequencies specified in Section 25.202(a)(7) \[12.2-12.7 GHz
    space to earth\] are intended for direct reception by the general
    public." We decline to change this band-specific definition of DBS
    because there are certain requirements for operations in the
    12.2-12.7 GHz band imposed by the ITU Region 2 BSS Plan that do not
    apply to the 17/24 GHz BSS or other frequency bands in which
    DBS-like services are provided. See ITU Radio Regulations,
    Appendices 30 and 30A. The provisions of Appendices 30 and 30A of
    the International Radio Regulations are applicable to the BSS in the
    frequency bands 12.2-12.7 GHz (Region 2) and to their associated
    feeder links in the bands 17.3-17.8 GHz (Region 2). Other BSS
    allocations are not subject to the provisions of these Plans.

[^129]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 338(a), 47 C.F.R. § 76.66.

[^130]: 47 U.S.C. § 338(a)(4). *See also* Implementation of Section 210
    of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of
    2004 to Amend Section 338 of the Communications Act*, Report and
    Order,* 20 FCC Rcd 14242 (2005)*.*

[^131]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.601.

[^132]: EchoStar Comments at 21.

[^133]: Bermuda Comments at 4.

[^134]: *17/24 BSS GHz NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7437, para. 23. 47 C.F.R. §
    25.148(c).

[^135]: *17/24 BSS GHz NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7438, para. 24. *See*
    EchoStar Satellite LLC, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd
    6075 (2004) (In this Order, the International Bureau granted
    EchoStar's request for a waiver of the geographic service rule for
    its EchoStar 4 satellite at the 157° W.L. orbital location because
    service to Alaska and Hawaii was not technically feasible from that
    satellite at that particular orbital location, and EchoStar was
    providing service to Alaska and Hawaii from its satellites at the
    119° orbital location.); In re EchoStar Satellite Corporation,
    DIRECTSAT Corporation, EchoStar DBS Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order,* 13 FCC Rcd 8595 (1998) (In this Order, the International
    Bureau granted EchoStar's request for a waiver of the geographic
    service rule for its EchoStar 1 satellite at the 148° W.L. orbital
    location because service to Hawaii was not technically feasible from
    that satellite at that particular orbital location, and EchoStar
    pledged to provide service to Hawaii from its satellite at the
    119.2° W.L. orbital location.).

[^136]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 18, EchoStar Comments at 21-22,
    Bermuda Comments at 5.

[^137]: DIRECTV Comments at 18-19, EchoStar Reply Comments at 6, 23. In
    this context, "system-wide" means the combination of all of the
    space stations in a particular provider's fleet that are licensed to
    operate in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Thus, when applying the rule on a
    system-wide basis as proposed by DIRECTV and EchoStar, a provider
    could meet the geographic service requirement by providing service
    to Alaska and Hawaii using a subset of the 17/24 GHz BSS space
    stations in its fleet. The provider would not have to provide
    service to Alaska and Hawaii from every 17/24 GHz BSS space station
    in its fleet from which such service is technically feasible and not
    economically unreasonable.

[^138]: DIRECTV Comments at 18-19.

[^139]: The Commission has recently revised Form 312, the satellite
    license application form, to require all applicants subject to
    geographic service rule requirements to certify that they will
    comply with those requirements. *See* 71 Fed. Reg. 62463 (Oct. 25,
    2006); 72 Fed. Reg. 5715 (Feb. 7, 2007). As a result, 17/24 GHz BSS
    licensees will also be subject to a geographic service rule
    certification. *See* International Bureau Announces Revision to FCC
    Form 312, Main Form, *Public Notice,* DA 07-1762 (rel. April 17,
    2007).

[^140]: *See Part 100 Report and Order,* 17 FCC Rcd at 11367, para. 72.

[^141]: *See* Review of the Emergency Alert System, *First Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 20 FCC Rcd 18625
    (rel. Nov. 10, 2005) (*EAS First Report and Order and Further
    Notice*). In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
    accompanied the *EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice*, the
    Commission sought comment on how DBS providers might deliver
    regionally targeted alerts in a next generation alert and warning
    system. *Id*. at para. 68.

[^142]: *Id*. at para 49. In the *EAS First Report and Order and Further
    Notice*, the Commission defined DBS providers for EAS purposes to
    include: (1) entities licensed to operate satellites in the 12.2 to
    12.7 GHz DBS frequency bands; (2) entities licensed to operate
    satellites in the Ku-band fixed satellite service (FSS) and that
    sell or lease capacity to a video programming distributor that
    offers service directly to consumers providing a sufficient number
    of channels so that four percent of the total applicable programming
    channels yields a set aside of at least one channel of non-
    commercial programming pursuant to section 25.701(e) of the
    Commission's rules, or (3) non-U.S.-licensed satellite operators in
    the Ku-band that offer video programming directly to consumers in
    the United States pursuant to an earth station license issued under
    Part 25 of this title and that offer a sufficient number of channels
    to consumers so that four percent of the total applicable
    programming channels yields a set aside of one channel of
    non-commercial programming pursuant to Section 25.701(e) of the
    Commission's rules. *Id.*

[^143]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd 7439-40, para. 27.

[^144]: Intelsat Comments at 11, SES Americom Comments at 26.

[^145]: SES Americom Comments at 26.

[^146]: SES Americom Comments at 26.

[^147]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 33, EchoStar Reply Comments at 5.

[^148]: DIRECTV Reply Comment at 33.

[^149]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 33.

[^150]: Bermuda Comments at 6.

[^151]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.701(a).

[^152]: Petition for Partial Reconsideration of PanAmSat Corporation,
    SES Americom, Inc., and Intelsat, Ltd., in Docket No. 04-296, filed
    December 27, 2005 (FSS Group Petition).

[^153]: In its petition, the FSS Group requests the Commission to revise
    its conclusions by requiring EAS to apply to the DTH video
    programming distributor, not the FSS satellite operator. Should the
    Commission decide that its EAS rules would continue to apply to FSS
    satellite operators providing capacity to DTH video programming
    distributors, the FSS Group requests that the Commision rule that
    contracts between FSS operators and DTH video programming
    distributors for the sale or lease of satellite capacity that are
    already in place when the EAS rules become effective for DBS
    providers should be grandfathered. Finally, the FSS Group requests
    that the Commission provide an exemption for DTH-FSS services that
    are directed primarily to consumers outside the United States. On
    March 2, 2006, EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (EchoStar) and DIRECTV
    Latin America, LLC (DTVLA) filed oppositions to the FSS Group's
    petition for partial reconsideration. *See* Opposition of EchoStar
    Satellite L.L.C. to the Petition for Partial Reconsideration of
    PanAmSat Corporation, SES Americom, Inc., and Intelsat, Ltd., filed
    March 2, 2006 (EchoStar Opposition); *see also* Opposition of
    Petition for Partial Reconsideration, DIRECTV Latin America, LLC,
    filed March 2, 2006 (DTVLA Opposition).

