# Upper C-Band (3.98-4.2 GHz); Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2026-15598

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** July 31, 2026
- **Citation:** 91 FR 48700

## Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 25, and 27
[GN Docket Nos. 18-122 and 25-59; FCC 26-46; FR ID 359523]
Upper C-Band (3.98-4.2 GHz); Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopted a Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration (
Order
), that expands the ecosystem for next-generation wireless services in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (C-band) by making 160 megahertz of the 3.98-4.2 GHz band (Upper C-band) available for terrestrial wireless flexible use. This action is pursuant to Congress' direction in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to complete a system of competitive bidding by July 4, 2027, for at least 100 megahertz of spectrum in the 3.98-4.2 GHz band. The
Order
creates a single 3.7 GHz Service that spans 3.7-4.14 GHz and adopts competitive bidding procedures for an auction. The
Order
largely applies the current Lower C-band licensing and operating rules to the Upper C-band, but it imposes more forward-leaning performance requirements. The Commission also generally adopts the Lower C-band technical rules for the Upper C-band, with certain modifications designed to reinforce a successful coexistence environment with adjacent band radio altimeters. The
Order
requires new licensees in the Upper C-band, as a condition of their licenses, to reimburse defined incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) licensees for reasonable and necessary costs associated with migrating FSS operations out of the reconfigured portion of the Upper C-band, consistent with the Commission's
Emerging Technologies
precedent. The
Order
also provides incentives to eligible space station operators that meet their clearing obligations by specified transition deadlines. Finally, new Upper C-band licensees must provide rebates for defined classes of eligible aircraft owners and operators to facilitate compliance with the FAA's radio altimeter retrofit requirements, which are designed to promote successful coexistence between Upper C-band licensees and radio altimeters in the 4.2-4.4 GHz band.

DATES:

The rules are effective September 29, 2026, except for instruction 7 (§§ 25.138(a) and (b)); instruction 8 (§ 25.147); instruction 17 § (27.14(x)(3)); instruction 26 (§ 27.1412(b), (c), (e), and (g); instruction 28 (§ 27.1413(a)(3), (c)(1), (c)(9), (e) and (f)); instruction 30 (§ 27.1414(e)); instruction 31 (§ 27.1415); instruction 32 (§ 27.1416); instruction 33 (§ 27.1417); instruction 35 (§ 27.1419); instruction 37 (§ 27.1421); instruction 39 (§ 27.1422(c)); and instruction 41 § 27.1424 of the Commission's rules, which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act and will not become effective until the effective date for those information collections is announced in a document published in the
Federal Register
after the Commission receives OMB approval. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the
Federal Register
announcing the effective date of these rule sections.

ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew McArdell of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at
Andrew.McArdell@fcc.gov
or 202-418-1576.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration (
Order
) in GN Docket Nos. 18-122 and 25-59, FCC 26-46, adopted on July 22, 2026 and released on July 24, 2026. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and can be downloaded at
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-46A1.pdf.

Synopsis

I. Background

A. Current Allocation and Use of the Upper C-Band and Adjacent Bands

1.
Upper C-band.
The 4.0-4.2 GHz portion of the Upper C-band is currently allocated for non-Federal use on a primary basis for FSS and Fixed Service (FS) links throughout the United States, but FS operations were sunset in the contiguous United States across the entire C-band as part of the Lower C-band transition. Space station operators use 4.0-4.2 GHz nationwide to provide space-to-Earth (
i.e.,
downlink) signals of various bandwidths to licensed transmit-receive, registered receive-only, and unregistered receive-only earth stations nationwide. These signals primarily deliver programming content to television and radio broadcasters throughout the country, as well as telephone, data, and satellite communications services to customers, including federal users, on a contractual basis. FS links only remain in use in 4.0-4.2 GHz outside of the contiguous United States.

2. The 3.98-4.0 GHz portion of the Upper C-band was reallocated as part of the Lower C-band transition in the contiguous United States, and it is reserved as a guard band to protect adjacent incumbent operations in the remainder of the Upper C-band from potential harmful interference. Outside of the contiguous United States, 3.98-4.0 GHz is allocated for and used by FSS and FS services.

3.
Lower C-band.
The adjacent Lower C-band (3.7-3.98 GHz) is allocated on a primary basis for non-Federal Fixed and Mobile, except aeronautical mobile, services in addition to FS service within the contiguous United States, although as a practical matter only flexible-use terrestrial wireless operations remain, given the earlier sunset of FS uses. Outside of the contiguous United States, the Lower C-band remains allocated for and used by FSS and FS.

4.
4.2-4.4 GHz.
The adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz band is allocated in the United States on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal Aeronautical Radionavigation Services for radio altimeters, which are aeronautical safety systems primarily used at altitudes under 2500 feet above ground level to measure aircraft height above terrain and obstacles in all phases of flight. The band is also allocated worldwide on a co-primary basis for wireless avionics intra-communications systems. These systems provide communications over short distances between points on a single aircraft and are not intended to provide air-to-ground communications or communications between two or more aircraft.

B. Procedural History

1. Lower C-Band

5. In the
2020 C-band R&O,
the Commission authorized flexible use terrestrial operations in the newly established 3.7 GHz Service in 3.7-3.98 GHz, reserved 3.98-4.0 GHz as a guard band, and migrated incumbent FSS operations into 4.0-4.2 GHz throughout the contiguous United States. To effectuate this transition and clear incumbent operations in the lower portion of the band, the Commission modified the licenses and market access authorizations of incumbent FSS

operators, transmit-receive earth station licensees, and FS licensees. The Commission also assigned overlay licenses for the 3.7 GHz Service through an auction, and adopted service rules requiring those licensees to comply with certain part 27 licensing, operating, and technical rules to encourage efficient use of the spectrum and protect incumbent users both in-band and in adjacent bands.

6. The
2020 C-band R&O
required Lower C-band licensees to reimburse the reasonable relocation costs of eligible FSS space station operators, incumbent FSS earth station operators, and incumbent FS licensees, with a third-party Relocation Payment Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) overseeing the cost-related aspects of the transition. The practical aspects of the FSS transition were managed by the eligible space station operators that were required to submit public transition plans and work with a Relocation Coordinator to ensure a timely and orderly process. The Commission established an ultimate deadline of December 5, 2025, by which the eligible space station operators were to have completed transitioning FSS operations to the upper portion of the band, and also provided incentives for an accelerated clearing process by allowing eligible space station operators to voluntarily commit to relocate on a two-phased accelerated schedule, with a Phase I deadline of December 5, 2021, and a Phase II deadline of December 5, 2023.

7. All five eligible space station operators elected accelerated relocation, subsequently met the respective Phase I and II deadlines, and became eligible for the designated accelerated relocation payments. As a result, the practical work of the transition was completed in 2023 and, subject to temporary, voluntary commitments on certain technical parameters that support the coexistence environment with adjacent band radio altimeters, Lower C-band licensees are now providing 5G service using these frequencies in markets throughout the contiguous United States. Residual cost-related aspects of the transition were effectively completed by June 2025, and the relocation cost reimbursement program officially ended as of August 21, 2025.

2. 2025 Upper C-Band Notice of Inquiry

8. In February 2025, the Commission issued the
Upper C-band NOI,
which outlined the successful lower band transition, the current state of allocations and services across the C-band, and the Commission's interest in exploring the potential for new services in the Upper C-band. The Commission solicited feedback on the appropriate parameters for additional opportunities for robust connectivity in the Upper C-band and asked commenters to identify how much spectrum in the Upper C-band could be repurposed for new uses. The Commission also sought comment on whether and how to amend the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations to facilitate new opportunities in the band, either by aligning the Upper C-band's allocations with those in the Lower C-band or by taking a different approach. The
Upper C-band NOI
asked questions about the structure and mechanics of a potential transition to new operations in the Upper C-band, including whether to utilize some or all of the aspects of the Lower C-band transition, as a means to manage the practical and financial aspects of any new transition effort. The Commission also sought input on the appropriate service and technical rules for any new operations in the Upper C-band.

9. The
Upper C-band NOI
asked Upper C-band incumbents—including FSS space and earth station operators, content providers, and other contractual customers (including federal users) that rely on FSS services—about how the introduction of new services might affect their current and future operations in the band. The
Upper C-band NOI
also noted the proximity and sensitivity of the radio altimeter operations in 4.2-4.4 GHz, the steps that were taken to protect those operations in the
2020 C-band R&O,
and the technical work that has been undertaken in the years since that action. Recognizing the successful coexistence environment that has been fostered between the 3.7 GHz Service and radio altimeters at 4.2-4.4 GHz, the Commission requested further information regarding advancements in radio altimeter resiliency and sought comment on appropriate technical and service rules that would further promote coexistence in light of potential new operations in the Upper C-band. The Commission also sought comment on steps it could consider to promote connectivity in historically underserved areas, such as through a Tribal licensing window. The
Upper C-band NOI
generated a wide array of responsive comments from incumbent FSS operators, terrestrial wireless licensees in the Lower C-band, other wireless providers, content providers and other FSS customers, and aviation interests with adjacent band equities.

3. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act

10. Subsequent to the record closing in the
Upper C-band NOI
in July 2025, as part of the OBBB Act, Congress reinstituted the Commission's general authority to grant licenses through systems of competitive bidding through September 2034 and established a path forward for the eventual repurposing of 800 megahertz to be licensed through competitive bidding, including at least 500 megahertz for full-power commercial licensed use cases. The OBBB Act also specifically directed the Commission to “grant licenses through systems of competitive bidding, before the expiration of the general auction authority[,] . . . for not less than 300 megahertz, including by completing a system of competitive bidding not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act for not less than 100 megahertz in the band between 3.98 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz.”

4. The Upper C-Band Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

11. In November 2025, the Commission issued the
Upper C-band NPRM,
90 FR 56076, to fulfill the directive in the OBBB Act to auction licenses for terrestrial wireless flexible use of not less than 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on options for reconfiguring some portion of the Upper C-band in the contiguous United States, ranging from 180 megahertz (3.98-4.16 GHz) to the congressionally mandated minimum of 100 megahertz (3.98-4.08 GHz) for terrestrial wireless use.

12. In doing so, the Commission noted that the maximum amount of spectrum to be reconfigured will depend on a number of factors, including how much Upper C-band spectrum could be repurposed by incumbent FSS space station operators; the economic benefits and costs of repurposing spectrum for terrestrial wireless; how that value could be affected by the amount of spectrum that is ultimately repurposed; the spectrum clearing timeline; and the capabilities of adjacent band radio altimeters that are expected to undergo upgrades to further enhance their signal rejection capabilities and bolster the existing successful spectral co-existence environment.

13. The
Upper C-band NPRM
indicated that, under any of the reconfiguration options, the baseline proposition is that the Commission would apply the existing Lower C-band rules to any newly authorized terrestrial wireless operations in Upper C-band. Any other rules and requirements, including those relating to the Upper C-band transition process, would be modeled to the greatest extent possible on those that applied to the Lower C-band transition. The Commission

recognized, however, that certain modifications may be necessary in light of our experiences with the Lower C-band transition, along with the unique parameters of the Upper C-band and the band reconfiguration option that is ultimately adopted. The Commission sought comment on reconfiguration options generally, and specifically on a range of issues associated with repurposing some portion of the Upper C-band, including: (1) reallocation of the 4.0-4.2 GHz band; (2) competitive bidding procedures for an eventual auction; (3) licensing, operating, and technical rules for any new terrestrial wireless services; (4) the mechanism and process for transitioning incumbent FSS operations, including the use of an independent, third-party clearinghouse and a Relocation Coordinator; and (5) promoting co-existence with adjacent band radio altimeters. The Commission also sought comment on the feasibility of conducting a pre-auction or concurrent Tribal licensing window while satisfying our legal requirement under the OBBB Act to assign licenses in the Upper C-band through a system of competitive bidding by July 4, 2027.

