FCC-23-22A1.pdf

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Single Network Future: Supplemental Coverage

from Space

Space Innovation

)

GN Docket No. 23-65

IB Docket No. 22-271

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Adopted: March 16, 2023 Released: March 17, 2023

Comment Date: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register

Reply Comment Date: 60 days after publication in the Federal Register

By the Commission: Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioners Carr, Starks, and Simington issuing

separate statements

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading Paragraph #

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1

II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 3

A. Market Developments and Terrestrial/Satellite Partnership Efforts ................................................ 3

B. FCC Actions to Facilitate Satellite and Terrestrial Collaborations ................................................ 10

C. Current U.S. and International Allocations of Bands Subject to Notice Proposal ......................... 16

III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 24

A. Adding a Co-Primary Mobile-Satellite Service Allocation to Certain Bands Allocated to

Terrestrial Services ....................................................................................................................... 25

1. Addition of Mobile-Satellite Service Allocation ..................................................................... 26

2. Further Discussion of Bands Proposed for Supplemental Coverage from Space ................... 33

B. Closing Terrestrial Service Area Coverage Gaps Through Supplemental Coverage from

Space ............................................................................................................................................. 42

1. Geographically Independent Area ........................................................................................... 44

2. Assigning New Mobile-Satellite-Service Rights for Supplemental Coverage from

Space ....................................................................................................................................... 47

3. Leasing .................................................................................................................................... 68

4. Service Rules ........................................................................................................................... 81

5. Technical Issues .................................................................................................................... 110

C. International Coordination ........................................................................................................... 131

D. Extension of Supplemental Satellite Framework to Additional Scenarios .................................. 136

1. Spectrum Bands with Non-Flexible-Use Incumbent Licensees ............................................ 138

2. Geographically Independent Areas Where Collaborating Terrestrial Licensees Hold

All Co-Channel Licenses and Seek to Provide SCS.............................................................. 141

3. Adjacent Geographic Areas Containing Non-Collaborating Licensees ................................ 145

E. Space-Based Coverage to Consumer Devices in Spectrum Already Allocated for Mobile

Satellite Service Communications ............................................................................................... 149

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

F. Other Issues .................................................................................................................................. 151

IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS .............................................................................................................. 152

V. ORDERING CLAUSES ..................................................................................................................... 158

APPENDIX A – PROPOSED RULES

APPENDIX B – INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this item, we take a global leadership role in facilitating the integration of satellite and

terrestrial networks by proposing a new regulatory framework for Supplemental Coverage from Space

(SCS). Through this novel approach, satellite operators collaborating with terrestrial service providers

would be able to obtain Commission authorization to operate space stations on currently licensed,

flexible-use spectrum allocated to terrestrial services, thus expanding coverage to the terrestrial licensee’s

subscribers, especially in remote, unserved, and underserved areas. This framework could enable

innovation and investment in nascent satellite and terrestrial interoperable technologies and cross-industry

stakeholder partnerships to flourish in the United States, and play a key role towards fulfilling other

Commission goals in the public interest. These goals include facilitating ubiquitous wireless coverage

across the nation; expanding the availability of emergency communications to consumers and the

geographic range of first responders to provide emergency services; and promoting competition in the

provision of wireless services to consumers, among others.

2. We anticipate that our proposed SCS approach will incentivize creative partnerships

between terrestrial network and space station operators and will provide additional tools to close wireless

coverage gaps, while retaining high service quality among our nation’s 4G and 5G terrestrial networks,

protecting spectrum usage rights, and avoiding harmful interference. Moreover, by carefully examining

potential regulatory changes required to facilitate provision of emerging global services through tailored

business arrangements in the context of a rulemaking proceeding, rather than relying exclusively on an

ad-hoc waiver approach, we aim to foster widespread stakeholder interest through clear rules generally

applicable to all, thus yielding a robust record for Commission consideration of long-term solutions in the

public interest.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Market Developments and Terrestrial/Satellite Partnership Efforts

3. As technologies with advanced capabilities evolve and wireless customers’ demand for

seamless connectivity grows, even in remote locations currently lacking wireless coverage, stakeholders

are seeking ways to leverage satellite communications to provide expanded coverage to consumer

handsets. Recent news reports have highlighted interest in this evolving market with partnerships

between satellite service

providers and terrestrial wireless service

providers to facilitate this type of

enhanced capability. According to these reports, in addition to increased consumer demand, other factors

driving this trend include lower satellite bandwidth prices and the “broad acceptance of the [3rd

Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)] wireless standard.”

We use the term “satellite service” to mean “space radiocommunications.” See ITU Radio Regulations Article 1.8

(defining space radiocommunications as “[a]ny radio communications involving the use of one or more space

stations or the use of one or more reflecting satellites or other objects in space.”).

We use the term “terrestrial wireless service,” “terrestrial service,” or “wireless service” to mean fixed and mobile

services. See ITU Radio Regulations Article 1.7, 1.20, and 1.24.

See, e.g., Jeffrey Hill, Satellite, Cellular ‘Convergence’ Takes Center Stage at Mobile World Congress Las Vegas,

(Oct. 3, 2022), https://www.satellitetoday.com/5g/2022/10/03/satellite-cellular-convergence-takes-center-stage-at-

mobile-world-congress-las-vegas/.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

4. Use of Current Satellite-Allocated Spectrum to Serve Commercial Handsets. Some

recently announced collaborations rely on the use of spectrum currently allocated to satellite services to

provide expanded service options to subscribers using smartphones, as distinct from specially-provisioned

satellite phones.

For example, in November 2022, Globalstar and Apple jointly announced a proprietary

service using Globalstar’s licensed satellite spectrum to provide emergency messaging for Apple’s iPhone

14 and 14 Pro devices when no cellular or Wi-Fi service is available.

According to Apple, its iPhone 14

communicates with the existing Globalstar satellite network for emergency purposes,

and this technology

has already been used to enable emergency services in at least one instance.

Bullitt, a UK-based

smartphone maker, announced plans to leverage 3GPP-based 5G technology standards, specifically the

2022 3GPP Release 17 specifications, in its ongoing efforts to connect its smartphones directly to

satellites on spectrum allocated to satellite services.

Iridium, a satellite communications provider, and

chip maker Qualcomm recently announced their partnership and plans to connect smartphones with

Iridium’s satellite constellation with a product called Snapdragon Satellite, enabling emergency

messaging in late 2023.

Other established satellite service providers, such as EchoStar and Viasat, have

also indicated that they would be interested “in operating satellites that may connect to phones.”

Similar

collaborative efforts are underway by other operators, as well.

5. 3GPP’s Release 17 standards were the first to include input from non-terrestrial network

(NTN) groups and to address satellite’s role in the development of 5G systems worldwide. Its

specifications will support New Radio (NR) based satellite access deployed in the Frequency Range 1

bands

serving handsets as well as NB-IoT (narrowband Internet of Things) and LTE-M based access for

In these scenarios, satellite operators are authorized under part 25 of the Commission’s rules to use spectrum

currently allocated for mobile-satellite service to provide such service (space-to-Earth) to smartphones.