[^154]: *See* *18 GHz Report & Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 13475, paras.
    95-99.

[^155]: *Id.*

[^156]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7441, paras. 31-32.

[^157]: *Id.*

[^158]: *Id*.

[^159]: These limits were as follows:

    -115 dBW/m^2^/MHz for 0º ≤ δ ≤ 5º

    -115 + 0.5(δ-5) dBW/m^2^/MHz for 5º ≤ δ ≤ 25º

    -105 dBW/m^2^/MHz for 25º ≤ δ ≤ 90º

    where δ is the angle of arrival above the horizontal plane.

[^160]: *See 18 GHz Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 13430.

[^161]: *See* Table 21-4 of the ITU Radio Regulations.

[^162]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7441, paras. 31-32.

[^163]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 33-35, EchoStar Comments at 23,
    Intelsat Comments at 8-10, and SES Americom Comments at 22.

[^164]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 34, EchoStar Comments at A.6.3.

[^165]: *See* Intelsat Comments at 8-9, Intelsat Reply Comments at 18.

[^166]: *Id.* In its Reply Comments, DIRECTV maintains that there is
    limited FS geographic deployment in the band and that due to
    satellite operator's demonstrated interest, Intelsat's proposal
    should be carefully considered. *See* DIRECTV Reply Comments at 29.

[^167]: *See* SES Americom Reply Comments at 18.

[^168]: *See* FWCC Reply Comments at 4.

[^169]: *See 18 GHz Report and Order*.

[^170]: *Id*.

[^171]: *Id*.

[^172]: *See* FiberTower Comments at n. 17.

[^173]: *See17/24 GHz BSS NPRM* at 7440, para. 30. In the *NPRM,* the
    Commission stated that "we do not propose to authorize or to protect
    the reception off BS (space-to-Earth) transmissions in the United
    States and its possessions in the 17.7 -- 17.8 GHz band." *17/24 GHz
    BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7440, para. 30.

[^174]: *Id.*

[^175]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at 14.

[^176]: Specifically, on a number of occasions, the Commission has
    authorized downlink of domestic service to customer receive-only
    earth stations in the 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz bands. *See*
    PanAmSat Licensee Corp. Application for Authority to Use the
    Extended Ku-Band Frequencies for Domestic Service, *Order and
    Authorization*, DA 05-2444, Sat. Div., Int'l Bur., (released Sept.
    13, 2005); EchoStar KuX Corporation Application for Authority to
    Construct, Launch and Operate a Geostationary Satellite Using the
    Extended Ku-Band Frequencies in the Fixed-Satellite service at the
    83° W.L. Orbital Location, *Order And Authorization*, 20 FCC Rcd
    919, 921-922 (para. 9) (Sat. Div., Int'l Bur. 2004); EchoStar
    Satellite LLC Application for Authority to Construct, Launch and
    Operate a Geostationary Satellite Using the Extended Ku-Band
    Frequencies in the Fixed-Satellite Service at the 109° W.L. Orbital
    Location, *Order and Authorization*, 20 FCC Rcd 930 (Sat. Div.,
    Int'l Bur., 2004); EchoStar KuX Corporation Application for
    Authority to Construct, Launch and Operate a Geostationary Satellite
    Using the Extended Ku-Band Frequencies in the Fixed-Satellite
    Service at the 121° W.L. Orbital Location, *Order And
    Authorization*, 20 FCC Rcd 942 (Sat. Div., Int'l Bur. 2004).

[^177]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 and NG 104.

[^178]: *See* SES Americom Comments at 22, Intelsat Comments at 9.

[^179]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 34.

[^180]: *See* EchoStar Comments at A.6.3.

[^181]: *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 25.208(a)-(c).

[^182]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7442, para. 33.

[^183]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.202(g).

[^184]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7442, paras. 33.

[^185]: *Id*.

[^186]: *See* EchoStar Comments at A.6.5.

[^187]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.148(f), § 3.9.2 of Annex 5 to Appendix 30
    and § 4.1 of Annex 3 to Appendix 30A of the International Radio
    Regulations.

[^188]: *See* EchoStar Comments at A.6.1.

[^189]: *See* Section III.F.2. below.

[^190]: However, in the *International Bureau 2006 Biennial Review Staff
    Report*, the International Bureau recommended re-examining all the
    provisions in Part 25 to, among other things, determine whether any
    rules need to be updated to reflect the transition in satellite
    services from analog to digital traffic. *See International Bureau
    2006 Biennial Review Staff Report*, IB Docket No. 06-154, DA 07-675
    (released Feb. 14, 2007) at 27-28. In that context, the Commission
    may revisit the issue of whether to specify a particular amount of
    spectrum to be set aside at the edges of service bands for TT&C
    operations.

[^191]: *See* Intelsat Comments at 12, EchoStar Comments at Technical
    Annex at 28.

[^192]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7568-7472, paras.
    94-100.

[^193]: *See* DIRECTV Reply Comments at 32-33.

[^194]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7446, para. 42.

[^195]: *Id.*

[^196]: *See* Bermuda Comments at 8. Further, Bermuda's suggestion that
    we eliminate orbital separation requirements in all satellite
    services, including the two-degree spacing framework in place for
    GSO FSS satellites since 1983, is beyond the scope of this
    proceeding.

[^197]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 3-8, Intelsat Comments at 7-8, and SES
    Americom Comments at 10-12.

[^198]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 4-8.

[^199]: *See* SES Americom Comments at 11, Intelsat Comments at 10.
    DIRECTV differs from SES Americom and Intelsat in their
    determination of minimum antenna diameter largely as a result of
    each operator's choice of acceptable C/I ratios in its system
    design.

[^200]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 5-6.

[^201]: *See* Intelsat Comments at 7.

[^202]: *See* EchoStar Comments at 9. EchoStar also proposes an
    allowance of up to 0.4 degrees between co-located satellites.

[^203]: *See* EchoStar Comments at A.3.

[^204]: *See* EchoStar Comments at 11.

[^205]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at 2.

[^206]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at 6-9, SES Americom Reply
    Comments at 4-9.

