# Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AE7-16575 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** August 29, 2007 - **Citation:** 72 FR 50000 ## Text FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 2 and 25 [IB Docket No. 06-123; FCC 07-76] Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission adopts processing and service rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). Specifically, the Commission adopts a first-come, first-served licensing procedure for the 17/24 GHz BSS, as well as various safeguards, reporting requirements, and licensee obligations. The Commission also adopts geographic service rules to require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii as discussed herein. In addition, the Commission establishes rules and requirements for orbital spacing, minimum antenna diameter, and antenna performance standards. Also, the Commission establishes limits for uplink and downlink power levels to minimize the possibility of harmful interference. Finally, the Commission stipulates criteria to facilitate sharing in the 24 GHz and 17 GHz bands. DATES: Effective September 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Kelly, (202) 418-7877, Satellite Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. For additional information concerning the information collection(s) contained in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (R&O) in IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76, adopted May 2, 2007 and released on May 4, 2007. The full text of the R&O is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com . Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the rules adopted in the R&O. The text of the FRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the R&O. The actions contained herein have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 at the initiation of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding, and we have previously received approval of the associated information collection requirements from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 3060-1097. The Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements OMB Control Number: 3060-1097. Title: Service Rules and Policies for the Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS). Form No.: Not Applicable. Type of Review: On-going collection. Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities. Number of Respondents: 4 respondents; 24 responses. Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours. Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements. Estimated Total Annual Burden: 240 hours. Estimated Total Annual Costs: $12,451,700.00. Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Not Applicable. Needs and Uses: The purpose of this information collection is to address the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements proposed in the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 06-90) to establish policies and service rules for the new Broadcasting Satellite Service under IB Docket No. 06-123. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes three new information collection requirements applicable to Broadcasting Satellite Service licensees: (1) Annual reporting requirement on status of space station construction and anticipated launch dates, (2) milestone schedules and (3) performance bonds that are posted within 30 days of the grant of the license. Without the information collected through the Commission's satellite licensing procedures, we would not be able to determine whether to permit applicants for satellite licenses to provide telecommunications services in the U.S. Therefore, we would be unable to fulfill our statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; as well as the obligations imposed on parties to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom Agreement. Summary of Report and Order 1. With this Report and Order (R&O), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts processing and service rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). Specifically, the Commission adopts a first-come, first-served licensing procedure for the 17/24 GHz BSS, as well as various safeguards, reporting requirements, and licensee obligations. The Commission also adopts geographic service rules to require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii as discussed herein. In addition, the Commission establishes rules and requirements for orbital spacing, minimum antenna diameter, and antenna performance standards. Also, the Commission establishes limits for uplink and downlink power levels to minimize the possibility of harmful interference. Finally, the Commission stipulates criteria to facilitate sharing in the 24 GHz and 17 GHz bands. 2. In June 2006, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) in this proceeding, which proposed processing and service rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS. Eight parties filed comments in response to the NPRM , and six parties filed reply comments. 3. As the Commission explained in the NPRM , the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) adopted an additional frequency allocation for BSS in Region 2. In 2000, the Commission implemented, in large part, the ITU Region 2 allocation for BSS domestically. The Commission recognized that although the allocation would not become effective for several years, its action would provide interested parties with sufficient notice and time to design their systems to use this spectrum in the most efficient manner. Specifically, the Commission adopted the following allocations and designations, which took effect on April 1, 2007: (1) Allocated the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, on a primary basis, to the BSS for downlink transmissions, recognizing that although the ITU Region 2 allocation apportioned the 17.3-17.8 GHz band for BSS use, the U.S. allocation would be limited to 17.3-17.7 GHz to retain spectrum at 17.7-17.8 GHz for the relocation of fixed service (FS) facilities which were being displaced as a result of the new BSS allocation; (2) allocated 300 megahertz of spectrum at 24.75-25.05 GHz on a primary basis for the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) (uplink) and limited FSS uplink operations in this band to BSS feeder links; and (3) allocated 200 megahertz of spectrum at 25.05-25.25 GHz for co-primary use between the 24 GHz Fixed Service, formerly known as Digital Electronic Messaging Service (DEMS), and BSS feeder links. The Commission's objective was to accommodate new satellite services while providing adequate spectrum for existing FS operations. 