See Press Release, Apple, Emergency SOS via Satellite Available Today on the iPhone 14 Lineup in the US and

Canada (Nov. 15, 2022), https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/11/emergency-sos-via-satellite-available-today-

on-iphone-14-lineup/; Mitchell Clark, Satellite-to-Phone Companies are Thrilled About SpaceX and T-Mobile,

Actually, (Aug. 27, 2022), https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/27/23324128/t-mobile-spacex-satellite-to-phone-

technology-ast-lynk-industry-reactions-apple (Satellite-to-Phone Companies Aug. 27, 2022 Article).

See Rachel Jewett, Apple to Debut iPhone with Emergency Messaging Enabled by Globalstar Satellites, (Sept. 7,

2022), https://www.satellitetoday.com/telecom/2022/09/07/apple-to-debut-iphone-with-emergency-messaging-

enabled-by-globalstar-satellites/.

See Emily Mae Czachor, iPhone Emergency Feature Helps Rescue 2 After Canyon Plunge in California, (Dec. 15,

2022), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iphone-emergency-sos-satellite-car-crash-canyon/.

See Mike Dano, In the Race to Space, Bullitt Eschews Proprietary Approaches, (Nov. 2, 2022),

https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/in-race-to-space-bullitt-eschews-proprietary-approaches/d/d-id/781489.

See Press Release, Qualcomm, Qualcomm Introduces Snapdragon Satellite, The World’s First Satellite-Based

Solution Capable of Supporting Two-Way Messaging for Premium Smartphones and Beyond (Jan. 5, 2023),

https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2023/01/qualcomm-introduces-snapdragon-satellite-the-world-s-first-

sate; Jason Rainbow, Iridium and Qualcomm to Bring Satellite Connectivity to Smartphones this Year, (Jan. 5,

2023), https://spacenews.com/iridium-and-qualcomm-to-bring-satellite-connectivity-to-smartphones-this-year/. The

companies claim that potential uses include emergency SOS services, SMS texts, and other low-bandwidth

messaging applications in areas outside terrestrial networks and where Iridium’s global constellation is licensed to

operate.

See Mike Dano, Viasat, EchoStar and Iridium Hint at Cellular-to-Satellite Interest, (Nov. 9, 2022),

https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/viasat-echostar-and-iridium-hint-at-cellular-to-satellite-interest/d/d-

id/781663/.

Frequency Range 1 bands refers to bands below 24 GHz. Release 17 identified two bands with existing MSS

allocations for 5G NTN provision: band 255 (1525 MHz – 1559 MHz and 1626.5 MHz – 1660.5 MHz) and band

256 (1980 MHz – 2010 MHz and 2170 MHz – 2200 MHz). See Munira Jaffar & Nicolas Chuberre, NTN & Satellite

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

• 600 MHz: 614-652 MHz and 663-698 MHz;

102

• 700 MHz: 698-758 MHz, 775 MHz-788 MHz, and 805-806 MHz;

• 800 MHz: 824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz;

• Broadband PCS: 1850-1915 MHz and 1930-1995 MHz;

• AWS-H Block: 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz; and

• WCS: 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz

We believe these flexible-use terrestrial bands can benefit from provision of SCS because commercial

wireless services have been deployed on these bands and because the bands include at least one spectrum

block with an existing licensee that holds rights sufficient to provide the basis for a satellite applicant to

satisfy our proposed entry criteria. We seek comment on the inclusion of each band (or block within a

band) in our proposed framework. We also seek comment generally on this approach and any alternative

methods of selecting bands that may be better suited to achieving the Commission’s goals as set forth in

this Notice, or any additional bands that commenters believe should be included in our proposal, for

example, certain bands dedicated to public safety use.

103

As stated, these bands were selected because of

the presence today of an existing licensee with exclusive rights to a frequency block throughout an entire

GIA. However, in light of our proposed entry criteria, which would require an applicant for SCS

operation to show evidence of a pending lease application with such a terrestrial entity, is this an

appropriate basis upon which to limit the bands to which the new allocation would be applied, or should

some other method be used?

30. Use of Fixed Devices within MSS. The primary focus of this proceeding is to foster

collaborative efforts to enable satellites to fill mobile service coverage gaps on terrestrial spectrum, and

for that reason we propose to add a mobile-satellite service footnote allocation to these terrestrial bands.

We note, however, that the Commission has previously adopted a flexible-use approach to many of these

bands, with current allocations allowing terrestrial service to fixed or mobile devices. Accordingly, we

seek comment on whether we should adopt a footnote allocation that would permit mobile satellite use to

communicate with fixed, as well as mobile, devices.

104

Would permitting fixed devices to be used within

the MSS allocation be consistent with our past flexible-use approach and our goals in this proceeding, for

example, by enabling a wider array of IoT devices

105

and customer premises equipment (CPE) to operate

in unserved areas? Are there any technical concerns with enabling mobile supplemental satellite

operations to communicate with fixed devices in these bands?

31. Fixed-Satellite Service. In addition, we note that current satellite services offer some

flexibility of use and operation. For example, in certain cases, FSS operators are permitted to provide

service to earth stations in motion (ESIM). Similarly, a single satellite constellation can be licensed to

provide both FSS and MSS. Thus, we seek comment on whether we should expressly include an

allocation for the proposed bands authorizing FSS operations in an SCS context or whether, as proposed,

we should only adopt an MSS allocation for those bands. Given the goal of allowing SCS to seamlessly

complement terrestrial operations in these bands, what allocation and service rule changes would facilitate

this goal without unnecessarily disrupting reliable terrestrial services? We seek comment on the

102

As discussed below, we exclude from this allocation the 600 MHz duplex gap at 652-663 MHz. See infra para

34, note 108.

103

See infra para. 35.

104

See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US320 (permitting links with “earth stations at fixed locations” in certain mobile-satellite

service bands).

105

As noted, on February 7, 2023, T-Mobile/SpaceX jointly requested various types of Commission relief to provide

a satellite service on terrestrial spectrum that is intended to service consumer handsets and also IoT devices. See

SpaceX and T-Mobile Application. We note that certain IoT devices may be attached to fixed equipment to monitor

utilities or critical infrastructure.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

service rules specify particular frequencies for uplink (663-698 MHz) and downlink (617-652 MHz).

111

Under our proposal, SCS operations would need to be similarly configured to comply with part 27 service

rules, notwithstanding the footnote allocating a full frequency range in a band for bi-directional

operations.

35. We propose to authorize SCS in the 700 MHz band, which is allocated on a primary basis

for fixed, mobile, and broadcasting operations, and in the Broadband PCS band, which is allocated on a

primary basis for non-federal fixed and mobile use. While neither the 700 MHz band nor the Broadband

PCS band hosts federal allocations, the immediately adjacent 1780-1850 MHz band hosts Federal fixed,

mobile, and space operation allocations and extensive Federal uses, and the near adjacent 2025-2110

MHz band hosts Federal fixed, mobile, space operation, space research, and Earth exploration-satellite

allocations and numerous Federal uses. We further note that substantial commercial wireless operations

exist in each these bands and there are no non-flexible-use legacy incumbent operations but, as with the

600 MHz band, we recognize that licensees may be limited in the selection of uplink and downlink

frequencies to satisfy band-specific service rule requirements. We seek comment on the extent to which

satellite and terrestrial partners can provide SCS in these bands while complying with applicable

terrestrial service rules designed to prevent harmful interference. In addition, we seek comment on

whether to include within the SCS framework 700 MHz spectrum that is not currently licensed for

commercial use to serve consumer handsets, but that is used to provide public safety benefits. For

example, as some commenters suggest,

112

should we include 700 MHz public safety spectrum licensed to

FirstNet on a nationwide basis?