14. In response to the
Upper C-band NPRM,
the Commission received 58 comments and 48 reply comments. As issues raised in responsive filings to the
Upper C-band NPRM
also implicated certain pending petitions for reconsideration of the
2020 C-band R&O,
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) subsequently sought to refresh the record for those petitions in light of the related Upper C-band submissions. Seven comments were received in response to the
Record Refresh PN.

II. Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification

15. We conclude that auctioning licenses for 160 megahertz of the Upper C-band in 3.98-4.14 GHz for terrestrial wireless use in the contiguous United States best serves our congressional mandate under the OBBB Act, the public interest, and our policy goals. The OBBB Act reflects Congress' intent that we repurpose and clear “not less” than a minimum of 100 megahertz while potentially repurposing and clearing more. The record in this proceeding establishes that: (1) mid-band spectrum can help meet increasing demand for wireless data as well as support U.S. leadership in wireless connectivity; and, (2) as discussed in detail
infra,
incumbent FSS operators can clear more than 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band as part of an appropriately structured transition while maintaining substantially the same service. We agree. Given our continued belief that licensing C-band spectrum for terrestrial flexible use will lead to substantial economic gains, we will auction licenses for 160 megahertz in the Upper C-band, exceeding the OBBB Act's required minimum.

16. To introduce terrestrial wireless use in the Upper C-band, we add a primary non-Federal mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation to the 4.0-4.16 GHz band nationwide and remove the band's FSS allocation within the contiguous United States. We also adopt appropriate licensing and technical rules to govern these new terrestrial wireless operations, which will generally align the Lower and Upper C-bands and fold them into a single 3.7 GHz Service. Additionally, we establish a framework to relocate impacted incumbent FSS operations within the contiguous United States and, similar to the
2020 C-band R&O,
rely on the Commission's
Emerging Technologies
framework to require that Upper C-band licensees reimburse eligible FSS incumbents' reasonable and necessary transition costs and incentivize a timely FSS-operator led transition that corresponds with adjacent band radio altimeter retrofits required by FAA. Finally, in furtherance of FAA's radio altimeter retrofit requirement, and to ensure that new Upper C-band licensees may deploy on a predictable timeline, we establish rebates to support defined classes of eligible aircraft owners and operators with retrofitting their existing radio altimeters.

A. Reconfiguration and Allocation of the Upper C-Band

17. In the
Upper C-band NPRM,
the Commission sought comment on a range of options for reconfiguring a portion of the Upper C-band for terrestrial wireless services in the contiguous United States pursuant to our statutory remit under the OBBB Act. Those options ranged from the congressionally mandated minimum of 100 megahertz up to 180 megahertz, inclusive of all amounts in between. Some commenters ask specifically that we reconfigure 180 megahertz of spectrum; others encourage us to reconfigure as much as is technologically feasible. The incumbent space station operators that represent the vast majority of existing FSS C-band operations endorse the feasibility of reconfiguring 160 megahertz. Specifically, SES contends that reconfiguring no more than 160 megahertz is in the public interest by simplifying the transition, reducing the number of satellites required and services that need to be relocated, and enabling continued support for some C-band satellite downlink services. Eutelsat similarly notes it can support more fulsome repurposing options and still meet the needs of its customers. Others argue that we should reconfigure substantially less spectrum, in some cases asking that we auction licenses for no more than the statutory minimum of 100 megahertz, in deference to ongoing use of the Upper C-band by FSS customers, particularly for video content distribution.

18. Upon review of the record, we find that reconfiguring 160 megahertz of Upper C-band spectrum for terrestrial wireless uses in 3.98-4.14 GHz, plus a 20-megahertz guard band in 4.14-4.16 GHz, best serves our congressional mandate, the public interest, and our policy goals. Specifically, we find that reconfiguring this amount of spectrum strikes an effective balance between Congress' mandate that we auction licenses for no less than 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band with requests that we reserve sufficient C-band spectrum for incumbent FSS operations. As noted above, SES submits that reserving at least 40 megahertz in the Upper C-band for FSS downlink operations will serve the public interest by ensuring that meaningful C-band satellite services can continue to be provided, and Eutelsat believes that it can repurpose a similar amount of spectrum while continuing to meet its customers' needs. We discuss in greater detail
infra
the anticipated impacts that this reconfiguration will have on incumbent FSS C-band services and how, pursuant to our
Emerging Technologies
framework, we establish a transition process that will enable the continued provision of “substantially the same service” whether those services are further repacked within the Upper C-band or, as the largest eligible space station operators have proposed, certain services or links are migrated in whole or in part to other spectrum, such as the Ku-band. The Ku-band, also known as the “conventional” Ku-band, refers to the 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands. The extended Ku-band refers to the 10.95-11.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 13.75-14.0 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands. Our reconfiguration approach is also sensitive to the importance of coexistence between advanced wireless services in the Upper C-band and nearby radio altimeters operating in the 4.2-4.4 GHz band by providing meaningful spectral separation between those operations. We therefore find that maintaining 60 megahertz of separation between new terrestrial wireless

operations and the radio altimeter band will promote the efficient and predictable use of spectrum by supporting coexistence after the radio altimeter retrofit process is complete. This approach—along with other technical measures we adopt herein—will thus enable the rapid deployment of terrestrial wireless services in the Upper C-band. In this context we emphasize that making more mid-band spectrum available for advanced wireless services serves the public interest, all things being equal. Given our statutory mandate under the OBBB Act to make no less than 300 megahertz of non-federal spectrum available through competitive bidding by July 2034, we must be as aggressive as possible to meet that goal in a timely manner. We also recognize the synergistic value of aligning the Lower and Upper C-bands into a larger 3.7 GHz Service, which through channel aggregation will further amplify the value of every megahertz that we repurpose. In sum, we find that making an additional 160 megahertz of Upper C-band spectrum available for terrestrial wireless use in the contiguous United States will satisfy our congressional mandate, uphold the public interest, and meet our policy goals for the efficient use of spectrum.

19. Some commenters ask that we also reconfigure and auction Upper C-band spectrum outside of the contiguous United States. We decline to do so at this time, for reasons similar to those offered by commenting parties that oppose such expansion. Namely, as the Commission observed in the Lower C-band proceeding, “[l]ocations outside of the contiguous United States have a greater need for C-band services, particularly for the provision of services necessary for the protection of life and property—including telehealth, E911, and education services.” In light of the record, we find that this earlier determination remains true. We nonetheless recognize the disparity in mid-band spectrum available for terrestrial wireless services in the contiguous United States and outside of the contiguous United States, and we will continue to assess opportunities to address this gap after the Upper C-band auction.

20. Due to the complexity of the Upper C-band transition, at this time we defer consideration of proposals to add further advanced satellite operations to the C-band. We find that deferring consideration is prudent, in the public interest, and best serves our objective to swiftly enable a stable ecosystem of advanced wireless services across a wider swath of the C-band.

21. To implement our planned reconfiguration of the Upper C-band, we adopt rules that will enable terrestrial wireless operations in the contiguous United States throughout 3.98-4.14 GHz. Specifically, we add a primary non-Federal mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation to the 4.0-4.16 GHz band nationwide and remove the FSS allocation within the contiguous United States. We designate a 20-megahertz guard band at 4.14-4.16 GHz to foster coexistence with FSS operations that are repacked and remain in 4.16-4.2 GHz; this is in lieu of the guard band that previously occupied 3.98-4.0 GHz. While 4.14-4.16 GHz is now allocated to mobile services, except aeronautical, for flexible use, we decline to establish service rules in favor of its function as a guard band. We also decline to add a mobile allocation to the 4.16-4.2 GHz band reserved for primary FSS use at this time. The rules that we adopt today preserve the status quo outside of the contiguous United States. Figures 1 and 2 below demonstrate the post-transition allocations throughout the entire C-band in the contiguous United States and the rest of the United States, respectively.

Figure 1: Post-Transition 3.7-4.2 GHz Band Allocations in the Contiguous United States

ER31JY26.078

Figure 2: Post-Transition 3.7-4.2 GHz Band Allocations Outside the Contiguous United States

ER31JY26.079

22. As the Commission did in the
2020 C-band R&O,
we also modify footnote NG457A of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, which describes the status of earth stations on vessels (ESVs) in the entire C-band, in order keep it consistent with our new band plan. NG457A will now limit the band where ESVs may be coordinated for up to 180 days to 4.16-4.2 GHz, rather than 4.0-4.2 GHz, because FSS will no longer have primary status below 4.16 GHz. As before, the addition of mobile services to and the deletion of FSS from 4.0-4.16 GHz in the contiguous United States make this update necessary.

B. Auction of Upper C-Band Spectrum for Flexible Use

23. Similar to the
2020 C-band R&O,
we will hold an auction of licenses for 160 megahertz of the Upper C-band. Given the OBBB Act's requirement that we complete competitive bidding to grant licenses for spectrum in the Upper C-band by July 4, 2027, we find it appropriate to rely on established Commission auction rules and mechanisms to assign mid-band spectrum to the applicant that values it most highly to encourage the highest-value use of the spectrum, pursuant to statutory criteria that promote competition and other public interest goals.

1. Competitive Bidding Procedures

24. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act) requires that we resolve any mutually exclusive applications for new flexible-use licenses in the Upper C-band through a system of competitive bidding. Given our experience successfully conducting auctions pursuant to the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, the
Upper C-band NPRM
proposed to conduct an auction for licenses in this band in conformity with those rules. The commenters that address this issue generally support the proposal, and we adopt it now. Specifically, we will use the part 1 rules governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences, unjust enrichment, application and certification procedures, payment procedures, reporting requirements, and the prohibition on certain communications between auction applicants. These rules provide a framework for the auction process and allow for the subsequent determination of specific auction procedures in the pre-auction process. Should the Commission subsequently modify its part 1 general competitive bidding rules, the modifications would apply here as well.

25.
Designated Entity Provisions.
In the
Upper C-band NPRM,
the Commission sought comment on whether to offer bidding credits to designated entities (DEs)—
i.e.,
small businesses and rural service providers—in any auction of licenses in the Upper C-band. Congress mandated that the Commission consider a number of objectives when adopting competitive bidding rules and ensure that DEs have the opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrum-based services, in part by considering the use of bidding preferences, such as bidding credits. Based on the Commission's prior experience using bidding credits in spectrum license auctions, we find that they are an effective tool to further this statutory objective.