[^207]: The jointly-proposed plan does not rely on constant offset
    between adjacent orbital locations. However, the minimum separation
    between any two adjacent locations is four degrees.

[^208]: *See* DIRECTV Reply Comments at 3-6. This plan presumes a
    constant four degrees of separation between adjacent orbital
    positions.

[^209]: DIRECTV's scheme would allow location at or near the 110º W.L.
    and 119º W.L. locations. *See* Reply Comments of DIRECTV at 4.

[^210]: *See* Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations,

[^211]: In this orbital spacing scheme, each of the parties joining in
    the *ex parte* statement recommend assigning two orbital locations
    to themselves. Intelsat would be assigned 89° W.L. and 95° W.L.
    DIRECTV would be assigned 99° W.L. and 103° W.L. EchoStar would be
    assigned 109.5° W.L. and 119° W.L. *See* Letter from William M.
    Wiltshire, Counsel to DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
    dated March 15, 2007 (*March 15 Joint Ex Parte Statement*). In
    response to the *March 15 Joint Ex Parte Statement,* Pegasus noted
    that the proposal does not take into account its three pending
    applications, and stated that, because it has not yet discussed the
    proposal with Intelsat, DIRECTV, and EchoStar, it is not in a
    position to concur with the proposal. *See* Letter from Bruce D.
    Jacobs and Tony Lin, Counsel to Pegasus, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, dated March 26, 2007.

[^212]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at Technical Annex at 3.

[^213]: *See* EchoStar Comments at 9, Intelsat Comments at 7, SES
    Americom Reply Comments at 4-6, and DIRECTV Reply Comments at 4.

[^214]: *See* Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite Service and Related Revisions of Part 25 of the
    Rules and Regulations, *Report and Order*, CC Docket No. 81-704, FCC
    83-184, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d 577 (released Aug. 16, 1983); *summary
    printed in* Licensing Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite
    Service, 48 F.R. 40233 (Sept. 6, 1983) (*Two Degree Spacing Order*).
    *See also* Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite Service and Related Revisions of Part 25 of the
    Rules and Regulations, *Report and Order*, CC Docket No. 81-704, 99
    FCC 2d 737 (1985) (*Two Degree Spacing Reconsideration Order*).

[^215]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 3-8, Intelsat Comments at 7-8.

[^216]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 3-6.

[^217]: *See* para. 104 below.

[^218]: *See* DIRECTV Reply Comments at 6.

[^219]: *Id.* at 7.

[^220]: *Id.*

[^221]: *Id.*

[^222]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7448-49, paras. 46-47.

[^223]: *Id.*

[^224]: *Id.*

[^225]: *Id.*

[^226]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 3, SES Americom
    Comments at 10.

[^227]: *See* Intelsat Comments at 10.

[^228]: *See* SES Americom Comments at 10.

[^229]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at 10.

[^230]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 8.

[^231]: *Id*.

[^232]: *Id.*

[^233]: *Id.*

[^234]: *See* SES Americom Comments at 6.

[^235]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 8 -9, SES Americom Reply Comments at
    14, Intelsat Reply Comments at 8.

[^236]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 9, SES Americom Comments at 13, SES
    Americom Reply Comments at 14, and Intelsat Reply Comments at 8.
    *See* also ITU-R Recommendation BO.1213-1 which provides formulae
    defining reference co-polar and cross-polar antenna patterns.

[^237]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 9.

[^238]: *See* Bermuda Comments at 8.

[^239]: The amount of interference from adjacent satellites that a
    receiving antenna can reject is a function not only of the antenna
    size and performance standards, but also of the pointing accuracy of
    the antenna. Operators of 17/24 GHz BSS networks should take this
    parameter into account when designing and deploying their networks.
    Operators of 17/24 GHz BSS networks should assume the minimum
    allowed orbital separation between adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS satellites
    on both sides, and the maximum allowed pfd level. The Commission
    will not favorably consider complaints from 17/24 GHz BSS network
    operators that are based on the mispointing of their own BSS
    receiving antennas.

[^240]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7449, para.48.

[^241]: *Id.*

[^242]: *Id.*

[^243]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.211(d), 25.212 (c)-(d).

[^244]: *Id.*

[^245]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.209.

[^246]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM* at 7450, para. 49.

[^247]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS* *NPRM* at 7451, para. 50.

[^248]: *Id.*

[^249]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 14-15, EchoStar Comments at A.4.2, SES
    Americom Comments at 16.

[^250]: *See* Intelsat Comments at 11.

[^251]: *See* Intelsat Reply Comments at 12-13.

[^252]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.138(a)(1)-(4).

[^253]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 14-15, EchoStar Reply Comments at 15
    and Exhibit 1, 8-11, SES Americom Reply Comments at 20, Intelsat
    Reply Comments at 12-13.

[^254]: *See* SES Americom Reply Comments at 20.

[^255]: *See* Intelsat Reply Comments at 13.

[^256]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at Table A.4.2-1 of the Technical
    Annex that calculates the resulting typical ΔT/T from 1 12m feeder
    link antenna into adjacent satellites at 4º separation to be only
    2.2% for spot beams and 0.2% for CONUS beams.

[^257]: *Id.*

[^258]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 15, EchoStar Comments at Technical
    Annex at 19.

[^259]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7450, para. 49. The
    Commission tentatively proposed to accommodate 5.6 dBW/Hz of EIRP
    Assuming a 65.1 dBi gain antenna this translates to an off-axis EIRP
    density at angle θ of no greater than -30 -- 25\*log~10~(θ) dBW/Hz.
    Scaled to a 1 MHz reference bandwidth this becomes 29.5 --
    25\*log~10~(θ) dBW/MHz.

[^260]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.238(a)(1)-(4).

[^261]: *See* §§ 25.138(a)(3)-(4), 25.209(a), (b).

[^262]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7451, para. 51.

[^263]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.220, 25.138(b), (c).

[^264]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7451, para. 51.

[^265]: *Id.*

[^266]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 20, DIRECTV
    Comments at 16, SES Americom Comments at 17, and EchoStar Reply
    Comments at Technical Annex at 11.

[^267]: *See* § 25.220(d)(1)(ii), (e)(1)(ii) and § 25.138(b).

[^268]: These values are true for an antenna that complies with the
    29-25\*log10 () antenna gain envelope.

[^269]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.209.

[^270]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 16, SES Americom Comments at 17.

[^271]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 20.

[^272]: *See* paras. 97-104 below. In the case of downlink pfd limits,
    we do not limit power exceedances to 6 dB.

