Sunsetting NGSO Protections Faces Some Challenges
The FCC's floated idea of sunsetting non-geostationary orbit fixed satellite systems' interference protections from other NGSO FSS constellations authorized later faces considerable challenge by some satcom operators, in docket 21-456 comments Monday. Commenters also disagreed about how the FCC should approach band splitting. Commissioners adopted the NGSO sharing NPRM 4-0 at their December meeting (see 2112140062).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Limiting initial grantees' interference protections would complicate all the work going into constructing, launching and operating constellations, Telesat said. Viasat said sunsetting would incentivize later-round applicants to propose and deploy excessively large NGSO systems that block spectrum access by smaller, earlier-round systems. Calling sunsetting "problematic" policy, Hughes said it could hurt ongoing investment in constellations during their authorized lifespans because satcom operators won't spend significantly to use spectrum if there's no long-term certainty of its unimpeded use. Sunsetting also conflicts with ITU policy favoring first-in-time priority, it said. O3b called the sunset idea "radical." OneWeb and Viasat also opposed. Intelsat said the record needs further development before the agency moves on sunsetting.
Sunsetting got some support. Amazon's Kuiper said as systems are deployed, satellite diversity reduces the need for such protections. SpaceX said its proposed 10-year sunset "strikes the proper balance between certainty for those that moved early ... and opportunity for new entrants hoping to bring competition to the market." Kepler backed a 15-year sunset.
There was no uniform satcom industry stance on requirements for sharing constellation information such as beam-pointing specifics with other NGSO operators. Backers included Hughes, Kepler and Kuiper. OneWeb said given the array of satellite designs and functionality, it could require either sharing beam-pointing information or using satellite diversity to avoid interference events. Telesat said beam-pointing data sharing couldn't be done in a timely enough way to be practical, and it would require sharing of confidential and proprietary information. Others opposed include Viasat, SpaceLink and O3b.
The FCC should require good-faith coordination among all NGSO FSS operators regardless of processing round, including information-sharing requirements that allow more efficient sharing, tech interest and advocacy groups said. They also urged the FCC to adopt the degradation of service metric to determine what constitutes harmful interference. Behind the comments were New America's Open Technology Institute, Center for Rural Strategies, Public Knowledge, Next Century Cities, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, Link Oregon and Access Humboldt. Satellite backers of the degraded throughput metric include Kuiper and Intelsat.
Citing the need to protect the business expectations of previously authorized NGSO FSS systems, Boeing said the FCC should make clear its policy of band splitting during in-line events applies only to NGSO FSS systems authorized in the same processing round. It said unless there's a coordination agreement saying otherwise, an in-line event between earlier-authorized and later-authorized NGSO FSS systems should have the later-round NGSO FSS system able to use 25% of available spectrum, with the system authorized in the earlier round having access to 75%.
Relying on coordination backed with band splitting doesn't promote fair spectrum sharing or competition, Viasat said. Instead of band splitting during in-line events, it urged a requiring same-processing-round system operators to split "look angles" of airspace, which essentially would allow multiple NGSO systems use spectrum equitably.
Backing default spectrum splitting being used only for NGSO FSS applications in the same processing round, Inmarsat said the FCC shouldn't quantify a level of required interference protection to earlier-round applicants because the record doesn't support specific levels.
Protections for earlier-round. licensees should be limited to NGSO systems that can provide service, Intelsat said. It urged the FCC to facilitate an industry-led, limited-access database where some system parameters would be available to NGSO applicants and grantees. Limiting the existing spectrum-splitting procedure to only NGSO FSS systems authorized within the same processing round would give clarity and regulatory certainty, Kepler said.