26. We are not persuaded by arguments made by some commenters that the Commission's use of bidding credits in previous spectrum license auctions has been ineffective in achieving this mandate. Publicly available auction results from the past 10 years demonstrate that the Commission's DE rules offer
bona fide
DEs opportunities to participate in auctions, and therefore provide the opportunity for such entities to provide spectrum-based services. Specifically, in every spectrum license auction conducted since the Commission modified its generally applicable part 1 competitive bidding rules in 2015, the percentage of applicants qualifying to bid that were DEs has approached or exceeded 50%. The same is true for the percentage of winning bidders that were DEs. Notably, in three of those auctions, Auctions 1002, 105, and 108, the percentage of DEs among winning bidders approached 80%. These data demonstrate that, consistent with the Commission's statutory mandate, the Commission's use of bidding credits effectively ensures that small businesses and rural service providers are given the opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrum-based services. The opportunity these levels of participation demonstrate is not refuted by the number or price of the licenses won by small businesses and rural service providers. The bidding credit program seeks to ensure that the Commission promotes opportunities for such applicants, not to guarantee auction results for them.

27.
Small Businesses.
In the
Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and Order,
the Commission stated that it would define eligibility requirements for small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking into account the capital requirements and other characteristics of each particular service in establishing the appropriate threshold. The Commission later reaffirmed this approach in the
Part 1 Third Report and Order
and again in the
Updating Part 1 Report and Order.

28. Consistent with the decision to consolidate the Upper and Lower C-bands into a single 3.7 GHz Service, we will apply § 27.1402(a) of the Commission's rules to any auction of Upper C-band licenses and use the same small business size standards and bidding credit percentages adopted for the Lower C-band. As such, for purposes of bidding credit eligibility in an auction of Upper C-band licenses: (1) a small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the preceding five years; and (2) a very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five years.

29. Two commenters urge the Commission to adjust the gross revenue thresholds to account for inflation since their adoption in 2015. Those commenters do not provide a data-driven justification for why auctions of licenses for Upper C-band spectrum should be treated differently from other auctions for licenses likely to be used to provide 5G services. Based on the Commission's prior experience with bidding credits in spectrum auctions and the lack of sufficient justification in the record for using any proposed alternative approach, we are not persuaded that we should adopt small business size standards for Upper C-band spectrum that differ from those used in auctions for other 5G-ready services.

30. We will similarly apply the same bidding credit amounts that were used for the Lower C-band, providing qualifying “small businesses” with a bidding credit of 15% and qualifying “very small businesses” with a bidding credit of 25%, consistent with the standardized schedule in part 1 of our rules. This proposal, supported by RWA and WISPA, was modeled on the small business size standards and associated bidding credits that the Commission adopted for the Lower C-band and a range of other services. We believe that this two-tiered approach, which has been successful in the past, will provide small businesses with a simple, consistent, and predictable avenue for facilitating access to capital, thereby increasing participation and competition in an Upper C-band auction. Furthermore, this approach is consistent with our decision to align the Upper and Lower C-bands and consolidate them within a single, cohesive 3.7 GHz Service.

31. Finally, we decline to include the 35% bidding credit from our part 1 standardized schedule of bidding credits for entities with not more than $4 million in average annual gross revenues for the preceding five years. When determining the amount of bidding credits and who should be

eligible for them, we take care to avoid “expanding the scope of DE benefits to a level that may incentivize gamesmanship.” The Commission's consistent use of the two largest DE business size standards and associated bidding credits outlined in its part 1 rules has facilitated the successful participation of many eligible small businesses in Commission auctions over the last decade, and has provided uniformity and predictability for DEs and other bidders as well. We are not persuaded by the limited record before us that Upper C-band spectrum is different in a way that warrants deviating from the rule frameworks that have governed previous auctions.

32. In all auctions of licenses likely to be used to provide 5G services in a variety of bands since the part 1 schedule of bidding credits was updated in 2015, the Commission has consistently used the small business size standards that we adopt today. The results from these auctions demonstrate that using the two larger size standards to assign bidding credits has provided a real opportunity for bidders claiming eligibility as small businesses to win licenses at auction to provide spectrum-based services. By adopting average annual gross revenue thresholds that are not too high, and thus not overly inclusive, we preserve the effectiveness of DE benefits for the
bona fide
small businesses that are intended to benefit from our DE rules.

33.
Rural Service Providers.
In the
Upper C-band NPRM,
the Commission also sought comment on a proposal to offer a bidding credit for rural service providers. The rural service provider bidding credit awards a 15% bidding credit to those that service predominantly rural areas and that have fewer than 250,000 combined wireless, wireline, broadband and cable subscribers.

34. Consistent with the Commission's findings in the
Updating Part 1 Report and Order
and its approach in the Lower C-band and other bands where spectrum is likely to be used to provide 5G services, we adopt our proposal to offer a 15% bidding credit to a rural service provider, as defined in § 1.2110(f)(4)(i) of the Commission's rules and subject to the bidding credit cap defined in § 1.2110(f)(4)(ii) of the Commission's rules. Those commenters that addressed this proposal generally supported extending bidding credits to rural service providers in an auction for licenses in the Upper C-band. Permitting bidders to claim a rural service provider bidding credit in an auction in this band will allow a wide range of service providers to compete more effectively for spectrum licenses in rural areas, and in doing so, will potentially increase the availability of 5G service in rural areas. Moreover, by offering a rural service provider bidding credit in the Upper C-band auction, we ensure that bidders across the entire 3.7 GHz Service are treated consistently, promoting equitable participation opportunities throughout both the Upper and Lower C-bands.

35. Some commenters propose increasing the bidding credit percentage for rural service providers, with one proponent specifically suggesting a 50% bidding credit. Another commenter proposes that instead of relying solely on bidding credits, the Commission should conduct a “reserve auction” for rural counties, either contemporaneously with the auction of 160 megahertz of repurposed spectrum or as a separate and distinct auction in late 2027. These commenters assert that recent Commission auctions have failed to assign spectrum licenses to rural service providers in a manner that satisfies the Commission's statutory mandate, and they argue that a 15% bidding credit does not provide rural service providers a meaningful opportunity to compete against nationwide wireless carriers with greater financial resources for high value mid-band spectrum.

36. We are not persuaded by these arguments. The Commission consistently has determined that § 309(j) of the Act does not require it to provide entities with generalized economic assistance or a path to assured success, but rather with the responsibility and the discretion to provide opportunities for small businesses and rural service providers, while preventing the unjust enrichment of ineligible entities. Accordingly, we find that the data provided by some commenters concerning the number of licenses rural service providers won in prior auctions is not indicative of whether the Commission is providing DEs with genuine opportunities to provide spectrum-based services. The statutory goal that requires the Commission to promote economic opportunity and competition by a wide dissemination of licenses cited by some commenters is “subject to a variety of reasonable interpretations,” and must be balanced against a number of competing statutory objectives, including the efficient and intensive use of spectrum. In striking that balance, the Commission must decide how much weight to grant particular policies when several are implicated in a single decision.

37. Following adoption of the rural service provider bidding credit in 2015, the Commission has uniformly offered it in all auctions of spectrum licenses likely to be used to provide 5G services. Significantly, the results from these auctions indicate that the bidding credit helps give rural service providers opportunities to participate in the provision of spectrum-based services. Moreover, the commenters advocating for an increase in the bidding credit percentage for rural service providers fail to demonstrate that the specific circumstances and characteristics of licenses in the Upper C-band warrant increasing the 15% bidding credit. Therefore, we are not persuaded by the sparse data in the record that Upper C-band services warrant a larger rural service provider bidding credit.

38. For the same reasons, we similarly decline to conduct CRWC's proposed rural “reserve auction” in lieu of just offering bidding credits. As discussed above, the Commission's experience demonstrates that offering the rural service provider bidding credit is a proven and efficient means of promoting rural participation in spectrum license auctions and enabling genuine competition while maintaining the integrity of the auction process. In contrast, CRWC's proposed “reserve auction” would introduce significant complexity and risk delay in the assignment of valuable mid-band spectrum. Moreover, offering a bidding credit enables rural service providers to compete fairly with all other participants, fostering competition in the auction and ensuring that spectrum is awarded to those who value it most, rather than conferring an exclusive advantage or guaranteed outcome to any class of bidder. Additionally, conducting a rural “reserve auction” would reduce the efficiency of the auction and could lead to fragmented, non-contiguous license areas that would complicate network deployment, increase coordination costs, and may conflict with the Commission's band plan and technical rules for the expanded 3.7 GHz Service. We are not persuaded by the record that conducting a “reserve auction” would benefit the public interest in any way that merits assuming the foregoing associated risks, especially given historical data demonstrating that the bidding credit enables rural service providers to effectively compete for spectrum licenses. Thus, we will apply the part 1 rural service provider bidding credit standard for the auction of licenses of Upper C-band spectrum as proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM.

39.
Tribal Licensing Window.
Recognizing our legislative remit under the OBBB Act to assign licenses in the

Upper C-band through a system of competitive bidding by July 2027, and mindful of our baseline proposition to mirror the Lower C-band transition to the greatest extent possible, we nonetheless sought comment on the viability of a pre-auction or concurrent Tribal licensing window in the
Upper C-band NPRM.
In so doing, we specifically noted key differences between the Upper C-band context and that in the 2.5 GHz band, where an earlier Tribal licensing window was held. For example, in the 2.5 GHz proceeding there was unassigned spectrum available in Alaska and Hawaii, and a pre-existing, mature equipment ecosystem to facilitate Tribal licensee deployments and use of that spectrum in the near term, neither of which exists in the Upper C-band.

40. In response, comments by the Navajo Nation and later filings by Tribal and other non-profit groups point to the 2.5 GHz band as a model for how a Tribal licensing window could be conducted concurrently with an auction and suggest that it would minimally affect an Upper C-band auction while at the same time allowing Tribes to deploy quickly. While we remain committed to exploring opportunities that promote connectivity in historically unserved or underserved areas including Tribal lands, we ultimately do not find that a Tribal licensing window is viable in the instant context as it differs from the 2.5 GHz band in several key respects.

41. First, in the 2.5 GHz proceeding there was no statutory mandate requiring the issuance of licenses through a system of competitive bidding, nor was there a set deadline for completing an auction. This flexibility afforded substantial time—specifically, 14 months—to prepare for and fully complete a Tribal licensing window pre-auction in the 2.5 GHz band, which was essential to finalize the scope of inventory available for competitive bidding and identify any potential encumbrances for potential bidders. In contrast, the OBBB Act requires us to issue licenses in the Upper C-band through a competitive bidding process, which a Tribal licensing window would largely not entail. Further, based on the Commission's experience in the 2.5 GHz proceeding, sufficient time does not exist here to enable completion of both a pre-auction Tribal licensing window and a system of competitive bidding by the July 4, 2027, statutory deadline, neither of which can commence until the instant rulemaking process is concluded. We also note that, because available spectrum inventory and potential encumbrances must be clearly established pre-auction to provide bidders with notice, and cannot fluctuate while the auction is underway, a Tribal licensing window that runs concurrently with a system of competitive bidding is not achievable in any context.

42. Another critical distinction between the 2.5 GHz and Upper C-band contexts involves our use here of the
Emerging Technologies
framework to facilitate the transition of incumbent FSS operations. This framework is predicated on incoming licensees paying for the reasonable and necessary transition costs of the incumbent services required to clear the relevant spectrum band, a requirement that we imposed in the Lower C-band transition as license conditions on new terrestrial wireless licensees based on each licensee's
pro rata
share of gross winning bids in the underlying auction. Modernization of the 2.5 GHz band did not require a similar clearing or cost allocation—the incumbents retained their existing licenses and the only spectrum available for the rural Tribal licensing window and eventual auction was that which was unassigned at the time. As set forth
infra,
pursuant to the
Emerging Technologies
framework and our prior Lower C-band transition precedent, we are once again requiring new Upper C-band terrestrial wireless licensees to cover their
pro rata
share of in-band transition costs, including on a PEA basis for incumbent earth stations. Were we to also adopt a Tribal licensing window for the Upper C-band, we note that it would present novel and complex questions on how to equitably allocate incumbent transition costs for PEAs where some or all of the service area was licensed to an entity that did not participate in the forthcoming auction. Those issues would be further compounded by the radio altimeter retrofit rebates that we also adopt
infra
in connection with the Upper C-band transition.