[^273]: The band 25.05 -- 25.25 GHz is allocated to the Fixed Service
    (FS) on a co-primary basis in the United States. *See* Section
    III.G.1. of this Order for requirements for coordination with FS
    systems.

[^274]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7451, para. 52.

[^275]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.204(g).

[^276]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.204(g).

[^277]: *See* *e.g*., 47 C.F.R. § 25.138(a)(5).

[^278]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 20, SES Americom
    Comments at 16, DIRECTV Comments at 15, and Intelsat Comments at 11.

[^279]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.138(a)(5).

[^280]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.138(d), 25.115(e).

[^281]: *See* Intelsat Comments at 11, DIRECTV Reply Comments at 22.

[^282]: *See* Intelsat Comments at 11.

[^283]: *Id.*

[^284]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.221(b).

[^285]: *See* DIRECTV Reply Comments at 22.

[^286]: *See* DIRECTV Reply Comments at 22.

[^287]: *See* Satellite Industry Association Comments at 12-13, IB
    Docket No. 06-154.

[^288]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.132(c)-(d).

[^289]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.209.

[^290]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.134, 25.211, 25.212.

[^291]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.220. We note however that the Commission is
    currently considering off-axis EIRP envelopes for fixed earth
    stations in the C-band and Ku-band. *See* *Part 25 Earth Station
    Third Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 5593.

[^292]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.138(a)(1)-(4).

[^293]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.138(d).

[^294]: These requirements assume antenna performance characteristics
    consistent with § 25.209 and a maximum input power density of 3.5
    dBW/MHz (-56.5 dBW/Hz). By allowing applicants to submit separate
    power level and antenna performance data in their applications, we
    give them the option of complying with requirements substantially
    similar to those currently in effect for C-band and Ku-band FSS
    earth stations.

[^295]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.222(b)(1).

[^296]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.132.

[^297]: We will amend Section 25.132(b)(3) by adding a reference to the
    new off-axis antenna requirements adopted for 17/24 GHz BSS systems
    in Section 25.223.

[^298]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.132(c)-(d).

[^299]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.133.

[^300]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7452, para. 53.

[^301]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7453, para. 55.

[^302]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7453, para. 55. These
    pfd limits are contained in Article 21-4 of the ITU Radio
    Regulations.

[^303]: *See* Intelsat Comments at 10, EchoStar Comments at Technical
    Annex, 15-17, SES Americom Comments at 18, and DIRECTV Comments at
    10.

[^304]: *See* Intelsat Comments at 10, and Intelsat Reply Comments at
    10.

[^305]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 10-14, EchoStar Reply Comments,
    Technical Annex at 6-7, and SES Americom Reply Comments at 19.

[^306]: *Id.*

[^307]: *See* DIRECTV Reply Comments at 13, EchoStar Reply Comments at
    Technical Annex at 7, SES Americom Reply Comments at 19.

[^308]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at Technical Annex at 6-7.

[^309]: *Id.*

[^310]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at Technical Annex at 7.

[^311]: *Id.*

[^312]: *See* SES Americom Reply Comments at 19.

[^313]: *See* DIRECTV Reply Comments at 13.

[^314]: *See* DIRECTV Reply Comments at 15

[^315]: *See March 15 Joint Ex Parte Statement.*

[^316]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.105.

[^317]: *See March 15 Joint Ex Parte Statement* at 6-7.

[^318]: These limits do not vary as a function of geographic area. The
    are as follows:

    -115 dBW/m^2^/MHz for 0º ≤ δ ≤ 5º

    -115 + 0.5(δ-5) dBW/m^2^/MHz for 5º ≤ δ ≤ 25º

    -105 dBW/m^2^/MHz for 25º ≤ δ ≤ 90º

    where δ is the angle of arrival above the horizontal plane.

[^319]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 17, DIRECTV Reply
    Comments at 19-20, and SES Americom Reply Comments at 14-15.

[^320]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 16-17.

[^321]: *Id.*

[^322]: *See* DIRECTV Reply Comments at 20, SES Americom Reply Comments
    at 14.

[^323]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7464, para. 82.

[^324]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 28, DIRECTV
    Comments at 36, SES Americom Comments at 20-21, and SES Americom
    Reply Comments at 15.

[^325]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 36.

[^326]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 28, DIRECTV
    Comments at 36, SES Americom Comments at 20-21, and SES Americom
    Reply Comments at 15.

[^327]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7464, para. 83.

[^328]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 22.

[^329]: *Id.*

[^330]: *Id.*

[^331]: *See* Bermuda Comments at 9.

[^332]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 23.

[^333]: *See* Section IV.A. below.

[^334]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7465-66, paras. 87-90.
    47 C.F.R. § 25.210.

[^335]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 37-38, Intelsat Comments at 12, SES
    Americom Comments at 21-22, DIRECTV Reply Comments at 30, SES
    Americom Reply Comments at 16. *See also* EchoStar Comments at 23
    regarding full frequency re-use.

[^336]: DIRECTV Comments at 37.

[^337]: SES Americom Comments at 21.

[^338]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 22-23.

[^339]: *Id.*

[^340]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 30-31.

[^341]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(i).

[^342]: SES Americom Comments at 22, SES Americom Reply Comments at 17.

[^343]: DIRECTV Comments at 38.

[^344]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 28-29.

[^345]: *Id.*

[^346]: EchoStar Reply Comments at 17.

[^347]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 31.

[^348]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.211(a).

[^349]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(c).

[^350]: If the downlink antenna cross-polarization isolation requirement
    is relaxed to 27 dB as proposed by DIRECTV, the cross-polar
    interference contribution will increase to about two parts per
    thousand, which represents a C/I decrease of 0.009 dB.

[^351]: *See, e.g.,* EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation, Order and
    Authorization, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20060830-00092 and
    SAT-STA-20050608-00116, paras. 6-8, (adopted Dec. 22, 2006); Hughes
    Communications Inc., Grant Stamp, File No., SAT-MOD-20050523-00106,
    at condition 9, (granted June 30, 2006); DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC,
    Grant Stamp, File No. SAT-LOA-20041122-00210, at condition 3,
    (granted March 18, 2005); New Skies Satellites N.V., 17 FCC Rcd.
    10369 (Int'l bur. 2002) at para. 19.

[^352]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. Footnote NG 167 to the Domestic Table
    of Frequency Allocations limits use of the FSS allocation
    (Earth-to-space) in the 24.75 -- 25.25 GHz band to use by feeder
    links for the BSS operating in the band 17.3 -- 17.7 GHz, *i.e*.,
    the 17/24 GHz BSS service.

