Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
1
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- )  
Streamlining and Other Revisions of  )
Part 25 of the Commission's Rules  )
Governing the Licensing of, and  ) IB Docket No. 00-248
Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network  )
Earth Stations and Space Stations )
)
Streamlining the Commission's Rules and ) 
Regulations for Satellite Applications and ) IB Docket No. 95-117
Licensing Procedures ) 
) 
EIGHTH REPORT AND ORDER 
AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted: October 10, 2008  Released: October 17, 2008
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Paragraph
I. Introduction ...........................................................................................................  1
II. Background............................................................................................................  4
A.  Two-Degree Spacing Framework....................................................................  4
B.  Current Earth Station Licensing Procedures....................................................  8
C.  Procedural History ...........................................................................................  9
D.  Off-Axis EIRP Approach.................................................................................  15
III. Off-Axis EIRP ......................................................................................................  18
A. Review of Earth Station Applications Based on Off-Axis EIRP Envelope .....  18
B.  Development of Off-Axis EIRP Envelope for FSS Earth Stations .................  21
1.  Circular C-band and Ku-band Earth Stations ......................................  21
2.  Elliptical C-band Earth Stations  .........................................................  25
3.  Analog Video Services  .......................................................................  30
4.  Other Issues  ........................................................................................  33
C. Protection from Interference  ...........................................................................  35
D.  Resolution of Harmful Interference Complaints  ............................................  37
E. Alterative Pointing Error Proposals ...............................................................  38
1.  SIA Alternative Proposal .....................................................................  38
2. AVL Proposal ......................................................................................  40
F.  Exceeding Off-Axis EIRP Envelope  ...............................................................  44
1. Certification Procedure ......................................................................  44
2. Alternative Procedure  .......................................................................  52
G.  Information Requirements  ............................................................................  56
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
2
IV. Other Issues...........................................................................................................  60
A.  Contention Protocols ......................................................................................  60
1.  Background.........................................................................................  60
2.  Procedural History...............................................................................  63
3.  Current Commission Proposal  ...........................................................   68
4.  Alternative Proposals...........................................................................  74
5.  Discussion............................................................................................  77
6.  Contention Protocol Information Requirements..................................  83
7.  Grandfathering.....................................................................................  84
8.  Other Contention Protocol Issues..........................................................  86
B.  Quiet Zone for Radio Astronomy.....................................................................  87
C.  Downlink EIRP Density Limits for Ku-band Earth Stations ..........................  92 
V. Reconsideration Issues...........................................................................................  94
A.  Background .....................................................................................................  94  
B.  Rule References to Smaller-than-Routine Earth Stations................................  95
C.  Protection from Interference for Non-Routine Earth Stations.........................  97
D.  Signing of Certifications.................................................................................. 100
E.  Determination of Need for Coordination......................................................... 102
F.  Other Reconsideration Issues........................................................................... 103
VI. Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................... 107 
VII.  Procedural Matters................................................................................................. 112
VIII. Ordering Clauses ................................................................................................... 115
Appendix A: List of Commenters 
Appendix B: Rule Revisions
Appendix C: Proposed Off-Axis EIRP Envelopes for FSS Earth Station Applications
Appendix D: Technical Arguments 
Appendix E: Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 
I.  INTRODUCTION
1.  In this Eighth Report and Order, we further streamline the Commission's non-
routine earth station processing rules, by adopting a new earth station procedure that will enable 
the Commission to treat more applications routinely than is possible under the current earth 
station procedures.1  By expediting the processing of such earth station applications, the rules 
adopted in this Order today will facilitate the provision of broadband Internet access services.2  
  
1 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's 
Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space 
Stations, Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 00-
248, 20 FCC Rcd 5593, 5622 (2005) (Third Further Notice).  When we cite to the Sixth Report and Order
portions of the document, we will refer to it as the Sixth Report and Order.  When we cite to the Third 
Further Notice portions of the document, we will refer to it as the Third Further Notice.
2 See 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the 
Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations 
and Space Stations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 00-248, 15 FCC Rcd 25128, 25131 
(para. 4) (2000) (Notice); 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 
of the Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth 
Stations and Space Stations, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 00-248, 17 FCC Rcd 
18585, 18588-59 (para. 4) (2002) (Further Notice). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
3
The Commission has determined that satellite facilities provide a competitive platform for 
delivery of broadband services, which is especially well suited for extending these services to 
rural and unserved areas.3 In other words, satellite services employ cost-effective technology to 
serve communities with low penetration rates, especially those in remote areas.4 In addition, the 
threat of competition from satellite-based broadband Internet access and other alternatives will 
stimulate deployment of broadband infrastructure, including more advanced infrastructure such as 
fiber to the home.5  Moreover, the number of consumers who receive their broadband connection 
through satellite or other wireless technologies will continue to increase as new satellite services 
are launched.6
2.  Specifically, in this Eighth Report and Order, we adopt an off-axis equivalent 
isotropically radiated power (EIRP)7 envelope approach as one method for applicants to apply for
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth station licenses in the conventional C-band and Ku-band.8  
The Commission proposed off-axis EIRP envelopes for FSS earth stations based on 
recommendations from satellite industry commenters in an earlier phase in this proceeding.9 In 
fact, throughout this proceeding, the Commission has provided multiple opportunities for 
interested parties to recommend rule revisions.10
3.  This off-axis EIRP approach gives earth station applicants the flexibility to 
reduce their power levels to compensate for a small antenna diameter.  Thus, using these 
envelopes as criteria for licensing should enable us to license more earth station applications 
routinely, expediting the provision of satellite services to consumers and enhancing the types of 
services available, without increasing the likelihood of harmful interference to adjacent satellite 
operators or to terrestrial wireless operators.  In addition, we address a number of petitions for 
  
3 Use of Returned Spectrum in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service Frequency Bands, Order, IB Docket 
Nos. 05-220 and 05-221, 20 FCC Rcd 19696, 19710 (para. 30) (2005) (2 GHz MSS Spectrum Assignment 
Order).
4 2 GHz MSS Spectrum Assignment Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 19710 (para. 30).   
5 Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, Report and Order 
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 02-33, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14884 (para. 57) (2005).
6 Written Statement of the Honorable Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 
Before the Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, U.S. Senate, February 1, 2007, 2007 WL 
283773 (F.C.C.). 
7 Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) is the product of the gain of the antenna in a given direction relative 
to an isotropic antenna and the power supplied to that antenna.  47 C.F.R.  2.1.
8 For purposes of this Order, the conventional C-band is the 3700-4200 MHz and 5925-6425 MHz bands.  
The conventional Ku-band is the 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz bands.  
9 See Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).
10 See 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the 
Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations 
and Space Stations, Fifth Report and Order, IB Docket No. 00-248, 20 FCC Rcd 5666, 5672 (para. 13) 
(2005) (Fifth Report and Order). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
4
reconsideration of several previous streamlining proceedings, particularly the Fifth Report and 
Order and Sixth Report and Order.11  
II.  BACKGROUND
A.  Two-Degree Spacing Framework
4.  The Communications Act mandates that transmitting radiocommunication 
facilities must be licensed before they can operate.12 The rules governing transmit-only and 
transmit/receive earth stations are contained in Part 25 of the Commissions rules.13 The rules are 
intended primarily to ensure that satellite networks of space stations and earth stations can operate 
with a minimum of interference with respect to each other and with respect to other 
telecommunications services.  Earth stations provide a critical link between satellites and 
terrestrial networks, and satellite networks depend on the Commissions earth station licensing 
rules to maintain an operating environment with a minimum of interference to other users 
operating in the band.14  
5.  As the satellite industry developed in the 1980s, the Commission instituted a 2 
orbital spacing policy to maximize the number of in-orbit satellites operating in either the C-band 
or the Ku-band.15 Previously, satellites had been operating 3 to 4 apart.  Under the 2 orbital 
spacing framework, the Commission assigns adjacent in-orbit satellites to orbit locations 2 apart 
in longitude.  This framework also established technical rules to govern earth stations 
communicating with these satellites, to ensure that their operations do not cause unacceptable 
interference to adjacent satellite systems.  Primarily, earth station technical requirements consist 
of minimum antenna size and maximum power level limits.16
  
11 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 5666 (2005); 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining and 
Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, 
Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 00-248, 20 FCC Rcd 5593 (2005) (Sixth Report and Order).   
12 47 U.S.C.  301, cited in Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5670 (para. 8); Sixth Report and Order, 
20 FCC Rcd at 5595 (para. 2). 
13 47 C.F.R. Part 25, cited in Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5670 (para. 8); Sixth Report and 
Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5595 (para. 2).
14 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5670 (para. 8); Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5595 
(para. 2); Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25130 (para. 3).  
15 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674 (para. 17); Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5595 
(para. 3).  See also Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7), citing 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).  
16 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674 (para. 17); Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5595-96 
(para. 3).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
5
6. Antenna size is important because it affects the antenna gain.  The antenna gain 
is the ratio of the power required at the input of a loss-free reference antenna to the power 
supplied to the input of a given antenna to produce, in a given direction, the same field strength or 
the same power flux-density at the same distance.17 When not specified otherwise, the gain refers 
to the direction of maximum radiation.18 In other words, gain refers to an antennas ability to 
collect, concentrate, and direct energy in a particular fashion, i.e., a beam.19 Many antennas are 
shaped like parabolas, or like large, curved bowls.  The "axis," or boresight, is the line running 
through the center of the bowl and perpendicular to the plane of the edge of the bowl.20 The 
boresight should extend directly into the antenna on the satellite with which the earth station is 
communicating.  The majority of the energy is transmitted along the boresight in what is called 
the main beam of the antenna.  The "off-axis" angle is the angle formed by the axis and any other 
line running through the center of the bowl.21 The energy transmitted from an antenna forms 
"ripples," alternately increasing and decreasing in magnitude as the off-axis angle increases.22  
These ripples are called "side lobes."23
7.  The antenna gain at various off-axis angles provides a measure of the 
interference potential of that earth station to other in-orbit satellites.  For example, the antenna 
gain in the vicinity of 2 off-axis provides a measure of the potential of that earth station to cause 
interference to satellites located 2 away in orbit from the satellite with which the earth station is 
communicating.  The gain of any earth station antenna must fall within the limits defined by 
equations in the Commissions rules.  In other words, the main beam and side lobes of an antenna 
must fall within the limits specified by those equations.24  Decreasing the antenna diameter 
produces wider main beams and larger side lobes.  Thus, the antenna gain pattern envelope results 
in a minimum earth station antenna diameter because at some point the main beam will become 
wide enough to potentially cause unacceptable interference to adjacent satellites.25  
  
17 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4).
18 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9), 47 
C.F.R.  2.1. 
19 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9).
20 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9).  
This is true for center-fed antennas.  However, since any portion of the bowl will effectively reflect the 
energy from the feed in the direction of the boresight, "offset fed antennas" can be constructed where the 
boresight is not necessarily perpendicular to the plane of the antenna's edge.
21 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9).
22  Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9).  
Examples of these ripples can be seen in the antenna gain pattern diagrams in Appendix A of the Notice.  
Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25162-73 (App. A).
23 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9).
24 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 5), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 10), 47 
C.F.R.  25.209. 
25 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 5), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 11), 
Two Degree Spacing Order, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d at 605 (para. 93). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
6
B.  Current Earth Station Licensing Procedures
8.  Currently, we "routinely" license C-band and Ku-band earth station facilities that 
meet the 2 orbital spacing technical requirements set forth in Part 25 of the Commissions 
rules.26 In other words, if the earth station meets certain antenna diameter and power level 
restrictions,27 we grant the earth station application without conducting a further technical review 
to verify that the earth station will not cause unacceptable interference into other satellite 
systems.28 However, as the Commission explained previously in this proceeding, it is possible in 
some cases for an earth station that does not meet all of the technical standards of Part 25 to 
operate without causing unacceptable interference in a 2 orbital spacing environment.29 The 
Commission explained further that it conducts a case-by-case review of each of these "non-
routine" earth stations to determine whether the application can be granted.30
C.  Procedural History
9.  Over the years, we have taken action to streamline our satellite and earth station 
licensing rules and procedures when warranted.31 In addition, Section 11 of the Communications 
Act requires that the Commission, in every even-numbered year beginning in 1998, review all 
regulations that apply to the operations and activities of any provider of telecommunications 
service and determine whether any of these regulations are no longer necessary as the result of 
meaningful economic competition between providers of the service.32 Section 11 further instructs 
the Commission to "repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer necessary in the 
public interest."33 Accordingly, in 2000, the Commission initiated a comprehensive review of 
  
26 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674 (para. 17); Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5597 
(para. 6).  See also Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7), citing 47 C.F.R. Part 25.  
27 47 C.F.R.  25.134, 25.209, 25.211, 25.212.  See also Routine Licensing of Earth Station in the 6 GHz 
and 14 GHz Bands Using Antennas Less than 9 Meters and 5 Meters in Diameter, respectively, for Both 
Full Transponder and Narrowband Transmissions, Declaratory Order, 2 FCC Rcd 2149 (Com. Car. Bur., 
1987), cited in 47 C.F.R.  25.134.  
28 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674 (para. 17); Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5597 
(para. 6); Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7).  For purposes of this Order, we define "routine" earth 
stations as those that can be licensed without a case-by-case review.  The Commission also grants "non-
routine" earth station applications, but those applications require a case-by-case review to ensure that they 
will not cause harmful interference in a two-degree spacing environment.  
29 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7).
30 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7).
31 Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Reduce Alien Carrier Interference 
Between Fixed-Satellites at Reduced Orbital Spacing and to Revise Application Processing Procedures for 
Satellite Communications Services, First Report and Order, CC Docket No. 86-496, 6 FCC Rcd 2806 
(1991) (1991 Streamlining Order); Streamlining the Commission's Rules and Regulations for Satellite 
Application and Licensing Procedures, Report and Order, IB Docket No. 95-117, 11 FCC Rcd 21581 
(1996) (1996 Streamlining Order).  See also Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5670-71 (para. 9).
32 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5671 (para. 10), citing 47 U.S.C.  161(a). 
33 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5671 (para. 10), citing 47 U.S.C.  161(b). 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
7
telecommunications and other regulations to promote meaningful deregulation and streamlining 
where competition and other considerations warrant such action.34  
10.  At the time the Commission started this review, its policy was to require non-
routine earth station applicants to submit a technical study demonstrating that the proposed earth 
station will not cause unacceptable interference to 2-complaint operations.35  The preferred form 
of that technical study was the Adjacent Satellite Interference Analysis (ASIA) program as 
described in Section 25.134(b).36 This analysis was often difficult and time consuming to 
perform, because the information needed for the analysis is not readily available from any one 
source, and the ASIA results can be subject to interpretation.37 Some of the data needed for ASIA 
are available only from individual satellite operators.38 Further, the operation of the non-
compliant earth station antenna must still be coordinated with adjacent satellite operations.39  
11.  The Commission proposed and later adopted several earth station streamlining 
measures in this proceeding.  Among other things, it established a 15-year license term for earth 
station licenses,40 and eliminated the licensing requirement for receive-only earth stations 
    
(Continued from previous page)
34 Federal Communications Commission Biennial Regulatory Review 2000, Staff Report, CC Docket No. 
00-175, 15 FCC Rcd 21084 (2000) (2000 Biennial Review Staff Report), cited in Fifth Report and Order, 
20 FCC Rcd at 5671 (para. 10).
35 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25134 (para. 13), 
47 C.F.R.  25.209(f). 
36 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25134 (para. 13), 
47 C.F.R.  25.134(b).  Concurrently with the Two Degree Spacing Reconsideration Order, the 
Commission formed an Advisory Committee to obtain technical and operational expertise in implementing 
Two Degree Spacing standards.  Establishment of an Advisory Committee on Implementation of Reduced 
Orbit Spacing Between Domestic Fixed Satellites, Order, 102 FCC 2d 390 (1985).  Among the Advisory 
Committee's recommendations was to adopt ASIA as the generally accepted procedure for calculating 
adjacent satellite interference.  The Commission confirmed this determination in 1996, but also decided to 
permit licensees and applicants to use their own interference analysis programs, provided that the program 
is made available to the Commission and the public for review.  1996 Streamlining Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 
21601-02 (para. 50).  
37 Conducting an interference assessment using the ASIA program requires the collection of very specific 
modulation and link budget parameters for all of the communication links being analyzed.  Parameters such 
as modulation indices, baseband frequencies, data and error correction coding rates, noise temperatures, 
antenna gains, powers, and sometimes carrier frequency plans are required for the interfering and desired 
communication links.  Once these parameters are collected, the ASIA computer program computes carrier-
to-interference (C/I) ratios between the desired and interfering links.  Such detailed parameters are not 
collected in the earth station licensing process and are generally available only from the individual satellite 
system operators.  See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 
at 25134 (para. 13). 
38 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25134 n.24.  
39 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25134 (para. 13).
40 See Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25143-44 (paras. 44-45); Amendment of the Commission's Space Station 
Licensing Rules and Policies, 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
8
receiving transmissions from non-U.S.-licensed satellites on the Permitted List.41 The 
Commission has also adopted a streamlined form for routine earth station applications, called 
Form 312 EZ, eliminated several outdated rules, and mandated electronic filing for all earth 
station filings.42
12.  The primary focus of the Notice, however, was to streamline processing for two 
types of non-routine earth station applications: (1) those seeking authority to operate an earth 
station with an antenna diameter too small to meet the routine processing standards of Part 25;43
and (2) those seeking authority to operate an earth station at a power level greater than those 
specified in Part 25.44 For applications seeking authority to use a small antenna, the Commission 
proposed two alternative procedures.  One procedure would allow the Commission to require the 
applicant proposing a small antenna to operate at a lower power level to compensate for the 
smaller antenna diameter.45 The second procedure, as proposed by the Commission in the Notice, 
would allow applicants to submit certifications from target satellite operators, verifying that the 
    
(Continued from previous page)
25 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network 
Earth Stations and Space Stations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and First Report and Order, IB Docket 
Nos. 02-34 and 00-248, 17 FCC Rcd 3847, 3894-96 (paras. 139-46) (2002) (First Report and Order). 
41 Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, 2000 Biennial Regulatory 
Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing 
of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, Second Report and Order, 
IB Docket Nos. 02-34 and 00-248, 18 FCC Rcd 12507 (2003) (Second Report and Order).  For more on the 
Permitted List, see Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed 
Space Stations to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States, Order, IB 
Docket No. 96-111, 15 FCC Rcd 7207 (1999) (DISCO II First Reconsideration Order).  
42 Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, 2000 Biennial Regulatory 
Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing 
of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, Third Report and Order 
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket Nos. 02-34 and 00-248, 18 FCC Rcd 13486 
(2003) (Third Report and Order); Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and 
Policies, 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the 
Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations 
and Space Stations, Fourth Report and Order, IB Docket Nos. 02-34 and 00-248, 19 FCC Rcd 7419 (2004) 
(Fourth Report and Order).   
 