113

What are the costs and benefits, including any statutory, technical or

regulatory challenges, of applying the SCS framework to FirstNet’s 700 MHz public safety spectrum?

Could inclusion of FirstNet’s 700 MHz spectrum within the SCS framework provide broadband

connectivity to first responders without increasing the potential for harmful interference? What specific

changes to our rules would be needed to incorporate this spectrum into the proposed SCS framework?

36. We also propose to authorize SCS in the AWS-H block, which hosts terrestrial fixed and

mobile allocations. As discussed above, although we propose a bi-directional footnote allocation to the

U.S. Table, applicants seeking authorization for specific frequencies would be required to comply with

our current service rules with regard to their network design, which may conflict with certain international

allocations.

114

For example, we note that, as with other bands, our AWS service rules specify frequencies

available for uplink and downlink.

115

Although the 1995-2000 MHz portion of the AWS-H block is

specified for downlink operations in our service rules,

116

this band hosts an allocation in the International

111

See 47 CFR § 27.11(k).

112

See Letter from Tim Bransford and Denise Wood, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Counsel to AST

SpaceMobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 23-65, at 6-7 (filed Mar. 3, 2023) (AST Mar. 3

Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Tim Bransford and Denise Wood, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Counsel to AST

SpaceMobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 23-65, IB Docket No. 22-271, at 2 (filed Mar.

8, 2023); Letter from Tim Bransford and Denise Wood, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Counsel to AST

SpaceMobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 23-65, IB Docket No. 22-271, at 1-2 (filed

Mar. 9, 2023); AT&T Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.

113

The 700 MHz band is allocated for public safety use on 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz, with the 758-769 MHz

and 788-799 MHz segments licensed to FirstNet. See, e.g., Implementing Public Safety Broadband Provisions of the

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, WT Docket No. 06-150, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd

10953 (2012) (discussing the reallocation of the 700 MHz D Block for public safety use, the nature of the FirstNet

license, and the broadband and narrowband nature of this spectrum); see also 47 CFR § 90.532.

114

See supra para. 32.

115

See 47 CFR § 27.50(d).

116

Id.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

frequencies for feeder links only, with no current request for direct-to-handset market access.

Other

satellite companies have indicated interest in using terrestrial spectrum for satellites to communicate with

Internet of Things (IoT) devices. Lacuna Space plans to offer communication to IoT devices with

satellites that will communicate using the LoRaWAN protocol designed to connect IoT devices to

terrestrial networks using 902-928 MHz terrestrial spectrum, and has announced collaborations with

equipment manufacturers and other providers in this effort.

The company has successfully launched

some satellites licensed by another administration, but has not yet applied for U.S. market access.

B. FCC Actions to Facilitate Satellite and Terrestrial Collaborations

10. The Commission has granted a number of experimental licenses and other satellite

authorizations to facilitate innovation and investment and to support the development of collaborations

between satellite service providers and terrestrial wireless providers that will better serve consumers,

particularly in underserved and remote locations and in emergency situations. These Commission actions

enable companies to test interoperability between satellites and mobile services in various bands, as well

as encourage innovation in the provision of satellite services to smartphones and other end-user devices.

11. Experimental Authorizations. In 2017, the Commission’s International Bureau (IB) and

Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) granted Higher Ground LLC (Higher Ground) a waiver of

the Table of Frequency Allocations and the fixed-satellite service (FSS) coordination rules for the

company to use satellites in the 6 GHz band (allocated for the FSS and Fixed Service) to provide a

commercially available text messaging service using a sleeve that attaches to smartphones.

This grant

followed Higher Ground’s initial operations under experimental licenses dating back to 2014.

In 2021

and 2022, OET granted Totum Labs, Inc. (Totum) two experimental licenses: one for a satellite

communicating with a single earth station in San Diego, CA, and the other for satellite communications

with the San Diego earth station as well as “mobile station locations.”

These experimental licenses

allow Totum to test satellite communication and tracking of IoT devices in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band

using spread spectrum waveforms.

In 2021 and 2022, OET granted several experimental licenses

allowing Lynk to test communications between satellites and “mobile station locations” in the 800 MHz

See AST & Science LLC, Application for Fixed Satellite Service Mobile Satellite Service, IBFS File Nos. SAT-

PDR-20200413-00034 (filed Apr. 13, 2020), SAT-APL-20200727-00088 (filed July 27, 2020), SAT-APL-

20201028-00126 (filed Oct. 28, 2020), Call Sign S3065.

See Lacuna.Space, Omnispace and Lacuna Announce Collaboration to Deliver Global LoRaWAN® IoT Service,

(Mar. 9, 2021), https://lacuna.space/omnispace-and-lacuna-announce-collaboration-to-deliver-global-lorawan-iot-

service/; Lacuna.Space, Lacuna and Semtech Expand LoRaWAN® Coverage through IoT to Satellite Connectivity,

(Jan. 11, 2022), https://lacuna.space/lacuna-and-semtech-expand-lorawan-coverage-through-iot-to-satellite-

connectivity/.

Lacuna.Space, First Successful LacunaSat Launch in 2021!, (Mar. 22, 2021), https://lacuna.space/first-successful-

lacunasat-launch-in-2021/#:~:text=22%20March%202021,onboard%20the%20Soyuz%2D2%20launcher.

See Higher Ground Application for Blanket Earth Station License, IBFS File No. SES-LIC-20150616-00357 Call

Sign E150095, Order and Authorization, 32 FCC Rcd 728 (Jan. 18, 2017) (Higher Ground Waiver Order). Higher

Ground is required to prevent the devices from transmitting where they may cause interference to the microwave

links in the band. Id.

Higher Ground Waiver Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 731 n.8.

See ELS File No. 0391-EX-CN-2020 (granted Jan. 14, 2021); ELS File No. 0044-EX-CM-2022 (granted May 12,

2022). The relevant satellites are operated by Loft Orbital Solutions, Inc. pursuant to a satellite license conditional

grant from IB in May 2021. See Loft Orbital Solutions, Inc., Application for Earth Exploration Satellite Service

Other, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20200907-00105 (granted May 24, 2021).

See ELS File No. 0391-EX-CN-2020; ELS File No. 0044-EX-CM-2022.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

band.

In 2022, OET also granted an experimental license to AST for earth stations to communicate with

a satellite licensed by Papua New Guinea and to be registered with the International Telecommunication

Union (ITU) by Spain.

AST’s experimental license will allow testing that will inform its plan to provide

4G and 5G broadband connectivity in unserved and underserved areas.

OET has also granted

experimental licenses to Omnispace LLC for testing communications with its Medium Earth Orbit

satellite in the 2 GHz S band.

Various parties continue to file experimental license applications to test

space-based communications with points on Earth, and the Commission will continue to process them

accordingly.

12. Lynk Order. In 2021, Lynk filed an application for authority to operate a non-

geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO)

satellite system that would enable text message communications at

locations outside the United States, and in countries where Lynk has obtained agreements with MNOs

and the requisite local regulatory authority to provide service.