[^353]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7459, para. 69.

[^354]: Intelsat Comments at 10 and Intelsat Reply Comments at 16-17.

[^355]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 26-27, EchoStar Reply
    Comments at Technical Annex at 22-23.

[^356]: DIRECTV Comments at 35.

[^357]: *Id*.

[^358]: *Id*.

[^359]: Intelsat Reply Comments at 16-17.

[^360]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 and note NG 167. *See also* ITU Radio
    Regulations, Article 5 and No. 5.535.

[^361]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. Domestically, the radionavigation
    service is also allocated use of the 24.75 -- 25.05 GHz band on a
    primary basis. However as the *NPRM* stated, at this time we are
    aware of no operational systems in this band.

[^362]: DEMS systems were relocated from the 18 GHz band to the 24 GHz
    band in 1997. *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules to
    Reallocate the Digital Electronic Message Service from the 18 GHz
    Band to the 24 GHz Band and to Allocate the 24 GHz Band for Fixed
    Service, *Order*, ET Docket No. 97-99, 12 FCC Rcd 3471 (1997).

[^363]: *See* Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's
    Rules to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, *Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 16934
    (2000) ("*24 GHz Report and Order*").

[^364]: *See 18 GHz Report & Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 13479-80, paras.
    102-06. *See also* 47 C.F.R. §2.106 and the International Radio
    Regulations, Article 5.

[^365]: The allocation is shared on a co-primary basis with the fixed
    service only in the 25.05 -- 25.25 GHz frequency band. The fixed
    service is not allocated use of the 24.75 -- 25.05 GHz band.

[^366]: *See 18 GHz Report & Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 13477, para. 98.
    *See* *also 24 GHz Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16940-41, para.
    10, where the Commission again opted to defer rules for terrestrial
    and satellite sharing to a future rulemaking.

[^367]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.209.

[^368]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.204. Paragraph (b) of this section establishes
    power limits for earth stations operating in frequency bands above
    15 GHz shared co-equally with terrestrial radiocommunication
    services. These power limits extend to elevation angles up to 5
    degrees above the horizon. In this Order the Commission also adopts
    off-axis EIRP density limits for 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth
    stations that are significantly more restrictive than those
    contained in § 25.204. *See* Section III.B.1. of this Order.

[^369]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7467, para. 92.

[^370]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7467, para. 92.

[^371]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7467, para. 91.

[^372]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 28-31, SES Americom Comments at 22-23,
    SES Americom Reply Comments at 18-19, EchoStar Reply Comments at
    28-31, and DIRECTV Reply Comments at 22-25.

[^373]: FiberTower Comments at 8.

[^374]: FiberTower Comments at 6 -- 11.

[^375]: FiberTower Comments at 2.

[^376]: *Id.* at 4-7.

[^377]: FiberTower Reply Comments at 2.

[^378]: FiberTower Comments at 8.

[^379]: FiberTower Comments at 9-10.

[^380]: FWCC Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^381]: EchoStar Reply Comments at 11, DIRECTV Reply Comments at 24.

[^382]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 24.

[^383]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.509.

[^384]: *See* FiberTower Comments at 9, EchoStar Reply Comments at
    Technical Annex at 15, SES Americom Reply Comments at 19, and
    DIRECTV Reply Comments at 23.

[^385]: SES Americom Reply Comments at 18.

[^386]: DIRECTV Comments at 30, DIRECTV Reply Comments at 24, and
    EchoStar Reply Comments at 16.

[^387]: *Id.*

[^388]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101.509(e).

[^389]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 30, DIRECTV Reply Comments at 24, and
    EchoStar Reply Comments at 16.

[^390]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at 14, DIRECTV Reply Comments at
    25. As commenters correctly note, the calculated coordination
    distance is a function of the earth station antenna elevation angle,
    which in turn varies depending upon its geographic location as well
    as the orbital position of the satellite. It also will depend upon
    the uplink power levels of the earth station as well as its off-axis
    performance characteristics.

[^391]: *See* FiberTower Reply Comments at Attachment 1.

[^392]: *See* FiberTower Reply Comments at 6 and Attachment 1.
    FiberTower's analysis assumes an FS receiving antenna with 45 dBi
    gain, and a 4 dB noise figure. The criteria used for acceptable
    interference power levels at the FS receiver input is the value that
    will raise the receiver noise threshold by 1 dB.

[^393]: *Id.*

[^394]: *Id*. at 10.

[^395]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at Technical Annex at 12, DIRECTV
    Reply Comments at 14.

[^396]: *See* FiberTower Reply Comments at 9.

[^397]: *See 24 GHz Report & Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 16963, paras. 65-68.

[^398]: *Id*. *See* Interim Arrangement Concerning the Sharing between
    Canada and the United States of America on Broadband Wireless
    Systems in the Frequency Bands 24.25-24.45 GHz, 25.05-25.25 GHz, and
    38.6-40.0 GHz, signed by the FCC on Dec. 8, 1999 and Canada on Dec.
    21, 1999.

[^399]: *See* EchoStar Reply Comments at Technical Annex at 17.

[^400]: *See* FiberTower Reply Comments at 10.

[^401]: *Id.*

[^402]: In Section III.E.1 of this Order we modify Section 25.204(g) to
    provide for the use of uplink adaptive power control. We also limit
    the use of power control to an excess of no more than 20 dB.

[^403]: *See, e.g*., § 25.208.

[^404]: *See* FiberTower Reply Comments at 5, FWCC Reply Comments at 5.

[^405]: *See* FiberTower Comments at 13, FWCC Reply Comments at 6.

[^406]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^407]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7468, para. 94.

[^408]: *Id.*

[^409]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7469, para. 95.

[^410]: *See* Appendix C for the technical characteristics of the
    radiolocation systems operating in the 15.7-17.3 GHz band. The NTIA
    also identified two likely interference scenarios, and made
    available measured data from a 4 GHz system.

[^411]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7469, para. 96.

[^412]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7469, paras. 95-97.

[^413]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7470, para. 97.

[^414]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7471, para. 99.

[^415]: *See* Letter to Dale M. Hatfield, Chief, Office of Engineering
    and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, from William T.
    Hatch, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management,
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, (March
    29, 2000). *See* *also* Letter to Edmond J. Thomas, Chief, Office of
    Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Fredrick R. Wentland, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum
    Management, National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (April 8, 2005).

[^416]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7471, para. 100.

[^417]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex, A.6.2, DIRECTV
    Comments at 31-33, EchoStar Reply Comments at 18, and SES Americom
    Reply Comments at 19.