43 The smallest diameter antenna routinely licensed at C-band is 4.5 meters, and the smallest antenna 
routinely licensed at Ku-band is 1.2 meters in diameter.  See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 
(para. 20), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 11).  The size of the earth station antenna is important 
since, in general, smaller antennas produce wider transmission beams, which, in turn, can create more 
potential interference to adjacent satellite operations.  Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7).  
44 See 47 C.F.R.  25.134 (VSAT networks), 25.211 (video transmissions), 25.212 (narrowband 
transmissions).  See also Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 (para. 20), citing Notice, 15 FCC 
Rcd at 25140 (para. 31). 
45 As explained further below, reducing the diameter of an earth station antenna increases the side lobes.  
Reducing the transmit power of the earth station reduces the off-axis EIRP, however, and so can 
compensate for the reduction in antenna diameter.  See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 (para. 
20), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25135-36 (paras. 15-19).   
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
9
operation of the small earth station antenna has been coordinated with other satellite operators 
potentially affected by the proposed non-routine earth station.46 For applications to operate at 
non-routine power levels, the Commission proposed a certification procedure substantially 
similar to that it proposed for applications for earth stations with non-routine antenna diameters.47  
Finally, the Commission proposed codifying these procedures in Section 25.220 of its rules.48  
13.  A significant number of parties commented on the proposals in the Notice.49 In 
addition, SIA filed several ex parte statements proposing a different approach.50 Although the 
Commission had serious concerns with SIA's proposal, it adopted a Further Notice to allow 
interested parties to comment on it.51 Based on the record developed in response to the Notice 
and the Further Notice, the Commission decided in the Fifth Report and Order not to adopt SIA's 
alternative procedure for non-routine earth stations because it was unduly complex and 
unnecessarily burdensome for earth station applicants.52 The Commission instead adopted its 
original proposal as described in the Notice.53  
14.  In addition, in response to the Notice, some parties recommended increasing the 
starting point for the earth station antenna gain pattern envelope.  This would enable the 
Commission to decrease the minimum routine earth station size. Therefore, in the Further 
Notice, the Commission invited comment on several issues related to revising the earth station 
antenna gain pattern envelope.54 The Commission decided to increase the starting point for the 
antenna gain pattern envelope in the Sixth Report and Order, from 1.0 in the C-band and 1.25 
in the Ku-band to 1.5 in both bands.55 The Commission stayed the effectiveness of its antenna 
  
46 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 (para. 20), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25136-37 (paras. 
20-24). 
47 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 (para. 20), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25140-41 (paras. 
31-33).
48 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 (para. 20), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25187-88 (App. 
B).
49 Specifically, 13 comments were filed on March 26, 2001, and 11 replies were filed on May 7, 2001.  See
Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5731 (App. A).
50 See, e.g., Letter from Dori K. Bailey of Latham and Watkins, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC 
(dated Dec. 11, 2001) (SIA December 10 Ex Parte Statement) (While the ex parte meeting was held on 
December 10, 2001, the letter summarizing that meeting was filed on December 11, 2001). 
51 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's 
Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space 
Stations, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 00-248, 17 FCC Rcd 18585, 18631-33 
(paras. 127-32) (2002) (Further Notice).
52 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5680-82 (paras. 30-34).
53 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5699 (para. 84).  In this Order below, we make minor 
modifications to the procedure for non-routine earth stations based on proposals in a petition for 
reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order.  See Section V. below.  
54 Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18599-18613 (paras. 29-73).
55 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604-06 (paras. 22-25).
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
10
gain pattern revisions, however, while it considered a proposal for an off-axis EIRP approach for 
FSS earth stations, set forth in the Third Further Notice which was adopted together with the 
Sixth Report and Order.56 We discuss this further below.
D.  Off-Axis EIRP Approach
15.  In response to the Notice, some commenters recommended adopting a new 
envelope establishing off-axis EIRP spectral density limits.57  Commenters argued that an off-axis 
EIRP envelope would combine power density and antenna gain pattern requirements into one 
rule, and would give earth station license applicants more flexibility because they would be able 
to adjust their power to compensate for their antenna gain pattern, and vice versa.58 The 
Commission adopted the Third Further Notice in part to invite comment on adopting an off-axis 
EIRP density envelope for FSS earth stations.59 The Commission agreed that earth station license 
applicants should have the flexibility to reduce their power levels to compensate for a higher 
antenna gain pattern.60 The Commission also reasoned that an off-axis EIRP envelope might 
enable it to act on earth station applications more quickly than would be possible under the 
substantially similar procedure adopted in the Fifth Report and Order.  Under that previous 
procedure, earth station applicants proposing to use antennas with non-routine antenna gain 
patterns were required to reduce their transmit power levels dB for dB to compensate for the 
amount that its antenna gain pattern exceeds the envelope in Section 25.209.61  Moreover, the 
Commission noted that an off-axis EIRP approach for conventional C-band and Ku-band FSS 
earth stations would be consistent with our treatment of Ka-band FSS earth stations, and earth 
stations on vessels (ESVs).62
16.  Eight parties filed comments in response to the Third Further Notice, and six 
filed replies.63 In addition, AVL filed an ex parte statement on February 13, 2006, to clarify and 
in some cases to revise the proposals in its applications.64  SIA and ViaSat also filed ex parte 
    
(Continued from previous page)
56 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (para. 50).
57 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5621 (para. 72).
58 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5621 (para. 72). 
59 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).
60 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).
61 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74), citing Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 
5684-85 (paras. 41-42), 47 C.F.R.  25.209(a).
62 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74), citing 47 C.F.R  25.138 (Ka-band earth stations); 
Procedures to Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board Vessels in the 5925-6425 MHz/ 3700-
4200 MHz Bands and 14.0-14.5 GHz/11.7-12.2 GHz Bands, Report and Order, IB Docket No. 02-10, 20 
FCC Rcd 674, 699 (para. 55) (2005) (ESV Order).
63 These parties are listed in Appendix A.
64 Letter from James L. Oliver, President, AvL Technologies, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated 
Feb. 13, 2006) (AVL Ex Parte Statement).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
11
statements.65  Based on that record, and for the reasons discussed below, we adopt the 
Commission's off-axis EIRP proposal, but not as the only means of reviewing earth station 
applications as was originally proposed.  Instead, the Commission will continue to treat as routine 
applications for earth stations that fall within the traditional routine earth station processing 
parameters.  In Section III. of this Order below, we address these issues in more detail. 
17.  In addition, in the Third Further Notice, the Commission invited additional 
comment on two issues for which it needed to supplement the record.  For the first issue, 
regarding use of contention protocols in Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) networks, we 
adopt a requirement that requires such contention protocol usage to be "reasonable." The second 
issue involved coordination requirements for VSAT networks with remote terminals located in 
the "Quiet Zone," a 13,000 square mile area in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland in which 
the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) conducts radioastronomy.66 We find that no 
further revisions to the Quiet Zone coordination procedures are needed at this time.  We discuss 
these two issues in Section IV. below.  Finally, we address petitions for reconsideration of the 
Fifth Report and Order and Sixth Report and Order in Section V.67 We grant in part and deny in 
part the petitions for reconsideration.
III.  OFF-AXIS EIRP 
A.  Review of Earth Station Applications Based on Off-Axis EIRP Envelope
18.  Background.  In the Third Further Notice, the Commission invited comment on 
reviewing FSS earth station applications in the C-band and Ku-band solely on the basis of an off-
axis EIRP envelope.68 The Commission noted that this approach would give earth station license 
applicants the flexibility to reduce their power levels to compensate for a higher antenna gain 
pattern, and might also allow the Commission to act on certain earth station applications faster 
than would be possible under a substantially similar procedure adopted in the Fifth Report and 
Order.69  Moreover, the Commission noted that an off-axis EIRP approach for conventional C-
band and Ku-band FSS earth stations would be consistent with its treatment of Ka-band FSS earth 
stations, and earth stations on vessels (ESVs).70 In the event that the Commission decided not to 
adopt off-axis EIRP envelopes for FSS earth stations, it requested proposals for new minimum 
  
65 Letter from Carolyn Tatum Roddy, Director of Regulatory Affairs, SIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC (dated Oct. 27, 2006) (SIA Ex Parte Statement); Letter from Elizabeth R. Park, Counsel for ViaSat, 
Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Dec. 14, 2006) (ViaSat Ex Parte Statement).
66 See 47 C.F.R.  25.203(f).
67 In this Order, we also dismiss three petitions for reconsideration of the 1996 Streamlining Order, 11 FCC 
Rcd 21581, as moot or outside the scope of that proceeding.
68 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 75). In the Third Further Notice, the Commission also 
explained why it decided to exclude Ka-band FSS earth stations and mobile satellite service (MSS) earth 
stations from the off-axis EIRP envelopes it proposed for FSS earth stations in the C-band and Ku-band.    
Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5625-26 (paras. 89-90).  No one commented on that decision. 
 
69 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).
70 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
12
routine antenna sizes based on the revised antenna gain pattern requirements adopted in the Sixth 
Report and Order.71
19.  Discussion.  SIA and Spacenet generally support adoption of an off-axis EIRP 
envelope approach for FSS earth stations,72 and none of the commenters opposed this proposal.  
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Third Further Notice and summarized above, we 
adopt such off-axis EIRP envelopes.  However, we will not review earth station applications 
solely on the basis of off-axis EIRP envelopes, as proposed in the Third Further Notice.  This is 
in part because, as explained further below, an off-axis EIRP approach is not well-suited for 
analog video earth station applications.73 In addition, by continuing to give earth station 
applicants the option of having their applications reviewed on the basis of antenna size and power 
levels as the Commission has done in the past, we can continue to take advantage of our 
experience with 4.5 meter antennas in the C-band, and 1.2 meter antennas in the Ku-band.
20.  In the Sixth Report and Order, the Commission adopted a number of revisions to 
its antenna gain pattern rules.  Specifically, the Commission decided to begin the antenna gain 
pattern envelope at 1.5 off-axis within the GSO orbital arc for C-band and Ku-band earth 
stations, and 3.0 off-axis outside the GSO orbital arc for Ku-band earth stations.74 The 
Commission also increased its backlobe requirements for Ku-band earth stations to 0 dBi for off-
axis angles greater than 85.75 The Commission stayed the effectiveness of these rule revisions, 
however, pending its decision on whether to adopt an off-axis EIRP envelope methodology for 
reviewing FSS earth station applications.76 Here, we have decided to adopt an off-axis EIRP 
envelope methodology as one option for earth station applicants.  Accordingly, the antenna gain 
pattern rule revisions adopted in the Sixth Report and Order will take effect concurrently with the 
other rule revisions we adopt in this Order.
B.  Development of Off-Axis EIRP Envelope for FSS Earth Stations 
1.  Circular C-band and Ku-band Earth Stations 
21.  Background. Generally, an off-axis EIRP envelope is determined by the 
applicable earth station antenna gain pattern envelope and the allowed EIRP density into the 
antenna.77 The allowed EIRP density from the antenna decreases as the off-axis angle increases.  
In the Third Further Notice, the Commission invited comment on basing the off-axis EIRP 
envelopes for C-band and Ku-band earth stations on the antenna gain pattern envelopes and 
  
71 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 75).
72 SIA Comments at 6-7; Spacenet Comments at 1-3.  See also AVL Ex Parte Statement at 3.
73 See Section III.B.4. below.
74 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (para. 49).
75 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (para. 49).
76 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (para. 50).
77 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5623 (para. 77), citing ESV Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 699 (para. 55).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
13
power requirements in Part 25 that were revised to begin at the angles established in the Sixth 
Report and Order.78  Those off-axis EIRP envelopes were set forth in the Third Further Notice,79
and are reprinted in Appendix C to this Order.   
22.  SIA supports the Commission's proposed off-axis EIRP envelopes for C-band 
earth station antennas greater than or equal to 2.4 meters in diameter, and for Ku-band earth 
station antennas greater than or equal to 0.7 meters in diameter.80 SIA, however, asserts that the 
Commission's proposal to start the off-axis EIRP envelope at 1.5 does not adequately protect 
against mispointing of an antenna by 0.5 or less, as the Commission found in the Sixth Report 
and Order.81 SIA further recommends that, for C-band earth station antennas less than 2.4 meters 
in diameter, and for Ku-band earth station antennas less than 0.7 meters in diameter, the 
Commission adopt off-axis EIRP envelopes that limit off-axis EIRP in the sidelobes greater than 
6 slightly more than as proposed in Appendix C.  Specifically, SIA recommends that those off-
axis EIRP limits be applied at off-axis angles 0.5 less than they would be under the 
Commission's proposals.82 Examples of SIA's proposed off-axis EIRP envelopes are set forth 
below.  Global VSAT Forum supports SIA's proposal to establish a different set of off-axis EIRP 
envelopes for smaller earth station antennas.83 AVL questions whether SIA's proposal is too 
regulatory.84 ViaSat argues that a separate mask for small earth station antennas might 
discourage technological developments involving such antennas.85
Table 1
Off-Axis EIRP Envelope Proposed for 
C-Band Digital Earth Station Applications in 
the Third Further Notice, Appendix C, 
Table II(1), with SIA's Proposed Revisions for
Earth Stations Less Than 2.4 Meters in Diameter 
26.3 - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 6.5
5.3  -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 6.5 < ? ? 8.7
29.3 -10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 8.7 < ? ? 47.5
- 12.7 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 47.5 < ? ? 180
  
78 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5623 (para. 77).
79 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5653-56 (App. C).
80 SIA Comments at 16.
81 SIA Comments at 12-15.
82 SIA Comments at 17-18.  See also SIA Ex Parte Statement at 4.
83 Global VSAT Forum Reply at 1-2.
84 AVL Reply at 1.
85 ViaSat Ex Parte Statement at 4-8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
14
Table 2
Off-Axis EIRP Envelope Proposed for 
Ku-Band Digital Earth Station Applications in 
the Third Further Notice, Appendix C,
Table IV(1), with SIA's Proposed Revisions for 
Earth Stations Less than 0.7 Meters in Diameter 
15  - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 6.5
-6  -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 6.5 < ? ? 8.7
18 -10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 8.7 < ? ? 47.5
- 24 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 47.5 < ? ? 84.5
- 14 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 84.5 < ? ? 180
23.  Discussion.  We decide against adopting SIA's proposal.  First, we disagree with 
SIA's contention that the antenna gain pattern requirements adopted in the Sixth Report and 
Order do not adequately account for the potential for pointing error.  In the Sixth Report and 
Order, the Commission explained why it decided to start the antenna gain pattern envelope at 
1.5 off-axis.  That decision was based on comments in the record from several parties, including 
SIA, that the main beams of a number of sub-meter Ku-band antennas could meet this 
requirement.86 Furthermore, the Commission observed that, in the United States, the difference 
between the geocentric angle and the topocentric angle is 0.1 to  0.2, depending on the elevation 
angle of the earth station.87 The difference between these two angles provides an additional 
safeguard against adjacent satellite interference.88  
24.  Furthermore, even assuming that SIA is correct that starting the antenna gain 
pattern envelope at 1.5 off-axis does not adequately protect against adjacent satellite 
interference, we disagree that SIA's proposal before us now would remedy the issue it raised.  
Other than changing the starting point for the antenna gain pattern, the antenna gain pattern 
envelope was unchanged in the Sixth Report and Order.   In other words, the Sixth Report and 
Order revised the earth station antenna gain requirements only for the main beam of the antenna.  
The limits on side lobe gain were not affected by the Sixth Report and Order.  In effect, SIA 
claims that the Sixth Report and Order allows the main lobe to be too wide.  However, SIA's 
recommendation would result in only slight revisions to the Commission's side lobe 
requirements.89 Adopting SIA's recommendation would not have any effect on the width of the 
main lobe.90
  
86 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604 (para. 22).
87 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604 (para. 22).  The geocentric angle is the angle measured 
from the center of the earth, and the topocentric angle is the angle measured from the surface of the earth.
See Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18640-41 (App. B).
88 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604 (para. 22), citing Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18640-41 
(App. B). 
89 Specifically, SIA's proposal would revise the earth station antenna gain pattern envelope from 6.5 to 7, 
8.7 to 9.2, or 47.5 to 48 off-axis.
90 Although we disagree with SIA's contention that the antenna gain pattern requirements adopted in the 
Sixth Report and Order do not adequately account for the potential for pointing error, we find that a
relatively minor adjustment to those antenna gain pattern requirements would further reduce the potential 
for harmful interference resulting from pointing error.  Specifically, in the Third Further Notice, the 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
15
 
2.  Elliptical C-band Earth Stations
25.  Background.  When viewed from any point on the earths surface, satellites near 
each other in the geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) appear to lie approximately in one plane.91 In 
the Sixth Report and Order, the Commission decided to begin the Ku-band antenna gain pattern 
envelope outside the GSO orbital plane at 3.0 off-axis, in order to facilitate development of more 
advanced elliptical antennas.92 The Commission also tentatively concluded that it would start the 
Ku-band off-axis EIRP envelope outside the GSO orbital plane at 3.0 off-axis.93  
26.  With respect to the C-band, however, the Commission specifically invited 
comment in the Third Further Notice on whether it should start the C-band antenna gain pattern 
envelope outside the GSO orbital plane, and the comparable C-band off-axis EIRP envelope, at 
3.0 off-axis, rather than 1.5 off-axis.94  The Commission noted that adopting this proposal 
would facilitate routine processing standards for elliptical C-band earth station antennas.95  The 
Commission also invited comment on whether the existing coordination procedure in Section 
25.203(c) of the Commissions rules is adequate for coordinating elliptical C-band earth stations 
with terrestrial wireless operations.96 Finally, the Commission inquired whether it should 
increase the minimum angle of elevation for elliptical C-band earth stations above the 5 
minimum currently in the rules, to further reduce the possibility of harmful interference to 
terrestrial wireless operations, in the event that the Commission adopts the rule proposed here. 97
27.  Discussion.  None of the commenters in this proceeding directly address the 
Commission's proposal to start the C-band and Ku-band off-axis EIRP envelopes outside the 
GSO orbital plane at 3 off-axis.  Accordingly, we adopt the Commission's proposal, to facilitate 
    
(Continued from previous page)
Commission proposed defining the off-axis EIRP envelope for C-band and Ku-band FSS earth stations on 
the basis of degrees away from the axis of the main lobe. Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5653-56 
(App. C).  Instead of that approach, we could define the off-axis EIRP envelope on the basis of a line from 
the focal point of the antenna to the target satellite, within the plane determined by the focal point of the 
antenna and the line tangent to the arc of the geostationary satellite orbit at the position of the target 
satellite.  This approach would cause VSAT network operators with excessively mispointed antennas to 
violate the antenna gain pattern rules.  Accordingly, as a logical outgrowth of the off-axis EIRP envelopes 
proposed in the Third Further Notice, and in response to SIA's concerns regarding pointing error expressed 
in the record, we define the off-axis EIRP envelopes for C-band and Ku-band FSS earth stations 
consistently with the off-axis EIRP envelopes for ESVs. 
 