43. In addition to facing these challenges, the potential benefits of a Tribal licensing window in the Upper C-band would also differ significantly from, and be more modest than, the 2.5 GHz band. As noted in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
due to the importance of continued FSS satellite operations in Alaska and Hawaii, the exclusion of those areas from our Upper C-band reconfiguration to terrestrial wireless services would mean that unassigned spectrum over Tribal lands in those states would not be part of any Tribal licensing window, as was the case in the 2.5 GHz band. The exclusion of these areas—particularly Alaska, where nearly 50% of federally recognized Tribes are located—would greatly reduce the scope, scale, and number of potential participants in any such opportunity in the Upper C-band. While we acknowledge some potential benefit in a Tribal licensing window to Tribes in the contiguous United States, that benefit would be meaningfully diminished given the likelihood of deployment and operational challenges for both auction winners and potential Tribal licensees. While Public Knowledge suggests that Tribal lands would represent a small amount of the PEAs to be ultimately auctioned, we note that federally recognized Tribes have approximately 326 reservations across 25 states in the contiguous United States, in addition to numerous trust lands, many of which involve checkerboard and other non-contiguous land areas that can vary greatly in size. Excluding those land areas from the PEAs available at auction would create significant operational complications and potential encumbrances for both Tribal licensees and auction winners in terms of coordinating their operations. In states with significant Tribal land areas, such as Oklahoma, it could potentially exclude large portions of the state and certain PEAs from the auction in their entirety. In contrast, the 2.5 GHz band was already highly fragmented due to historic licensing policies and incumbencies, making a pre-auction Tribal licensing window less impactful for the overlay licenses available in Auction 108 which were already significantly encumbered.

44. We similarly recognize that an important consideration in favor of a Tribal licensing window in the 2.5 GHz band was the existence of a pre-existing, mature equipment ecosystem that eased the cost and difficulty of Tribal licensee deployments and enabled their use of the spectrum in the near term. That type of equipment ecosystem does not exist in the Upper C-band.

45. In sum, while the 2.5 GHz band Tribal licensing window reflected a novel approach to further expand Tribal access to licensed wireless spectrum, it was largely predicated on the unique circumstances present in that band at the time. In light of these distinguishing factors, as well as the statutory deadline and licensing requirements in the OBBB Act, we thus decline to adopt a Tribal licensing window in the Upper C-band. We nonetheless remain committed to exploring options and alternatives for increasing connectivity to Tribal and other unserved or underserved lands.

2. Licensing and Operating Rules

46. As proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we adopt licensing and operating rules that largely align new

licenses in the Upper C-band with existing ones in the Lower C-band, which are already governed by part 27 of the Commission's rules. We find that this approach will harmonize terrestrial wireless operations across the entire C-band to create a single 3.7 GHz Service and help to facilitate rapid deployment of advanced wireless services nationwide. Commenters generally support this approach. As discussed
infra,
we generally extend rules that are applicable to part 27 services to the Upper C-band, including those relating to the assignment of licenses by competitive bidding, flexible use, regulatory status, foreign ownership reporting, compliance with construction notification requirements, renewal criteria, permanent discontinuance of operations, partitioning and disaggregation, and spectrum leasing. We likewise generally extend service-specific rules that already apply to terrestrial wireless operations in the Lower C-band, including eligibility, license term, and other licensing and operating rules, to the Upper C-band. With respect to performance requirements, we adopt a more forward-leaning approach in keeping with the accelerated timelines for all stakeholders involved in the Upper C-band transition.

a. Band Plan

47.
Block Size.
Consistent with our proposal in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we adopt a block size of 20 megahertz. The record reflects broad support for 20-megahertz blocks. In particular, commenters note that a block size of 20 megahertz will match the Lower C-band's block size, thereby enhancing licensees' flexibility to tailor deployments across the entire C-band and supporting the broader equipment ecosystem. We agree and therefore decline to adopt a mix of block sizes, as some commenters propose. Accordingly, we will license eight 20-megahertz blocks—for a total of 160 megahertz—in 3.98-4.14 GHz based on the following channel plan:

ER31JY26.080

48.
Spectrum Block Configuration.
We adopt our proposal for an unpaired spectrum block configuration based on record support as it will ensure continuity, spectral efficiency, and maximum flexibility for licensees across the entire C-band. It also is technology-neutral, enabling Time-Division Duplex (TDD) operations that have become increasingly prevalent in deployments of digital broadband networks. We therefore will auction licenses for the Upper C-band spectrum as unpaired 20-megahertz blocks, consistent with the band plan
supra.

49.
Use of Geographic Licensing.
As we have previously stated, geographic-area licensing provides flexibility to licensees, promotes efficient spectrum use, and facilitates the rapid assignment of licenses, utilizing competitive bidding when necessary. Many commenters expressly support the use of exclusive, geographic-area licensing in the instant context. Others broadly support harmonizing the licensing approach across the entire C-band, which by extension would include the use of exclusive, geographic-area licensing. We therefore will auction licenses for the Upper C-band spectrum using exclusive, geographic-area licenses.

50.
Geographic License Area.
Consistent with our proposal in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we adopt Partial Economic Areas (PEAs) as the geographic license area for new Upper C-band licenses and will issue such licenses in the contiguous United States and District of Columbia. Many commenters agree that licensing by PEA will increase spectrum aggregation opportunities for advanced wireless services through a harmonized approach across the entire C-band. We agree, and decline to adopt smaller geographic license areas for the Upper C-band (or portions thereof) suggested by some commenters. Instead, consistent with the
2020 C-band R&O,
we continue to find that PEAs appropriately balance licensees' ability to provide service on a smaller, more localized basis or on a much larger geographic scale. The record supports this finding. Finally, while some commenters support licensing the Upper C-band in areas outside of the contiguous United States and District of Columbia, for the reasons explained
supra,
we decline to issue licenses outside of the contiguous United States. Therefore, we will license the Upper C-band only within the contiguous United States and the District of Columbia, consistent with our approach in the Lower C-band.

b. Application Requirements and Eligibility

51. Licensees in the Upper C-band must comply with the Commission's general application requirements. As proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we also adopt an open eligibility standard for licenses in the Upper C-band. CTIA contends that this approach will help “encourage auction participation to support 5G and beyond.” We agree, and find—as in the Lower C-band and other services—that open eligibility appropriately relies on market forces and will help to ensure efficient use of this spectrum. The open eligibility standard that we adopt does not affect citizenship, character, or other generally applicable qualifications that, under our rules, may apply to licenses for flexible use of the Upper C-band. Further, any person who has been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the federal government from bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant is ineligible to hold a license in the Upper C-band.

c. Mobile Spectrum Holdings

52. Consistent with our proposal in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we will incorporate the 160 megahertz of spectrum that we make available in the 3.98-4.14 GHz range into our spectrum screen for case-by-case review of spectrum aggregation in secondary market transactions and post-auction license applications. We will add this 160 megahertz of spectrum to the screen once the Upper C-band auction closes.

53. In making this determination, we find that this spectrum is both suitable and available in the near term for mobile services. As discussed above, we are modifying the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations so that mobile services will be permitted throughout this spectrum, and we find that this

spectrum will be critical for the deployment of mobile and other advanced services. With respect to availability in the near term, while we acknowledge that licensees must clear incumbents from the band following the auction, we find it is “fairly certain” that the spectrum “will meet the criteria for suitable spectrum in the near term” once the auction closes given our transition schedule.

54. We decline to adopt a pre-auction spectrum aggregation limit for this band. Although OTI, Public Knowledge, and WISPA advocate for the adoption of such a limit based on prior Commission action in the 3.45 GHz band and the CBRS band, as well as general competitive concerns, we find, similar to the Commission's approach in the
2020 C-band R&O,
that, “[g]enerally, bright-line, pre-auction limits may restrict unnecessarily the ability of entities to participate in and acquire spectrum in an auction, and we are not inclined to adopt such limits on auction participation absent a clear indication that they are necessary to address a specific competitive concern.” OTI, Public Knowledge, and WISPA have not adequately raised a specific competitive concern to justify the imposition of pre-auction limits for this band. We agree with commenters that a post-auction, case-by-case approach will allow the Commission to review any spectrum aggregation concerns without unnecessarily restricting entities from acquiring spectrum to deploy advanced wireless services. Indeed, this case-by-case approach will allow the Commission to evaluate competitive effects based on actual auction outcomes rather than speculative assumptions. The Commission will conduct this case-by-case post-auction review to capture lessons learned from this auction and ensure that our auction policy decisions enhance market competition. We also agree with commenters that harmonizing the regulatory framework for the entire C-band may facilitate the rapid commercialization and deployment of this spectrum.

55. We will perform case-by-case review of the long form applications of the Upper C-band spectrum following the auction. We will use the same case-by-case review as we do for secondary market transactions, updated to account for the additional Upper C-band spectrum. We find that this review will create sufficient bidder certainty for the auction, consistent with section 309(j)(3)(E) of the Act.

d. License Term

56. As proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we adopt a 15-year license term from the date of issuance or renewal. Commenters that addressed this proposal support it, noting that a 15-year license term would promote consistency between the Lower and Upper C-band. We agree and, consistent with the
2020 C-band R&O
and
Upper C-band NPRM,
find that a 15-year license term will promote investment in the Upper C-band, given the clearing and relocation that must occur before terrestrial wireless operations can commence.

e. Performance Requirements; Renewal

57. Performance requirements play a critical role in ensuring that licensed spectrum does not lie fallow, and they are required for licenses that are issued through competitive bidding. The performance requirements that we adopt for the Upper C-band, as described
infra,
align with the overall rapid transition process we establish herein for this band and will ensure that licensees begin providing service to consumers in a timely manner. Given mid-band spectrum's critical role in today's spectral environment, we find that our approach will promote the public interest through an efficient deployment of new terrestrial wireless services in the Upper C-band.

58.
Performance Requirements.
We conclude that Upper C-band licensees must provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least: (1) 45% of the population in each license area no later than two years after the relevant Transition Deadline; and (2) 80% of the population in each license area no later than six years after the relevant Transition Deadline. These population-based coverage metrics match the Lower C-band's requirements for mobile and point-to-multipoint services. While the performance deadlines we adopt herein to meet these coverage metrics differ from those adopted for the Lower C-band and proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
the Lower C-band performance deadlines ran from license grant and were designed to anticipate a lengthy transition to clear incumbent FSS operations before terrestrial wireless operations could commence. We observe that in practice the rapid speed of Lower C-band deployments reflects that a different, more forward-leaning approach is merited here. As proposed by wireless industry commenters, for Upper C-band the relevant performance timeframe will start at the relevant Transition Deadline, which is when Upper C-band licensees are able to access the reconfigured and cleared spectrum in that PEA. In light of the transition timeline prior to those dates, there is no need for a lengthy lead time prior to the interim performance deadline, particularly as many new Upper C-band licensees are likely to have existing Lower C-band deployments which can be leveraged in this context. Given the expected desirability of Upper C-band spectrum, we anticipate that new Upper C-band licensees will begin deploying facilities and constructing their networks in advance during the transition process, as was the case during the Lower C-band transition, so that they can commence operations as soon as possible after the relevant Transition Deadline.