4. In the NPRM , the Commission proposed and sought comment on a variety of rules to facilitate the licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS space stations, and various obligations and requirements that will be applied to licensees. Also, the NPRM sought comment on technical rules designed to minimize interference and facilitate sharing in certain bands. The rules adopted in this Order establish licensing procedures and technical parameters that will enable prompt delivery of 17/24 GHz BSS satellite services to the public. 5. Four entities—DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. (DIRECTV), Pegasus Development DBS Corp. (Pegasus), EchoStar Satellite LLC (EchoStar), and Intelsat North America LLC (Intelsat)—have filed applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space station licenses. These applications represent a wide range of system designs and business plans, from complementing existing DBS services to providing a new suite of services which will include standard-definition and high-definition formats. We adopt in this Order a method for processing these applications and accommodating entry by other qualified applicants. 6. First-Come, First-Served Licensing Approach Adopted: In the NPRM , the Commission sought comment on the appropriate licensing approach to adopt for the 17/24 GHz BSS. The NPRM noted that, in the First Space Station Licensing Reform Order , the Commission adopted new licensing procedures for all satellite services except DBS and Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS). The Commission did not explain, however, whether 17/24 GHz BSS should be treated like DBS or other satellite services for purposes of processing applications. Thus, the NPRM sought comment on whether to process applications for the 17/24 GHz BSS space stations under the first-come, first-served licensing approach adopted in the First Space Station Licensing Reform Order for geostationary satellite orbit (GSO)-like space station applications. Under this approach, GSO-like satellite applications are processed on a first-come, first-served basis. Thus, the Commission will grant a GSO-like application provided the applicant is qualified and the proposed system is not technically incompatible with a previously-licensed satellite or with a satellite proposed in a previously-filed application. Alternatively, we asked whether some other licensing approach would be more appropriate. In this regard, the NPRM specifically sought comment as to whether, pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act, a competitive bidding system, or auction, could be designed to assign mutually exclusive applications for the use of this spectrum. The NPRM also sought comment on whether and how such an auction could be implemented consistent with the ORBIT Act, the D.C. Circuit's Northpoint ruling, and ITU procedures. 7. The majority of commenters maintain that the first-come, first-served licensing queue should be employed for processing applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. EchoStar, however, argues that 17/24 GHz BSS applications should not be processed under this approach, contending that this method does not result in the award of licenses to the applicant that is most able to put the spectrum to productive use. EchoStar believes that we should instead award 17/24 GHz BSS licenses by auction or by a processing round approach. To facilitate auctions, consistent with the ORBIT Act and the Northpoint ruling, EchoStar suggests that the Commission could limit 17/24 GHz BSS spectrum rights to the provision of domestic service if all competing applicants agree. Alternatively, EchoStar suggests that the Commission could require a percentage, such as 80%, of the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite's capacity be devoted to serving the United States. EchoStar further suggests that, if the Commission decides against an auctions approach, it should adopt a processing round procedure combined with strict financial requirements. No other commenters support the use of auctions or processing rounds. 8. We find that the first-come, first-served licensing approach is well-suited for processing applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. As noted in the NPRM , the proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations would provide services similar to those provided by the direct-to-home fixed satellite service (DTH FSS) satellites. We also note that all 17/24 GHz BSS applicants propose to operate GSO satellites. Because GSO satellites and constellations of non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) satellites cannot generally share the same spectrum, and because, as evidenced by the pending applications, GSO technology is better suited to providing DTH video services, we limit operations in the 17/24 GHz BSS to GSO satellites. The Commission licenses GSO satellites and most other satellite services on a first-come, first-served basis. As both Intelsat and DIRECTV point out, the first-come, first-served processing method has proven to be an efficient approach for licensing GSO satellites. Indeed, our experience has shown that this licensing method has allowed the Commission to dramatically reduce the length of time required to process GSO applications. Moreover, with its associated package of safeguards, the first-come, first-served approach has increased the probability that those awarded licenses actually construct and launch their satellite systems. As commenters have noted, prompt deployment in this band is particularly important in light of the fact that the 17/24 GHz BSS spectrum became available