[^418]: *Id.*

[^419]: *Id.*

[^420]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 24.

[^421]: *Id.*

[^422]: *Id.*

[^423]: DIRECTV Comments, Appendix at A-1 to A-16.

[^424]: Estimates of interference duration assume an aircraft speed of
    500 feet per second.

[^425]: DIRECTV Comments, Appendix at A-14.

[^426]: We recognize that 17 GHz BSS receivers may not be available at
    this time. However, earth station receivers operating in nearby
    frequency bands (*e.g.,* 18.3-18.86 GHz) may have sufficiently
    similar characteristics to the 17 GHz receivers.

[^427]: *See* Letter from John M. R. Kneuer, Assistant Secretary for
    Communications and Information, United States Department of Commerce
    to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission,
    dated March 21, 2007.

[^428]: *Id.*

[^429]: *Id*.

[^430]: *Id*.

[^431]: *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 154(j); 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1); 47 C.F.R. §
    0.603(a); 47 C.F.R. § 1.3; *Bendix Aviation Corp. v. FCC*, 272 F. 2d
    533, 536-537 (D.C. Cir. 1959), *cert. denied sub nom. Aeronautical
    Radio, Inc. v. United States*, 361 U.S. 965 (1960).

[^432]: *Id.* at A-15.

[^433]: *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    10863, para. 276.

[^434]: *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    10863-6, paras. 275-284.

[^435]: *See* Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
    Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit, Fixed-Satellite Service in the
    Ka-band, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 17 FCC Rcd 2807 (2002)
    ("*Ka-band NGSO NPRM"*).

[^436]: *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    10865, para 280. Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
    Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service in the
    Ka-band, *Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 14708 (2003) ("*Ka-band NGSO
    Report and Order"*).

[^437]: *Id.*

[^438]: The other comments did not address the treatment of pending
    applications.

[^439]: DIRECTV Comments at 17, DIRECTV Reply Comments at 7, n. 14.
    Although EchoStar favors an auctions or processing round approach
    for processing applications, EchoStar alternatively suggests that if
    the Commission adopts a first-come, first-served approach, the
    pending application should be processed using date priority.
    EchoStar Reply Comments at 20. Under a date-priority approach,
    assuming no locations are changed, DIRECTV and EchoStar would each
    receive five authorizations assuming they do not request a change of
    orbital location, Intelsat would receive two authorizations, and the
    Pegasus applications would be denied. EchoStar Reply Comments at 20.

[^440]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.116 (b), (d). Specifically, Section 25.116
    explains that major amendments that change orbital locations,
    frequencies bands, increase the potential for interference, or are
    otherwise deemed substantial pursuant to Section 309 of the
    Communications Act will cause the application to lose its status
    relative to later-filed applications in the "queue" as described in
    25.158.

[^441]: Intelsat Comments at 6, Intelsat Reply Comments at 7.

[^442]: Intelsat Comments at 6.

[^443]: *See* Appendix E listing the 22 pending applications.

[^444]: *See* para. 15 above.

[^445]: *See* paras. 66-74 above.

[^446]: If, however, an applicant makes a major amendment to its
    application after the amendment deadline, we will treat the amended
    application as newly filed pursuant to Section 25.116(d). Thus, the
    opportunity to amend an application and have it treated as
    simultaneously filed with the other pending applications does not
    extend past the date specified by the Bureau.

[^447]: The Commission may waive a rule for good cause shown. Waiver is
    appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the
    general rule and such deviation would better serve the public
    interest than would strict adherence to the general rule*. Northeast
    Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
    Generally, the Commission may grant a waiver of its rules in a
    particular case if the relief requested would not undermine the
    policy objective of the rule in question and would otherwise serve
    the pubic interest. *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153, (D.C. Cir.
    1969); Dominion Video Satellite, Inc., *Order and Authorization,* 14
    FCC Rcd 8182 (Int'l Bur. 1999).

[^448]: *See* *First Space Station Licensing Reform Order*, 18 FCC Rcd
    at 10865, para. 278 and n.673 (*citing* *Landgraf*, 511 U.S. at
    269-70; *DIRECTV*, 110 F.3d at 826, *citing* Bell Atlantic Telephone
    Cos. v. FCC, 79 F.3d 1195, 1207 (D.C. Cir., 1996); Black Citizens
    for a Fair Media v. FCC, 719 F.2d 407, 411 (D.C. Cir., 1983).

[^449]: DIRECTV, Inc. v. FCC, 110 F.3d 816, 825-26 (D.C. Cir.., 1997)
    (*DIRECTV)*; Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994)
    (*Landgraf*). In *DIRECTV,* the appeals court found that the
    Commission's decision to adopt an auction rule was not retroactive
    and hence unlawful. In doing so, the appeals court relied on the
    Supreme Court's finding in *Landgraf* that "there are three ways in
    which a rule can be retroactive: if it "impair\[s\] rights a party
    possessed when he acted, increase\[s\] a party's liability for past
    conduct, or impose\[s\] new duties with respect to transactions
    already completed."

[^450]: Chadmoore Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 113 F.3d 235, 240-41
    (D.C. Cir. 1997)(*Chadmoore*). (\"In this case the Commission\'s
    action did not increase \[the applicant\'s\] liability for past
    conduct or impose new duties with respect to completed transactions.
    Nor could it have impaired a right possessed by \[the applicant\]
    because none vested on the filing of its application.\"); Hispanic
    Info. & Telecomms. Network v. FCC, 865 F.2d 1289, 1294-95
    (D.C.Cir.1989) (\"The filing of an application creates no vested
    right to a hearing; if the substantive standards change so that the
    applicant is no longer qualified, the application may be
    dismissed.\"); Schraier v. Hickel, 419 F.2d 663, 667 (D.C.Cir.1969)
    (filing of application that has not been accepted does not create a
    legal interest that restricts discretion vested in agency). *See
    also* United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1952)
    (pending application for new station dismissed due to rule change
    limiting the number of licenses that could be held by one owner);
    Bachow Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 686-88 (D.C. Cir.
    2001) (*Bachow*) (upholding freeze on new applications and dismissal
    of pending applications in light of adoption of new licensing
    scheme); PLMRS Narrowband Corp. v. FCC, 182 F. 3d 995, 1000-01 (D.C.
    Cir. 1999) (applicant did not, by virtue of filing application,
    obtain the right to have it considered under the rules then
    applicable).

[^451]: Bachow Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 686-88 (D.C.
    Cir. 2001)

[^452]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.159.

[^453]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.112(a)(2).