59. We expect robust and meaningful utilization of the Upper C-band that is commensurate with significant efforts by the U.S. government, aviation industry, and FSS stakeholders to repurpose the spectrum, and consistent with the Commission's ongoing efforts to ensure that spectrum is deployed promptly for the benefit of American consumers. In the Lower C-band context, carrier deployments have largely focused on the provision of 5G and other advanced mobile broadband services to consumers and enterprises. For these reasons, for the Upper C-band we decline to adopt alternative performance requirements for Internet of Things or fixed point-to-point operations, nor will we consider private internal operations in demonstrating buildout compliance. Under our flexible-use policies, licensees may still conduct these types of operations in the Upper C-band, but they will not be options for meeting a licensee's performance requirements as they were in the
2020 C-band R&O.
We find that the performance requirements we adopt herein will provide certainty for licensees, ensure investment, and encourage timely deployment of services that best serve the public interest, in furtherance of the United States' wireless policy goals.

60.
Penalty for Failure to Meet Performance Requirements.
We adopt meaningful, enforceable penalties for licensees that fail to meet the performance requirements. Specifically, if a licensee fails to meet the first performance benchmark (
i.e.,
providing reliable signal coverage and offering service to at least 45% of the population in the license area no later than one year after the relevant Transition Deadline), it will accelerate its second performance benchmark by one year. If a licensee fails to meet the second performance benchmark (
i.e.,
providing reliable

signal coverage and offering service to at least 80% of the population in the license area no later than five years after the relevant Transition Deadline) in any license area, its authorization for that particular license area will terminate automatically without Commission action. Although the penalty for missing the first performance benchmark differs from what the Commission adopted in the
2020 C-band R&O
and proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we reiterate that the performance requirement deadlines are tied to the relevant Transition Deadline, as wireless interests request. We therefore expect that Upper C-band licensees will work and plan in advance to commence their operations as soon as possible after the transition, and the penalties that we adopt reflect that expectation.

61.
Compliance Procedures.
For both performance benchmarks, we will require all Upper C-band licensees to follow the compliance procedures applicable to all part 27 licensees, including the filing of electronic coverage maps and supporting documents. As part of these requirements, we adopt our proposals that electronic coverage maps must accurately depict: (1) the boundaries of each license area and the coverage boundaries of the actual areas to which the licensee provides service; and (2) if a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to its entire license area, the boundaries of the area(s) within each license area not being served. Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the propagation model and signal strength necessary to provide reliable coverage and offer service with the licensee's technology. No commenters opposed these requirements, and we find that these compliance procedures will encourage timely, robust deployment of Upper C-band spectrum, consistent with our goals in this proceeding.

62.
License Renewal.
As proposed, and with record support, we will apply the general renewal requirements applicable to all Wireless Radio Services (WRS) licensees to Upper C-band licensees. We find that applying these requirements will promote consistency across the Upper and Lower C-band as well as other WRS.

63.
Renewal Term Construction Obligation.
In applying our general WRS renewal requirements, each Upper C-band licensee will be required to comply with § 1.949 of our rules by demonstrating that, over the course of its license term, it provided and continues to provide service to the public. Licensees can demonstrate compliance either through the renewal showing in § 1.949(f) or the relevant safe harbor in § 1.949(e)(2). Absent record feedback to the contrary, we find that applying these requirements to the Upper C-band will help promote the continued deployment of next-generation wireless technologies.

3. Technical Rules

64. We find that the technical rules we adopt herein will encourage maximum potential use of the Upper C-band for next-generation wireless technologies, encourage efficient use of spectrum resources, and promote investment in the Upper C-band while protecting any residual incumbent users in the band and promoting coexistence with operations in adjacent bands. Consistent with our proposals in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
the technical rules are generally aligned with the rules applicable to the Lower C-band with a view towards the creation of a single 3.7 GHz Service, although we make certain modifications herein that are applicable across the entire C-band to reinforce a successful co-existence environment with adjacent band radio altimeters. We believe that this approach will produce significant economies of scale, improve affordability for consumers, encourage rapid operational expansion, and facilitate deployment of high-powered terrestrial wireless networks in the band. As described in greater detail below, we deviate from this approach only with regard to antenna height limits due to specific technical and operational considerations unique to the Upper C-band.

a. Power Levels

65.
Power Limits for Fixed and Base Stations.
As proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we will allow fixed or base stations in non-rural areas to operate at power levels up to 1640 watts per megahertz EIRP and base stations in rural areas to operate at power levels up to 3280 watts per megahertz EIRP. We therefore apply §§ 27.50(j)(1)-(2) and (4)-(5) of the Commission's rules to both fixed and base stations operating in the Upper C-band. This approach is consistent with the power limits adopted by the Commission for the Lower C-band and other broadband mobile services in nearby bands (3.45 GHz, AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4, and PCS). The record supports our proposed approach for this reason and also reflects that these power limits will align with adjacent band radio altimeter operations. We agree and find that these power limits will: (1) provide licensees with the ability to optimize their system designs to provide wide area coverage without sacrificing the flexibility needed to address coexistence issues with FSS operations; and (2) promote investment in the Upper C-band, thereby facilitating the rapid and robust deployment of next-generation wireless networks, including 5G. Finally, because advanced antenna systems often have multiple radiating elements in the same sector, we clarify that the power limits we adopt apply to the aggregate power of all antenna elements in any given sector of a fixed or base station.

66.
Power Limits for Mobile and Portable Devices.
While the
Upper C-band NPRM
proposed a power limit of 1 Watt EIRP for all mobile devices, commenters note that a 4 Watt power limit will improve user equipment (UE) coverage and throughput for fixed wireless services (
e.g.,
in-home broadband). Additional comments in response to the
Record Refresh PN
reinforce this support, suggesting that a modest increase in UE power levels to 4 Watt EIRP across the entire C-band will expand competitive fixed wireless offerings and align C-band UE devices with other existing in-home UEs. These comments note that handsets would not be impacted, as all C-band mobile and portable devices “must employ a means for limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications” and must independently comply with the Commission's radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits. Cable and other fixed wireless providers using spectrum below the 3.7 GHz band edge have recently expressed inchoate concerns about the potential for interference to Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) client devices near the band edge from higher-powered UE in the Lower C-band. In response, CTIA disputes any potential degradation to CBRS and notes that the operational parameters of existing CBRS indoor base stations permit equivalent transmit power to the 4 Watt mobile EIRP. Also, CTIA provides that extension of the existing OOBE limit applicable to the C-band effectively negates any potential for interference.

67. We find that an increased power limit for mobiles and portables across the C-band would facilitate more innovative, efficient uses of valuable mid-band spectrum and align C-band UE devices with other existing in-home UEs that operate within similar parameters, given the shifts in consumer uses and technology advancements since adoption of the
2020 C-band R&O.
The detailed record in the instant proceeding reflects a shift both in

expanded consumer use of, and need for, more extensive fixed wireless uses, as well as a disparity between the operational parameters of existing C-band UEs and other types of in-home UE devices, such as Wi-Fi routers. We reiterate that, as a practical matter, this will not impact the existing operation of handsets, which like all C-band mobile and portable devices must limit power to the minimum level necessary for successful communications and adhere to our radiofrequency exposure limits. While cable and other CBRS stakeholders have been active participants in this proceeding since the initial comment stage, to date they have not outlined detailed concerns with, or presented any specific analysis of, the potential impacts on CBRS operations of an increased power limit for UEs in the adjacent Lower C-band. To the extent that their recent advocacy has focused on CBRS operational issues, it explores pre-existing uplink performance issues without any causal linkage to Lower C-band UE devices (
i.e.,
that could be caused by other factors, including in-band interference from 3.5 GHz Service PAL licensees given the use of non-3GPP compliant devices by CBRS operators). Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, we will proceed with a more incremental increase in the power limit for mobile and portable devices in the Upper C Band—from 1 Watt EIRP to 2 Watt EIRP—to support these specific types of in-home UE. To create consistency between the Upper and Lower C-band, as indicated in the
Record Refresh PN,
we will apply the same power limits throughout the 3.7-4.14 GHz band. For the reasons explained
infra,
we also retain the applicable OOBE limit governing all mobile and portable devices.

b. Out-of-Band Emissions

68.
Fixed and Base Station Out-of-Band Emissions.
Based on the totality of the record before us, we adopt fixed and base station out-of-band emission (OOBE) requirements for the Upper and Lower C-band that differ from those previously adopted in the
2020 C-band R&O.
We observe that the record in response to the
Upper C-band NPRM
and the
Record Refresh PN
reflects a variety of views on whether OOBE limits throughout the C-band should be set using an equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP)-based standard or a conducted power limit, as was previously adopted for the Lower C-band. Further, since 2023 wireless licensees in the Lower C-band have voluntarily adhered to a conducted limit on spurious emissions into 4.2-4.4 GHz of −48 dBm/MHz. Subsequent to the
Record Refresh PN,
CTIA proposed a compromise OOBE limit into the 4.2-4.4 GHz band of either an EIRP level of −28.4 dBm/MHz, or a conducted power level of −46 dBm/MHz applicable to both Lower and Upper C-band wireless operations.

69. We adopt the option-driven approach advocated by CTIA to OOBE compliance for emissions into the adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz band, which we will harmonize for both Upper and Lower C-band terrestrial wireless operations. Wireless licensees in both the Lower and Upper C-band may comply with an OOBE limit into the 4.2-4.4 GHz band of
either
an EIRP level of −28.4 dBm/MHz, or a conducted power level of −46 dBm/MHz. Given that existing Lower C-band deployments have voluntarily complied with a −48 dBm/MHz conducted limit since 2023, we anticipate that application of this new rule will have no practical impact on such deployments, effectively grandfathering them. As with our technical rules generally, this “either or” framework for OOBE compliance reflects close coordination with complementary decisions adopted by FAA, and aligns with assumptions made in the FAA's safety analysis for adjacent band radio altimeter operations. The relevant OOBE limit into other spectrum bands will remain at a conducted power level of −13 dBm/MHz. We find that adoption of these alternative OOBE requirements across the C-band will promote ongoing coexistence with post-retrofit radio altimeters without any additional measures in place.

70.
Mobile and Portable Out-of-Band Emissions.
As proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we adopt a mobile and portable OOBE limit that is consistent with the service rules adopted for the Lower C-band. Commenters that addressed this proposal generally support its extension to new operations in the Upper C-band. As noted by CTIA, this is a well-established limit that we have previously found to be “widely accepted as being adequate for reducing unwanted emissions into adjacent bands.” Specifically, we will require mobile and portable units to suppress their conducted emissions to no more than −13 dBm/MHz outside their authorized frequency band,
i.e.,
at the authorized channel edge as measured at the antenna terminals. We also adopt the same measurement procedure as we adopted for the Lower C-band where a narrower resolution bandwidth can be used to measure the OOBE limits in the spectrum immediately adjacent to the channel edge. For emissions within 1 megahertz from the channel edge, the minimum resolution bandwidth would be either one percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter or 350 kilohertz. In the bands between one and five megahertz removed from the licensee's authorized frequency block, the minimum resolution bandwidth would be 500 kilohertz. We find that this approach will promote consistency between mobile 5G deployments in C-band as well as various other bands and will not increase the potential for OOBE to cause harmful interference.