91 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5599 n.25. 
92 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5610 (para. 38).
93 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5623 (para. 78).
94 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624 (para. 82).
95 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624 (para. 82). 
96 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624 (para. 82). 
97 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624 (para. 82), citing 47 C.F.R.  25.205.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
16
elliptical earth station antennas. We also conclude that, since no one advocated new coordination 
procedures for elliptical C-band earth stations, none are needed at this time. 
28.  SIA opposes increasing the minimum elevation angle for elliptical C-band earth 
stations because it might unreasonably limit the use of such earth stations in northern latitudes.98  
No one argues in favor of this restriction.  On the basis of the record on this issue, we find that
SIA is persuasive, and no revision to the current minimum elevation angle rules is needed at this 
time.  
29.  AVL recommends requiring that the major axis of elliptical antennas be aligned 
with the GSO plane.99 We conclude that starting the off-axis EIRP envelope at 1.5 off-axis 
within the GSO orbital plane, and at 3.0 outside that plane, has the same effect as requiring 
elliptical antennas to be aligned with the GSO plane in most cases.  Thus, AVL's recommendation 
would simply state explicitly a requirement that is now implicit in the Commission's rules.  
Therefore, we adopt AVL's suggestion.
3.  Analog Video 
30.  Background.  As noted above, the Commission proposed replacing the current 
routine earth station licensing standards, based on antenna size and power levels, with procedures 
based exclusively on off-axis EIRP envelopes.100 In addition, the Commission based its proposed 
off-axis EIRP envelopes on the antenna gain pattern envelopes and EIRP density limits in Part 25, 
revised to begin at the angles established in the Sixth Report and Order.101  Analog video services 
present unique issues under this approach, because Part 25 has historically provided EIRP limits 
rather than EIRP density limits on analog video transmissions.102 In the Third Further Notice, the 
Commission requested comment on three options for addressing these analog video transmission 
issues: (1) applying the off-axis EIRP envelopes for other narrowband analog transmissions to 
analog video transmissions; (2) developing new off-axis EIRP envelopes for analog video 
transmissions; or (3) prohibiting analog video transmissions, after a one-year transition period.103  
The Commission assumed that eliminating analog video might be reasonable because the use of 
analog generally in satellite transmissions is declining.104 The Commission also explained that 
analog video transmissions are more susceptible to harmful interference from other transmissions 
and more likely to cause harmful interference to other transmissions.105  
  
98 SIA Comments at 7.
99 AVL Comments at 4; AVL Ex Parte Statement at 2.
100 Section III.A. above, citing Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (paras. 74-75).
101 Section III.B.1. above, citing Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5623 (para. 77).
102 See Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624 (para. 84).
103 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624-25 (paras. 85-88).
104 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5625 (para. 87).
105 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5625 (para. 87), citing Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 
5706 (para. 106); Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Reduce Alien 
Carrier Interference Between Fixed-Satellites at Reduced Orbital Spacings and to Revise Application 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
17
31.  Discussion.  SIA claims that it is not possible to develop an off-axis EIRP 
envelope for analog video signals because the power spectral density of such signals fluctuates.106  
SES Americom opposes new analog video regulations because the current rules are working 
well.107 In addition, a number of commenters oppose eliminating analog video transmissions, 
because a substantial number of customers are still using analog video.108 Several maintain that 
neither a prohibition nor a transition requirement is necessary because analog video users are in 
the process of converting to digital video already.109 Many parties assert that a one-year 
transition period would not be adequate.110 Commenters also maintain that a premature transition 
to digital would be prohibitively expensive.111 Several commenters argue that the relative 
susceptibility to harmful interference of analog video signals is not relevant, because satellite 
operators have been accommodating those signals for years.112 NPS claims that digital 
transmissions are more likely to be perceived as a potential root cause of harmful interference.113
32.  We adopt SES Americom's and SIA's proposal to retain the current regulatory 
framework for analog video services at this time.114  The record in this proceeding has shown 
convincingly that requiring the transition from analog to digital video transmissions proposed in 
the Third Further Notice would be unreasonably expensive and burdensome. 
    
(Continued from previous page)
Processing Procedures for Satellite Communications Services, Second Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 86-496, 8 FCC Rcd 1316, 1320 (para. 24) (1993) (Ku-
band Antenna Gain Pattern Revision Order).
106 SIA Comments at 21-22.  See also EchoStar Reply at 4; NPS Reply at 4; SIA Ex Parte Statement at 5.
107 SES Americom Comments at 7.
108 SES Americom Comments at 6-7; NCTA Comments at 1-4; Time Warner Comments at 3-4; NPS 
Comments at 2-3; Joint Commenters Comments at 3-6.  See also EchoStar Reply at 5.
109 SES Americom Comments at 7; Time Warner Comments at 5-6; SIA Comments at 26; NPS Comments 
at 6; Joint Commenters Comments at 6; EchoStar Reply at 4; NPS Reply at 5; SIA Reply at 5.  See also
SIA Ex Parte Statement at 6. 
110 NCTA Comments at 3-4; Time Warner Comments at 3-4; SIA Comments at 27-29; NPS Comments at 
7-8; NPS Reply at 5.
111 NCTA Comments at 1-4; Time Warner Comments at 3-5; SIA Comments at 27-29; Joint Commenters 
Comments at 6-7; EchoStar Reply at 2-3; NPS Reply at 4; SIA Reply at 6-8.  See also SIA Ex Parte 
Statement at 6. 
112 SIA Comments at 23-26; SES Americom Comments at 4-6; Time Warner Comments at 6; NPS 
Comments at 5; Joint Commenters Comments at 2-3; EchoStar Reply at 3-4; SIA Reply at 5.  See also SIA 
Ex Parte Statement at 6.
113 NPS Comments at 3-6.
114 SES Americom Comments at 3-4; SIA Reply at 4. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
18
4.  Other Issues      
33.  The Commission included a "10log(N)" term in its proposed off-axis EIRP 
envelopes to account for the use of frequency division multiple access (FDMA), time division 
multiple access (TDMA), or code division multiple access (CDMA) technique for digital earth 
stations in VSAT networks.115 The effect of these terms is to regulate off-axis EIRP on a per-
earth station basis rather than an aggregate basis.  SIA supports the per earth station approach.116  
SIA asserts, however, that this approach might not be best for the Aeronautical Mobile Satellite 
Service (AMSS) operating in the Ku-band.117 We are considering AMSS in another proceeding 
and will determine how best to treat AMSS on the basis of the record in that proceeding.118  
Similarly, we have considered separately various approaches to regulating off-axis EIRP for 
ESVs in the C- and Ku-bands,119 and are considering vehicle-mounted earth stations in the Ku-
and extended Ku-bands.120
34.  Finally, SIA asserts that it has found some mathematical errors in the 
Commission's proposed off-axis EIRP envelopes in Appendix C of the Third Further Notice.121  
We agree with SIA in some cases, and disagree in others.  These issues are discussed in more 
detail in Appendix D to this Order.122
  
115 See Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5653-56 (App. C).  Specifically, the Commission included a 
"10log(N)" term for the EIRP limits of digital earth stations, where N is set equal to 1 for TDMA and 
FDMA networks, and N is the maximum number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth 
stations in the same satellite receiving beam for CDMA networks.   
116 SIA Comments at 11.
117 SIA Comments at 11; SIA Reply at 8-9. 
118 See Service Rules and Procedures to Govern the Use of Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service Earth 
Stations in Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed Satellite Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB 
Docket No. 05-20, 20 FCC Rcd 2906 (2005) (AMSS NPRM).
119 See Procedures to Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board Vessels in the 5925-6425 
MHz/3700-4200 MHz Bands and 14.0-14.5 GHz/11.7-12.2 GHz Bands, Report and Order, IB Docket No. 
02-10, 20 FCC Rcd 674 (2005) (ESV Order) (petitions for reconsideration pending).
120 See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commissions Rules to Allocate Spectrum and Adopt Service 
Rules and Procedures to Govern the Use of Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations in Certain Frequency Bands 
Allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 07-101, 22 FCC 
Rcd 9649 (2007).
121 SIA Comments at 11 and 16 n.25; Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5653-56 (App. C).
122 In particular, we disagree with SIA's implicit assumption that the Commission overstated the off-axis 
EIRP limit between 7 and 9.2 off-axis by 0.1 dB/4 kHz.  We explain this conclusion in Appendix D.  
When we discuss SIA's alternative proposal in Section III.E. below, we adjust its proposal by 0.1 dB/4 kHz 
to correct for SIA's assumption.    
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
19
C. Protection from Interference  
35.  Background.  In the Third Further Notice, the Commission noted that its rules 
protect earth stations from interference to the extent that the antenna conforms to the antenna gain 
reference patterns specified in its rules.123 Accordingly, the Commission invited comment on 
whether to adopt a standard comparable to Section 25.209(c) to protect earth stations from 
harmful interference, in the event that it decided to replace the current antenna gain reference 
pattern requirements in Section 25.209 with an off-axis EIRP envelope for earth stations in the 
fixed satellite service.124 The Commission also asked whether its decision to start the antenna 
gain reference pattern at 1.5 from the main lobe affect an earth station operators ability to claim 
protection from harmful interference.125  
 
36.  Discussion. SIA supports the Commission's proposal to provide protection from 
interference starting at 1.5 off-axis, to be consistent with the off-axis EIRP envelope starting 
point.126 None of the other commenters opposed this approach.  We find that it would be 
reasonable to adopt the Commission's proposal to require earth stations licensed under the off-
axis EIRP procedure we adopt here to be protected from interference starting at 1.5 off-axis.  
This is consistent with the Commission's historical practice of protecting earth stations from 
interference to the extent that a routine earth station would be expected to receive interference. 
D.  Resolution of Harmful Interference Complaints
37.  The Commission concluded that its existing procedures for resolving complaints 
of harmful interference has been generally effective, and proposed continuing to apply those 
procedures under an off-axis EIRP envelope approach for earth station licensing.127 SIA supports 
retaining the current resolution procedure,128 and no one else commented on this issue.  
Accordingly, we find that there is no reason to depart from our current procedures for resolving 
complaints of harmful interference.
E. Alterative Pointing Error Proposals 
1.  SIA Alternative Proposal 
38.  Background.  As an alternative, SIA proposes that the Commission allow small 
antenna earth station applicants to show that they can maintain a pointing error of less than 0.5 
off-axis, and meet off-axis EIRP envelopes that are slightly less restrictive than those proposed by 
SIA and set forth in Tables 1 and 2 above.129 Specifically, for small Ku-band digital earth station 
  
123 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5626 (para. 91), citing 47 C.F.R.  25.209(c).
124 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5626 (para. 91).
125 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5626 (para. 91).
126 SIA Comments at 8.
127 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627 (para. 92), citing 47 C.F.R.  25.274.
128 SIA Comments at 9.
129 SIA Comments at 19-20.
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
20
applications, and for any pointing error "p" less than 0.5, SIA would use the off-axis EIRP 
envelope set forth below.  SIA maintains that this would give earth station operators an incentive 
to improve their pointing accuracy.130
Table 3
Off-Axis EIRP Envelope Proposed for 
Ku-Band Digital Earth Station Applications in 
the Third Further Notice, Appendix C,
Table IV(1), with SIA's Proposed Pointing Error Adjustment
15  - 10log10(N) - 25log10(?-p) dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? (7-p)
-6  -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For (7-p) < ? ? (9.2-p)
18 -10log10(N) - 25log10(?-p) dBW/4 kHz For (9.2-p) < ? ? (48-p)
- 24 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For (48-p) < ? ? (85-p)
- 14 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For (85-p) < ? ? 180
39.  Discussion.  We do not adopt SIA's alternative proposal.  First, as the 
Commission has explained before, the purpose of distinguishing between routine and non-routine 
earth stations is to identify classes of earth stations that can be authorized without a detailed, 
case-by-case engineering review.131 Under SIA's alternative proposal, earth station applicants 
would be required to provide some kind of technical showing to demonstrate their pointing 
accuracy, and this requirement is inconsistent with the Commission's goal of establishing new 
routine earth station standards.  Second, in the Sixth Report and Order, the Commission found 
that starting the antenna gain pattern envelope for FSS earth stations at 1.5 off-axis adequately 
accounts for the potential for pointing error.132 Accordingly, we conclude here that we do not 
need any rules other than those adopted in this Order to account for the potential for pointing 
error in FSS earth station antennas.
2.  AVL Proposals
40.  Background.  AVL recommends routine processing for applications for earth 
stations that can be pointed very accurately.  Specifically, AVL notes that it manufactures an 
earth station antenna with a computerized pointing mechanism.  AVL also asserts that this 
mechanism by itself should be adequate to process the earth station routinely, regardless of 
whether the antenna gain pattern intersects the antenna gain pattern envelope at an off-axis angle 
greater than 1.5.133  AVL maintains that any FSS antenna could become mispointed due to wind, 
refers to the effects of wind as "backlash," and suggests adopting standards for limiting 
backlash.134 AVL contends that the risk from harmful interference to adjacent satellites resulting 
from a mispointed main beam is greater than the risk resulting from larger side lobes, and 
    
(Continued from previous page)
130 SIA Comments at 19.
131 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5680 (para. 30).
132 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604 (para. 22).
133 AVL Comments at 1-4.
134 AVL Comments at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
21
suggests that the Commission should focus its attention on preventing the edge of the main beam 
of antennas from being pointed at an adjacent satellite.135  SIA and Global VSAT Forum support 
AVL's goal of establishing incentives for better pointing accuracy, but only if it can be done in a 
technologically neutral manner.136 In addition, SIA points out that AVL's proposal appears to 
assume, incorrectly, that pointing accuracy is the only factor that might cause adjacent satellite 
interference, and contends that an off-axis EIRP approach is a more effective method for 
addressing adjacent satellite interference.137
41.  AVL also proposes requiring all non-routine temporary-fixed earth station 
applicants to demonstrate the pointing accuracy of their antennas.138 SIA replies that such 
detailed increases in regulation are not necessary.139 SIA further contends that AVL has not 
explained why there should be additional regulations for temporary-fixed earth stations, nor 
provided sufficient detail for its proposal.140
42. Discussion. We decline adopting AVL's proposals.  First, we agree with SIA that 
AVL appears to assume, incorrectly, that antenna pointing accuracy is the only factor that might 
cause adjacent satellite interference.  Clearly, sidelobe transmissions are another factor, and SIA 
is correct in asserting that an off-axis EIRP envelope would address sidelobe issues more 
effectively than AVL's proposal would.  Although we agree with AVL that the width of the main 
beam of an antenna is also an important factor, AVL does not explain how its suggested pointing 
accuracy requirements by themselves, without antenna gain pattern rules or off-axis EIRP rules 
that result in limiting the width of the main beam, would be effective in preventing harmful 
interference. Second, AVL's proposal appears to require a case-by-case review of pointing 
accuracy showings, and therefore would not be well-suited for a routine licensing approach.  
Third, we share SIA's and Global VSAT Forum's concerns regarding whether AVL's proposal is 
technologically neutral.
43.  In addition, we conclude that AVL has not shown that the new requirements it
recommends for non-routine temporary-fixed earth stations are warranted at this time. Generally, 
the Commission has received few, if any, complaints of harmful interference resulting from 
temporary-fixed earth stations.141  Thus, we have no basis for concluding that the procedures for 
non-routine earth stations adopted in the Fifth Report and Order might be inadequate for non-
routine temporary-fixed earth stations.  Moreover, we agree with SIA that, if there were some 
basis for additional regulations for non-routine temporary-fixed earth stations, AVL does not 
describe its proposal in sufficient detail to adopt it here.    
  
135 AVL Ex Parte Statement at 2; AVL Reply at 1.
136 SIA Reply at 9-10; Global VSAT Forum Reply at 2.
137 SIA Reply at 11.
138 AVL Comments at 4. 
139 SIA Reply at 13-14.
140 SIA Reply at 14.
141 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5709 (para. 113) (no complaints of harmful interference 
resulting from Ku-band earth stations from 1993 to the time the Order was adopted in 2005).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
22
F. Exceeding Off-Axis EIRP Envelope
1.  Certification Procedure
44. Background.  As the Commission explained in the Fifth Report and Order, 
among other places, the Commission has historically distinguished between routine and non-
routine earth station applications.142 Earth station operators have been allowed to exceed the 
Commission's earth station technical requirements, provided that they can show that they will not 
cause harmful interference to other licensed operations.143 In the Third Further Notice, the 
Commission solicited comment on whether earth station operators should continue to be allowed 
to exceed the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope, in the event it adopted such envelopes.144  
Alternatively, the Commission invited comment on allowing only earth stations operating in 
bands that are not shared with other services to exceed the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope.145
45. The Commission requested comment on issues that would be raised if earth 
station applicants were allowed to exceed the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope.  In particular, 
the Commission proposed requiring such earth station applicants to follow one of the streamlined 
procedures adopted in the Fifth Report and Order for considering non-routine earth station 
applications.146 Under that procedure, an applicant must obtain certifications from the operators 
of satellites with which the earth station operator plans to communicate, showing that those 
satellite operators have coordinated with the operators of satellites located within six degrees of 
the target satellite.147 The Commission also invited parties to propose alternative procedures.148  
46.  Finally, the Commission requested comment on whether it can continue to expect 
satellite operators to coordinate their operations in good faith.149 If not, the Commission invited 
comment on whether it would be necessary to impose some kind of penalty for failing to 
coordinate in good faith, and if so, a number of options for such a penalty.150  
47.  Discussion.  None of the commenters address the proposal to prohibit all or some 
earth station operators from exceeding the off-axis EIRP envelope.  Instead, the parties focus on 
the showing that should be required of such earth station applicants.  Spacenet recommends 
  
142 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674-75 (paras. 17-18).
143 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18). 
144 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627 (para. 94).
145 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627 (para. 94). 
146 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627-28 (paras. 94-95).  See also Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 5685-88 (paras. 44-52).
147 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5688-89 (para. 52), 5699 (para. 84).
148 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627-28 (para. 95).
149 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 96).
150 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 96).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
23
retaining the coordination procedure adopted in the Fifth Report and Order for earth station 
applications that exceed the off-axis EIRP envelope.151 SIA asserts that affidavits should be 
signed by both the target and adjacent satellite operators.152 SIA opposes any punitive measures 
to enforce coordination agreements as unnecessary, however.153
48.  As an initial matter, we will allow earth station applicants to exceed the off-axis 
EIRP envelope upon an appropriate showing that such operations will not cause harmful 
interference to other licensees.  This is consistent with the Commission's past practice, as 
explained in the Fifth Report and Order.154 Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests that we 
should change our practice as a result of our adoption of an off-axis EIRP envelope approach for 
FSS earth stations.
49.  We also find that the certification procedure adopted in the Fifth Report and 
Order provides a good basis for determining whether any particular earth station operator should 
be allowed to exceed the off-axis EIRP envelope.155 The Commission found in that Order that 
this certification procedure is a reasonable method for expediting review of non-routine earth 
stations without increasing the risk of harmful interference to other licensed operations.156  
Spacenet supports this approach.157 SIA, the only other commenter on this issue, recommends 
requiring both target satellite operators and adjacent satellite operators to certify that coordination 
has been completed,158 but does not sufficiently justify its recommendation.  SIA also suggested 
that both target satellite operators and adjacent satellite operators submit certifications as part of 
its 2001 alternative to the Commission's proposed non-routine earth station procedure.159 At the 
time, the Commission tentatively concluded that requiring additional certifications from adjacent 
satellite operators would create unnecessary additional administrative burdens on non-routine 
earth station applicants,160 and specifically asked parties to address that tentative conclusion.161  
SIA did not address that issue at that time.162
  