for use on April 1, 2007. In addition, the first-come, first-served licensing approach works well in conjunction with the ITU processes for unplanned bands, such as this one. 9. We disagree with EchoStar that the first-come, first-served approach is legally unsound or that such an approach will be more likely to result in spectrum warehousing, speculation, and gamesmanship. To the contrary, as mentioned, this approach has reduced the number of speculative applications. Further, we have previously addressed the Commission's legal authority to adopt a first-come, first-served procedure. EchoStar has not provided any basis for revisiting that issue here. 10. We also are not persuaded that EchoStar's comments warrant a conclusion in this instance that a competitive bidding system would best serve the public interest. Although auctions have proven to be an efficient means of assigning licenses for scarce spectrum resources to those parties that are able to use these resources efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the public, we conclude that restricting the provision of international service solely to remove 17/24 GHz BSS from the auction prohibition of the ORBIT Act is not in the public interest. We are concerned that such a restriction would likely interfere with applicants' business plans and would thus be an impediment to the efficient deployment of service to consumers. Indeed, as Intelsat notes, three current applicants, including EchoStar, propose to provide international service. Thus, the record does not support agreement by competing applicants to provide 17/24 GHz BSS domestic service only. Further, such restrictions could put U.S.-licensed operators at a competitive disadvantage to foreign-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS systems, which are not similarly restricted in their own domestic markets. For these reasons, we will not award licenses for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations by auction. 11. Further, we are not persuaded by EchoStar's proposal to adopt a processing round procedure. Prior to the adoption of the First Space Station Licensing Reform Order in 2003, we employed a processing round procedure in licensing GSO-like applications. Under this procedure, it normally took several years to issue satellite licenses, in one case nearly four years. Eliminating this regulatory delay was one of our primary motives in adopting the first-come, first served approach. Since the first-come, first-served approach has been adopted, the average processing time for GSO-like applications has decreased drastically and the backlog of applications is at an all-time low. The first-come, first-served processing queue provides a workable framework for timely and prompt processing of applications in this band and thereby facilitates the provision of service to the public. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we will adopt the first-come, first-served procedure for processing 17/24 GHz BSS applications. 12. Space Station Reform Safeguards Adopted, Including Bonds, Milestones, and Limits on the Number of Pending Applications: In the NPRM , the Commission noted that the First Space Station Licensing Reform Order adopted a package of safeguards designed to discourage speculative applications and to ensure that licensees remain committed and able to proceed with system implementation in a timely manner. Applying these safeguards to the 17/24 GHz BSS would require licensees to post a $3 million bond with the Commission within 30 days of license grant and construct and launch the satellite consistent with the milestone schedule specified in § 25.164 of the Commission's rules. The bond becomes payable if a licensee fails to meet a milestone, rendering the license null and void. Further, GSO-like applicants are limited to a total of five pending applications and/or licensed but unlaunched satellites in a particular frequency band at any one time, and must submit substantially complete applications or face dismissal, and cannot sell their place in the processing queue. In the NPRM , the Commission requested comment on whether we should apply this package of safeguards if we decide to use the first-come, first-served processing approach for 17/24 GHz BSS. The Commission also sought comment on whether there are any public interest rationales for imposing a higher performance bond and/or tighter limits on the number of pending applications and licenses for unbuilt satellites that applicants for 17/24 GHz systems may have at any one time. 13. Commenters generally support applying the first-come, first-served approach safeguards to the 17/24 GHz BSS. Intelsat states that applying the bond requirement and milestone policies should be sufficient to deter speculative filings in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Intelsat also notes that prohibiting the sale of places in the queue will further deter speculative applications. DIRECTV also supports the application of the safeguards that apply to other GSO-like services, i.e. , milestones and performance bonds, to 17/24 GHz BSS systems. The Department of Telecommunications of the Government of Bermuda (Bermuda) notes that, although it does not support excessive reliance on the attainment of milestones nor the use of performance bonds for discouraging speculation, it supports the right of each administration to establish its own mechanisms to find a reasonable balance between commercial adventure and undue speculation. EchoStar raises concerns about the use of bonds and milestones to deter speculation and recommends reinstating the financial qualification rules applicable to FSS licensees prior to 2003. EchoStar contends that strict financial qualifications are needed because given the relatively limited number of orbital locations for operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS, the bond and milestone requirements are not enough to protect against speculation and could still result in an orbital location remaining fallow for several years. 