71.
Other OOBE Limit Issues.
We adopt our proposal to otherwise model our approach to OOBE issues based on that used in the Lower C-band transition, subject to the OOBE emissions limits adopted herein. No commenting party opposes this approach. In specific, we extend § 27.53(i) to the Upper C-band, which provides that the Commission may, in its discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in the rules if an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes harmful interference. We find that this approach will further harmonize wireless operations across the entire C-band.

c. Antenna Height Limits

72. Based on the record received in response to the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we adopt an antenna height limit for 3.98-4.14 GHz wireless operations of no greater than 450 feet above ground level. In order to foster coexistence between radio altimeters operating at 4.2-4.4 GHz and terrestrial wireless operations in the Upper C-band, aviation and wireless industry stakeholders submitted a number of filings to the record explaining that they have reached a cross-industry consensus on this antenna height limit for such wireless operations. No commenting party opposes this consensus limit. We therefore depart from the Commission's proposal not to impose restrictions on antenna heights for Upper C-band operations. Rather, we find that an antenna height limit of 450 feet above ground level for Upper C-band wireless operations is reasonable, supported by the record before us, and in the public interest.

d. Service Area Boundary Limit

73. As proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we adopt the −76 dBm/m
2
/MHz power flux density (PFD) limit at a height of 1.5 meters above ground at the border of the licensees' service area boundaries. We also permit licensees operating in adjacent geographic areas to voluntarily agree to higher levels at their common boundaries. Commenters that addressed these proposals,

including AT&T, CTIA, Ericsson, and Verizon, support the −76 dBm/m
2
/MHz PFD limit in this context given that it currently applies to operations in both the Lower C-band and Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service bands. Commenters further indicate that it is sufficient to protect geographically adjacent licensees from co-channel interference in the Upper C-band as well. We agree and also note that this metric is straightforward to calculate or measure and also scales with channel bandwidth to provide licensees flexibility for demonstrating compliance.

e. International Boundary Requirements

74. We adopt our proposal to apply § 27.57(c) of our rules, which requires all part 27 operations—including those in the Lower C-band—to comply with international agreements for operations near the Mexican and Canadian borders. Commenters that specifically address this proposal support its extension to new operations in the Upper C-band. We concur, recognizing that under this provision, new operations in the Upper C-band must not cause harmful interference across the border, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in force. We note that modification of the existing rules might be necessary in order to comply with any future agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of any subject bands.

f. Other Part 27 Rules

75. As proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we will apply several additional technical rules that are currently applicable to all part 27 services, including § 27.51 (Equipment authorization) and part 1, subpart BB of the Commission's rules (Disturbance of AM Broadcast Station Antenna Patterns), for new terrestrial wireless operations in the Upper C-band. We find that these rules implement important safeguards for all wireless services to ensure that devices meet RF safety limits, minimize the potential for causing harmful interference to other operations, and create consistency with the Lower C-band. Commenters that addressed this issue support this approach.

76. As the Commission has done for other part 27 services since 2014, we also require that new client devices be capable of operating across the entire C-band. Specifically, we extend § 27.75 to include 3.98-4.14 GHz, which requires mobile and portable stations operating in certain AWS-3 bands, the 600 MHz band, the Lower C-band, and 3.45 GHz band to be capable of operating across each relevant band using the same air interfaces that the equipment uses on any frequency in the relevant band. This requirement does not require licensees to use any particular industry standard. The record in response to the
Upper C-band NPRM
supports this approach, with the proviso that Lower C-band mobile and portable stations that cannot be upgraded to operate in the 3.98-4.14 GHz band are grandfathered. We agree that this requirement will be prospective in nature, and that Lower C-band mobile and portable stations that have received equipment authorization prior to December 31, 2030, but that cannot be upgraded to operate in the 3.98-4.14 GHz band will be permitted to remain in service for the remainder of their useful life without a requirement to operate in the 3.98-4.14 GHz band. Thus, starting December 31, 2030, all new mobile and portable stations (other than pre-December 31, 2030, devices that cannot be upgraded) must be interoperable across the entire band. Although the deadline is December 31, 2030, interoperable equipment will be eligible for equipment authorization as of the effective date of these rules.

g. Protection of Incumbent FSS Earth Stations

77. As proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
for post-transition FSS operations that remain in 4.16-4.2 GHz, we will incorporate and extend the incumbent protection measures that govern terrestrial wireless operations in the Lower C-band to new terrestrial wireless operations in the Upper C-band. Commenters that address this proposal support it. Therefore, to protect incumbent earth stations from out-of-band emissions, we require that all emissions from fixed stations, base stations, and mobile and portable stations operating in the C-band comply with a PFD limit of −124 dBW/m
2
/MHz in 4.16-4.2 GHz, as measured at the incumbent earth station antenna. In order to protect incumbent earth stations from receiver blocking, we will also extend the PFD limit of −16 dBW/m
2
/MHz to emissions within 3.98-4.14 GHz, as measured at the incumbent earth station antenna. Once the instant transition is complete, all remaining incumbent earth stations will operate above 4.16 GHz, and we will allow full band/full arc use of their authorized band of operation.

h. Protection of TT&C Earth Stations

78. Based on the record received in response to the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we adopt our proposals to maintain and apply existing co-channel and adjacent channel protection measures to safeguard existing Telemetry, Tracking, and Command (TT&C) operations throughout the C-band. During the Lower C-band transition, incumbent space station operators were required to identify and consolidate their TT&C operations within the contiguous United States by December 5, 2021, and the Commission determined that it would not authorize any new TT&C operations elsewhere in the contiguous United States, except to facilitate that consolidation. TT&C operations are protected at the consolidated locations until December 5, 2030; after that date TT&C operations may continue in the C-band on an unprotected basis until the satellites they are communicating with cease operation. The Commission also authorized negotiated agreements for longer operation and private negotiation of TT&C sites between TT&C station operators and new terrestrial wireless licensees, either to permit early entry of wireless operations or to prolong TT&C operations in instances where these operations are designed to coexist. Earth stations located at the consolidated TT&C sites are also allowed to use the 3.7-4.0 GHz band for international gateway and other purposes on an unprotected basis until 2030, or longer if agreements can be negotiated with terrestrial wireless operators, so long as they do not cause harmful interference to terrestrial deployments in the band.

79. The record received in response to the
Upper C-band NPRM
reflects ongoing support for the existing TT&C protection measures at the consolidated locations until December 5, 2030, which will remain in place until that time, and does not identify any additional TT&C sites that are active in the Upper C-band. Several parties nonetheless advocate for the Commission to adopt new safeguards for unprotected fixed earth stations at the designated TT&C locations, non-TT&C gateways, and teleports in other locations, or to extend TT&C protections beyond 2030. Based on the record before us, we see no reason to modify the Commission's earlier decisions with respect to unprotected gateway and other fixed earth stations at the consolidated TT&C sites, particularly given their remote locations, or to extend the TT&C protection timeline, and accordingly we find once again that coordination and negotiation between the relevant FSS operators and wireless licensees on this issue best serves the public interest for potential operations beyond the 2030 timeframe. We also decline to adopt new protections for teleport or gateway sites in locations apart from the consolidated TT&C locations, which

would disrupt existing and future wireless deployments and run counter to the Commission's earlier decision to consolidate TT&C sites and limit protections to those necessary to facilitate the Lower C-band transition.

80.
Co-channel Protection Criteria.
As proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we will maintain and apply the existing co-channel protection criteria to protect TT&C sites throughout the C-band. Commenters who address this proposal generally support it. Co-channel operations are defined as when any of the terrestrial licensee's authorized frequencies are separated from the center frequency of the TT&C earth stations by less than 150% of the maximum emission bandwidth in use by the TT&C operation. In the
2020 C-band R&O,
the Commission required that new terrestrial wireless licensees ensure that the aggregated power from their operations met an interference to noise ratio (I/N) of −6 dB as received by the TT&C earth station. The Commission also required new terrestrial wireless licensees to coordinate their co-channel operations with incumbent TT&C earth stations within a 70 km radius. Terrestrial wireless licensees with base stations located within the coordination distance must provide upon request an engineering analysis to the TT&C operator to demonstrate their ability to comply with the I/N requirement. The protection criteria only apply to the frequencies, bandwidths, and look angles in use at each TT&C site, not full band or full arc.

81.
Adjacent Channel Protection Criteria.
Consistent with the proposals in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we will also extend in this context the existing criteria to protect TT&C sites from adjacent channel interference due to out-of-band emissions. Specifically, aggregated power from adjacent terrestrial wireless operations must meet a −6 dB I/N ratio, and the limit will apply to all emissions removed from the TT&C earth station's center frequency by more than 150% of the TT&C's necessary emission bandwidth. In addition, while new terrestrial wireless licensees and TT&C earth station operators need not engage in prior coordination, they are expected to cooperate in good faith and make reasonable efforts to anticipate and resolve technical problems that may inhibit effective and efficient use of the spectrum. TT&C earth station operators are also expected to make available pertinent technical information about their systems upon request by new terrestrial wireless licensees, and licensees of stations suffering or causing harmful interference are expected to cooperate and resolve the problem by mutually satisfactory arrangements.

82. In addition, as proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we require a PFD limit of −16 dBW/m
2
/MHz, as measured at the TT&C earth station antenna, to protect against potential receiver overload. This blocking limit applies to all emissions within the new terrestrial wireless licensee's authorized band of operation. All TT&C earth stations will be protected based on the assumption that robust filters have been installed at the facilities, like other incumbent FSS earth stations. TT&C filter quality must provide a minimum of 60 dB of rejection, and the frequency at which the filter must meet this 60 dB of rejection will vary with the bandwidth. TT&C filters must meet 60 dB of rejection for all frequencies removed from the center frequency by more than 150% of the TT&C's emission bandwidth, both above and below the channel, and the filter must provide 70 dB of rejection for all frequencies removed from the TT&C's center frequency by more than 250% of the TT&C's emission bandwidth, both above and below the channel. In the event of a claim of harmful interference, the earth station operator must demonstrate that they have installed a filter that complies with the mask described above, and if they have not installed such a filter or are unable to make such a demonstration, and the new terrestrial wireless licensee can confirm it meets the PFD, the TT&C operator would have to accept the interference.

i. Other Matters

83. In the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we noted earlier comments filed by NTIA detailing radio astronomy sites that conduct observations in the C-band. These radio astronomy sites carry out their observations on an opportunistic basis (
i.e.,
with no primary allocation); they therefore enjoy no protection from harmful interference. We nevertheless observe that certain coordination processes do presently apply to new or modified fixed stations within the National Radio Quiet Zone, which is home to some radio astronomy operations. Several commenters characterize other radio astronomy sites as small in number and situated in remote locations where their isolation mitigates interference. As such, we decline to adopt formal protections or coordination procedures designed to protect radio astronomy service operations.