[^454]: *See First Space Station Licensing Reform Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at
    10852, para. 244. Applications of PanAmSat Licensee Corp. For
    Authority to Construct, Launch, and Operate a Hybrid Satellite
    System in its Separate International Communications Satellite
    System, *Order on Reconsideration*, 18 FCC Rcd 23916 (2003). We note
    that the Commission reserves the right to return an application
    which has been placed on Public Notice as acceptable for filing if,
    upon further examination, it is determined that the application is
    not in conformance with the Commission's rules. *See, e.g.,* Policy
    Branch Information, Satellite Space Applications Accepted for
    Filing, *Public Notice,* Report No. SAT-00418 (Feb. 2, 2007).

[^455]: In these cases, licensees will be allowed to select the
    particular band segment they wish to use no earlier than 60 days
    before they plan to launch the satellite. 47 C.F.R. § 25.158(d)(5).

[^456]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7453-54, para. 57.

[^457]: In this section, the terms "DBS" or "DBS earth station" refer to
    earth stations that are DBS feeder links.

[^458]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7454, para. 58. This
    was attributed in part to the increase in local programming uplinked
    from metropolitan areas. *See also*, *e.g.*, DIRECTV Enterprises,
    LLC for Authority to Launch and Operate DIRECTV 7S (USABSS-18),
    *Order and Authorization,* 19 FCC Rcd 7754 (2004). DIRECTV sought
    authority to operate uplink earth stations at sites in Los Angeles,
    CA, Castle Rock, CO, Winchester, VA and St. Paul, MN.

[^459]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7454, para. 58.

[^460]: *Id.*

[^461]: DIRECTV Comments at 21.

[^462]: *Id.*

[^463]: *Id.*

[^464]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 21.

[^465]: For a listing of currently authorized earth stations operating
    in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, see Appendix G.

[^466]: DIRECTV Comments at 20. For the shielded case this distance is
    reduced to approximately 4 miles. DIRECTV's analysis necessarily
    assumes characteristics for both the transmitting and receiving
    antenna, but these may not reflect all interference situations.

[^467]: EchoStar Reply Comments, Technical Annex at 18.

[^468]: SES Americom Comments at 19.

[^469]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 21 (emphasis in
    original).

[^470]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 21, EchoStar Reply
    Comments at Technical Annex at 18.

[^471]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 21.

[^472]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 21.

[^473]: DIRECTV Comments at 21; EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at
    21; SES Americom Comments at 19, DIRECTV Reply Comments at 27;
    EchoStar Reply Comments at 13, SES Americom Reply Comments at 15.

[^474]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7454, para. 59.

[^475]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7454, para. 59.

[^476]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7454, paras. 59-60, *citing*
    Section 25.203(c) of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(c).

[^477]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7454, para. 60.

[^478]: DIRECTV Comments at 21.

[^479]: DIRECTV Comments at 21.

[^480]: DIRECTV Comments at 22.

[^481]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 21-22.

[^482]: EchoStar Reply Comments at Technical Annex at 17-18. Since
    Appendix 7 was intended for calculating thresholds to initiate
    coordination, it may not be particularly realistic as a basis for
    separation distances used in the BSS.

[^483]: *Id*.

[^484]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 21-22; EchoStar Reply
    Comments at Technical Annex at 18. EchoStar makes this proposal in
    conjunction with a proposal to limit new DBS feeder link earth
    stations to low-population areas. We address this proposal in more
    detail below.

[^485]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7457, para. 63.

[^486]: Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Permit
    Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial
    Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range; Amendment of the
    Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the
    12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees and Their
    Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband
    Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide a Fixed
    Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band. *Memorandum Opinion and Order and
    Second Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002) ("*MVDDS Second
    R&O"*), *cited in* *NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7457 (para. 63).

[^487]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7457, para. 63. In the
    12 GHz band, two co-primary, co-frequency services sought to operate
    in a sharing scenario where ubiquitous and ongoing deployment of
    earth stations from both services was anticipated; the incumbent DBS
    receive-only antennas were subject to interference from the
    introduction of transmitting MVDDS stations.

[^488]: *MVDDS Second R&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 9653, para. 88.

[^489]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §101.144(d).

[^490]: *See* *MVDDS Second R&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 9653, para. 88. MVDDS
    operators are required to provide DBS operators with specific
    technical information concerning its planned operation. After
    receipt of the MVDDS system information the DBS licensees must
    provide the MVDDS licensee with a list of any new DBS customer
    locations that have been installed following the MVDDS notification.
    At this time, DBS licensees may also provide the MVDDS operator with
    additional information regarding affected customer locations, or
    comment on its analysis, including its agreement. Before beginning
    operations, the MVDDS operator must take into account existing as
    well as the new DBS customers of record, and ensure that its
    operations do not cause interference. Once the time period
    prescribed for this information exchange has passed, any new DBS
    receive antennas must be installed in a manner to avoid interference
    from the MVDDS signal. These later installed DBS earth stations have
    no right of complaint against the notified MVDDS transmitting
    antenna.

[^491]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7457-58, para. 64.

[^492]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(b)(2) (requiring earth station
    applicants to provide each terrestrial station licensee with certain
    specific technical details).

[^493]: This list of parameters differs slightly from the one currently
    specified in § 25.203(c)(2). We have deleted the parameter "Maximum
    permissible RF interference power level as determined in accordance
    with Annex 7 to Appendix 7 for all applicable percentages of time."
    This parameter applies in mutual interference protection situations,
    and is not applicable to the case of the DBS feeder link earth
    station that will not seek protection from receive-only 17/24 GHz
    BSS earth stations.

[^494]: We note that Section 25.203 stipulates a reference bandwidth of
    4 kHz for frequency bands below 15 GHz and 1 MHz for frequency bands
    above 15 GHz.

[^495]: Section 25.203 stipulates reference bandwidths of both 1 MHz and
    4 kHz.

[^496]: SES Americom Comments at 19, EchoStar Comments, Technical Annex
    at 22, DIRECTV Comments at 21-22, SES Americom Reply Comments at 15,
    EchoStar Reply Comments at 13, DIRECTV Reply Comments at 27-28.

[^497]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 28. Specifically DIRECTV notes that,
    if we rely on EIRP limits to determine a separation distance, as
    EchoStar suggests, that the EIRP limit must be relatively strict in
    order to ensure that the zone of affected subscribers is reasonably
    small. By contrast, EIRP limits used to determine a coordination
    zone could be more relaxed.