In its application, Lynk sought: (1)

authority to deploy ten NGSO mobile-satellite service (MSS) and FSS satellites as part of a “cellular-

based satellite communications network” that will provide connectivity by operating on most cellular

frequencies used globally in the 617-960 MHz band in international markets only; and (2) feeder link and

telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C) operations in the Ka-band both domestically and outside of

the United States, with the S-band serving as backup for emergency TT&C.

13. On September 16, 2022, IB granted, with conditions, Lynk’s application to construct,

deploy, and operate NGSO satellites in low-Earth orbit (LEO).

In granting the application, IB found it

in the public interest to begin making Lynk’s services accessible, with the goal of providing connectivity

in remote areas during emergencies, contingent upon obtaining appropriate approval in the relevant

jurisdictions and the completion of coordination with other operators.

In limiting its approval to

transmissions with earth stations outside of the United States, IB specifically noted that its decision was

without prejudice to action on any applications to provide similar service in the United States.

Given

the limited scope of Lynk’s authority to provide service outside of the United States and grant conditions

imposed to ensure operations do not cause harmful interference, IB found that it was unnecessary to deny

or defer action on the Lynk application until the Commission could conduct a rulemaking or related

See ELS File No. 0931-EX-CN-2020 (granted May 17, 2021); ELS File No. 0162-EX-CN-2021 (granted Mar. 19,

2021); ELS File No. 0656-EX-CN-2021 (granted Nov. 19, 2021). In May 2022, OET granted licenses to Lynk for

additional satellites that were expected to launch in late 2022 and early 2023. See ELS File No. 0117-EX-CN-2021

(granted May 25, 2022); ELS File No. 0113-EX-CN-2022 (granted May 25, 2022). Lynk deployed and began

operating the first satellite, Lynk Tower 1, in April 2022 pursuant to experimental authority. See ELS File No.

0656-EX-CN-2021 (granted Nov. 19, 2021); Letter from Shawn Marcum, Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs

to Lynk, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (Apr. 12, 2022).

See ELS File No. 1059-EX-CN-2020 (granted June 2, 2022). This license was modified in early 2023 to add a

mobile station location in Hana, Hawaii. See ELS File No. 0208-EX-CN-2022 (granted Feb. 9, 2023).

See Narrative attached to AST & Science LLC application for ELS File No. 1059-EX-CN-2020 (granted June 2,

2022).

See, e.g., ELS File No. 0018-EX-CN-2023 (granted Feb. 14, 2023), which modifies ELS File No. 1343-EX-CN-

2022 (granted Jan. 9, 2023) to add two station locations in Brewster, Washington, and Tysons, Virginia, to the

already authorized location in Gainesville, Georgia.

See 47 CFR § 25.103.

See Lynk Global, Inc., IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20210511-00064, Narrative at 2 (Lynk Application).

Id.

See generally Lynk Order.

See id. at 3-4, para. 7.

Id. at 7, para. 15.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

proceeding to determine whether the Commission should adopt rules of general applicability to permit use

of terrestrial wireless frequencies for satellite communications and how such services should be

regulated.

14. AST Applications. AST has pending applications with the Commission requesting U.S.

market access for gateway links in the V-band for its SpaceMobile satellite system, which would be

comprised of 243 LEO satellites.

Although AST requests authority to operate in the United States, it

clarifies that it is not seeking to operate on terrestrial frequencies independent of a terrestrial licensee

partner,

and intends to seek specific authority to operate on terrestrial spectrum through future lease

arrangements with a terrestrial partner.

Further, AST states that it is not seeking changes to the Table of

Frequency Allocations or waivers related to terrestrial frequencies allocated to parts 24 and 27 of the

Commission’s rules.

AST contends that its SpaceMobile system will enable terrestrial licensee partners

to extend coverage to areas where terrestrial service is otherwise unavailable due to financial or

environmental challenges to further access to broadband cellular connectivity.

15. SpaceX NGSO Gen2 Starlink Order. The Commission recently authorized SpaceX’s

efforts to develop and expand its Starlink satellite network.

On December 1, 2022, the Commission

granted SpaceX authority to construct, deploy, and operate up to 7,500 NGSO satellites, using frequencies

in the Ku- and Ka-bands to provide FSS, as part of its “second-generation” Starlink constellation (Gen2

Starlink), subject to certain conditions.

We note that the Gen2 Starlink Order does not authorize SpaceX

to use frequencies allocated only for terrestrial operations.

C. Current U.S. and International Allocations of Bands Subject to Notice Proposal

16. The Table of Frequency Allocations (Table) is comprised of the International Table of

Frequency Allocations (International Table) and the United States Table of Frequency Allocations (U.S.

Table).

Our rules require the use of frequencies and frequency bands to be in accordance with the U.S.

Id. at 5-7, paras. 11-12, 16.

See AST & Science LLC, Amendment to Petition for Declaratory Ruling, IBFS File No. SAT-APL-20201028-

00126 Call Sign S3065 (filed Oct. 28, 2020), amending IBFS File Nos. SAT-PDR-20200413-00034 and SAT-APL-

20200727-00088.

Id.

On March 28, 2018, the Commission granted SpaceX authority to deploy and operate its first-generation NGSO

satellite system comprising 4,425 satellites operating in the Ku- and Ka-bands for provision of FSS (Gen1 Starlink).

Subsequently, the Commission granted three license modifications for the Gen1 Starlink system, and a number of

requests for Special Temporary Authority (STA) for LEOP and payload testing operations, and to adjust earth

station elevation angles. See In the Matter of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC Request for Orbital Deployment and

Operating Authority for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO Satellite System, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20200526-00055 and

SAT-AMD-20210818-00105 Call Sign S3069, Order and Authorization, FCC 22-91, 2022 WL 17413767, at *3

(Dec. 1, 2022) (SpaceX Gen2 Order), appeals pending sub nom. Int’l Dark Sky Ass’n v. FCC, No. 22-1337 (D.C.

Cir. filed Dec. 30, 2022), Dish Network Corp. v. FCC, No. 23-1001 (D.C. Cir. filed Jan. 3, 2023).

See SpaceX Gen2 Order at para. 1.

As discussed above, SpaceX recently filed an application to modify its Gen2 Starlink authorization. See supra

para. 7.

The International Table is described in 47 CFR § 2.104 and the U.S. Table is described in 47 CFR § 2.105. The

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has divided the world into three geographic Regions (Region 1,

Region 2, and Region 3). As a member administration, the United States is included in Region 2. See List of ITU

Member States, https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/terrestrial/fmd/Pages/administrations_members.aspx (last visited Feb.

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

contrast, de facto transfer spectrum leasing arrangements are typically subject to the Commission’s

general approval procedures, under which the Commission must grant the application prior to the parties

putting the proposed spectrum leasing arrangement into effect.

178

Should all forms of leasing, including

spectrum manager and de facto transfer (short- and long-term), be available in the SCS framework we

propose today, or does the construct we propose, involving combined terrestrial and space components,

warrant more limited leasing options? As SCS is intended solely to supplement coverage to a terrestrial

licensee’s subscribers, should we only permit spectrum manager leasing and prohibit de facto transfer

lease arrangements, thus ensuring that a terrestrial licensee retains both de jure and de facto control of its

spectrum? Does the introduction of a part 25 authorization on the same leased spectrum require us to re-

examine our approach to control of spectrum, as it relates to leasing in the SCS context? Also, given the

novel nature of SCS, should we require spectrum manager leases for such operations to obtain prior

Commission approval, notwithstanding the procedures typically applicable to such leases? If commenters

seek to limit leasing options, which options should be limited, and would such limitations deter

investment in SCS?