151 Spacenet Comments at 2-3.
152 SIA Comments at 9.
153 SIA Comments at 10.
154 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674-75 (paras. 17-18).
155 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5685-89 (paras. 44-52). 
156 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5688-89 (para. 52).
157 Spacenet Comments at 2-3.
158 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674-75 (paras. 17-18).
159 See Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18632 (para. 129).
160 See Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18632 (para. 129).
161 See Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18633 (para. 132).
162 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5681 (para. 31) ("In addition, other than clarifying and 
explaining its proposal to treat an earth station's transmit operations differently from its receive operations, 
SIA has not addressed many of the concerns the Commission raised in the Further Notice.")
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
24
50.  In the Third Further Notice, the Commission again noted that it has historically 
relied on satellite operators to work together cooperatively to reach coordination agreements,163
and "request[ed] comment on whether our expectation of good-faith coordination among satellite 
system operators is well-founded and is self-policing."164 Neither SIA nor any other commenter 
has provided a basis to question the Commission's expectation of good-faith coordination.  
Moreover, even if a target satellite operator neglected to coordinate with an affected adjacent 
satellite operator, the Commission's procedure includes an additional opportunity for those 
satellite operators to comment.165 Accordingly, we find again that requiring certifications from 
adjacent satellite operators would be unnecessarily burdensome for non-routine earth station 
operators, and we have decided not to adopt this proposal.  
51.  Finally, we agree with SIA that punitive measures to enforce coordination 
agreements are not necessary.  We base this conclusion on our discussion above that we have 
always relied on satellite operators to work together to coordinate their operations, and we expect 
that cooperation to continue.
2.  Alternative Procedure
52.  Background.  Spacenet would also give earth station operators an opportunity to 
submit technical demonstrations of harmful interference potential, so that satellite operators are 
not given too much influence over the earth station licensing process.166 SIA responds that 
allowing earth station operators to exceed the off-axis EIRP envelope without coordination could 
result in harmful interference, because adjacent satellite operators might not be aware of the earth 
station operations at issue.167
53.  AVL also recommends an alternative to the streamlined procedure adopted in the 
Fifth Report and Order.  AVL would focus on the actual earth station antenna gain pattern in 
reviewing non-routine earth station applications, rather than simply whether the earth station's 
antenna gain pattern falls within the envelope specified in Section 25.209.168 AVL further 
suggests that the Commission consider whether the earth station will use an electronic pointing 
mechanism.169 Alternatively, AVL recommends requiring that non-routine earth station 
applications include only a certification from a professional engineer.170
    
(Continued from previous page)
163 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627 (para. 93).
164 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 96).
165 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5694-97 (paras. 70-79).
166 Spacenet Comments at 2-3.
167 SIA Reply at 12-13.
168 AVL Ex Parte Statement at 2.
169 AVL Ex Parte Statement at 1-3.
170 AVL Reply at 2.  See also AVL Ex Parte Statement at 3. 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
25
54.  Discussion.  In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission recognized that, in 
rare instances, a target satellite operator might be unable to complete coordination, even though it 
might be possible for a non-routine earth station to operate interference-free in a two-degree-
spacing environment without reducing its power.  In those cases, the Commission stated that it 
would entertain requests for waiver of the streamlined non-routine earth station procedures.171  
The Commission also stated that parties requesting such waivers were permitted but not required 
to submit an ASIA.172 We will continue to allow this.  As the Commission discussed briefly in 
the Fifth Report and Order, the burden would lie with the earth station applicant to show that its 
proposed operations would not cause harmful interference.173  In response to AVL, non-routine
earth station applicants are free to attempt to support their applications with any demonstration 
that they think the Commission will find persuasive.  We also agree with AVL that such a 
showing may include a statement that the earth station antenna has an electronic pointing 
mechanism.  However, we reach no conclusion here regarding whether any specific showing 
would or would not be sufficient in any particular instance, except that the earth station applicants
in these cases bear the burden of proof of showing that their proposed operations will not cause 
harmful adjacent satellite interference.  We disagree with SIA that adjacent satellite operators 
might not be aware of the earth station operations at issue, because any such waiver request 
would be placed on public notice to give all interested parties an opportunity to comment.    
55.  Finally, we will not adopt AVL's proposal of requiring non-routine earth station 
applicants to provide only a professional engineer's certification.  Non-routine earth stations by 
definition create some increased risk of harmful interference, and so a more extensive showing is 
required to enable the Commission to determine that the proposed earth station operations will 
not cause harmful interference before any license is issued.
G.  Information Requirements
56.  Background.  In the Third Further Notice, the Commission observed that there 
are two options for revising its information requirements to collect off-axis EIRP data for earth 
stations.  Under one option, the Commission could require earth station applicants to submit a 
graph showing that their proposed earth station will meet the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope.  
Under the other option, earth station applicants would be required to provide a table showing the 
EIRP of the antenna at various specific off-axis angles.174 The Commission proposed requiring a 
table, because it would be easier to develop a computer program to automate the review of tabular 
information than it would to develop a program for reviewing graphs.175  The Commission also 
    
(Continued from previous page)
171 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5700 (para. 87). 
172 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5700 (para. 87). 
173 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5700 (para. 87), citing 47 C.F.R.  1.3; WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 
F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C.Cir. 
1990).  
174 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 97).
175 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 98).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
26
explained that it would need a computer program to act on earth station applications under off-
axis EIRP requirements as quickly as it acts on routine earth station applications under the current 
rules.176
57.  The Commission also proposed delegating authority to the International Bureau 
(Bureau) to develop and implement revisions to the electronic application forms and the 
International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) necessitated by an off-axis EIRP requirement for earth 
stations.177  This delegation would include determining when the revised IBFS program should be 
initiated, establishing any procedures needed to assure security, and addressing any other issues 
that may arise regarding the electronic filing of earth station applications under an off-axis EIRP 
approach.178 In addition, the Commission proposed directing the Bureau to consult with industry 
and potential users informally, to share plans for its proposed implementation, and to make any 
necessary adjustments in light of industry and user views, as appropriate.179 Finally, the 
Commission proposed directing the Bureau to implement this program in coordination with other 
electronic filing initiatives within the agency, as appropriate.180 The Commission pointed out that 
the proposed delegation of authority is comparable to delegations the Commission has adopted in 
the past to implement electronic filing requirements.181  
58.  Discussion.  SIA supports the Commission's proposal to establish a table for 
showing compliance with the off-axis EIRP envelope.  SIA recommends a table showing the 
EIRP level for each 0.1 up to 10, and for every 5 for angles greater than 10.182 No one else 
commented on this issue. We find this proposal to be reasonable, and we adopt it.  Furthermore, 
we adopt the Commission's proposal to delegate authority to the International Bureau to modify 
IBFS and the FCC Form 312, Schedule B, to reflect this decision. Until such time that this 
revision is available, we will require parties filing earth station applications pursuant to the off-
axis EIRP envelope procedure we adopt herein to include tables in the format recommended by 
SIA as attachments to their applications. 
59. We emphasize that the off-axis EIRP rules we adopted in this Order above are 
based in part on the revisions to the antenna gain pattern envelope rules adopted in the Sixth 
Report and Order.   Those rule revisions, in turn, were based on evidence in the record at that 
time that showed that earth station operators can limit their pointing error to 0.5 or less.183 As a 
result, there is no basis for concluding that an earth station operator who does not maintain that 
  
176 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 98).
177 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 99).
178 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 99).
179 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 99).
180 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 99).
181 Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, CC 
Docket No. 96-187, 12 FCC Rcd 2170, 2195 (para. 48) (1997). 
182 SIA Comments at 10.
183 See Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604 (para. 22). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
27
level of pointing accuracy could comply with the off-axis EIRP envelopes adopted above, unless 
the operator lowers its input power sufficiently.  Therefore, in cases in which an earth station 
applicant using the off-axis EIRP procedure will not limit its pointing error to 0.5, we will 
expect that applicant to demonstrate in an attachment to its application that it will comply with 
the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope when the antenna is mispointed at its maximum pointing 
error.  Alternatively, we would expect such an applicant to apply for its license pursuant to the 
certification of coordination procedure adopted for non-routine earth stations in the Fifth Report 
and Order and discussed briefly above.184
 
IV.   OTHER ISSUES
A.  Contention Protocols
1.  Background
60.  The Commissions rules permit parties to obtain a license for networks 
comprised of a number of technically identical small aperture antenna earth stations.  These 
networks are referred to as very small aperture terminal (VSAT) networks.  VSATs are generally 
comprised of a hub station transmitting to a satellite, which then transmits the signal to multiple 
technically identical remote small aperture antennas.185 The remote antennas can also transmit to 
the satellite, which then retransmits the signal to the hub station.186  
61.  In the Notice and the Further Notice, the Commission explained that VSAT 
networks employ a number of techniques to prevent or limit interference among the multiple 
remote earth stations, and to prevent them from interfering with other adjacent satellite 
networks.187 The original VSAT systems used a Single Channel Per Carrier (SCPC) 
channelization approach, in which each remote earth station was assigned its own block of 
spectrum.  Subsequently, VSAT system operators developed techniques that enabled some 
remote earth stations to share frequencies.  One sharing technique is known as time division 
  
184 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5687-89 (paras. 49-52); Section III.F.1. above.  See also 47 
C.F.R.  25.220.   
185 Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25145 (para. 50), citing Routine Licensing of Large Networks of Small Antenna 
Earth Stations Operating in the 12/14 GHz Frequency Bands, 51 Fed. Reg. 15067 (Apr. 22, 1986) (1986 
VSAT Order); 47 C.F.R.  25.134(a).
186 VSAT networks were originally permitted only in the Ku-band. See Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25145 
(para. 50).  Subsequently, VSAT networks have been allowed in the C-band and Ka-band under certain 
conditions.  See FWCC Request for Declaratory Ruling on Partial-Band Licensing of Earth Stations in the 
Fixed-Satellite Service that Share Terrestrial Spectrum, First Report and Order, IB Docket No. 00-203, 16 
FCC Rcd 11511 (2001) (FWCC/Onsat First Report and Order).  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, IB Docket No. 98-172, 15 FCC 
Rcd 13430 (2000).  Nevertheless, the Commission in the Third Further Notice invited comment on 
contention protocol requirements only for Ku-band VSAT networks.  See Third Further Notice, 20 FCC 
Rcd at 5639-40 (paras. 130-31).  Accordingly, the contention protocol requirements we adopt in this Order 
below are applicable only to Ku-band VSAT networks.
187 Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25145 (para. 50).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
28
multiple access (TDMA).  The TDMA technique assigns each remote earth station a different 
time to transmit and receive information.  Another technique is frequency division multiple 
access (FDMA).  The FDMA technique assigns different frequencies or frequency band segments 
to different remote earth stations.  The SCPC described above is an example of the FDMA 
technique.  A third approach, code division multiple access (CDMA), prevents interference 
between remote earth stations by assigning a different digital code to different earth stations.188  
We refer to TDMA, FDMA, and CDMA as "reservation" protocols, because these techniques 
"reserve" a time, frequency, or different digital code for each transmission in a VSAT network.189  
62. Reservation protocols are distinguished from contention protocols.  In contention 
protocols, transmissions from different VSAT remote earth stations compete or contend for the 
same resource, which could be a frequency, a time slot, or a hub earth station receiver.  One
example of a contention protocol is the slotted Aloha protocol.190 In this technique, the hub earth 
station synchronizes all remote VSAT stations so that they transmit only in discrete time slots, 
like TDMA, typically tens of milliseconds in duration.191 Unlike TDMA, however, two or more 
remote earth stations are permitted to transmit in the same time slot in slotted Aloha.  Slotted 
Aloha relies on the statistical characteristics of unrelated transmissions from different earth 
stations to limit the number and duration of transmissions that occur from more than one VSAT
remote earth station in the same time slot.  When two or more remote earth stations using a 
contention protocol transmit simultaneously using the maximum allowed EIRP density per 
carrier, those transmissions can "collide." The resulting power level caused by these collisions at 
a received satellite exceeds the level specified in the Commissions rules during the time period 
of simultaneous transmission, although for no more than tens of milliseconds.192
2.  Procedural History
63.  Before the Commission adopted the Notice, Spacenet, Inc. (Spacenet) filed a 
petition for declaratory ruling that the Commission allow VSAT networks to use the slotted 
Aloha contention protocol. According to Spacenet, because the collisions in its VSAT network 
  
188 For a more detailed discussion of each of these techniques, see Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25206-10 (App. 
E).
189 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5615 (para. 52).
190 Petition of Spacenet, Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling that Section 25.134 of the Commission's Rules 
Permits VSAT Remote Stations in the Fixed Satellite Service to Use Network Access Schemes that Allow 
Statistically Infrequent Overlapping Transmissions of Short Duration, or, in the Alternative, For 
Rulemaking to Amend that Section, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23712 (Int'l Bur., 2000) (Spacenet Order). With 
the "unslotted Aloha" technique, remote earth stations in the VSAT network can transmit randomly at any 
time, meaning that the transmissions are not synchronized in time or duration.  The "unslotted Aloha" 
technique is distinguishable from the "slotted Aloha" technique, in which remote earth stations transmit in 
specific time slots, which means that the transmissions are synchronized but not coordinated.  In other 
words, the remote earth stations transmitting in a given time slot can transmit regardless of whether there 
are other earth stations transmitting in the same time slot.  G. Maral, VSAT Networks at 144-45 (John Wiley 
and Sons, ed. 1995); Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23713 (para. 3).
191 Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23713 (para. 3).
192 Spacenet maintained that the duration of an inbound transmission is typically between 15 and 50 
milliseconds.  Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23713 (para. 3), citing Spacenet Petition at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
29
are infrequent and of short duration, they do not cause unacceptable interference to adjacent
satellite systems.193 In its petition for declaratory ruling, Spacenet requested that the Bureau 
conclude that the Commissions rules allow the slotted Aloha technique as a general matter, 
provided that the VSAT network operator limits the amount of traffic on its network sufficiently 
to reduce the probability of a collision to an acceptable level.194  
 
64.  The Bureau denied Spacenets petition for declaratory ruling because the power 
level resulting from transmission signal collisions could exceed the routine processing limits 
specified in Section 25.134(a) of the Commissions rules.195 The Bureau concluded, however, 
that Spacenet had shown that use of the slotted Aloha method is not currently causing 
unacceptable interference to other satellite systems.  Accordingly, the Bureau granted Spacenet 
and other VSAT operators that employ various multiple access techniques a waiver of Section 
25.134 for purposes of continuing to use existing multiple access methods while this rulemaking 
is pending.196 The Bureau noted that its waiver does not prejudge our actions in this rulemaking 
proceeding.197
65.  In the Notice, the Commission developed its own set of proposed rules for 
reservation protocols and contention protocols.  The Commission did not consider the statistical 
equation that Spacenet recommended in its petition for declaratory ruling, because the 
Commission believed that a more general and simplified approach addressing both reservation 
protocols and contention protocols would better facilitate the licensing of earth stations than a 
rule limited to a single contention protocol.198  
 
66.  The Commission ultimately adopted parts of its proposal, dealing with 
reservation protocols, in the Sixth Report and Order.199 Specifically, the Commission did not 
require any power adjustment for TDMA and FDMA systems, but required earth stations in 
CDMA systems to reduce their power by 10log(N), where N is the maximum number of earth 
stations transmitting simultaneously in the same frequency band segment in the same satellite 
beam.200
67.  With respect to other contention protocols, such as Aloha, however, the 
Commission found in the Further Notice that the rules proposed in the Notice were too 
restrictive.201 Therefore, the Commission revised its proposals for rules applicable to contention 
  
193 See Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23713 (para. 3).
194 See Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23714-15 (para. 7).
195 47 C.F.R.  25.134(a).  See also Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23715 (para. 9).
196 Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23716 (para.12).
197 Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23716 (para.12).
198 Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25146-47 (para. 54).
199 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5620-21 (para. 70). 
200 Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5618 (para. 63).
201 Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18618 (para. 85).
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
30
protocols, and invited further comment.202 Similarly, in the Third Further Notice, the 
Commission determined that the record did not adequately support adoption of the contention 
protocol rules proposed in the Further Notice.  Accordingly, the Commission further refined its 
proposals for contention protocols, and invited additional comment.203  
3.  Current Commission Proposal  
68.  In the Third Further Notice, the Commission observed that all the new 
contention protocol rule proposals suggested by commenters in response to the Further Notice 
had four elements: (i) a power density limit on individual earth stations in the VSAT network; (ii) 
a limit on the power generated during collisions, (iii) a limit on the probability of collisions, and 
(iv) a limit on the duration of any collision.204 The Commission also found that the record at that 
time provided an adequate basis to adopt some of these contention protocol elements, but needed 
further development on other elements.205
69. First, the Commission questioned whether any of the proposals in the Third 
Further Notice record would be consistent with the off-axis EIRP envelope approach adopted 
above.206  This was because all the parties' recommendations in the Third Further Notice included 
a power density limit on individual earth stations, which is inconsistent with an off-axis EIRP 
approach which gives earth station operators flexibility to increase or decrease power density 
levels of individual earth stations depending on antenna size.207 Therefore, the Commission 
invited comment on adopting aggregate off-axis EIRP limits for VSAT systems using a 
contention protocol, instead of EIRP limits for individual earth stations.208
70. Second, the Commission found that, generally, the commenters' proposed rules 
would allow power during collisions to increase as the probability of collision decreases.  
However, there were a number of competing proposals regarding how much the power level 
should be allowed to increase as the probability of collision decreases.209 Therefore, the 
Commission invited comment on a variation of one of the commenters' proposal in the record.210  
    
(Continued from previous page)
202 Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18620-21 (paras. 92-95).  In the Further Notice, the Commission found 
some support for its reservation protocol proposals, but invited comment on whether any such rule 
revisions would be necessary in the event that it adopted the contention protocol rule proposed in the 
Further Notice.  Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18622 (paras. 98-99).  This issue became moot when the 
Commission rejected the contention protocol rule proposed in the Further Notice.  See Sixth Report and 
Order, 20 FCC Rcd 5618 (para. 60). 
203 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5629-41 (paras. 100-37).
204 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5634 (para. 113). 
205 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5634 (para. 113). 
206 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5635 (para. 119).
207 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5634 (para. 114). 
208 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5635-36 (para. 119). 
209 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5634-35 (paras. 115-17).
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
31
71.  In summary, the Commission requested comment on the following proposal: 
(i) For VSAT networks using a contention protocol, the 
aggregate off-axis EIRP shall not exceed the applicable off-axis 
EIRP envelope by more than the amounts set forth in Table 5 
below; 
(ii) The maximum duration of any single collision is less than 
100 milliseconds. 
Table 4 is the off-axis EIRP envelope adopted in this Order for digital transmissions from a single 
earth station in the Ku-band in the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the 
particular earth station location:
Table 4
Off-Axis EIRP Envelope for 
Ku-Band Digital Earth Station Applications 
for an Individual Earth Station 
15  - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
-6  dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
18  - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
- 24 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 85
- 14 dBW/4 kHz For 85 < ? ? 180
where ? is the angle in degrees from the line connecting the focal point of the antenna to the 
target satellite, within the plane determined by the focal point of the antenna and the line tangent 
to the arc of the geostationary satellite orbit at the position of the target satellite. Table 5 below 
allows VSAT network operators to exceed the aggregate off-axis EIRP envelope by 2 dB for each 
decrease in order of magnitude in percentage of time.211 This was based on proposals from SIA 
and Spacenet.  However, SIA and Spacenet recommended allowing VSAT network operators to 
exceed the off-axis EIRP envelope for as much as 10 percent of the time.  Therefore, the 
Commission modified the proposal to allow VSAT network operators to exceed the envelope for 
no more than 1 percent of the time, as set forth in Table 5 below.212
    