C. The Transition of FSS Operations

84. Consistent with our long-standing precedent, and as proposed in the
Upper C-band NPRM,
we will again use our
Emerging Technologies
framework to facilitate the swift transition of an additional 160 megahertz of spectrum for terrestrial wireless use in the contiguous United States in furtherance of the OBBB Act's mandate. While we broadly model the forthcoming transition of incumbent FSS operations in 4.0-4.16 GHz on the framework used in the
2020 C-band R&O,
we also refine and tailor our approach based on input from stakeholders that were involved in the Lower C-band transition, as well as the specific Upper C-band transition proposals advanced in the instant record.

1. Definition of Incumbent FSS Operations

85. In order to promote a timely and efficient transition process, we adopt our proposals in the
Upper C-band NPRM
to employ the same definitions used in the
2020 C-band R&O
to establish the scope of incumbent FSS space station and earth station operations for the Upper C-band transition. The relevant classes of incumbents will be eligible for reimbursement of their reasonable and necessary FSS C-band transition costs consistent with our
Emerging Technologies
precedent, as well as interference protection for those incumbent earth stations that remain in the Upper C-band. Identification of these incumbent FSS operations is once again intended to provide clarity about the transition process and inform auction bidders about the costs they will incur as a condition of their license. While we recognize that certain commenters seek a broader interpretation of incumbency, we find such an expansion to be unnecessary given we are mirroring the Lower C-band transition, in which eligible space station operators led the process, and the result was an efficient and effective transition.

86.
Incumbent Space Station Operators.
As a general matter, for purposes of the Upper C-band transition, we proposed to use the same baseline definition of incumbent space station operators as for the Lower C-band, while accounting for any changes in the legal or operational status of those entities in the intervening time period. The Commission determined in the Lower C-band context that “incumbent space station operators” whose authorizations would be impacted generally include all space station

operators authorized to provide C-band service to any part of the contiguous United States pursuant to a Commission-issued license or grant of market access as of June 21, 2018. That was the date on which certain new space station applications in the C-band were frozen to preserve the landscape of authorized operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Today, the remaining entities that qualify under this definition are: Empresa, Eutelsat, Hispasat, SES, and Telesat.

87. More specifically for transition cost reimbursement purposes, the
Upper C-band NPRM
sought comment on repurposing the Lower C-band definition of an “eligible space station operator” as an incumbent space station operator that has demonstrated as of February 1, 2020, that it has an existing relationship to provide service via C-band satellite transmission to one or more incumbent earth stations in the contiguous United States. Today, the remaining entities that qualify under this definition and continue to provide service to one or more incumbent earth stations within the contiguous United States are: Eutelsat, SES, and Telesat. In light of record support, we adopt our proposed repurposing of the Lower C-band definitions for incumbent and eligible space station operators in the instant context.

88.
Incumbent Earth Stations.
The
Upper C-band NPRM
also sought to employ the earlier Lower C-band definition of incumbent earth stations, using the most recently released incumbent earth station list from the Lower C-band transition as the baseline going forward. The Commission previously defined “incumbent earth stations” in the Lower C-band context to include fixed and temporary fixed earth stations that were operational as of April 19, 2018, and that: (1) continue to be operational; (2) were licensed or registered in the IBFS (now ICFS) database on November 7, 2018; and (3) timely certified the accuracy of the information on file with the Commission by May 28, 2019. As with space stations, a freeze on the filing of new or modified earth station applications throughout the entire C-band was issued on April 19, 2018—the qualifying date for incumbency—and the freeze remains in place. During and subsequent to the Lower C-band transition, Commission staff periodically updated its list of incumbent earth stations found to qualify under these criteria, the most recent of which was issued on November 19, 2025.

89. Although the vast majority of earth station operators successfully registered with the Commission and satisfied our requirements to qualify as eligible incumbents for purposes of the Lower C-band transition, some earth station operators, whose C-band earth stations are unregistered or were otherwise previously found ineligible as incumbents for Lower C-band purposes, seek a lift of the freeze or other relief to qualify those facilities as incumbents for the Upper C-band transition. In addition, other earth station operators seek incumbent status for earth stations that have been expanded or relocated since the Lower C-band transition. On balance, however, we find that the public interest benefits of continuity and administrative efficiency that result from restarting where the Lower C-band transition left off in terms of the relevant scope of incumbent earth stations outweighs any potential change in course at this point in time. Both before and after the Lower C-band proceeding, the Commission's process for establishing incumbency and determining the list of incumbent earth stations—including providing notice to interested parties, establishing (and later, extending) the filing window to register, providing opportunity to review and correct the preliminary list with more than 17,000 entries, and resolving waiver requests—was a lengthy process that involved significant Commission resources. We find that reopening the list of eligible earth stations is inconsistent with our statutory requirement to complete an Upper C-band auction less than a year from today and the myriad procedural steps that will be needed to give potential bidders in the forthcoming auction short-term clarity about the costs they will incur as a condition of their licenses pursuant to our
Emerging Technologies
precedent. In a similar vein, we also recognize that the three eligible space station operators involved in the Upper C-transition need to quickly ascertain the scale and scope of any required work in order to finalize their Transition Plans. This certainty can be most rapidly achieved by repurposing the Lower C-band definitional standard and incumbent earth station list for Upper C-band purposes, as any reopening of incumbent earth station eligibility would take time to adjudicate, and thus inject uncertainty into the auction and transition planning process.

90. With this goal in mind, we reiterate our earlier finding in the
2020 C-band R&O
that “[e]arth station operators [were] provided ample opportunity to register their earth stations with the Commission.” Ineligible earth station operators that filed petitions for reconsideration and/or sought waivers in light of their specific circumstances had those matters addressed on the merits during the Lower C-band transition. Further, with a freeze continuously in place since 2018 on the filing of new or modified earth station applications, any operators opting to deploy new C-band earth stations since that time were on notice of: (1) the evolving environment in the band; and (2) that any deployments at that time came with risk and no present ability to register their facilities with the Commission, which in turn meant no expectation of incumbent rights. In the
Upper C-band NPRM,
Commission specifically noted the freeze remains in place, reemphasizing an intent to preserve the stability of the spectral environment. Reopening these issues years later would unsettle longstanding expectations and introduce cost and schedule uncertainty to the detriment of prospective bidders. We therefore adopt our proposal to utilize the Lower C-band incumbent earth station operator definition in the Upper C-band transition, with the most recently released incumbent earth station list from the Lower C-band transition serving as the baseline going forward. We will also maintain the earth station application freeze throughout the Upper C-band transition in order to maintain a stable spectrum environment.

2. Clearing FSS Operations in the Upper C-band

91. At the outset, we reiterate that the OBBB Act directs the Commission to grant licenses through a system of competitive bidding for “at least” 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band, which requires repurposing and clearing that baseline amount, at a minimum. The statutory language also reflects Congress' intent for the Commission to explore transitioning spectrum above and beyond that floor. And by requiring an auction of the Upper C-band, in full awareness of the record-breaking Lower C-band auction that occurred years earlier, congressional action is best understood as ratifying the nature and types of regulatory mechanisms the Commission employed to clear the band and remunerate affected parties following the Lower C-band auction. As detailed
supra,
we find that repurposing 160 megahertz for terrestrial wireless use, plus a 20 megahertz guard band, best serves our Congressional mandate, the public interest, and our policy goals. Consistent with the
Upper C-band NPRM,
the
2020 C-band R&O,
and transition proposals advanced by

incumbent space station operators representing the vast majority of existing FSS C-band operations, we therefore exercise our authority under section 316 of the Act to propose to modify, as needed, the existing licenses, market access authorizations, and registrations currently held by FSS C-band incumbents to clear 4.0-4.16 GHz. Below we detail our exercise of this authority, and address arguments relevant to existing FSS C-band incumbents' continued ability to provide substantially the same service during and after the transition.

a. Clearing Space Station Operations

92. Pursuant to our authority under section 316 of the Act, we hereby modify the authorizations of all C-band incumbent space station operators to limit FSS operations to 4.16-4.2 GHz in the contiguous United States. This includes the authorizations of all FSS C-band incumbent space station operators as defined
supra,
including but not limited to the eligible space station operators. Section 316 vests the Commission with broad authority to modify licenses “if in the judgement of the Commission such action will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” We find that modifying the authorizations of all C-band incumbent space station operators to clear 4.0-4.16 GHz and confining any remaining FSS C-band operations to 4.16-4.2 GHz within the contiguous United States is within the Commission's statutory authority, is consistent with prior Commission practice, and will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity. As in the Lower C-band context, we recognize that space-to-Earth transmissions from space station operators directed to locations outside of the contiguous United States and other countries may incidentally transmit to earth stations in the contiguous United States. These incidental transmissions will be allowed as they present no risk of harmful interference to terrestrial wireless operations.

93. As noted in the
2020 C-band R&O,
the Commission has long relied on section 316 to change or reduce the frequencies used by a licensed service where it has found that doing so would be in the public interest. The Commission has also relied on its section 316 authority to “rearrang[e] licenses within a spectrum band.” And as part of the
Spectrum Frontiers
incentive auction, the Commission modified the authorizations of incumbent licensees by altering their assigned frequencies and, in many cases, their geographic service areas, in a way that ensured that the spectrum usage rights under the modified licenses were comparable to those under originally configured licenses.

94. Further, the Commission's modification authority under section 316 does not require the consent of licensees. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has stressed, “if modification of licenses were entirely dependent upon the wishes of existing licensees, a large part of the regulatory power of the Commission would be nullified.” Indeed, that court has reiterated that Congress broadened the Commission discretion by adding section 316, which “provides the FCC with the authority to modify licenses without the approval of their holders.” Rather, the Commission need only find, as we do here, that the modification “serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Further, the courts have consistently held that the Commission may exercise its license modification authority as part of a rulemaking proceeding, as we do here.

95. Commenters responding to the
Upper C-band NPRM
generally acknowledge the applicability of this framework, although they differ on what constitutes a permissible modification of incumbent space station operations in the current context. For example, SES and Eutelsat both anticipate that, as in the Lower C-band, transitions associated with reasonable relocation cost reimbursement and an appropriate incentive structure, which together enable them to maintain substantially the same service both during and after the transition, would align with the Commission's modification authority under section 316. They also acknowledge that clearing 160 megahertz would allow them to maintain one C-band transponder for critical services, and they indicate that they can otherwise provide their customers with substantially the same service by migrating them to a hybrid solution that, in part, uses the Ku-band, notwithstanding the Ku-band's greater susceptibility to rain fade. In keeping with the Lower C-band transition, both eligible space station operators who have commented seek to design and lead service transition efforts for their own and their customers' operations with a view towards addressing the additional complexities present with a potential migration of some services or links to the Ku-band.

96. SES and Eutelsat both specify that they will need to coordinate closely with customers to provide continuity of substantially the same service. SES proposes a number of specific measures designed to ensure that any future services or links in the Ku-band would be substantially the same as existing ones in the C-band, such as: (1) the procurement and launch of new satellites to provide sufficient Ku-band downlink capacity that ensures similar link availability; (2) having optimized Ku-band beam designs in which the beam power can be concentrated; (3) cross-strapping the Ku-band downlink (11.7-12.2 GHz) with existing C-band uplink (5850-6425 MHz) to minimize the impact of rain fade on the uplink; (4) retrofitting existing C-band antennas with Ku-band feeds for added gain; and (5) implementation of a terrestrial recovery network to fill in lost packets due to any sort of fade or interference. Eutelsat similarly points to Ku-band satellite acquisition and launch, alternative terrestrial distribution technologies, and the reconfiguration of ground-based infrastructure, as elements it proposes to use in meeting the needs of its existing customers.