[^498]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7458-59, para. 66.
    *See* *also* 47 C.F.R. § 25.204(b), which states that "in bands
    shared coequally with terrestrial radio-communication services, the
    equivalent isotropically radiated power transmitted in any direction
    towards the horizon by an earth station operating in frequency bands
    above 15 GHz shall not exceed the following limits except as
    provided for in paragraph (c) of this section:

    +64 dBW in any 1 MHz band for \< 0º

    +64 + 3 dBW in any 1 MHz band for 0º \< \< 5º

    where is as defined in paragraph (a) of this section."

[^499]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7458-59, para. 66. The
    *NPRM* also recognized that this rule was not intended to facilitate
    sharing among DBS and BSS earth stations, and it is applicable to
    DBS feeder link earth stations only in the band segment 17.7-17.8
    GHz that is shared with terrestrial services.

[^500]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7458-59, para. 66.

[^501]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 22; EchoStar Reply at
    Technical Annex at 17. EchoStar makes this proposal in conjunction
    with a proposal to restrict new DBS feeder link earth stations to
    low-population areas. We discuss that proposal in more detail below.

[^502]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 22, EchoStar Reply at
    Technical Annex at 17.

[^503]: DIRECTV Reply Comments at 28.

[^504]: EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 21-22.

[^505]: *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7459, para. 67.

[^506]: *Id.*

[^507]: *Id.*

[^508]: *Id.*

[^509]: *Id.*

[^510]: *Id.*

[^511]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 22.

[^512]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 22.

[^513]: *See* EchoStar Comments at Technical Annex at 23.

[^514]: *See* DIRECTV Comments at 20; EchoStar Comments, Technical Annex
    at 21; SES Americom Comments at 19; DIRECTV Reply at 27; EchoStar
    Reply at 13; SES Americom Reply at 15.

[^515]: *See 17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7460-63, paras. 71-79.

[^516]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7462, para. 76.

[^517]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7462, para. 77.

[^518]: *See* *17/24 GHz BSS NPRM,* 21 FCC Rcd at 7462, para. 78.

[^519]: *Id.*

[^520]: *Id.*

[^521]: DIRECTV Comments at 25, SES Americom Comments at 20, EchoStar
    Comments at 4, DIRECTV Reply Comments at Appendix A, and Intelsat
    Reply Comments at 14. *See* *also* Erratum to DIRECTV Reply Comments
    at A-1, in which a supplementary analysis is presented demonstrating
    that under certain conditions, separations as small as 0.05 degrees
    may be feasible.

[^522]: EchoStar Comments at 10-12.

[^523]: *Id.*

[^524]: DIRECTV Comments at 26.

[^525]: *Id.*

[^526]: *Id.*

[^527]: Intelsat Reply Comments at 14, SES Americom Reply Comments at
    12.

[^528]: SES Americom believes that minimum separations of 0.2-0.3
    degrees are required. *See* Comments of SES Americom at 20.

[^529]: Intelsat Reply Comments at 14-15.

[^530]: EchoStar Comments at 17 and Appendix A. *See* *also*, the ITU
    Radio Regulations, Annex 4 of Appendix 30A, § 7.1 of Article 7 of
    Appendix 30A.

[^531]: EchoStar Reply Comments at 9. In its comments, EchoStar cautions
    that such limits may be insufficient in instances of co-location,
    and may also result in less efficient use of spectrum. EchoStar
    Comments at 11.

[^532]: *See* Annex 4 of Appendix 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations.

[^533]: *See* Appendix A, Table A of EchoStar Comments. Specifically,
    this value was derived assuming a victim off-axis antenna gain
    toward the interfering satellite of 0 dBi, and is based on the
    technical parameters for DBS receiving antennas given in Section
    3.7.3 of Annex 3 of Appendix 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations.

[^534]: EchoStar Comments at 32, DIRECTV Comments at 23.

[^535]: EchoStar Reply Comments at 9.

[^536]: SES Americom Comments at 13.

[^537]: Erratum to DIRECTV Reply Comments at Appendix A.

[^538]: DIRECTV Comments at 23.

[^539]: SES Americom Comments at 20.

[^540]: SES Americom Comments at 20.

[^541]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200, 1.1206; Amendment of 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 *et
    seq*. Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission Proceedings,
    GC Docket No. 95-21, *Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 7348 (1997).

[^542]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^543]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA 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).

[^544]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA 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).

[^545]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^546]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.49.

[^547]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA (*see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612), has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^548]: *See* The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
    Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band
    and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the
    24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Satellite Services
    Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for
    the Satellite Services Operating Bi-Directionally in the 17.3-17.8
    GHz Frequency Band, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 21 FCC Rcd
    7426, 7476 (2006).

[^549]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^550]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^551]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^552]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after the opportunity for public
    comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^553]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^554]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.

[^555]:  U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517410 Satellite
    Telecommunications";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM>.

[^556]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^557]: *Id*. An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^558]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517910 Other
    Telecommunications";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM>.

[^559]:  U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^560]: *Id*. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^561]: The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
    Satellite Telecommunications, which consists of all such companies
    having \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 C.F.R. §
    121.201, NAICS code 517410.

[^562]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^563]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^564]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^565]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.114.

[^566]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.115.

[^567]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1), (c)(4).

[^568]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^569]: Uses the 17301.02-17301.98 MHz band only.

[^570]: Uses the 17307.52-17308.48 MHz band only.

[^571]: Uses the 17303.25-17303.25 MHz band only.

[^572]: Uses the 17301.00-17302.00 MHz band only.

[^573]: Uses the 17301.00-17302.00 MHz band only.

[^574]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA (*see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612), has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^575]: *See* The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
    Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band
    and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the
    24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Satellite Services
    Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for
    the Satellite Services Operating Bi-Directionally in the 17.3-17.8
    GHz Frequency Band, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking,* IB Docket No. 06-123 (2007).

[^576]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^577]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^578]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^579]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^580]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after the opportunity for public
    comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^581]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^582]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.

[^583]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517410 Satellite
    Telecommunications";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM>.

[^584]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^585]: *Id*. An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^586]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517910 Other
    Telecommunications";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM>.

[^587]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^588]: *Id*. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^589]: The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
    Satellite Telecommunications, which consists of all such companies
    having \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 C.F.R. §
    121.201, NAICS code 517410.

[^590]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^591]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^592]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^593]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1), (c)(4).

[^594]: *See* Comments of Echostar at 18. "Such additional protection is
    needed because even the FSS bond and milestone requirements would
    not be enough to protect against speculation in the RBW \[reverse
    band working\] band with its relatively limited number of slots."