14. We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to apply the safeguards in place under the first-come, first-serve licensing approach to the 17/24 GHz BSS. Contrary to EchoStar's assertions, our experience with these safeguards has shown them to be an effective measure for discouraging speculative applications. Indeed, the Commission adopted the bond requirement because the financial qualification requirements it had been using—and which EchoStar asks us to reinstate—did not accurately reflect whether a licensee would proceed with construction and launch of its space station. The Commission found requiring a surety company to assess the risk that a licensee would default on a bond would provide a more accurate market-driven determination of a licensee's ability to proceed than would a regulatory determination. EchoStar has not provided any evidence to support its assertion that the previously-used financial standard was more effective. Consequently, we will not adopt EchoStar's proposal. Further, the record does not support more stringent bond requirements or different limits on the number of pending applications/unbuilt satellites for the 17/24 GHz BSS. Thus, we will apply the requirements in place for other GSO-like applicants to 17/24 GHz BSS applicants. 15. Accordingly, we will apply the same safeguards in place for other GSO-like bands to the 17/24 GHz BSS. These safeguards include requiring licensees to post a $3 million bond with the Commission within 30 days of license grant; to construct and launch satellite system(s) consistent with the milestone schedule for GSO satellites; to limit to five, the number of pending applications and/or licenses for unbuilt satellites in this band at any one time; and to file substantially complete applications. The safeguards also prohibit applicants from selling their places in the queue. 16. With respect to the “substantially complete” requirement, we require applications to be complete in substance, and to provide all the information required in the application form. Furthermore, applications must not be defective under the Commission's rules, meaning that the applications must be complete with respect to answers to questions and informational showings, and must be free of internal inconsistencies. To be substantially complete, a 17/24 GHz BSS satellite application must include a complete Form 312 and Schedule S, and all the information requested in § 25.114(d) of the Commission's rules. As amended in Appendix B of this Order, § 25.114(d) requires 17/24 GHz BSS satellite applicants to show that the proposed satellite will be able to function in a four-degree spacing environment. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that they comply with the pfd limits in new § 25.208(w), or, if they do not, to demonstrate how they will affect adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks, and that the operators of those networks agree to the applicant's proposed operations. Applicants whose proposed orbital locations are offset from the 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations listed in Appendix F will be required to show that they do not cause more interference than if they operated at an exact location listed in Appendix F, and that their satellite network's performance objectives will be met assuming that adjacent operators are operating at the maximum allowed power flux density levels. 17. DISCO II Market Access Standard Adopted: The Commission's DISCO II Order implemented the market-opening commitments made by the United States in the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Service (“WTO Basic Telecom Agreement”). In particular, the DISCO II Order established a framework under which the Commission will consider requests for non-U.S.-licensed space stations to serve the United States. This analysis considers the effect on competition in the United States, eligibility and operating requirements, spectrum availability, and national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns. 18. Under DISCO II, the Commission evaluates the effect of foreign entry on competition in the United States in one of two ways. First, in cases where the non-U.S.-licensed space station is licensed by a country that is a member of the WTO and will provide services covered by the U.S. commitments under the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement, the Commission presumes that entry will further competition in the United States. The U.S. commitments include Mobile-Satellite Services (MSS) and many fixed-satellite services, but specifically exclude DTH, DBS, and DARS. In contrast, the Commission conducts an “ECO-Sat” analysis for non-U.S.-licensed space stations licensed by countries that are not WTO members and where the foreign operator, regardless of its licensing country's WTO status, proposes to provide a non-covered service. Under this analysis, applicants seeking to access a foreign space station must provide an analysis as part of their application demonstrating that U.S.-licensed space stations have effective competitive opportunities to provide analogous services in the country in which the space station is licensed (“home” market) and in all countries in which communications with the U.S. earth station will originate or terminate (“route” markets). In particular, the Commission examines whether there are any de jure or de facto barriers to entry in the foreign country for the provision of analogous services and whether any such barriers cause competitive distortions in the U.S. market. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to apply this framework to non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite operators seeking to access the U.S. market. 19. With respect to eligibility requirements, the Commission also proposed, in the NPRM, to extend to 17/24 GHz BSS operators the DISCO II policy that requires foreign-licensed space stations and operators to meet the same legal, technical, and financial requirements that we require U.S. applicants to meet. These include any requirements adopted in this proceeding, such as bond requirements, milestone requirements, geographic service requirements, public interest obligations, and spacecraft end-of-life disposal requirements. 