(Continued from previous page)
210 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5636-37 (para. 119). 
211 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5636 (para. 119). 
212 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5636 (para. 119). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
32
Table 5
EIRP Limits For VSAT 
Networks Using Contention Protocols
Proposed By the Commission 
in the Third Further Notice213  
Percentage of Time Increase in Aggregate 
EIRP Allowed 
10% (10-1) 0 dB
1% (10-2) 2 dB
0.1% (10-3) 4 dB
0.01% (10-4) 6 dB
0.001% (10-5) 8 dB
0.0001% (10-6) 10 dB
0.00001% (10-7) 12 dB
0.000001% (10-8) 14 dB
0.0000001% (10-9) 16 dB
72.  In the Third Further Notice, the Commission suggested that this approach would 
strike a reasonable balance between protecting adjacent satellites from harmful interference and 
allowing VSAT network operators to make efficient use of their facilities.214 The Commission 
also stated that parties opposing this proposal must provide an alternative proposal, and must 
explain in sufficient detail why they believe that their proposal strikes a better balance than the 
Commission's proposal between these policy goals.215
73.  The Commission also provided some guidance on what kinds of demonstrations 
it might find useful if filed in support of various kinds of alternative contention protocol 
proposals.216  For example, the Commission recommended that parties arguing that no power 
limit is required for collisions limited to 100 milliseconds should provide more extensive 
justification for their recommendations.217 The Commission also observed that it was originally 
concerned that an earth stations transmission data would be significantly degraded, possibly 
beyond recovery, in cases where the earth station experiencing interference is operating in a 
narrower bandwidth or approximately the same bandwidth as the interfering earth station.218  
Therefore, the Commission recommended that parties advocating no power limit should provide 
  
213 The baseline for the power increase shown in Table 5 is power received in an FSS receiver from a single 
VSAT transmitter meeting the antenna gain requirements of Section 25.209 with a power density at the 
input to the antenna of -14 dBW/4 kHz. 
214 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637 (para. 120). 
215 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637 (para. 121).
216 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637-38 (paras. 122-24).
217 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637 (para. 122).
218 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637 (para. 122), citing Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25146-47 (para. 
54), Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23716 (para. 10). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
33
an adequate basis in the record for concluding that concerns regarding narrow-bandwidth 
transmissions do not warrant some limit on power levels during collisions.219  
4.  Alternative Proposals    
74.  SIA and Global VSAT Forum assert that there is no need for contention protocol 
rules because there have not been any instances of harmful interference resulting from use of 
contention protocols in the past.220 SIA further maintains that only Aloha Networks has 
suggested that there is a need for contention protocol rules, and that Aloha Networks may have 
designed its proposals to make its proprietary technology more competitive.221 SIA also 
emphasizes that use of contention protocols makes VSAT networks much more efficient, and it 
would be very costly to stop using them.222 On the other hand, ViaSat supports the development 
of some kind of off-axis EIRP envelope for contention protocol use, to provide regulatory 
certainty for contention protocol users.223
75.  According to SIA, its technical analysis demonstrates that a VSAT network using 
a contention protocol is less likely to cause harmful interference than it would be if it did not use 
a contention protocol.224  The SIA analysis compares the outage percentage that would accrue 
given an interferer which continuously operates at the uplink power limit for VSATs, -14 dBW 
per 4 kHz as required by Section 25.134 of our rules,225 with the outage that would result if the 
interferer operates a contention protocol which transmits at the same power limit when a single 
burst is transmitted without contention.226 SIA conducted this analysis for Washington, D.C., 
Miami, and Los Angeles, representing, respectively, typical, wet, and dry climates in the United 
States.  According to SIA, the results show that, for the loading of 70 percent on the contention 
system, typical of the Aloha type of system implicit in the SIA-proposed mask, the outage time 
resulting from the contention protocol interferer is less than that caused by the continuous 
interferer for typical modulation techniques presently in use.227
  
219 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637 (para. 122).
220 SIA Comments at 29-30; SIA Reply at 3-4; Global VSAT Forum Reply at 3.  See also SIA Ex Parte 
Statement at 9.
221 SIA Comments at 30-31; SIA Reply at 4.  See also Spacenet Comments at 3.
222 SIA Comments at 38-40.
223 ViaSat Ex Parte Statement at 9-13.
224 SIA Comments at 32. 
225 47 C.F.R.  25.134.
226 See SIA Comments, Att. 1.  
227 According to SIA, the difference ranges from about 1.25 to 5.1 percent, depending on the climate, for 
victim systems using convolutional coding and Viterbi decoding.  SIA Comments, Att. 1 at 19.  For the 
case representing a dry climate using turbo coding and operating at the edge of the satellite receive beam 
(typified by Los Angeles in SIAs study), the contention system would increase a very low unavailability 
from 0.0114 percent (about 60 minutes per year) to 0.0117 percent (about 61.5 minutes per year), an 
increase of about 2.9 percent.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
34
76.  SIA claims that the proposal in the Third Further Notice would require excessive 
power reductions and result in prohibiting contention protocol operations at their current levels.228  
Therefore, SIA proposes an alternative contention protocol rule, in the event that the Commission 
decides to adopt a rule.  Instead allowing a 2 dB increase in power for each decimal place 
decrease in the likelihood of collision, as set forth in Table 5 above, SIA proposes slightly 
different allowed power increases and probabilities, as set forth below.  SIA bases these figures 
on the formula for predicting collisions in a Slotted Aloha network using a 70 percent loading 
factor.229
Table 6
EIRP Limits For VSAT 
Networks Using Contention Protocols
Proposed By SIA230
Number of Packets in Slot Maximum Allowed Increase 
in Aggregate EIRP
Maximum Percentage of Time 
for which the Aggregate EIRP 
Level can be Exceeded
0 (No power transmitted) 50.3414696209 %
1 0 15.5804983555 %
2 3.0 3.4141584126 %
3 4.77 0.5753457592 %
4 6.0 0.0785535449 %
5 7.0 0.0090026349 %
6 7.78 0.0008883621 %
7 8.5 0.0000769348 %
8 9.0 0.0000059349 %
9 9.54 0.0000004127 %
10 10 0.0000000261 %
5.  Discussion  
77.  The Commission has determined on a number of occasions that Section 25.134 
must be revised to allow use of any contention protocol in VSAT networks.231 Section 25.134 of 
the Commissions rules establishes specific limits for individual earth station antenna input power 
densities.232  These power density limits have been put in place to limit the interference power 
received in the receivers of adjacent FSS satellites.  Use of contention protocols results in 
  
228 SIA Comments at 39.  See also SIA Ex Parte Statement at 9-11.
229 SIA Comments at 34-36 and App. 1.
230 The baseline for the power increase shown in Table 6 is power received in an FSS receiver from a single 
VSAT transmitter meeting the antenna gain requirements of Section 25.209 with a power density at the 
input to the antenna of -14 dBW/4 kHz.
231 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5630 (para. 103); Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18618-19 (para. 
86).  See also Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 23715 (para. 9).
232 47 C.F.R.  25.134(a), (b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
35
aggregate power densities in the adjacent satellite receivers that exceed the limits that would be 
produced by a single VSAT operating with the power density specified in Section 25.134.  The 
Commission observed in the Further Notice that use of contention protocols can increase the 
efficiency of VSAT networks.233 We agree with SIA that VSAT network operators should be 
allowed to take advantage of those efficiencies.  Accordingly, we revise Section 25.134 as set 
forth below to allow use of contention protocols.
 
78. We will not adopt SIA's alternative EIRP envelope because it is substantially 
similar to a proposal Spacenet made in a petition for rulemaking it filed in 2000.234  As noted 
above, the Commission declined to seek comment on Spacenet's proposal in the Notice in this 
proceeding, concluding that a more general and simplified approach would better facilitate the 
licensing of earth stations that use contention protocols.235
79.  However, we agree with SIA that use of contention protocols tends to decrease
the likelihood of harmful interference in almost all cases.  This result stems from the fact that, 
with any contention system with randomly-timed requests for access, there will be a portion of 
the time when there is no demand for access.  For a satellite network, this means that there will be 
no transmission to the satellite for part of the time.  For a system with 70 percent loading,236 there 
will be no transmission to the satellite, and therefore no interference to the neighboring satellites, 
for about 50 percent of the time.  This serves to reduce the outages caused to neighboring victim 
satellites by the system with the contention protocol.  For the conditions assumed in the SIA 
study, this reduction mostly offsets the outages that may be caused by the multiple simultaneous 
transmissions which occur when multiple earth stations simultaneously seek access.237  
Specifically, there was a decrease in unavailability in five of the six case studies examined in the 
SIA study, ranging from 1.3 percent to 5.1 percent.238 In the one case of an increase in 
unavailability, SIA's study shows that increase to be de minimis.239  The SIA study also shows 
that a system meeting the mask proposed by the Commission in the Third Further Notice240
  
233 Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18618 (para. 85).
234 See Spacenet Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23712.
235 Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25146 (para. 54).
236 The loading factor represents the ratio of the total number of packets transmitted to the total number of 
time slots available irrespective of whether the packets experience contention or not.
237 In Aloha-type networks with a loading factor of 70 percent, transmissions occur only about 50.3 percent 
of the time and collisions occur about 15.6 percent of the time.  If the loading increases to 100 percent, 
transmissions occur about 63.2 percent of the time and collisions occur about 26.4 percent of the time.
238 The case studies were based in Miami, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, to represent different rain 
attenuation conditions.  SIA assumed Viterbi coding and Turbo coding at each of these three locations.  
SIA Comments, App. 1 at 19.
239 In the case of a slotted Aloha VSAT network using turbo coding in Los Angeles, there was an increase 
in unavailability over the static case of 2.9 percent.  This is equivalent to a decrease in availability from 
99.9886 percent to 99.9883 percent.  SIA Comments, App. 1 at 19. 
240 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5635 (para. 119). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
36
would increase the unavailability of a "static system,"241 a VSAT system that does not employ a 
contention protocol, from about 0.13 percent to about 0.43 percent.242 This would generally be 
more interfering than the mask proposed by SIA.  
80.  We conclude that there is no requirement at this time to develop detailed 
regulations to govern the use of contention protocols in VSAT networks in the FSS whose 
demand statistics normally allow for significant percentages of time during which no 
transmissions occur.243 Our conclusion is based primarily on the results of the SIA study that: 1) 
the contention protocol system operating at reasonable loading factors produces less outage to the 
neighboring satellites than a static system; and 2) the envelope proposed in the Third Further 
Notice would allow more outage than a static system.  In reaching our conclusion, we also 
considered the long history of no identified harmful interference associated with contention 
protocols.
 
81.  Accordingly, we adopt an exception to Section 25.134 that allows VSAT system 
operators to exceed the -14 dBW/4 kHz power limit, in the aggregate when multiple earth stations 
simultaneously transmit, for purposes of "reasonable use" of a contention protocol. In this Order, 
we do not define "reasonable use" in terms of specific limits for probability of collision, length of 
collision, or increase in power during collisions, as the Commission has proposed in the past.  
Instead, we allow licensees flexibility in their contention protocol usage. We anticipate that we 
will resolve any issues regarding "reasonableness" of contention protocol usage in the complaint 
process.  If a Commission licensee believes that its operations are experiencing harmful 
interference as the result of another licensee's unreasonable contention protocol usage, that 
licensee will have the burden of showing that it is experiencing harmful interference, and that the 
other licensee is the cause of that interference.  If the complainant can meet this burden of proof, 
the burden will then shift to the defendant to show that its use of contention protocols is 
reasonable.  By requiring reasonable contention protocol use rather than specifying limits for 
length of collision and increase in power allowed during a collision, we expect that our contention 
protocol rule will not interfere with technological developments in the area of contention 
protocols. We also expect that requiring contention protocol usage to be reasonable will provide
sufficient regulatory certainty to address the concern raised by ViaSat.244
  
241 By "static system," we mean a VSAT system operating continuously at the power limit of our current 
rules.
242 SIA suggests that contention protocol services should be allowed to increase the outage of transmissions 
over neighboring satellites by 10 percent relative to continuous interferers based on recommends 3.1 of ITU 
Recommendation S.1323-2 for aggregate interference from all entries from all other satellite networks 
operating in the same frequency band that can potentially cause interference of a time-varying nature. SIA 
Comments at 33.  SIA characterizes the Commission-proposed mask as overly protective because it would 
not allow the increase in outage of 10 percent.  SIA Comments at 36-37.  We do not consider this to be an 
appropriate application of Recommendation S.1323-2.  First, Note 1 in the recommendation specifically 
excludes application of recommends 3 to interference between GSO FSS networks.  Second, if the 
recommendation did apply, the 10 percent should be the aggregate of all the interference entries 
(particularly including NGSO entries).  Third, we do not consider that the use of a different modulation 
technique or protocol within the same GSO FSS service should justify a 10 percent increase in the outage 
that its use may impart to other GSO FSS transmissions using other techniques and access protocols. 
243 As we noted above, we are considering issues related to off-axis EIRP envelopes for AMSS earth 
stations in another proceeding.  See Section III.B.4. above, citing AMSS NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd 2906.  
244 ViaSat Ex Parte Statement at 9-13.
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
37
82.  We do not prescribe any particular method for demonstrating that a licensee's 
contention protocol usage is reasonable.  One possible method would be to show that the licensee 
was using a contention protocol in a manner that does not result in an increase in unavailability 
relative to a static system throughout most of its service area, that any increases in unavailability 
occur only in limited areas, and such increases are no greater than the increase found in SIA's 
study.  If the defending licensee chooses not to make this kind of showing, it would be free to 
make any other demonstrations that it believes the Commission would find persuasive, in the 
event that we receive a contention protocol-related complaint in the future.  
6.  Contention Protocol Information Requirements
83.  In the Third Further Notice, the Commission invited comment on requiring 
applicants to certify that they will comply with any contention protocol requirements that it 
adopts, rather than requiring a detailed mathematical showing.245 This proposal was based on 
recommendations from commenters in response to prior comments.246 In addition, the 
Commission reasoned that a detailed showing in this case did not appear to be necessary to 
prevent harmful interference.247 No one commented on this issue in response to the Third 
Further Notice.  Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the Third Further Notice and summarized 
here, we adopt the proposal to require earth station licensees planning to use a contention protocol 
to certify that their contention protocol usage will be reasonable.
 
7.  Grandfathering
84.  Background.  In the Third Further Notice, the Commission requested comment 
on applying the contention protocol requirements it proposed in the Third Further Notice only to 
VSAT networks licensed after those rules take effect, in the event that it were to adopt its 
proposal.248 SIA asserts that, at minimum, a 15-year transition period for all VSAT networks is 
needed to allow VSAT operators a reasonable opportunity to revise their VSAT networks.249  
85.  Discussion.  As noted above, we did not adopt the proposal in the Third Further 
Notice, but rather, we require VSAT network operators using contention protocols to be 
reasonable in their use.  Based on comments in the record in this proceeding that there have been 
no reported cases of harmful interference resulting from contention protocol usage,250 we 
conclude that current VSAT network operators using contention protocols are meeting this 
standard already. We also find that this is consistent with SIA's recommendation, in that we do 
    
(Continued from previous page)
245 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5640 (para. 133).
246 See Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5640 (para. 133).
247 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5640 (para. 133).
248 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5641 (para. 135).
249 SIA Comments at 41-42. 
250 SIA Comments at 29-30; SIA Reply at 3-4; Global VSAT Forum Reply at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
38
not anticipate that any current VSAT network operators will be required to revise their networks 
to comply with the new contention protocol rule.  Accordingly, we require all Ku-band VSAT 
network operators using contention protocols to use reasonable parameters in conjunction with 
their contention protocols.251 We will also revise Form 312 to provide a streamlined method for 
earth station applicants planning to use a contention protocol to make this certification.
8.  Other Contention Protocol Issues  
86.  In the Third Further Notice, the Commission tentatively concluded that it was 
not necessary to develop specific rules to govern VSAT networks that use a combination of 
reservation and contention protocols.252 No one commented on this proposal.  We find that the 
requirement that we adopted above, that use of a contention protocol is allowed provided that it is 
reasonable, should also be applicable to VSAT networks that use a combination of reservation 
and contention protocols.  Therefore, we will require such new license applicants to certify that 
their contention protocol usage will be reasonable.  
B.  Quiet Zone for Radio Astronomy
87.  Background.  Section 25.203(f) of the Commissions rules establishes a "Quiet 
Zone" for radio astronomy in a 13,000 square mile area in Virginia, West Virginia, and 
Maryland.253 Under Section 25.203(f), anyone seeking a license in that area must notify the 
National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO).254 NRAO is given 20 days to file an objection 
to the proposed operations with the Commission.  If NRAO files an objection, Section 25.203(f) 
states that the Commission may take whatever action it deems appropriate.255
88.  In its 2001 reply in this proceeding, NRAO proposed a revision to Section 
25.203(f) that was outside the scope of the original 2000 Notice.256  Specifically, NRAO 
proposed adding the following language to the end of Section 25.203(f).257  
  
251 Current VSAT network operators that meet this requirement will not be required to submit anything to 
show that they comply with this requirement.  However, operators that do not meet this requirement will be 
required to file a request for waiver of this requirement within 60 days of the effective date of this rule 
revision.  VSAT operators using a contention protocol that does not meet this standard, that do not file a 
request for waiver within this deadline, may become subject to forfeiture liability.
252 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5639 (paras. 127-29).
253 The Quiet Zone is an area bounded by 39 15 N.L., 78 30 W.L., 37 30 N.L., and 80 W.L.  See 47 
C.F.R.  25.203(f).
254 NRAO Reply at 1-2, citing 47 C.F.R.  25.203(f); Amendment of Part 2 of the Commissions Rules and 
Regulations to Give Interference Protection to Frequencies Utilized for Radio Astronomy, Amendment of 
Part 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 20, and 21 of the Commissions Rules and Regulations to Give Interference 
Protection to Frequencies Utilized for Radio Astronomy, Report and Order, Docket No. 11745, FCC 58-
1111, 17 Rad. Reg. 1738 (1958) (Quiet Zone Order).
255 47 C.F.R.  25.203(f).
256 See Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25131.
257 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5642 (para. 139), citing NRAO Reply of May 7, 2001, at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
39
Licensees or permittees of systems serving geographic areas 
which are authorized to add transmission facilities without 
further application to, or approval by, the Commission, and 
which additional transmission facilities are located within the 
coordinates specified above, shall, prior to allowing such 
additional transmission facilities to operate, notify the National 
Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) and coordinate the 
construction and operation to minimize possible harmful 
interference to the NRAO.  A certificate of coordination signed 
by an authorized representative of the NRAO shall be made 
available to the Commission upon request.  Comments or 
objections by the NRAO in response to such coordination, or 
non-coordination if appropriate, will be considered by the 
Commission in the same manner as comments or objections to 
applications as stated above.
89.  Accordingly, the Commission requested comment on NRAOs proposed 
coordination requirements for remote terminals within the Quiet Zone.  Specifically, the 
Commission invited interested parties to discuss whether VSAT network operators should be 
required to complete coordination with NRAO prior to placing any remote earth stations in the 
Quiet Zone, rather than simply notifying NRAO as they have been required to do since 1958.258  
The Commission further observed that its Quiet Zone rules were designed to create a balance 
between protecting NRAOs radio astronomy operations,259 and allowing the development of 
radio services in the Quiet Zone.260  Finally, the Commission noted that the Commission currently 
has only a notification requirement, rather than a coordination requirement, for terrestrial wireless 
operations in the Quiet Zone.261  
90.  Discussion.  Several parties contend that NRAO's proposal is unnecessary, and 
that NRAO has not shown that new coordination procedures are needed to prevent any current or 
reasonably anticipated interference.262 SIA and WildBlue note that NRAO's proposed 
  