71. Our proposal to authorize SCS through a leasing component would involve permitting a

terrestrial licensee to lease to an expanded group of potential lessees that includes satellite operators. A

terrestrial licensee currently has the right to serve the identical geographic area on the same spectrum

under its existing licenses, and SCS would simply involve a new method (through a combination of part

25 licensing and part 1 lease arrangement) of providing gap coverage. We therefore tentatively conclude

that our proposal would not be a modification of any terrestrial licenses under section 316 of the

Communications Act.

179

We seek comment on this analysis.

72. Construction Attribution. Under certain leasing arrangements, our current rules allow a

lessor to attribute the construction activities of its lessee to the lessor’s performance requirements. Thus,

under a spectrum manager leasing arrangement, the licensee/lessor remains responsible for compliance

with any construction and performance requirements applicable to the leased spectrum, but may attribute

to itself the build-out or performance activities of its spectrum lessee(s) for purposes of compliance with

any such requirements.

180

Similarly, under a long-term de facto transfer spectrum leasing arrangement,

the licensee/lessor may attribute to itself the buildout or performance activities of its spectrum lessee(s)

for purposes of compliance with any such requirements.

181

We seek comment on whether such attribution

rules should remain available to terrestrial licensees where SCS is intended to supplement existing

terrestrial service to fill coverage gaps.

73. We recognize that our performance rules in most flexible-use terrestrial bands were

created in parallel with the advent and subsequent implementation of competitive bidding for licenses.

Accordingly, market forces and incentives resulted in virtually all of the performance metrics in flexible-

use bands (e.g., coverage of a certain percentage of population) being met with the provision of evolving

(Continued from previous page)

remain pending, and the spectrum leasing arrangement has not been implemented. See ULS File Nos. 0010303032

(lead), 0010303146, 0010303124, and 0010303084.

178

47 CFR §§ 1.9030(a), 1.9035(a). Both long-term and short-term de facto transfer spectrum leasing applications

are subject to overnight processing under the Commission’s immediate approval procedures if the filing meets

certain conditions. Id. §§ 1.9030(e)(2) (immediate approval procedures), 1.9035(e) (certain conditions still must be

met in order for a short-term de facto transfer lease to qualify for immediate processing).

179

See 47 U.S.C. § 316.

180

47 CFR § 1.9020(d)(5).

181

However, such attribution is not available to a licensee/lessor under a short-term de facto transfer spectrum

leasing arrangement. See 47 CFR §§ 1.9030(d)(5), 1.9035(d)(3). See also Secondary Markets R&O, 18 FCC Rcd at

20676, para. 177 (“[S]hort-term leasing arrangements are expressly designed to be temporary in nature, and

therefore cannot be counted to establish that the licensee is meeting the purposes and policies underlying our

buildout rules, including the goal of ensuring establishment of service in rural areas.”).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

disputes.”

186

In contrast, under a de facto transfer lease, the spectrum lessee has primary responsibility for

ensuring compliance with the Commission’s policies and rules, including interference rules applicable to

the lessor/licensee.

187

Thus, in the event of an interference issue under a de facto transfer lease, the

“Enforcement Bureau will first approach the authorized spectrum lessee, and the lessee will be expected

to bring its operations into compliance with the Commission’s requirements.”

188

We seek comment on

whether to retain this existing hierarchy of responsibility in the context of our proposed SCS

framework.

189

Does the introduction of authority, through a combination of part 25 licensing and part 1

leasing, to communicate with space stations on previously allocated terrestrial-only spectrum warrant

revisions to our rules as they relate to interference resolution? In the case of a spectrum manager lease

under our proposed SCS framework, is it practical and appropriate for direct responsibility and

accountability to apply to the lessor/licensee, or should the lessee, given that it has been issued a separate

part 25 authorization, be responsible for interference resolution?

76. Lease Severability. As emphasized in this Notice, a lease agreement between a satellite

operator and a terrestrial licensee is an integral part of our proposed framework to foster SCS. We seek to

provide flexibility in leasing arrangements and acknowledge business realities, while ensuring against

potential abuse of Commission processes. Accordingly, we seek comment on how our proposed SCS

framework should address the potential for severability of a lease agreement. For example, what

limitations, if any, are necessary regarding the parties’ ability to terminate the lease that forms a

substantial basis of the SCS licensing structure? Should we implement minimum lease terms to ensure

continued gap coverage and, if so, what is the appropriate period? Should a part 25 space station

authorization for SCS automatically terminate if the underlying lease is terminated? Or should we

include a condition indicating that operations in the relevant frequencies must stop if the underlying lease

is terminated? Likewise, what should be the effect of such lease termination on a part 25 blanket earth

station license? If the parties decide not to renew a lease, should the associated part 25 space station and

blanket earth station authorizations terminate? Alternatively, if the satellite operator’s part 25

authorization is not renewed, or terminates for failure to meet applicable milestones, or is revoked, or if

the terrestrial operator’s earth station license is not renewed, should the associated lease terminate?

Should that termination be automatic? What provisions should we consider to ensure gap service is

achieved for a limited period in the event the underlying lease is terminated? How should we account for

these and other scenarios related to lease severability? We seek comment on these issues, including the

costs and benefits of proposed solutions.

77. Subleasing. Our leasing regime allows a spectrum lessee in a spectrum manager or long-

term de facto transfer leasing arrangement to sublease its leased spectrum usage rights with the licensee’s

consent and through the licensee’s establishment of privity with the spectrum sublessee.

190

In our

proposed framework, a satellite operator that is also the lessee would be providing SCS gap coverage to

the subscribers of the terrestrial licensee that is the earth station licensee and the lessor, and the ability to

sublease to a third party may raise practical or technical issues regarding the continued provision of

sufficient service quality to subscribers. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether subleasing is

appropriate in the proposed framework, which relies on the direct collaboration between the lessee and

the lessor. Could subleasing introduce unintended consequences, including adversely affecting

supplemental coverage or increasing the potential for harmful interference?

186

Secondary Markets R&O, 18 FCC Rcd at 20653, para. 108.

187

Id. at 20664, 20675, paras. 137, 172-73.

188

Id. at 20664, para. 138.

189

See supra para. 53.

190

47 CFR §§ 1.9020(l), 1.9030(k). The licensee must submit a notification regarding the spectrum subleasing

arrangement in accordance with the applicable notification procedures set forth in this section. Id. §§ 1.9020(l),

1.9030(k). Subleasing is not permitted under a short-term de facto transfer lease. Id. § 1.9035(m).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

independent 911 obligations on satellite operators seeking to provide SCS as part of their part 25

authorization, how should we address any potential inconsistencies between the E911 requirements under

the satellite operator’s lease and any independent 911 obligation under the satellite operators license?

197

4. Service Rules

81. When adopting service rules for licensing spectrum, the Commission seeks to encourage

investment, promote efficient spectrum use, and spur robust deployment, while tailoring its approach to

the unique characteristics of each band.

198

Here, we propose a framework to facilitate the closing of

terrestrial network coverage gaps through satellite transmissions on currently licensed terrestrial, flexible-

use spectrum. Accordingly, in this section, we address existing service rule obligations for satellite

operators and terrestrial wireless providers, by proposing to apply certain relevant rules, or seeking

comment on the applicability of other rules in the context of the proposed part 25 licensing framework to

authorize SCS. In addressing these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and benefits associated

with application of these obligations and any alternatives that commenters propose.