20. Further, as in other satellite services, the Commission also proposed to require entities requesting authority to serve the U.S. market from a non-U.S. satellite to provide the same information concerning the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite as U.S. applicants must provide when applying for a space station license. This allows us to determine whether the foreign-licensed satellite complies with all Commission technical and service requirements, and whether it may cause interference to satellites providing authorized services to U.S. customers. 21. The commenters generally support this approach. EchoStar and SES Americom suggest that we should strictly enforce the ECO-Sat test because it allows us to ensure that U.S.-licensed operators have the same opportunity to provide 17/24 GHz BSS services to foreign countries as the satellites licensed by foreign countries have to serve the United States. In contrast, however, Bermuda notes that consumers would benefit if there was an increased presumption in all cases that entry to the market will further competition. 22. We adopt the Commission's proposal in the NPRM to evaluate the applications of non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite operators seeking to access the U.S. market under the DISCO II framework. Thus, our analysis will consider the effect on competition in the United States, eligibility and operating requirements, spectrum availability, and national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns. We note in particular that all applications seeking authority to provide DTH services from non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS operators to the U.S. market must include an ECO-Sat analysis. We will not eliminate this analysis in favor of a presumption that entry, in all cases, will further competition, as Bermuda suggests. The ECO-Sat analysis assures us that a foreign entrant will not have a competitive advantage over U.S.-licensed operators derived from their ability to serve countries and customers that U.S. operators may be precluded from serving. Bermuda has not explained why, or to what extent, the 17/24 GHz BSS is so different from other services that we need not be concerned about ensuring a level playing field among these systems. Further, any evaluation of whether to continue to apply the ECO-SAT analysis to non-covered services in general is beyond the scope of this proceeding. 23. Last, as with all other services, we require all 17/24 GHz BSS operators seeking authority to serve the U.S. market from a non-U.S. satellite to provide the same information concerning their proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations as U.S. applicants must provide when applying for a space station license. This includes filing FCC Form 312, information required in Schedule S, and all other information required by § 25.114 of the Commission's rules. In addition, all non-U.S-licensed satellite operators must meet the requirements adopted in this proceeding, including but not limited to bond requirements, milestone requirements, geographic service requirements, public interest obligations and spacecraft end-of-life disposal requirements. 24. Licensing at Co-Located 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS Orbital Locations: EchoStar argues that we should award licenses for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites that will be co-located with DBS satellites only to existing DBS licensees at those locations. According to EchoStar, this restriction would minimize the risk of harmful interference which will occur when 17/24 GHz BSS satellites are located at or near the same orbital locations as DBS satellites. SES Americom and Intelsat oppose this proposal, claiming that it is anti-competitive and would block new entrants from the 17/24 GHz BSS. 25. We agree with SES Americom and Intelsat. The effect of accepting EchoStar's argument would be an expansion of the authorizations of DBS licensees to include authority to operate in the 17/24 GHz BSS on the same channel and orbital location at which they are currently operating. We find that providing such rights to existing DBS licensees would hinder competition while conferring a benefit on existing DBS licensees. Further, we note that, in the FNPRM section of this document below, we invite comment on various methods for coordinating DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites when located near each other in the geostationary orbit, perhaps as close as 0.2° or 0.3° to each other. In light of this, we find that EchoStar's proposal to prohibit non-DBS operators from applying for 17/24 GHz BSS licenses at DBS orbital locations is not necessary to prevent harmful interference between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. 26. Fifteen-year and Eight-Year License Terms Adopted, Respectively, for Non-Broadcast and Broadcast 17/24 GHz Licensees: In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the license term it should apply to 17/24 GHz licenses. The Commission noted that § 25.121 of the Commission's rules provides that licenses for space stations will be issued for a period of 15 years, except licenses for DBS space stations. DBS space stations licensed as broadcast facilities are issued licenses for eight-year terms, and those DBS space stations not licensed as broadcast facilities have 10-year terms. The Communications Act provides for a maximum licensing term of eight years for broadcasting facilities and allows the Commission to determine license terms for particular classes of stations, including satellite space and earth stations. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt a 10-year license term for all non-broadcast 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. For 17/24 GHz BSS satellites that will operate as broadcast facilities, the Commission proposed an eight-year license term, as provided under section 307(c)(1) of the Communications Act. 27. DIRECTV, Intelsat, and Bermuda support a 15-year license term for 17/24 GHz systems. Bermuda states that most commercial satellites being planned or built today are intended for a service life-expectancy of longer than eight years, and notes that a 15-year term would also be consistent with international practices. 