258 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5643 (para. 142).  See also Quiet Zone Order, 17 Rad. Reg. 1738.
259 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5642 (para. 141), citing Quiet Zone Order, 17 Rad. Reg. at 1741 
(para. 7); Amendment of the General Mobile Radio Service (Part 95) and Amateur Mobile Radio Service 
(Part 97) Rules to Establish Procedures to Minimize Potential Interference to Radio Astronomy Operations, 
Report and Order, SS Docket No. 78-352, 85 FCC 2d 738, 742 (para. 17) (1981), aff'd. 88 FCC 2d 78 
(1981) (extending Quiet Zone protection to Amateur radio and General Mobile radio station licenses); 
Review of Quiet Zones Application Procedures, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 01-319, 19 FCC Rcd 
3267 (2004) (Streamlining procedures for terrestrial wireless applications requiring Quiet Zone 
coordination without reducing or eliminating Quiet Zone protection).
260 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5642 (para. 141), citing Quiet Zone Order, 17 Rad. Reg. at 1741 
(para. 10).  See also Amendment of Section 22.949 of the Commissions Rules to Provide for a Moratorium 
on Acceptance of Unserved Area Cellular Applications Within the National Radio Quiet Zone, Order, RM-
8647, 15 FCC Rcd 2728 (Wireless Bur., 2000) (granting waivers to two cellular licensees to allow them to 
expand their networks into Quiet Zone). 
261 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5642 (para. 141), citing 47 C.F.R.  1.924.
262 SIA Comments at 42; WildBlue Reply at 3-5; Global VSAT Forum Reply at 3-4.
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
40
coordination procedure would be very burdensome to VSAT operators, and result in substantial 
delay of service to end users.263 SIA further argues that the Commission's current procedures 
give NRAO a full and fair opportunity to voice its interference concerns.264 SIA also maintains 
that NRAO's proposal would result in usurping the Commission's jurisdiction over interference 
disputes in the Quiet Zone.265 Finally, SIA asserts that NRAO's proposal is beyond the scope of 
this proceeding to the extent that NRAO intends it to apply to anything other than VSAT 
systems.266 None of the commenters support NRAO's proposal.  NRAO did not respond to the 
Third Further Notice. 
91.  We will not adopt NRAO's proposal.  The current notification requirement has 
been in place since 1958, and neither NRAO nor any other commenter has suggested that any of 
NRAO's operations have suffered harmful interference as a result of the current requirement.  
Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that NRAO might begin to receive harmful interference 
as a result of the decision in the Fifth Report and Order to allow multiple hub earth stations in 
VSAT networks.267 This is because licensees are not permitted to place hubs in the Quiet Zone 
without filing a modification application specifying the location and operating parameters of 
those hubs.268 In addition, in 2004, the Commission completed a review of its Quiet Zone rules 
applicable to terrestrial wireless operators.  In that proceeding, the Commission decided to permit,
but not require, terrestrial wireless operators to coordinate their planned operations within the 
Quiet Zone before filing a license application with the Commission.269 In fact, in that proceeding, 
NRAO advocated an informal, non-mandatory coordination rather than codifying a specific time 
frame for those coordination discussions.270 There is no basis in the record in this proceeding to 
place a more restrictive requirement on VSAT operators than the Commission has placed on 
terrestrial wireless operators.
C.  Downlink EIRP Density Limits for Ku-band Earth Stations 
    
(Continued from previous page)
263 SIA Comments at 43-44; WildBlue Reply at 5-6.  See also WildBlue Reply at 2 (NRAO's proposal 
could cause delays in broadband deployment in the Quiet Zone).
264 SIA Comments at 44.
265 SIA Comments at 44.
266 SIA Comments at 45.
267 In the Notice, the Commission proposed revising Section 25.134 to explicitly permit multiple hub 
stations under a single VSAT network license.  Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 25148 (paras. 58-59).  The 
Commission adopted its proposed revisions to Section 25.134 in the Fifth Report and Order.  Fifth Report 
and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5713 (para. 125).   
268 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5714 (para. 127).
269 Review of Quiet Zone Procedures, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 01-319, 19 FCC Rcd 3267, 3271-
72 (para. 8) (2004) (Quiet Zone Streamlining Order).  See also 47 C.F.R.  1.924(a)(4). 
270 See Quiet Zone Streamlining Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 3272 (para. 9).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
41
92.  Here, we revise Section 25.212(c) to correct a previous oversight regarding EIRP 
density limits for Ku-band earth stations.  The Fifth Report and Order increased the downlink 
EIRP density limits applicable to Ku-band VSAT networks, from 6 dBW/4 kHz to 10 dBW/4 
kHz.271 In adopting this increase, the Commission determined that the types of systems likely to 
be adversely affected by increasing the downlink EIRP density limit were analog narrowband 
hub-type systems.272 To compensate for the potential inference that these systems might 
otherwise experience from the VSAT downlink EIRP density increase, the Commission allowed 
analog narrow band hub-type systems to increase their power by 4 dB, from 13 dBW/4 kHz to 17 
dBW/4 kHz.273 The Commission found that this increase would not significantly increase the 
potential for harmful or unacceptable interference among adjacent satellite networks because 
there are few narrowband analog hub systems currently in operation.274
93.  At that time, the Commission also decided to increase the routine EIRP density 
levels for other types of Ku-band downlink transmissions.275 Although the Commission 
concluded it could increase the Ku-band downlink EIRP density limit, this change was 
inadvertently excluded from the rules.  Consequently, we make the downlink EIRP density limits 
for other Ku-band earth stations in Section 25.212(c) consistent with the power levels adopted in 
Section 25.134.  The correct power levels are set forth in Appendix B. 
V.  RECONSIDERATION ISSUES
A.  Background
94.  On July 5, 2005, SIA filed a petition for reconsideration of the Fifth Report and 
Order, raising concerns regarding a number of details of the new earth station procedures.   No 
comments or replies were filed in response to SIA's petition.  For the reasons set forth below, we 
grant SIA's petition in part, and deny it in part.276 In addition, as noted briefly above, this is the 
latest in a series of rulemakings in which the Commission has streamlined its satellite and earth 
station procedures.  We take this opportunity to resolve several issues raised in three petitions for 
reconsideration of another streamlining proceeding, the 1996 Streamlining Order.277
  
271 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5702 (para. 93).  See also Section 25.134 of the Commission's 
Rules, 47 C.F.R.  25.134.  
272 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5702-03 (para. 94).
273 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5702-03 (para. 94).
274 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5702-03 (para. 94).
275 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5704 (para. 99).
276 On July 8, 2005, SIA and Boeing filed petitions for reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order.  SIA 
requested only that the Commission consider its comments filed in response to the Third Further Notice.  
We considered SIA's comments together with all other comments filed in response to the Third Further 
Notice in this Order above.  Accordingly, we grant SIA's petition for reconsideration of the Sixth Report 
and Order. Boeing later withdrew its petition for reconsideration.  See Letter from Carlos M. Nalda, 
Counsel for The Boeing Company, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Apr. 5, 2007) (Boeing Ex 
Parte Statement).  We therefore dismiss Boeing's petition as moot.
277 1996 Streamlining Order, 11 FCC Rcd 21581.  These petitioners, EDS Corporation (EDS), GE 
American Communications, Inc. (GE Americom), and Telquest Ventures, Inc. (Telquest), are listed in 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
42
B.  Rule References to Smaller-than-Routine Earth Stations
95.  Background.  At the time SIA filed its petition for reconsideration, Sections 
25.209(a) and (b) of the Commission's rules specified antenna gain limits at each off-axis angle 
starting at 1 off-axis.278  Section 25.209(g) relaxed the antenna gain pattern requirements for Ku-
band earth stations, by starting the Ku-band antenna gain pattern at 1.25 off-axis instead of 1 
off-axis.279 SIA notes that Section 25.220, the new rule specifying the procedures for smaller-
than-routine diameter earth station applications, refers to only Sections 25.209(a) and (b). SIA 
argues that the rule should refer to Section 25.209(g) as well.280 According to SIA, it is necessary 
to start the Ku-band antenna gain pattern at 1.25 off-axis to include 1.2-meter Ku-band earth 
stations in the "routine" classification.281
96.  Discussion.  SIA is correct.  By neglecting to refer to Section 25.209(g) in the 
streamlined non-routine earth station procedures set forth in Sections 25.132(b)(3) and 25.220 as 
revised in the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission had inadvertently made some routine Ku-
band earth station applications subject to the non-routine earth station procedures.  However, 
those rule revisions are superceded by the revisions to the antenna gain pattern envelope
requirements adopted in the Eighth Report and Order above.282
C.  Protection from Interference for Non-Routine Earth Stations
97.  Background.  Under Section 25.209(c) of the Commission's Rules, receive-only 
earth stations and the receive operations of transmit-receive earth stations are protected from 
harmful interference to the extent that an earth station that meets the antenna gain pattern 
envelope specified in Sections 25.209(a) and (b).283 SIA claims that, under the new procedures 
for non-routine earth station applications, non-routine receive antennas would not be entitled to 
any protection from harmful interference unless those non-routine receive operations were 
coordinated.284
98.  Discussion.  When the Commission adopted Section 25.220, it intended that the 
receive operations of uncoordinated non-routine earth stations would be protected from harmful 
    
(Continued from previous page)
Appendix A.  In 2002, Telquest withdrew a petition for stay that it filed concurrently with its petition for 
reconsideration, but did not withdraw its petition for reconsideration.  Letter from Patricia Paoletta, 
Counsel for Telquest, to Secretary, FCC (dated Nov. 6, 2002).
278 47 C.F.R.  25.209(a), (b).
279 47 C.F.R.  25.209(g).
280 SIA Petition at 2-3.
281 SIA Petition at 3.
282 See Section III.A. above, citing Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (paras. 49-50).
283 47 C.F.R.  25.209(c).
284 SIA Petition at 3-4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
43
interference to the extent to which the parties agreed in their coordination.285 In the absence of 
such an agreement, the Commission intended that the earth station would be protected from 
interference only to the extent that a routine earth station would.286  
99.  We agree with SIA to the extent that it argues that non-routine receive-only earth 
stations should be given the same level of protection from interference as a routine earth station, 
or in other words, the same protection level it would enjoy if it met the antenna gain pattern 
requirements of Sections 25.209(a) and (b), in the absence of a coordination agreement.  We also 
agree with SIA that parts of Section 25.220 could be interpreted as inconsistent with this intent.287  
We disagree, however, that the Commission's rules should mandate a particular level of 
interference protection rather than allowing parties to negotiate a different level of protection, as 
SIA appears to suggest.288 Accordingly, we will revise Section 25.220 to make clear that, in the 
absence of a coordination agreement, non-routine earth stations will be protected from 
interference to the same extent as routine earth stations, but we will not adopt SIA's apparent 
suggestion to preclude parties from negotiating a different level of protection. 
D.  Signing of Certifications
100.  Background.  In its petition for reconsideration, SIA again proposes revising the 
certification procedure to require adjacent satellite operators to sign certifications showing that 
the proposed non-routine earth station operations have been coordinated, in cases where both the 
target satellite and the adjacent satellites are U.S.-licensed.  SIA states that this procedure will 
prevent any misunderstanding with respect to the coordination agreement, and ensure that 
adjacent satellite operators have current information regarding the interference environment in 
which they operate.289 SIA also asserts that obtaining these signatures would not be burdensome 
for either satellite operator because they are generally in regular contact.290 Alternatively, SIA 
contends that the benefits of adjacent satellite operator signatures would be outweighed by the 
potential for delay in cases where the adjacent satellite is not U.S.-licensed.291
101.  Discussion.  We find that SIA has not adequately justified its proposal.  SIA 
suggests that adjacent satellite operator signatures are needed to prevent misunderstandings of 
coordination agreements, and ensure that they have current information regarding their 
interference environment.292 However, SIA's concerns about current information are inconsistent 
with its assertion that U.S.-licensed satellite operators are in regular contact with each other. 293  
  
285 47 C.F.R.  25.220(d)(1). 
286 47 C.F.R.  25.220(d)(2).
287 See 47 C.F.R.  25.220(c)(3), cited in SIA Petition at 3.
288 SIA Petition at 3-4.
289 SIA Petition at 4.
290 SIA Petition at 4-5.
291 SIA Petition at 5.
292 SIA Petition at 4.
293 SIA Petition at 4-5.
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
44
Furthermore, in the Order above, the Commission considered and declined another SIA proposal  
to require signatures from both the target satellite operator and adjacent satellite operators on 
certifications, because it was unnecessary in light of the Commission's historical reliance on 
satellite operators to work together cooperatively to reach coordination agreements.294 Moreover, 
even if a target satellite operator neglected to coordinate with an affected adjacent satellite 
operator, the Commission's procedure includes an additional opportunity for those satellite 
operators to comment.295  There is nothing in the record to justify a different result here. 
E.  Determination of Need for Coordination 
102.  In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission concluded that the target satellite 
operator should not be required to coordinate with an adjacent satellite operator in cases where 
the non-routine earth station in question will not generate a side lobe in the direction of the 
adjacent satellite that will be large enough to cause harmful interference.296 SIA recommends 
stating this exception in more precise terms.  SIA would require coordination with all adjacent 
satellites within 6 of the target satellite unless the earth station is routine, or the earth station 
operator plans to reduce its input power or power density into the antenna by a sufficient amount 
to meet the antenna gain pattern envelope in Section 25.209 within + 1 of the nominal location 
of the adjacent satellite.297 We agree that a more precise statement of the coordination 
requirement would reduce confusion on this issue.  Accordingly, we will revise Section 25.220 of
the Commission's rules based on SIA proposal.
F.  Other Reconsideration Issues
103.  In the context of its pleadings filed in response to the Third Further Notice, AVL 
raises a number of issues regarding decisions made in the Fifth Report and Order and Sixth 
Report and Order. First, AVL recommends that the Commission not require any certifications or 
power reductions for routine earth stations.298 SIA replies that nothing in the Fifth Report and 
Order suggests that the procedures adopted in that Order were intended for routine earth 
stations.299 SIA is correct.  The procedures adopted in the Fifth Report and Order are intended to 
streamline the review of non-routine earth station applications.300 We do not plan to apply those 
procedures to routine earth station applications.
    
(Continued from previous page)
294 Section III.F.1. above, citing Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627 (para. 93).
295 Section III.F.1. above, citing Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5694-97 (paras. 70-79). 
296 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5686 (para. 47). 
297 SIA Petition at 5-6.
298 AVL Comments at 3.
299 SIA Reply at 11. 
300 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5669 (para. 3) ("We adopt streamlined procedures for 
considering non-routine earth station applications").  See also 47 C.F.R.  25.220(a)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
45
104.  AVL also assumes that the certification procedure adopted by the Commission in 
the Fifth Report and Order requires non-routine earth station operators to obtain certifications 
from adjacent satellite operators, and complains that such a procedure would be unreasonably 
burdensome.301 AVL is mistaken.  The Commission in the Fifth Report and Order explicitly 
stated that earth station applicants must submit certifications from their target satellite operators, 
not all the adjacent satellite operators.302  
105.  In addition, AVL claims that the Commission has eliminated a provision that 
allows earth station operators to exceed the antenna gain pattern in the sidelobes by up to three 
dB in this proceeding.303 SIA counters that allowing such "excursions" would result in an 
unacceptable increase in the potential for interference environment.304 AVL misunderstands the 
Commission's actions.  In the Sixth Report and Order, the Commission made only one change to 
the antenna gain pattern envelope: it increased the starting point to 1.5 off-axis, up from 1.0 off-
axis for C-band antennas and 1.25 off-axis for Ku-band antennas.  The Commission did not 
eliminate any provision with respect to "excursions."  Furthermore, these excursions are reflected 
in the off-axis EIRP envelopes proposed in the Third Further Notice.305  In response to SIA's 
argument, we note that Section 25.209 has allowed earth station operators the flexibility allowed 
to exceed that envelope by up to three dB for several years.  SIA does not provide any reason to 
depart from this practice.  Accordingly, we conclude that no further revisions to Section 25.209 
are warranted.
106.  Finally, we take this opportunity to address some petitions for reconsideration of 
another Part 25 streamlining proceeding.306  EDS asserts that Form 312, adopted in the 1996 
Streamlining Order, required disclosure of foreign ownership that is in excess of the disclosure 
required by the Communications Act.307 When the Form 312 filing requirement took effect, the 
Form included instructions that made clear that the foreign ownership reporting requirements are 
limited to broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed earth stations.  
We conclude that the instructions adequately address EDS's concern, and no further action is 
needed.  GE observes that there was a typographical error in Section 25.212(c) of the 
Commission's rules,308 but that error was later corrected.309 Accordingly, we dismiss this petition 
as moot.  Finally, Telquest does not raise issues related to any rule adopted in the 1996 
Streamlining Order, but rather criticizes the dismissal of its Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) 
  
301 AVL Comments at 4.
302 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5688 (para. 52).  See also 47 C.F.R.  25.220(d)(1).
303 AVL Comments at 4-5; AVL Reply at 1-2.  See also AVL Ex Parte Statement at 2-3.
304 SIA Reply at 12.
305 See Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5653-56 (App. C).
306 See 1996 Streamlining Order.
307 EDS Petition at 2-9.
308 GE Americom Petition at 2-3.
309 See Satellite Application and Licensing Procedures, Correction to Final Rule, 62 FR 51378 (Oct. 1, 
2001).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
46
application about nine months before the 1996 Streamlining Order was released.310 We therefore 
dismiss Telquest's petition as outside the scope of this proceeding.311
VI.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
107.  In this Order, we continue the process we began in 2000 to streamline the 
Commission's non-routine earth station processing rules.  Throughout this proceeding, the 
Commission has provided multiple opportunities for interested parties to recommend rule 
revisions,312 and based the streamlining measures adopted in this Eighth Report and Order on 
recommendations from satellite industry commenters in an earlier phase in this proceeding.313 As 
a result of this Order, we now have three procedures for earth station applications.  First, 
applications for earth stations with antennas of routine diameter or greater,314 to be operated at 
routine power levels or lower,315 will be processed routinely.  This is consistent with the 
procedure for routine earth station applications in place now.
108.  Second, earth station applications that do not meet these standards, but fall within 
the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope, will be processed routinely and placed on 30 days' public 
notice. The Commission will develop a form for these earth station applications.  In the 
meantime, applicants choosing to use this procedure must file their information in the form of a 
table as set forth in this Order above and include the table as an attachment to their 
applications.316 As the Commission noted in the Third Further Notice, this procedure is 
substantially similar to the power reduction procedure adopted in the Fifth Report and Order.317  
Accordingly, we replace the power reduction procedure adopted in the Fifth Report and Order
with the off-axis EIRP procedure we adopt here, as proposed in the Third Further Notice.318 In 
  