82. Regulatory Status. Pursuant to the Commission’s part 25 rules, a space station licensee

must select its regulatory status—common-carrier or non-common carrier—when it files an application

for a space station authorization.

199

Currently, Commission licensing records reflect that satellite space

station licenses typically have a non-common carrier status, even if operated with earth stations that have

a common carrier status. In contrast, in the vast majority of cases, terrestrial wireless licensees in

flexible-use bands are regulated as Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers.

200

We propose

that the space station licensee would retain its existing regulatory status when applying to modify its

license to provide SCS. We seek comment on what circumstances might warrant a change in the space

station licensee’s regulatory status. For example, how should we address circumstances in which a

satellite operator has a different regulatory status than its terrestrial licensee partner? Further, in the event

we expand the proposed framework to include new satellite entrants, should we adopt a similar approach

for any new part 25 applicants seeking to provide commercial services from a space station to the

subscribers of a terrestrial service provider? In addition, as part of the revised part 25 blanket earth

station licensing process discussed above, we seek comment on the issue of a terrestrial licensee seeking

blanket earth station licensing for its subscriber devices selecting its regulatory status when filing an earth

station application. Are there circumstances in which the regulatory status specified for the blanket earth

station license could be different than the status for the terrestrial mobile service provider offering SCS,

(Continued from previous page)

chapter), the spectrum lessee is required to meet those obligations with respect to the spectrum leased under the

spectrum leasing arrangement insofar as the spectrum lessee's operations are encompassed within the E911

obligations.”), 1.9035(d)(4) (under short-term de facto transfer leases: “[i]f E911 obligations apply to the licensee

(see § 9.10 of this chapter), the licensee retains the obligations with respect to leased spectrum. A spectrum lessee

entering into a short-term de facto transfer leasing arrangement is not separately required to comply with any such

obligations in relation to the leased spectrum.”).

197

See infra paras. 83-91.

198

For example, when adopting licensing approaches for mid-band spectrum, for the 3.45 GHz band and the 3.7-4.2

GHz band, the Commission adopted similar rules for licensing pursuant to its flexible-use part 27 rules, which

permit licensees to provide any fixed or mobile service consistent with the permitted allocations, subject to rules

necessary to prevent or minimize harmful interference, with minor differences due to the needs of each band. See

Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100-3550 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 19-348, Second Report and Order, Order on

Reconsideration, and Order of Proposed Modification, 36 FCC Rcd 5987 (2021) (3.45 GHz Band Second R&O);

Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18-122, Report and Order and Order of

Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343 (2020) (3.7 GHz Service Order).

199

See 47 CFR § 25.114(c)(11).

200

See 47 U.S.C. § 332; 47 CFR pt. 20. CMRS licensees are regulated as common carriers. 47 CFR pt. 20.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

mobile, broadcasting-satellite (sound), and radiolocation use on a primary basis, and federal aeronautical

telemetry/telecommand operations are permitted on a secondary basis.

However, to protect adjacent

SDARS operations, mobile operations are prohibited in the C Block (2315-2320 MHz) and D Block

(2345-2350 MHz).

Internationally, for Regions 2 and 3, the WCS band is allocated for fixed, mobile,

and radiolocation uses on a primary basis, and amateur uses on a secondary basis.

In Region 1, the band

is allocated to the fixed and mobile service on a co-primary basis, and radiolocation and amateur use on a

secondary basis. Further, the ITU has identified much of this band for IMT in all three Regions.

III. DISCUSSION

24. The Commission has a longstanding commitment to ensuring that the country’s scarce

and valuable spectrum resource is put to its highest and best use. Technological innovation and creative

applications can pave the way for new spectrum use cases that promote spectrum efficiencies and serve

the public interest. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we propose a novel framework for

SCS

that would provide coverage to a terrestrial mobile service licensee’s subscribers operating in

underserved and/or unserved areas within a terrestrial mobile service licensee’s license area, only through

a collaboration between an existing NGSO operator and a terrestrial mobile service licensee, involving

transmissions between space stations and mobile end-user devices on spectrum that is currently allocated

and licensed exclusively on a terrestrial basis.

Specifically, given the complexity of this undertaking,

and particularly due to technical considerations, we confine our initial proposal to spectrum and locations

where (1) there is only a single terrestrial entity that holds, either directly or indirectly, all co-channel

licenses for the relevant frequencies in a given geographically independent area (GIA),

such as CONUS;

and (2) there are no primary, non-flexible-use legacy incumbent operations (whether federal or non-

federal) in the band.

As discussed below, we also seek comment on potentially extending our proposed

framework to a range of alternative licensing scenarios that do not currently meet our proposed entry

criteria, including instances where multiple co-channel terrestrial licensees are authorized in a given GIA.

Id.

See id. § 27.50(a) (limiting operations in the C and D blocks of the band to fixed use only).

See id. § 2.106.

Id. § 2.106 n.NG72.

Commenters generally support the Commission’s initiation of a rulemaking on this issue. See, e.g., Letter from

Alison Minea, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, DISH Network Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 23-65, at 1 (filed Mar. 8, 2023) and Letter from Alison Minea, Vice President and

Associate General Counsel, DISH Network Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 23-

65, at 1 (filed Mar. 9, 2023) (expressing support for the initiation of a rulemaking to explore a new regulatory

framework to facilitate the integration of satellite and terrestrial networks); Letter from Robert Vitanza, Assistant

Vice President, Senior Legal Counsel, AT&T Services, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No.

23-65, IB Docket No. 22-271, at 1 (filed Mar. 9, 2023) (AT&T Ex Parte Letter) (expressing support for efforts to

allow terrestrial mobile networks to integrate SCS through collaboration with a satellite operator); Letter from

Jameson Dempsey, Principal, Satellite Policy, SpaceX, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 23-

65, IB Docket No. 22-271, at 1 (filed Mar. 8, 2023) (SpaceX Ex Parte Letter) (expressing support for the draft

Notice that would enable satellite connectivity over licensed terrestrial mobile spectrum for SCS).

We note that our proposed framework does not make proposals regarding, or seek comment on, the issue of

satellite service to airborne devices, e.g., handsets in any type of aircraft, from commercial airlines to unmanned

aircraft systems, nor does it address transmissions originating from high altitude platforms.

See infra paras. 44-46.

We do not propose to treat non-flexible-use secondary licensees as incumbents, given that these licensees may not

cause interference and must accept all interference. We therefore propose to include within the SCS framework

bands that have at least one block in a given GIA where a single terrestrial licensee holds all co-channel licenses,

even where that band might contain such secondary licensees.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

Should we establish a minimum elevation angle to minimize focused signal energy into terrestrial base

station antennas? If so, what elevation angle would be appropriate, e.g., 5 degrees? We seek comment on

this and other alternatives that might be necessary to minimize the potential for harmful interference.