28. Pursuant to our statutory authority to implement license terms for different classes of space and earth stations, with the exception of DBS stations, we adopt a 15-year license term for all non-broadcast 17/24 GHz BSS licenses and an eight-year license term for 17/24 GHz BSS licensees operating as broadcasters. As noted by the parties, satellites being built today are intended for longer service life expectancy than in the past and should therefore be assigned a longer license term. A 15-year license term for non-broadcast 17/24 GHz BSS satellites accurately reflects the useful life of most GSO satellites today and therefore, we will extend the license terms applicable to other non-broadcast GSO-like licensees to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees. 29. Streamlined Procedures Adopted: While the Commission has consistently said that all orbital assignments confer no permanent rights of use to the licensee, it has recognized the importance of giving satellite operators some assurance that they will be able to continue to serve their customers from the same orbital location as older satellites are retired. The Commission has stated that, without this assurance, operators may be discouraged from investing the hundred of millions of dollars needed to construct, launch, and operate each satellite. Further, the Commission has said that without follow-on capacity at the same orbit location, customers could experience service disruptions. When an orbit location remains available for a U.S. satellite with the technical characteristics of the proposed replacement satellite, we will generally authorize the replacement satellite at the same location. 30. To facilitate grant of replacement satellites, the Commission has historically processed applications for replacement satellites as they are filed, rather than subjecting them to the procedures that otherwise govern applications for new satellites. Thus, Commission practice is to immediately consider an application for a replacement satellite—and grant it if the applicant is qualified—without subjecting the application to a “processing queue” or other procedure by which it considers other applications that may be mutually exclusive with the replacement satellite application. To further expedite replacement satellite licensing, the Commission considers unopposed replacement satellite applications with technical characteristics consistent with those of the satellite to be retired are processed under a grant-stamp procedure. In the NPRM, we proposed to treat replacement satellite applications in the 17/24 GHz BSS under these streamlined procedures. 31. DIRECTV and Intelsat support this proposal. Bermuda also supports a replacement policy that allows operators to replace “like with like,” i.e., replace a satellite after a premature in-orbit failure (such as caused by solar activity or manufacturing flaw) but cautions against abuses in the satellite replacement grant-stamp process. 32. In order to facilitate grant of 17/24 GHz BSS replacement satellite applications, we adopt the streamlined procedures applicable to the majority of the replacement satellite applications considered by the Commission. We have found that the grant-stamp procedure is an efficient method of processing replacement satellite applications and will apply this procedure to unopposed applications for replacement satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Further, the procedure contains mechanisms against abuse. We will place 17/24 GHz replacement applications on Public Notice, as we do with replacement satellite applications in other services. Thus, interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on all applications. We will address any concerns raised when processing the replacement application and will issue an Order, instead of a grant stamp, when appropriate. 33. Annual Reporting Requirements Adopted: In the NPRM, the Commission noted that most space station operators are subject to annual reporting requirements on June 30 of each year. These reports must include, among other things, the status of space station construction and anticipated launch dates. The Commission requested comment on whether we should require 17/24 GHz BSS U.S.-licensees and 17/24 GHz BSS non-U.S. operators that are authorized to access the United States to submit similar annual reports. 34. Bermuda and Intelsat support a reporting requirement, stating that annual reports can be useful for monitoring the progress of milestone compliance and helping to deter speculative applications. Bermuda adds that licensees should file reports regardless of whether they are U.S. operators or non-U.S. operators. Bermuda also states that requiring operators to report at intervals of less than one year would provide an increased opportunity to monitor progress. No party objects to a reporting requirement for 17/24 GHz BSS operators. 35. We adopt the Commission's proposal to require 17/24 GHz BSS U.S.-licensees and 17/24 GHz BSS non-U.S. operators that are authorized to access the United States to submit annual reports similar to the annual reports required of most FSS satellite operators to the Commission on June 30 of each year. We believe such reports, filed on an annual basis, will help keep us apprised of the status of the space station, both while it is being built and once it is in-orbit. We are not convinced that more frequent reporting is needed to achieve this objective. In addition to annual reports, licensees must file documentation that they have met various milestones at each milestone deadline. This provides the most timely way to monitor licensees' compliance with the milestone conditions in their licenses. We also note that the Commission may request at any time additional information if such request is warranted. 