Harmful interference was still the major area of concern for fixe...

by limiting how closely ESVs can come to the shore and how the devices coordinate with FS operations (CD Feb 25 p10). L.A. County said its private operational fixed service (POFS) uses the 6 GHz band some ESVs operate in and the service is relied on heavily for public safety communications, “first response” operations and emergency situations: “[I]f left unconstrained, there would be an extraordinary amount of ESV frequency use within the county, creating dangerous interference to public safety communications.” But Telenor Satellite criticized claims of interference in the comments of FS operators, saying C-band ESV operations haven’t had significant interference problems with FS operations: “In fact, the comments of the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition [FWCC] and its supporters demonstrate this point ably: Despite being specifically invited by the Commission in the [notice of proposed rulemaking] to provide examples of interference, not one commenting party has been able to do so. Their silence speaks volumes.” The FWCC responded: “Without basic operational information about the ESV, identifying it as the cause of interference requires taking the FS link out of service for an extended period. And even when FS operators have taken the trouble to shut down a link and gather data on an interference incident, ESV providers have still refused to provide the information needed to identify a particular ESV as the source. The lack of substantiation thus reflects not an absence of interference, but rather an absence of cooperation form the ESV industry.” Meanwhile, Stratos said Maritime Telecom Network (MTN) is the only ESV interest proposing a coordinated approach for ESV C-band operations. Stratos said operations on a non-coordination basis have been successful and should continue. But MTN said coordination is the only way to provide co-primary protection for ESVs similar to protection for FS operations. FWCC agreed that coordination is essential, but said it must go farther than coordination at single locations: “Even a successfully coordinated ESV can still cause interference if it leaves the coordinated route, enters an uncoordinated route segment, or slows down.” FWCC proposed all ESVs be required to have GPS equipment “programmed to shut down automatically if the vessel departs from its coordinated parameters.”