120. Other Technical Limits. We seek comment on the applicability of other technical limits

that currently apply to terrestrial operations in each of the subject bands proposed for SCS. For example,

should we apply the existing frequency stability, duty cycle, synchronization requirements and other

limits that apply to terrestrial base stations and terrestrial devices, as set forth in the service rules for the

respective band of operation, to new SCS operations? Are there factors in the existing technical limits

that could hinder the range of services we explore in this Notice? Would it be feasible or necessary to

apply one set of technical limits when communicating with terrestrial towers, but a different set of

technical limits when communicating with a satellite? If existing technical limits are insufficient to

protect against harmful interference caused by the types of partnered supplemental operations we propose

in this Notice, commenters should offer specific limits, with a justification of why those limits are needed

and an analysis of how they might impact adjacent operations in the bands under consideration. With

respect to additional technical rules pertaining to base stations, we note that section 25.202 specifies

frequency bands, frequency tolerance, and OOBE limits for certain satellite operations. Given our

proposals to: (1) add a footnote allocation to the U.S. Table; and (2) apply various technical limits from

parts 22, 24, and 27 to MSS downlinks depending on the band of operation, we seek comment on the

applicability of various base station technical limits on supplemental space station operations. For

example, section 27.50 specifies a range of base station power limits, coordination requirements, power

measure methods, tower height limits, peak-to-average ratio limits, and other limits applicable to the

bands under consideration in this Notice.

263

We seek comment on the extent to which SCS operations can

be effectuated in compliance with these restrictions. Further, we seek comment on the applicability to

SCS of section 25.203 regarding frequency and location choice in bands shared by satellite and terrestrial

services, including whether we should create an exception for MSS operations that provide SCS.

121. Also, as our proposal seeks to afford flexibility to subsequently add bands for SCS

operations, where our proposed entry criteria subsequently are able to be met, is there an efficient way to

incorporate by reference into part 25 applicable base station limits applicable to satellite downlink

operations? Alternatively, should various bands, entry criteria, and technical requirements be listed in

part 25 and if so, where? Or is it more efficient simply to include a cross reference to the proposed

footnote to the U.S. Table, where entry criteria and other specifications would be specified?

122. We also seek comment on the applicability to SCS of various coordination, notification,

and other rules applicable to 800 MHz cellular terrestrial base stations to protect public safety operations.

As an SCS signal originates from space, public safety operations would not be subject to, as discussed,

the “near-far interference” situation caused by operations near a terrestrial base station. To help resolve

the near-far issue and protect public safety, the Commission, among other actions, implemented sections

22.913(b) and (c), 22.970, 22.971, 22.972, and 22.973.

264

These rules may not directly apply to SCS

downlink transmissions, but we nonetheless seek comment on whether some form of accommodation is

needed for SCS at 800 MHz or any other bands adjacent to public safety operations to ensure the

continued reliability of public safety networks and avoid harmful interference.

123. Protection of Radio Astronomy and Space Sciences. The novel aspects of our proposal

introduce new spectrum management challenges that warrant consideration, including the introduction of

satellite downlinks and the continuing need to protect radio astronomy and other services that may be

susceptible to signals emanating from the sky. The advent of new technologies presents an opportunity to

explore satellite downlinks in a range of previously terrestrial-only bands provided proper safeguards are

in place. In general, terrestrial operations in bands adjacent to radio astronomy have proven viable with

263

See id. § 27.50.

264

See id. §§ 22.913(b)-(c), 22.970, 22.971, 22.972, 22.973.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

additional information would be necessary to address any concerns? What is the appropriate approach to

ensure that SCS can supplement existing terrestrial services and adequately protect the Nation’s valuable

scientific enterprise? Are other rule changes required? We seek comment on all aspects of this issue so

that we might facilitate SCS while preventing harmful interference to sensitive passive services, such as

radio astronomy and Earth exploration.

127. Terrestrial Device Power Limits. We propose to maintain the current power limits

applicable in each band to a range of terrestrial devices that would also be licensed as earth stations under

SCS operation. We therefore propose to amend section 25.204 (power limits for earth stations) to reflect

that SCS earth stations would be required to meet the power limits applicable to terrestrial transceivers for

the bands in which they seek to operate.

272

We seek comment on this proposal, in particular how such

existing power limits would work, in practice, for the proposed SCS, given that consumer devices often

do not operate at maximum power limits currently permitted because of other limiting factors, such as

battery life. As device standards and designs change, would existing power levels be sufficient for mobile

devices to communicate with satellites? How could the proposed SCS be leveraged to provide fixed

broadband services to unserved areas, which continues to be a challenge in many areas? Are existing

device power limits sufficient to make applications for the provision of fixed broadband in rural or

unserved areas feasible? Commenters should provide technical details for their suggestions and provide

analysis supporting their proposals and evaluate the impact of their proposals on other services.

128. Equipment Authorization for SCS. Our terrestrial (parts 22, 24, and 27) and satellite (part

25) service rules require all transmitting devices to meet the relevant technical rules and receive

equipment authorization.

273

Accordingly, for new devices certified after the effective date of any rules

adopted in this proceeding, we propose to require that the equipment certification applicant specifically

seek certification under part 25

274

as well as the relevant terrestrial rule part(s) for all intended uses of the

device. To receive part 25 equipment authorization, the applicant is required to demonstrate through

testing that the device meets the technical requirements under the relevant terrestrial service rules. We do

not believe this will add additional cost or time for equipment certification because no additional testing

beyond the testing done to show compliance with existing terrestrial rules parts would be required under

our proposal. We seek comment on this proposal and any alternatives, including the costs and benefits.

In addition, if we adopt different technical rules for terrestrial transmitters specifically for operation with

satellites for SCS, should those technical rules be in part 25 or identified for SCS in the terrestrial service

rules, and how should the equipment authorization process change from our proposal?

129. We recognize, however, that there are a significant number of terrestrial devices that have

already received equipment authorizations, which terrestrial licensees may choose to serve using SCS.

We believe it is impractical and would not provide a tangible benefit to require re-certification of such

devices to add part 25 SCS to existing equipment certifications, so long as the provision of service to such

existing devices would not require technical modifications. Accordingly, for purposes of equipment

authorization, we propose to treat as authorized-by-rule under part 25 existing terrestrial devices designed

for use in the relevant flexible-use bands that are intended for SCS use, and we propose not to require a

separate equipment authorization for such existing devices under part 2. However, if the Commission

adopts rules for terrestrial devices that differ from existing rules that permit terrestrial operation (e.g.,

additional power for SCS), devices modified to operate under any new rules where the new rules would

permit emissions to exceed current technical limits would be required to be recertified under the relevant

rule part(s). We also propose to direct OET to use its delegated authority to administer the Equipment

Authorization program to take all appropriate actions to implement our decisions. We seek comment on

this proposal and its costs and benefits. Would another approach be more practical? For example, should

272

See proposed section 25.204(g) in Appendix A.

273

See 47 CFR §§ 22.377, 24.51, 25.129, 27.51.

274

See id. § 25.129 (Equipment authorization for portable earth-station transceivers).

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

agreements

281

that typically focus on ensuring that terrestrial licensees meet a particular signal level limit

at the relevant international border (e.g., field strength limit or PFD), unless licensees and the relevant

agencies agree to alternative limits along with, in some cases, a coordination requirement for base stations

placed within a certain distance of the border.

282

Although existing bilateral agreements do not

contemplate SCS in these terrestrial bands, we believe appropriate limits on cross-border transmissions

from supplemental satellite operations will prevent harmful interference to operations across international

borders. Given the need to comply with existing Treaty obligations relative to SCS operations, we seek

comment on appropriate cross-border protections for SCS operations.