310 TelQuest Ventures, L.L.C., Western Tele-Communications, Inc., Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 8151 
(Int'l Bur., 1996) (Telquest Dismissal Order).
311 Telquest also filed an application for review of the Telquest Dismissal Order, raising arguments 
substantially similar to those in its petition for reconsideration of the 1996 Streamlining Order.  The 
Commission dismissed that petition in 2001.  Application of Telquest Ventures, L.L.C. For a License for a 
Fixed-Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Station to Communicate with a Canadian DBS Satellite to be 
located at 91 Degrees W.L. and for Blanket License Authority to Construct and Operate One Million 
Receive-Only Earth Stations for use with a Canadian DBS Satellite to be Located at 91 Degrees W.L., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 15026 (2001).
312 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5672 (para. 13). 
313 See Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).
314 By "routine diameter," we mean 1.2 meters for Ku-band earth stations, and 4.5 meters for C-band earth 
stations.
315 By "routine power level," we mean the power levels specified in Sections 25.134, 25.211, or 25.212 of 
the Commission's rules.
316 See Section V.
317 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).
318 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 75).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
47
addition, licenses granted pursuant to this procedure will be eligible for ALSAT treatment, 
consistent with the power reduction procedure adopted in the Fifth Report and Order.319
109.  Third, license applications for earth stations that will exceed the off-axis EIRP 
envelope will be considered pursuant to the certification procedure adopted in the Fifth Report 
and Order.  In other words, applicants will need to provide a certification from the operator of 
each space station with which the applicant plans to communicate, showing that the space station 
operator has coordinated the non-routine earth station operations with its neighboring satellite 
operators.320 We emphasize that earth station operators are not required to coordinate directly 
with the neighboring satellite operators.321 If for any reason the applicant is unwilling or unable 
to obtain such certifications, it is free to attempt to show that its proposed earth station operations 
would not cause harmful adjacent satellite interference in the context of a waiver of the 
certification requirement.  Such applicants are also free to include any information they believe 
will support their arguments, including but not limited to an ASIA analysis, as discussed in the 
Fifth Report and Order,322 or a statement that the earth station antenna has an electronic pointing 
mechanism, as suggested by AVL.  However, we reach no conclusion here regarding whether any 
specific showing would or would not be sufficient in any particular instance.  Instead, we repeat 
that the earth station applicant in these cases bear the burden of proof of showing that their 
proposed operations will not cause harmful interference to adjacent satellites.
110.  Applicants for Ku-band VSAT network licenses planning to use a contention 
protocol, and filing their applications after the rules in this Order take effect, will be required to 
certify in their applications that their use of that contention protocol will be reasonable.  We also
considered NRAO's proposal to require VSAT network operators to coordinate with NRAO prior 
to filing their applications with the Commission, and decided not to depart from the current 
procedures requiring NRAO notification, which appear to have been working adequately since 
1958.  Finally, we act on several petitions for reconsideration as indicated above. 
111.  All the rule revisions adopted in this Order are set forth in Appendix B of this 
Order.  In addition, we incorporate into Appendix B the rule revisions adopted in the Sixth Report 
and Order and stayed pending consideration of the issues in the Third Further Notice, to the 
  
319 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5684-85 (paras. 41-42).  "ALSAT" means "all U.S.-licensed 
space stations."  Originally, under an ALSAT earth station license, an earth station operator providing 
fixed-satellite service in the conventional C- and Ku-bands could access any U.S. satellite without 
additional Commission action, provided that those communications are in accordance with the same 
technical parameters and conditions established in the earth stations' licenses.  See Amendment of the 
Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic and 
International Satellite Service in the United States, Report and Order, IB Docket No. 96-111, 15 FCC Rcd 
7207, 7210-11 (para. 6) (1999) (DISCO II First Reconsideration Order).  The DISCO II First 
Reconsideration Order expanded ALSAT earth station licenses to allow access to any satellite on the 
Permitted List.  DISCO II First Reconsideration Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7215-16 (para. 19).  
320 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5687-88 (para. 50).  
321 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5683-84 n.99.  
322 Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5700 (para. 87).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
48
extent necessary.323  The Commission will publish a summary of this Order in the Federal 
Register, in which it will announce the effective date of all these rule revisions.  
VII.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS
112.  Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA),324 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Third
Further Notice.325 The Commission sought written public comments on the possible significant 
economic impact of the proposed policies and rules on small entities in the Third Further Notice, 
including comments on the IRFA.  No one commented specifically on the IRFA.  Pursuant to the 
RFA,326 a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is contained in Appendix D.
113.  Paperwork Reduction Act.  This  Order  contains  new  and  modified  
information  collections  subject  to  the  Paperwork Reduction  Act  of  1995  (PRA),  Public  
Law  104-13.  It  will  be  submitted  to  the  Office of  Management  and  Budget  (OMB)  for  
review  under  Section  3507(d)  of  the  PRA.  OMB,  the  general  public,  and  other  Federal  
agencies  are  invited  to  comment  on  the  new  or  modified  information  collection(s)  
contained  in  this  proceeding.  Implementation  of  these  new  or  modified  reporting  and/or  
recordkeeping  requirements  will  be subject  to  approval  by  the  OMB,  as  prescribed  by  the  
Act,  and  will  go into effect  upon  announcement  in  the  Federal  Register  of  OMB  approval. 
114.  Privacy Impact Assessment.  The Commission has performed a Privacy Impact 
Assessment as required by the Privacy Act, as amended by the E-Government Act of 2002.327  
The Commission has determined that this information collection does not affect individuals or 
household; thus, there are no impacts under the Privacy Act.
VIII.  ORDERING CLAUSES 
  
323 See Sixth Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (para. 50).  Among other stayed rule revisions adopted 
in the Sixth Report and Order, the Commission increased the backlobe gain limits to 0 dBi in portions of 
the Ka-band that are not shared by the FSS and MSS or other services, as proposed by SIA.  See  Sixth 
Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 5611 (paras. 40-41); Further Notice, 17 FCC Rcd at 18612 (para. 69), 
citing Letter from Richard DalBello, Executive Director, Satellite Industry Association, to Magalie Roman 
Salas, Secretary, FCC (dated Nov. 5, 2001) (SIA November 5 Ex Parte Statement) at 12.  However, a 
backlobe gain limit of 0 dBi was incorporated into the off-axis EIRP envelope adopted for Ka-band earth 
stations in another proceeding, based in part on recommendations from a Ka-band Blanket Licensing 
Working Group.  See Section 25.138 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  25.138; Letter from John P. 
Stern, Associate General Counsel, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, IB Docket No. 98-172 (dated 
Sept. 27, 1999); Letter from Carlos M. Nalda, Dow, Lohnes, and Albertson, to Magalie Roman Salas, 
Secretary, FCC, IB Docket No. 98-172 (dated Oct. 28, 1999).  Accordingly, the Ka-band antenna gain 
pattern rule revision adopted in the Sixth Report and Order is no longer necessary.  
324 See 5 U.S.C.  603.  
325 Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5662-65 (App. E).  
326 See 5 U.S.C.  604.
 
327 5 U.S.C.  552a.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
49
115.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 
303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 157(a), 
303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), that this Eighth Report and Order in IB Docket No. 00-248 is 
hereby ADOPTED.
116.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 25 of the Commissions 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.
117.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Order, including the Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.
118.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commissions 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order filed 
by SIA is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as indicated above.
119.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commissions 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order filed 
by SIA is GRANTED.
120.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commissions 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order filed 
by Boeing is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 
121.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commissions 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petitions for Reconsideration of the 1996 Streamlining Order
filed by EDS and GE Americom are DISMISSED AS MOOT.  
122.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commissions 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the 1996 Streamlining Order
filed by Telquest IS DENIED.
 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
 
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
50
APPENDIX A
List of Commenters
I.  Comments filed September 6, 2005
1. AvL Technologies, Inc. (AVL)
2. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, Microspace Communications 
Corporation, MTV Networks, Showtime Networks Inc., Twentieth Television, and the 
Walt Disney Company (together, Joint Commenters) 
3. National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
4. National Programming Service, Inc. (NPS) 
5. Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
6. SES Americom, Inc. (SES Americom)
7. Spacenet Inc. and Starband Communications Inc. (Spacenet)
8. Time Warner, Inc. (Time Warner)
II.  Replies filed October 6, 2005
1. AVL
2. EchoStar
3. Global VSAT Forum
4. NPS 
5. SIA
6. WildBlue Communications, Inc. (WildBlue)
III.  Ex Parte Statements
1. Letter from James L. Oliver, President, AvL Technologies, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC (dated Feb. 13, 2006) (AVL Ex Parte Statement).
2. Letter from Carolyn Tatum Roddy, Director of Regulatory Affairs, SIA, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Oct. 27, 2006) (SIA Ex Parte Statement).
3. Letter from Elizabeth R. Park, Counsel for ViaSat, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC (dated Dec. 14, 2006) (ViaSat Ex Parte Statement).
4. Letter from Carlos M. Nalda, Counsel for The Boeing Company, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC (dated Apr. 5, 2007) (Boeing Ex Parte Statement).
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration, Comments, and Replies
A.  Fifth Report and Order
1. SIA
B.  Sixth Report and Order
1. Boeing
2. SIA
3. Intelsat (Comments)
4. Boeing (Reply)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
51
C.  1996 Streamlining Order, IB Docket No. 95-117, Filed March 12, 1997 
1. EDS Corporation (EDS)
2. GE American Communications, Inc. (GE Americom)
3. Telquest Ventures, Inc. (Telquest)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
52
APPENDIX B
Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Communications Commission amends title 47 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, part 25, as follows:
PART 25 -- SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
1.  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, 332, 
unless otherwise noted.
2.  In Section 25.115, add paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
 25.115  Application for earth station authorizations.
* * * * * 
(h)  Any earth station applicant filing an application pursuant to  25.218 of this chapter must file 
three tables showing the off-axis EIRP level of the proposed earth station antenna of the plane of 
the geostationary orbit, the elevation plane, and towards the horizon.  In each table, the EIRP 
level must be provided at increments of 0.1 for angles between 0 and 10 off-axis, and at 
increments of 5 for angles between 10 and 180 off-axis.  
(1) For purposes of the off-axis EIRP table in the plane of the geostationary orbit, the off-
axis angle is the angle in degrees from the line connecting the focal point of the antenna 
to the target satellite, within the plane determined by the focal point of the antenna and 
the line tangent to the arc of the geostationary satellite orbit at the position of the target 
satellite.  
(2) For purposes of the off-axis EIRP table in the elevation plane, the off-axis angle is the 
angle in degrees from the line connecting the focal point of the antenna to the target 
satellite, within the plane perpendicular to the plane determined by the focal point of the 
antenna and the line tangent to the arc of the geostationary satellite orbit at the position of 
the target satellite.  
(3)  For purposes of the off-axis EIRP table towards the horizon, the off-axis angle is the 
angle in degrees from the line determined by the intersection of the horizontal plane and 
the elevation plane described in paragraph (h)(2) of this Section, in the horizontal plane.  
The horizontal plane is the plane determined by the focal point of the antenna and the 
horizon.
(4)  In addition, in an attachment to its application, the earth station applicant must certify 
that it will limit its pointing error to 0.5, or demonstrate that it will comply with the 
applicable off-axis EIRP envelopes in Section 25.218 of this Part when the antenna is 
mispointed at its maximum pointing error.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
53
(i)  Any earth station applicant filing an application for a VSAT network made up of FSS earth 
stations and planning to use a contention protocol must include in its application a certification 
that it will comply with the requirements of  25.134(g)(4).
3.  In Section 25.134, add paragraph (g)(4) to read as follows:
 25.134 Licensing provisions of Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) and C-band Small 
Aperture Terminal (CSAT) networks.
* * * * * 
(g) * * * 
(4)  Any earth station applicant filing an application to operate a VSAT network after [Insert 
effective date of rule] in the Ku-band and planning to use a contention protocol must certify that
its contention protocol usage will be reasonable.  
* * * * *  
4.  In Section 25.138, add paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
 25.138  Blanket Licensing provisions of GSO FSS Earth Stations in the 18.3-18.8 GHz (space-
to-Earth), 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 29.25-30.0 GHz 
(Earth-to-space) bands.
(a) * * * 
(4) GSO FSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral density for cross-polarized signals shall 
not exceed the following values, in all directions relative to the GSO arc, under clear sky 
conditions:
8.5-25log(?)-10log(N) dBW/40 kHz for 2.0 < ? < 7.0
-12.63-10log(N) dBW/40 kHz for 7.0 < ? < 9.23
Where:
? is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe; 
For systems where more than one earth station is expected to transmit simultaneously in the same 
bandwidth, e.g., CDMA systems, N is the likely maximum number of simultaneously 
transmitting co-frequency earth stations in the receive beam of the satellite; 
N=1 for TDMA and FDMA systems.
  
* * * * * 
5.  In Section 25.209, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1), remove and reserve paragraph (d), 
revise paragraph (f), and remove and reserve paragraph (g), to read as follows:  
 25.209  Antenna performance standards.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
54
(a) The gain of any antenna to be employed in transmission from an earth station in the fixed-
satellite service shall lie below the envelope defined below:
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location, for earth stations not operating in the Ka-band or conventional Ku-band:
29 - 25log10? dBi For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
8 dBi For 7 < ? ? 9.2
32 - 25log10? dBi For 9.2 < ? ? 48
-10 dBi For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe, and dBi refers to dB relative to an 
isotropic radiator. For the purposes of this section, the peak gain of an individual sidelobe may 
not exceed the envelope defined above for ? between 1.5 and 7.0 degrees. For ?
greater than 7.0 degrees, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, 
provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the gain envelope given above by more than 3 dB.
(2) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location, for earth stations operating in the Ka-band or conventional Ku-band:
29 - 25log10? dBi For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
8 dBi For 7 < ? ? 9.2
32 - 25log10? dBi For 9.2 < ? ? 48
-10 dBi For 48 < ? ? 85
0 dBi For 85 < ? ? 180
(3) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths, for all earth stations not operating in the Ka-band or conventional 
Ku-band:
Outside the main beam, the gain of the antenna shall lie below the envelope defined by:
32 - 25log10? dBi For 3 < ? ? 48
-10 dBi For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? and dBi are defined above. For the purposes of this section, the envelope may be 
exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the gain 
envelope given above by more than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to 
be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dB.
(4) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths, for all earth stations operating in the Ka-band or conventional Ku-
band:
Outside the main beam, the gain of the antenna shall lie below the envelope defined by:
32 - 25log10? dBi For 3 < ? ? 48
-10 dBi For 48 < ? ? 85
0 dBi For 85 < ? < 180 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
55
where ? and dBi are defined above. For the purposes of this section, the envelope may be 
exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the gain 
envelope given above by more than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to 
be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dB.
(5) Elliptical earth station antennas may be operated only when the major axis of the antenna is 
aligned with the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth 
station location.
(b) The off-axis cross-polarization gain of any antenna to be employed in transmission from an 
earth station to a space station in the domestic fixed-satellite service shall be defined as follows:
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location: 
19 - 25log10? dBi For 1.8 < ? ? 7
-2 dBi For 7 < ? ? 9.2
where ? is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe, and dBi refers to dB relative to an 
isotropic radiator.
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:
19 - 25log10? dBi For 3 < ? ? 7
-2 dBi For 7 < ? ? 9.2
where ? and dBi are defined above.
(c)(1) Earth station antennas licensed for reception of radio transmissions from a space station in 
the fixed-satellite service are protected from radio interference caused by other space stations 
only to the degree to which harmful interference would not be expected to be caused to an earth 
station employing an antenna conforming to the referenced patterns defined in paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section, and protected from radio interference caused by terrestrial radio transmitters 
identified by the frequency coordination process only to the degree to which harmful interference 
would not be expected to be caused to an earth station conforming to the reference pattern defined 
in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) [removed and reserved.]
* * * * *   
(f) An earth station with an antenna not conforming to the standards of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section will be authorized only if the applicant meets its burden of demonstrating that its 
antenna will not cause unacceptable interference. For ESVs in the C-band, this demonstration 
must comply with the procedures set forth in  25.221. For ESVs in the Ku-band, this 
demonstration must comply with the procedures set forth in  25.222.  For feeder-link earth 
stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS, this demonstration must comply with the procedures set forth in  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
56
25.223.  For other FSS earth stations, this demonstration must comply with the procedures set 
forth in  25.218 or 25.220. In any case, the Commission will impose appropriate terms and 
conditions in its authorization of such facilities and operations.  
(g) [removed and reserved.]
* * * * *                 
6. In Section 25.212, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:  
25.212 Narrowband analog transmissions, digital transmissions, and video transmissions in the 
GSO Fixed-Satellite Service.
* * * * *
(c) In the 14.0-14.5 GHz band, an earth station with an antenna equivalent diameter of 1.2 meters 
or greater may be routinely licensed for transmission of narrowband analog services with 
bandwidths up to 200 kHz if the maximum input power spectral density into the antenna does not 
exceed -8 dBW/4 kHz and the maximum transmitted satellite carrier EIRP density does not 
exceed 17 dBW/4 kHz. Such earth stations may be routinely licensed for transmission of 
narrowband and/or wideband digital services, including digital video services, if the maximum 
input spectral power density into the antenna does not exceed -14 dBW/4 kHz, and the maximum 
transmitted satellite carrier EIRP density does not exceed +10.0 dBW/4 kHz. Antennas 
transmitting in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band with a major and/or minor axis smaller than 1.2 meters 
are subject to the provisions of 25.220, which may include power reduction requirements.
* * * * * 
 
7. Revise Part 25 by adding new  25.218 to read as follows:
 25.218  Off-Axis EIRP Envelopes for FSS earth station operations. 
(a) This section applies to all earth station applications, except for
(1) ESV applications,
(2) Analog video earth station applications, 
(3) Applications for feeder-link earth stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS. 
(b)  Earth station applications subject to this Section are eligible for routine processing if they 
meet the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope set forth in this Section below. For purposes of this 
Section, the term "extended Ku-band" is the 10.7-11.7 GHz, 12.75-13.25 GHz, and 13.75-14.0 
GHz band.  The term "conventional Ku-band" is defined in Section 25.201 of this chapter.  
(c)  C-band Analog Earth Station Operations
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location:
29.5 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
8.5 dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
32.5 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
57
-9.5 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ?  is the angle in degrees from the line connecting the focal point of the antenna to the 
target satellite, and the geostationary orbit plane is determined by the focal point of the antenna 
and the line tangent to the arc of the geostationary satellite orbit at the position of the target 
satellite.  For the purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may not 
exceed the envelope defined above for ? between 1.5 and 7.0. For  ? greater than 7.0, the 
envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual 
sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 3 dB. 
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:  
32.5 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 3 ? ? ? 48
-9.5 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? is the angle in degrees from the line connecting the focal point of the antenna to the 
target satellite, within any plane that includes that line, with the exception of the plane determined 
by the focal point of the antenna and the line tangent to the arc of the geostationary satellite orbit 
at the position of the target satellite.  For the purposes of this section, the envelope may be 
exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the 
envelope given above by more than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to 
be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dB. 
(d)  C-band Digital Earth Station Operations
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location:
26.3 - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
5.3  -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
29.3 -10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
- 12.7 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? and the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit are defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
Section, and N is defined below.  For the purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual 
sidelobe may not exceed the envelope defined above for ? between 1.5 and 7.0. For ? greater 
than 7.0, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no 
individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 3 dB.       
For digital SCPC using frequency division multiple access (FDMA) or time division multiple 
access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to one.
For digital SCPC using code division multiple access (CDMA) technique, N is the maximum 
number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth stations in the same satellite receiving 
beam.
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:  
29.3 - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 3 ? ? ? 48
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
58
-12.7 - 10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? is defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this Section, and N is defined in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
Section. For the purposes of this section, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of 
the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 6 
dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to be interpreted as a single lobe and shall 
not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dB.
(e)  Conventional Ku-band Analog Earth Station Operations:
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location:
21 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
0 dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
24 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
-18 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 85
- 8 dBW/4 kHz For 85 < ? ? 180
where ? and the plane of the geostationary satellite are defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this Section.  
For the purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may not exceed the 
envelope defined above for ? between 1.5 and 7.0. For  ? greater than 7.0, the envelope may 
be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the 
envelope given above by more than 3 dB.  
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:  
24 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 3 ? ? ? 48
-18 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 85
- 8  dBW/4 kHz For 85 < ? ? 180
where ? is defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. For the purposes of this section, the 
envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe 
exceeds the envelope given above by more than 6 dB.  The region of the main reflector spillover 
energy is to be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dB.
 