97. By contrast, media interests emphasize the ongoing use of FSS C-band services provided by the eligible space station operators for programming contribution and distribution, and raise concerns about the potential impacts on those operations as a result of any comprehensive reconfiguration of the Upper C-band. Content providers, broadcasters, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), and other downstream customers of the eligible space station operators note Ku-band satellite coverage and differences in rain fade susceptibility, along with recent changes in the applicable Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits, as diminishing the Ku-band's suitability as an alternative to existing FSS C-band satellite services, which they characterize as extremely reliable and affording a high quality of service. As such, some members of the media sector argue that any migration of existing FSS C-band services to the Ku-band is unlikely to result in “substantially the same service” and thus constitutes an impermissible fundamental license change.

98. We concur with SES and Eutelsat and find that an appropriately structured transition of existing FSS C-band services is achievable in the instant context to enable the eligible space station operators to continue providing “substantially the same” service during and after the transition. As set forth
infra,
we establish an FSS transition cost reimbursement program modeled on that from the Lower C-band transition to ensure that all reasonable and necessary steps to relocate existing FSS C-band operations from 4.0-4.16

GHz in the contiguous United States will be compensated for, in addition to setting forth an appropriate incentive structure in recognition of the eligible space station operators' role developing and managing comprehensive Transition Plans for the services used by their customers. SES and Eutelsat—the eligible space station operators responsible for the vast majority of existing FSS C-band operations—have also both indicated that with sufficient reserved capacity in the Upper C-band for essential services they will be able to offer their customer base “substantially the same” service both for repacked services in the C-band and migrated services and/or links in the Ku-band post-transition. To that end, and as proposed by SES, our reallocation of 160 megahertz for terrestrial wireless services will allow for the possibility of maintaining a residual transponder of FSS C-band service for each eligible space station operator.

99. While we acknowledge the concerns raised by various segments of the media industry about the potential migration to the Ku-band of many FSS services and links currently received in the C-band as part of a hybrid delivery approach, we ultimately disagree with the view that this proposed relocation would result in a fundamental license change. The relevant standard is “substantially the same” or “essentially the same,” not “exactly the same.” As such, post-transition services need only be comparable in nature to the pre-transition ones. While in the
2020 C-band R&O
we found that use of the upper 200 megahertz in the Upper C-band was sufficient to continue providing the same services previously provided over the entire 500 megahertz of C-band, that finding does not require us to follow precisely the same path based on present circumstances and the record before us today. Likewise, the D.C. Circuit's subsequent reference to the Commission's determination reflects its assessment that the Commission did not exceed its modification authority, given that it found essentially the same services could be delivered post-transition through different means. Contrary to the suggestion of some commenters, this does not mean that we must maintain 200 megahertz of C-band spectrum for FSS services (setting aside the congressional mandate that we reconfigure at least 100 megahertz). Indeed, since the
2020 C-band R&O
incumbent FSS uses of the C-band have continued to wane. While the record reflects that the media sector continues to make meaningful, albeit diminished, use of FSS C-band services today, we find that these same content acquisition and distribution services can be delivered through different means as proposed by the eligible space station operators, namely a hybrid delivery approach that involves C-band, Ku-band, and a terrestrial recovery network in certain locations. We make the same finding with respect to other FSS C-band data and communications services that eligible space station operators also provide.

100. A key element of this hybrid delivery approach, as proposed by the eligible space station operators, involves migrating some existing FSS C-band services and/or links to the Ku-band with a terrestrial recovery network in relevant locations to mitigate any packet loss due to rain fade or other outages. Commenters underscore the viability of such a hybrid delivery approach, and emphasize that in the aggregate it addresses limitations with each individual transmission technology. Specifically, in detailing the various measures it is proposing as part of its hybrid approach, including a supplemental terrestrial recovery network, SES concludes that it “will be able to mitigate the inherent differences between C-band and Ku-band spectrum and provide its media customers with substantially the same level of service in Ku-band as they enjoy today in the Upper C-band. Data provided by NAB confirms that the various measures advanced by SES to bolster any Ku-band downlinks can offset any technical differences from C-band downlinks, except in the locations most susceptible to rain fade, which we believe a terrestrial recovery network can otherwise address. Given the multiple technical measures proposed by the eligible space station operators in this hybrid delivery approach, including the potential retention of certain uplink services in the C-band and use of a terrestrial recovery network in specific locations, we believe that the risk of rain fade or other signal disruption historically attributed to Ku-band service alone will be sufficiently offset to constitute “substantially the same service” in comparison with those services currently delivered in the C-band. We reiterate that these services need only be substantially the same in nature to meet the requirements of section 316, and that the Commission's technical and licensing rules do not guarantee any particular quality of service standard.

101. In this context, we also address concerns raised by commenters with respect to recent changes in the EPFD limits applicable to the Ku-band for GSO links. The framework recently adopted by the Commission will ensure the protection of Ku-band systems by extending our time-tested good-faith coordination model that allows non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) and geostationary orbit (GSO) operators to negotiate for appropriate interference protections through voluntary, private agreements. As a backstop where coordination is not reached, the Commission adopted different metrics based on whether the GSO link uses Adaptive Coding and Modulation (ACM), among other protections. For video distribution satellite systems that typically do not employ ACM, we believe that the relevant interference-to-noise limit and the limitation on the absolute increase in link unavailability will address potential interference concerns, in addition to other measures that the GSOs could adopt, some of which have been identified by SES as part of its tentative transition proposal in the instant proceeding. We note that in developing more formal Transition Plans, the eligible space station operators also have the ability to plan for adequate spectrum to implement any necessary measures that may require additional spectrum, such as error detection and correction coding. We thus conclude that concerns about our recent EPFD changes with respect to the Ku-band are unavailing and will in no way diminish the Ku-band's suitability as part of a hybrid delivery system that will provide substantially the same service as existing FSS C-band service.

102. In sum, we find that modifying the authorizations of all incumbent space station operators to clear 4.0-4.16 GHz and confining their operations to 4.16-4.2 GHz in the contiguous United States is within the Commission's statutory authority, consistent with prior Commission practice, and will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity by enabling the reconfiguration of the Upper C-band for expanded terrestrial wireless use as required by the OBBB Act. We also determine that the potential migration of certain incumbent FSS C-band satellite operations to a hybrid delivery approach involving the Ku-band will meet the “substantially the same” standard for permissible license modifications under section 316 of the Act. As detailed
infra,
we also establish an FSS transition cost reimbursement regime and appropriate incentives for the eligible space station operators consistent with our
Emerging Technologies
framework to facilitate the clearing and relocation process.

b. Clearing Earth Station Operations

103. Our rationale for clearing incumbent earth station operations from the Upper C-band mirrors that relating to incumbent space station operations. However, we reiterate that earth station registrants are not Commission licensees and thus have neither “transmission” authority nor any corresponding licensed spectrum usage rights. On this basis, past regulatory actions involving receive-only earth stations has been based on our Title I ancillary authority as part of “other regulatory responsibilities to maximize effective use of satellite communications” over which the Commission has express Title III authority. The Commission utilized this authority in the
2020 C-band R&O
to modify the frequencies on which earth station registrations received interference protection to comply with the broader Lower C-band reconfiguration. We take similar action here to limit those frequencies with interference protection to 4.16-4.20 GHz.

104. While a relatively small subset of earth stations in the C-band today are licensed to operate on other frequencies, they have no licensed spectrum usage rights in 4.0-4.2 GHz. Notwithstanding those licenses to transmit in other frequency bands, we continue to believe we have ample authority to modify their authorizations and interference protection rights in the Upper C-band once incumbent satellite operations are modified consistent with section 316. As with our clearing of incumbent space station operations, this proposed modification does not effect a fundamental change because incumbent earth stations will continue to receive and provide similar service (whether in 4.16-4.2 GHz or, as proposed, in the Ku-band) as before the modification of their registration or license. We emphasize that we are not modifying the transmit licensed spectrum usage rights of these entities. While certain holders of these transmit-receive authorizations cite limited availability of the paired uplink spectrum at 5850-6425 MHz, those issues fall outside the scope of the instant proceeding.

3. Transition Schedule

105. Consistent with the approach taken in the
2020 C-band R&O,
we once again believe that a mix of carrots and sticks will best facilitate a rapid and predictable transition of incumbent FSS services in the Upper C-band, subject to certain modifications reflecting the instant transition's unique traits. We establish a Primary Transition Deadline of December 30, 2030, for the relocation of all incumbent FSS operations in the top 75 PEAs in the contiguous United States that will align with the FAA's first radio altimeter retrofit deadline. Our intent in aligning these two deadlines is to provide certainty to potential bidders in the forthcoming auction—and among them the eventual new Upper C-band terrestrial wireless licensees—of when they will be able to start operations across the full 160 megahertz of repurposed Upper C-band spectrum in markets representing approximately 70% of the United States population. To this end, we specify that Upper C-band terrestrial wireless operations may begin in those PEAs subject to the Primary Transition Deadline as of December 31, 2030. We also establish a Final Transition Deadline of June 30, 2031 for the entire 160 megahertz in all remaining PEAs in the contiguous United States. Terrestrial wireless operations may begin in PEAs subject to the Final Transition Deadline as of July 1, 2031 or once all eligible space station operators have had their Certifications of Completion for those PEAs validated and the associated incentive payments have been made by the Upper C-band wireless licensees, as discussed
infra.
We delegate broad authority to WTB to oversee this transition process, and take such measures as are necessary to ensure the timely and efficient transition of the Upper C-band.

106. From an incumbent FSS perspective, we note that both SES and Eutelsat have voluntarily indicated that, assuming cost reimbursement and an appropriate incentive structure, they will be able to clear all of their existing Upper C-band operations in the relevant markets by those dates. Specifically, SES believes it can clear all of its existing Upper C-band operations in accordance with this schedule while still providing substantially the same service. Eutelsat likewise indicates that it can migrate all 160 megahertz in a similar timeframe while meeting the needs of its customers. While we anticipate that the eligible space station operators will refine their planning and schedules through the formal Transition Plan process, we find that sufficient alignment exists in these projected timelines to establish these Transition Deadlines for purposes of the Upper C-band transition. We recognize that this differs from the structure employed in the Lower C-band transition, where the Commission established a final relocation deadline, and allowed eligible space station operators to elect to comply with two earlier accelerated relocation dates. On balance, we find that the circumstances present in the instant transition are sufficiently distinct from those in the Lower C-band that the complexity of that earlier transition structure and schedule is unnecessary. For example, in light of the FAA's parallel efforts to improve the performance of adjacent band radio altimeters, alignment between those efforts and the FSS transition is necessary to provide certainty to auction bidders on when wireless operations can commence in the Upper C-band. Further, we recognize that with fewer eligible space station operators remaining in the Upper C-band, a formal election process for acceleration is unnecessary given SES and Eutelsat's voluntary statements and could be counterproductive in setting a timely and predictable transition timeline. For these reasons, we will authorize new Upper C-band terrestrial wireless licensees to commence operations and provide service to the vast majority of

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2026-15598. Public record. Not legal advice.