133. We also recognize that interference metrics are different between satellites and terrestrial

stations and that any interference analysis must be band-specific. Therefore, we seek comment on

appropriate procedures for these analyses, as well as the relevant factors to include for specific bands.

For example, we seek comment on whether we should look to relevant parts of the ITU Radio

Regulations, including Resolutions addressing bands that are shared between terrestrial mobile and SCS

operations.

283

We seek comment on the use of the guidance found in these resolutions in our efforts to

ensure that the potential for harmful interference is not increased across our borders.

134. In implementing our proposal, we also seek comment on the viability of coordination

between domestic satellite operators and terrestrial operators in bordering countries. Should we consider

allowing deviations from our signal strength limits where such agreements can be reached? What other

281

As these agreements are bilateral, agreements covering the Canadian/U.S. and Mexican/U.S. borders may use

different technical rules for the same bands. For example, the 700 MHz agreements between the United States and

Canada requires coordination of base stations within 120 km of the border. If there is no base station within 120 km

of the other side of the border, than a power flux density (PFD) of no more than -96 dBW/m2 in any 1 MHz

bandwidth in the other country’s territory would apply. If there is another licensee on the other side of the border

and no agreement is met, then a PFD of no more than -116 dBW/m2 in any 1 MHz bandwidth would apply. In

contrast, the U.S. and Mexican 700 MHz agreement provides that licensees within 110 km of the border are limited

to in-band emissions to -106 dBW/m2 within the authorized bandwidth and out-of-band emission in the -120

dBW/m2 per 1 kHz at any point at or beyond the common border, with higher limits permitted with mutual

agreement. See Sharing Arrangement Between the Department of Industry of Canada and the Federal

Communications Commission of the United States of America Concerning the Use of the Frequency Bands 806-824

MHz, and 851-869 MHz by the Land Mobile Service Along the Canada-United States Border (Aug. 2011)

(Arrangement F); Sharing Arrangement Between the Department of Industry of Canada and the Federal

Communications Commission of the United States of America Concerning the Use of the Frequency Bands 768-776

MHz and 798-806 MHz by the Land Mobile Service Along the Canada-United States Border (May 2013)

(Arrangement Q).

282

See, e.g., Sharing Arrangement Between the Department of Industry of Canada and the Federal Communications

Commission of the United States of America Concerning the Use of the Frequency Bands 806-824 MHz, and 851-

869 MHz by the Land Mobile Service Along the Canada-United States Border (Aug. 2011) (Arrangement F);

Sharing Arrangement Between the Department of Industry of Canada and the Federal Communications Commission

of the United States of America Concerning the Use of the Frequency Bands 768-776 MHz and 798-806 MHz by

the Land Mobile Service Along the Canada-United States Border (May 2013) (Arrangement Q). We note that

SpaceX/T-Mobile state in their pending application that SpaceX can “maintain PFD levels below the equivalent

PFD value [converted from the field strength limits specified in section 24.236] at national borders and space

downlink beams appropriately from those borders to protect primary terrestrial mobile operations from

interference.” See Technical Narrative attached to T-Mobile and SpaceX Application at 11.

283

For example, Resolution 212 (rev. WRC-19) outlines guidance on technical and operation measures that

administrations should consider when deploying satellite or terrestrial mobile stations in the 1885-2025 MHz and

2110-2200 MHz bands. See Resolution 212 (REV.WRC-19) titled Implementation of International Mobile

Telecommunications in the Frequency Bands 1885-2025 MHz and 2110-2200 MHz. In particular, the annex to this

resolution provides examples of technical and operational measures to facilitate coexistence between terrestrial and

satellite components of International Mobile Telecommunications in the frequency bands 1980-2010 MHz and

2170-2200 MHz.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-22

those zones and protection requirements? Alternatively, are there bands where the non-flexible-use

incumbent operations are concentrated in particular areas (for example, CONUS) such that other GIAs

(for example, Alaska) are free of such incumbents? An example for either scenario would be the AWS-1

and AWS-3 bands, which consist of paired sub-bands at 1710-1755 MHz and 2100-2155 MHz

285

and

1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz,

286

and an unpaired band at 1695-1710 MHz. All sub-bands are

allocated in the U.S. Table for non-federal, primary, fixed and mobile use. All these sub-bands host

federal systems at specific locations, which terrestrial networks are currently required to protect.

287

Similarly, the 1670-1675 MHz band is allocated and licensed for commercial wireless operations, but

such operations must protect three federal earth stations through advanced coordination.

288

140. For these and similarly-situated bands, what types of coordination requirements would be

required, either in addition to, or as a replacement for, coordination requirements already applicable to

terrestrial uses?

289

If we require licensees to provide proof of consent from potentially affected non-

flexible-use incumbents as a condition of providing supplemental coverage, what terms should be

included as part of these consent agreements to protect subscribers from service interruption? Given the

nature of SCS as proposed, we encourage commenters to engage on the important consumer protection

concerns that could arise. For example, how should we address circumstances where a terrestrial provider

offers and potentially advertises a new capability for use in life-saving situations, which might be

terminated without notice where an incumbent withdraws its consent?

2. Geographically Independent Areas Where Collaborating Terrestrial

Licensees Hold All Co-Channel Licenses and Seek to Provide SCS

141. We seek comment on whether we should extend our proposal to include scenarios in

which there are multiple unaffiliated flexible-use licensees in a given GIA, but all licensees in that area

agree to jointly provide supplemental coverage from space to their customers in cooperation with a

satellite provider. We seek comment on the likelihood, in this scenario, of stakeholders reaching

agreements where all relevant terrestrial network operators would be coordinating to enable this

innovative new capability without causing harmful interference. Is this most likely to occur in bands

where one licensee holds the vast majority of the licenses in a given area?

290

Are there legal or technical

concerns with expanding beyond a scenario where a single entity holds all co-channel licenses in the

geographic area? How would market arrangements address issues concerning potential harmful

285

See FCC, Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-1) Band Plan,

https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/services/aws/data/AWS1bandplan.pdf (last visited Dec. 22, 2022).

286

See FCC, AWS-3 Band Plans,

https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/services/aws/data/AWS3bandplan.pdf (last visited Dec. 22, 2022).

287

See 47 CFR § 2.106 nn.US91 & US378. Specifically, the AWS-3 band previously hosted a number of federal

operations, with most of these operations being transitioned to other bands. Amendment of the Commission’s Rules

with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands, GN

Docket No. 13-185, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4610, 4690-94, paras. 216-24 (2014). This transition began

after the auction of these frequencies in 2015, and the transition is scheduled to be complete by 2025, leaving only a

small number of legacy systems in the band. Id. The AWS-1 band hosts some legacy federal operations on a co-

primary basis and is used by the National Aeronautical Space Administration (NASA)’s Deep Space

Communications Complex in Goldstone, CA for radio astronomy observations. 47 CFR § 2.106 nn.US378 &

US252.

288

See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US362.

289

See, e.g., The Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information

Administration: Coordination Procedures in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 Bands, GN Docket No. 13-185,

Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 8527 (WTB/NTIA 2014).

290

For example, T-Mobile holds over 90% of the CONUS licenses for 600 MHz B, C, and D blocks, and DISH

holds a similar proportion of the CONUS licenses for the Lower 700 MHz E block.