(f)  Conventional Ku-band Digital Earth Station Operations:
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location:
15  - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
-6  -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
18 -10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
- 24 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 85
- 14 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 85 < ? ? 180
where ? and the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit are defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
Section, and N is defined below.  For the purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
59
sidelobe may not exceed the envelope defined above for ? between 1.5 and 7.0. For  ? greater 
than 7.0, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no 
individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 3 dB.
For digital SCPC using frequency division multiple access (FDMA) or time division multiple 
access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to one.
For digital SCPC using code division multiple access (CDMA) technique, N is the maximum 
number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth stations in the same satellite receiving 
beam.
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:  
18 - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 3 ? ? ? 48
-24  - 10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 85
- 14  - 10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 85 < ? ? 180
where ? is defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and N is defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section. For the purposes of this section, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of 
the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 6 
dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to be interpreted as a single lobe and shall 
not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dB. 
 
(g)  Extended Ku-band Analog Earth Station Operations:
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location:
21 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
0 dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
24 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
-18 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? and the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit are defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
Section.  For the purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may not exceed 
the envelope defined above for ? between 1.5 and 7.0. For  ? greater than 7.0, the envelope 
may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds 
the envelope given above by more than 3 dB.  
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:  
24 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 3 ? ? ? 48
-18 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? is defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this Section. For the purposes of this section, the 
envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe 
exceeds the envelope given above by more than 6 dB.  The region of the main reflector spillover 
energy is to be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dB.
 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
60
(h)  Extended Ku-band Digital Earth Station Operations:
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location:
15  - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
-6  -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
18 -10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
- 24 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? and the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit are defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
Section, and N is defined below.  For the purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual 
sidelobe may not exceed the envelope defined above for ? between 1.5 and 7.0. For  ? greater 
than 7.0, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no 
individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 3 dB.
For digital SCPC using frequency division multiple access (FDMA) or time division multiple 
access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to one.
For digital SCPC using code division multiple access (CDMA) technique, N is the maximum 
number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth stations in the same satellite receiving 
beam.
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:  
18 - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 3 ? ? ? 48
-24  - 10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 85
where ? is defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and N is defined in paragraph (h)(1) of this 
section. For the purposes of this section, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of 
the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 6 
dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to be interpreted as a single lobe and shall 
not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dB.  
8. Revise  25.220 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d), and removing and reserving paragraphs (c), 
(e), and (f), 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 applications and 17/24 
GHz BSS feeder link applications, in which the proposed earth station operations do not fall 
within the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope specified in Section 25.218 of this Chapter.
(2) The requirements for petitions to deny applications filed pursuant to this section are set forth 
in  25.154.
(b) * * * 
(c) [removed and reserved.]  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
61
(d)(1) The applicant must submit the certifications listed in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iv) 
of this Section.  The applicant will be authorized to transmit only to the satellite systems included 
in the coordination agreements referred to in the certification required by paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of 
this section.  The applicant will be granted protection from receiving interference only with 
respect to the satellite systems included in the coordination agreements referred to in the 
certification required by paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, and only to the extent that protection 
from receiving interference is afforded by those coordination agreements. 
(i)  A statement from the satellite operator acknowledging that the proposed 
operation of the subject non-conforming earth station with its satellite(s) has the 
potential to receive interference from adjacent satellite networks that may be 
unacceptable.
(ii)  A statement from the satellite operator that it has coordinated the operation 
of the subject non-conforming earth station accessing its satellite(s), including its 
required downlink power density based on the information contained in the 
application, with all adjacent satellite networks within 6 of orbital separation 
from its satellite(s), and the operations will operate in conformance with existing 
coordination agreement for its satellite(s) with other satellite systems, except as 
set forth in paragraph (d)(4) of this paragraph.
(iii) A statement from the satellite operator that it will include the subject non-
conforming earth station operations in all future satellite network coordinations, 
and
(iv) A statement from the earth station applicant certifying that it will comply 
with all coordination agreements reached by the satellite operator(s).  
(2)  A license granted pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section will include, as a 
condition on that license, that if a good faith agreement cannot be reached between the 
satellite operator and the operator of a future 2 compliant satellite, the earth station 
operator shall accept the power density levels that would accommodate the 2 compliant 
satellite.  
(3) In the event that a coordination agreement discussed in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this 
section is reached, but that coordination agreement does not address protection from 
interference for the earth station, that earth station will be protected from interference to 
the same extent that an earth station that meets the requirements of  25.209 of this title 
would be protected from interference.  
(4)  Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, a party applying for an earth 
station license pursuant to this section will not be required to certify that its target 
satellite operator has reached a coordination agreement with another satellite operator 
whose satellite is within 6 of orbital separation from its satellite in cases where the off-
axis EIRP density level of the proposed earth station operations will be less than or equal 
to the levels specified by the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope set forth in  25.218 of 
this Chapter in the direction of the part of the geostationary orbit arc within 1 of the 
nominal orbit location of the adjacent satellite.  
(e)  [removed and reserved.]
(f)  [removed and reserved.] 
(g)  * * * 
* * * * * 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
62
APPENDIX C
Proposed Off-Axis EIRP Envelopes for FSS Earth Station Applications
In this Appendix, we list several off-axis EIRP envelopes for various types of FSS earth 
station transmissions, as originally proposed in Appendix C of the Third Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.  
I.  Power Limits for C-band Analog Earth Stations
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location:
29.5  25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
8.5 dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
32.5 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
-9.5 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe.  For the purposes of this section, 
the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may not exceed the envelope defined above for ? 
between 1.5 and 7.0. For  ? greater than 7.0, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 
10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more 
than 3 dBW/4 kHz.
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:  
32.5  25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 3 ? ? ? 48
-9.5 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? is defined above. For the purposes of this section, the envelope may be exceeded by no 
more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given 
above by more than 6 dBW/4 kHz. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to 
be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dBW/4 kHz.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
63
II.  Power Limits for C-band Digital Earth Stations
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location:
26.3 - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
5.3  -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
29.3 -10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
- 12.7 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe, and N is defined below.  For the 
purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may not exceed the envelope 
defined above for ? between 1.5 and 7.0. For  ? greater than 7.0, the envelope may be 
exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the 
envelope given above by more than 3 dBW/4 kHz.
For digital SCPC using frequency division multiple access (FDMA) or time division multiple 
access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to one.
For digital SCPC using code division multiple access (CDMA) technique, N is the maximum 
number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth stations in the same satellite receiving 
beam.
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:  
29.3 - 10log10(N) 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 3 ? ? ? 48
-12.7 - 10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 180
where ? and N are  defined above. For the purposes of this section, the envelope may be exceeded 
by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope 
given above by more than 6 dBW/4 kHz. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to 
be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dBW/4 kHz.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
64
III.  Power Limits for Ku-band Analog Earth Stations
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location:
21  25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
0 dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
24 - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
-18 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 85
- 8 dBW/4 kHz For 85 < ? ? 180
where ? is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe.  For the purposes of this section, 
the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may not exceed the envelope defined above for ? 
between 1.5 and 7.0. For  ? greater than 7.0, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 
10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more 
than 3 dBW/4 kHz.
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:  
24  25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 3 ? ? ? 48
-18 dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 85
- 8  dBW/4 kHz For 85 < ? ? 180
where ? is defined above. For the purposes of this section, the envelope may be exceeded by no 
more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given 
above by more than 6 dBW/4 kHz. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to 
be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dBW/4 kHz.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
65
 
IV.  Power Limits for Ku-band Digital Earth Stations
(1) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station 
location:
15  - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
-6  -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
18 -10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 9.2 < ? ? 48
- 24 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 85
- 14 -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 85 < ? ? 180
where ? is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe, and N is defined below.  For the 
purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may not exceed the envelope 
defined above for ? between 1.5 and 7.0. For  ? greater than 7.0, the envelope may be
exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the 
envelope given above by more than 3 dBW/4 kHz.
For digital SCPC using frequency division multiple access (FDMA) or time division multiple 
access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to one.
For digital SCPC using code division multiple access (CDMA) technique, N is the maximum 
number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth stations in the same satellite receiving 
beam.
(2) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any out-of-plane potential 
terrestrial interference paths:  
18   - 10log10(N) 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 3 ? ? ? 48
-24  - 10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 48 < ? ? 85
- 14  - 10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 85 < ? ? 180
where ? and N are  defined above. For the purposes of this section, the envelope may be exceeded 
by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope 
given above by more than 6 dBW/4 kHz. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to 
be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more than 6 dBW/4 kHz.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
66
APPENDIX D
Technical Arguments
SIA identifies certain minor errors in Appendix C of the Third Further Notice.  First, 
throughout Appendix C, in each place that the phrase "No individual sidelobe would exceed 3 
dB/4 kHz" appears, SIA recommends replacing "3 dBW/4 kHz" with simply "3 dB".1 We agree, 
and we correct this typographical error in the rule revisions we adopt in this Order.  Similarly, we 
replace "6 dBW/4 kHz" with "6 dB" as SIA suggests.2  
SIA also claim that the Commission misstated two of the equations in Appendix C of the 
Third Further Notice, in which the Commission proposed an off-axis EIRP envelope for C-band 
digital transmissions.3 SIA's claims are illustrated below.  
Table II(1) in Appendix C of Third Further Notice
27.3 - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
5.3  -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
Table II(1) as Proposed by SIA
26.3 - 10log10(N) - 25log10? dBW/4 kHz For 1.5 ? ? ? 7
5.2  -10log10(N) dBW/4 kHz For 7 < ? ? 9.2
SIA is correct that the Commission misstated the first line of Table II(1).  This figure is 
derived by combining the antenna gain pattern in Section 25.209 with the C-band power level 
permitted by Section 25.212.  In this case, for angles between 1.5 and 7, that is 29  2.7, which 
is 26.3 as SIA points out.
However, we disagree that the second line of Table II(1) is misstated.  When the antenna 
gain pattern in Section 25.209 is combined with the C-band power level permitted by Section 
25.212, for angles between 7 and 9.2, the figure is 8  2.7, which is 5.3, not 5.2 as SIA claims.
  
1 SIA Comments at 11.
2 SIA Comments at 11.
3 SIA Comments at 11 and 16 n.25.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
67
APPENDIX E
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Third Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Third Further Notice) in IB Docket No. 00-248.1  The Commission sought written 
public comment on the proposals in the Third Further Notice, including comment on the IRFA.  
This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.2
A.  Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Commission in every even-numbered 
year beginning in 1998 to review all regulations that apply to the operations or activities of any 
provider of telecommunications service and to determine whether any such regulation is no 
longer necessary in the public interest due to meaningful economic competition.  Our objective is 
to repeal or modify any rules in Part 25 that are no longer necessary in the public interest, as 
required by Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  
We codify streamlined procedures that allow for routine treatment of applications for 
earth stations that will comply with an of-axis EIRP envelope.  
B.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments In Response to the IRFA
No comments were submitted directly in response to the IRFAs in the Third Further 
Notice.
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.3 The RFA 
generally defines the term "small entity " as having the same meaning as the terms "small 
business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."4 In addition, the term 
"small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small 
Business Act.5 A small business concern is one which:  (1) is independently owned and operated; 
  
1 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's 
Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space 
Stations, Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 00-
248, 20 FCC Rcd 5593 (2005) (Third Further Notice).
2 See 5 U.S.C.  604.
3 5 U.S.C.  604(a)(3).    
4 5 U.S.C.  601(6).      
5 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. 
 632).  Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after 
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
68
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by 
the Small Business Administration (SBA).6  
1.  Cable Services.  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and 
Other Program Distribution, which consists of all such firms having $12.5 million or less in 
annual receipts.7 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this category there was a total of 
1,311 firms that operated for the entire year.8 Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of 
under $10 million, and an additional fifty-two firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.9
Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 
The Commission has developed its own small business size standard for a small cable 
operator for the purposes of rate regulation.  Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable 
company" is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.10 Based on our most recent 
information, we estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as small cable 
companies at the end of 1995.11 Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve 
over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to 
be combined with other cable operators.  Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 
1,439 small cable companies that may be affected by the proposed rules.
The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for a "small 
cable operator," which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the 
aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with 
any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000."12 The 
Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States.13  
Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, 
    
(Continued from previous page)
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).
6 15 U.S.C.  632.
7 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517510.  
8 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 513220 (issued October 2000).
9 Id.
10 47 C.F.R.  76.901(e).  The Commission developed this definition based on its determinations that a 
small cable company is one with annual revenues of $100 million or less.  See Implementation of Sections 
of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Doc. 
Nos. 92-266 and 93-215,  Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 
7393, 7408-7409  28-30 (1995).  
11 Paul Kagan Assocs., Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).
12 47 U.S.C.  543(m)(2).
13 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, Public Notice, 
16 FCC Rcd 2225 (2001).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
69
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not 
exceed $250 million in the aggregate.14 Based on available data, we estimate that the number of 
cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or less totals approximately 1,450.15 We do not 
request or collect information on whether cable operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000,16 and therefore are unable to estimate accurately the 
number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition 
in the Communications Act. 
2. Satellite Telecommunications.  The rules proposed in this Further Notice would affect 
providers of satellite telecommunications services, if adopted.  Satellite telecommunications 
service providers include satellite operators and earth station operators.  The Commission has not 
developed a definition of small entities applicable to satellite operators.  Therefore, the applicable 
definition of small entity is generally the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Satellite 
Telecommunications.17 This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one with $12.5 
million or less in annual receipts.18 1997 Census Bureau data indicate that, for 1997, 273 satellite 
communication firms had annual receipts of under $10 million.  In addition, 24 firms had receipts 
for that year of $10 million to $24,999,990.19
3.  Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and other program distribution services. This service 
involves a variety of transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public 
(through translator and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote 
news gathering unit back to the station).  The Commission has not developed a definition of small 
entities applicable to broadcast auxiliary licensees.  Therefore, the applicable definition of small 
entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules applicable to radio 
broadcasting stations,20 and television broadcasting stations.21 These definitions provide that a 
small entity is one with either $6.0 million or less in annual receipts for a radio broadcasting 
station or $12.0 million in annual receipts for a TV station.22 There are currently 3,237 FM 
  
14 47 C.F.R.  76.1403(b).
15 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, Public Notice, 
16 FCC Rcd 2225 (2001).
16 We do receive such information on a case-by-case basis only if a cable operator appeals a local franchise 
authoritys finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to section 76.901(f) 
of the Commissions rules.  See 47 C.F.R.  76.990(b).
17 "This industry 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."  Small Business Administration, NAICS code 517310.  
18 13 C.F.R.  120.121, NAICS code 517310.
19 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Service: Information, "Establishment and Firm 
Size," Table 4, NAICS 513340 (Issued Oct. 2000).
20 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 515112. 
21 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 515120. 
22 13 C.F.R.  121.201.   
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
70
translators and boosters, 4913 TV translators.23 The FCC does not collect financial information 
on any broadcast facility and the Department of Commerce does not collect financial information 
on these auxiliary broadcast facilities.  We believe, however, that most, if not all, of these 
auxiliary facilities could be classified as small businesses by themselves.  We also recognize that 
most translators and boosters are owned by a parent station which, in some cases, would be 
covered by the revenue definition of small business entity discussed above.  These stations would 
likely have annual revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as a small business 
(as noted, either $6.0 million for a radio station or $12.0 million for a TV station).  Furthermore, 
they do not meet the Small Business Act's definition of a "small business concern" because they 
are not independently owned and operated. 
4.  Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier,24
private-operational fixed,25 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.26 At present, there are 
approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed 
licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services.  The Commission has 
not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services.  For purposes of this FRFA, 
we will use the SBA's definition applicable to cellular and other wireless communications 
companies -- i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons.27 We estimate that all of the Fixed 
Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities 
under the SBA definition for radiotelephone (wireless) companies.
D.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
The rules adopted in this Eighth Report and Order are not intended to increase the 
reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirements of any licensee, and we do not 
anticipate any differential treatment to be received by larger and smaller entities.  The reporting 
requirements associated with the off-axis EIRP envelope method for reviewing earth station 
applications are the same as the reporting requirements associated with one of the earth station 
application procedures adopted in the Fifth Report and Order.  These requirements will not affect 
small businesses differently from other non-routine earth station applicants. 
    
(Continued from previous page)
23 FCC News Release, Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 1999, No. 71831 (Jan. 21, 1999).
24 See 47 C.F.R.  101 et seq. (formerly, part 21 of the Commission's Rules).
25 Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission's rules can use Private Operational-Fixed 
Microwave services.  See 47 C.F.R. parts 80 and 90.  Stations in this service are called operational-fixed to 
distinguish them from common carrier and public fixed stations.  Only the licensee may use the 
operational-fixed station, and only for communications related to the licensee's commercial, industrial, or 
safety operations.
26 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission's Rules.  See 47 
C.F.R. part 74 et seq.  Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network 
entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the 
studio to the transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.  The service 
also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.
27 See 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517212. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-246
71
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant 
Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives: (1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or 
simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the 
rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.28
In this Eighth Report and Order, the Commission considers and rejects a proposal to 
require analog video earth station operators to comply with an off-axis EIRP envelope.   
Commenters persuasively argued that such a requirement would have been burdensome for all 
analog video earth station operators, including small business analog video earth station 
operators.  
F.  Report to Congress  
The Commission will send a copy of the Eighth Report and Order, including this FRFA, 
in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.  
801(a)(1)(A).  In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Eighth Report and Order,
including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  A 
copy of the Eighth Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in 
the Federal Register.  See 5 U.S.C.  604(b).
 
  
28 5 U.S.C.  603(c)(1)  (c)(4).