36. Operators should file their annual reports with the Commission's International Bureau and the Commission's Columbia Operations Center in Columbia, Maryland. Specifically, the annual reports must include: (1) Status of satellite construction and anticipated launch date, including any major problems or delays encountered; (2) a listing of any non-scheduled transponder outages for more than 30 minutes and the cause or causes of such outage; (3) a detailed description of the utilization made of each transponder on each of the in-orbit satellites, including the percentage of time that the system is actually used for U.S. domestic or transborder transmission, the amount of capacity (if any) sold but not in service within U.S. territorial geographic areas, and the amount of unused system capacity; and (4) identification of any transponder not available for service or otherwise not performing to specifications, the cause of these difficulties, and the date any space station was taken out of service or the malfunction identified. 37. NPRM Proposal Adopted: In the NPRM , the Commission proposed that applicants for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites should pay fees associated with the “Space Stations (Geostationary)” service in § 1.1107 of the Commission's rules. In addition, we proposed that applicants seeking authority to operate earth stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS should pay fees associated with the “Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations” in § 1.1107. There were no comments on our filing fee proposals and we adopt our fee proposals. 38. DBS and DTH Public Interest Obligations Adopted for 17/24 GHz BSS: § 25.701 of our rules requires DBS providers to comply with certain political broadcast requirements and children's television advertising limits, and to set aside four percent of channel capacity for noncommercial, educational or informational programming. The entities subject to § 25.701 include entities licensed to operate satellites in the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz DBS frequency bands; entities licensed pursuant to part 25 of the Commission's rules to provide FSS via the Ku-band, that sell or lease transponder capacity to a video program distributor that offers a specified number of DTH video channels to consumers; and non-U.S. licensed satellites providing DBS or DTH-FSS services in the United States. The NPRM proposed that, to the extent a 17/24 GHz BSS space station is used to provide video programming to consumers in the United States (DBS-like services), the licensee should be subject to the public interest obligations contained in § 25.701. We invited comment on this proposal. 39. Commenters generally support applying public interest requirements to the 17/24 GHz BSS. SES Americom, however, contends that such requirements should be imposed only on 17/24 GHz BSS licensees that distribute programming to end users, and not on 17/24 GHz BSS licensees that are strictly satellite operators with no programming control, because they are not in a position to comply with the obligations. In reply, EchoStar states that if public interest obligations are imposed on any 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, they should be imposed uniformly on all such licensees. DIRECTV also believes that public interest obligations should be imposed equally on all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, and states that the Commission has previously addressed and rejected SES Americom's arguments. 40. We find that the obligations imposed on DBS providers by § 25.701 should apply uniformly if the 17/24 GHz BSS space station is used to provide video services to consumers in the United States. SES Americom's argument that program distributors using satellite capacity should be ultimately responsible for fulfilling these obligations was specifically addressed and rejected by the Commission when it originally adopted the public interest rules and on reconsideration of those rules. We see no reason to adopt a different approach for operations in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Accordingly, we adopt the proposal to amend § 25.701 to apply to any 17/24 GHz BSS licensee, to the extent that the space station is used to provide video programming to consumers in the United States. 41. Although Media Access Project supports the Commission's proposal to impose public interest obligations on 17/24 GHz BSS licensees that provide DBS-like services, it argues that the Commission should increase the amount of programming that service providers in this band are required to reserve for non-commercial programming of an educational or informational nature. It argues that, given the expansion of spectrum capacity being offered to service providers in this proceeding, the Commission should require that licensees offer an accompanying increase in their public interest programming from the statutory minimum of four percent to the statutory maximum of seven percent. According to Media Access Project, the increase would provide value to the public in return for their use of the scarce public resources of spectrum and orbital locations. EchoStar argues that a public interest programming set-aside requirement of seven percent would be a disincentive to development of the 17/24 GHz BSS and would “significantly limit” the capacity available for sought-after services such as local-into-local television broadcast stations and high-definition programming. 42. To the extent that Media Access Project is arguing that the channel reservation requirement should be increased for all DBS providers, including those originally covered by § 25.701, that issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding. With respect to any argument that the reservation be increased for only licensees in the 17/24 GHz BSS, we find that this might prove detrimental to development of this band by placing greater burdens on these licensees than those operating in others bands. Thus, we require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to reserve four percent of their channel capacity, as defined in § 25.701, for use by qualified programmers for noncommercial programming of an educational or informational nature. See 47 CFR 25.701(c). 43. The NPRM also sought comment on whether licensees in the 17/24 GHz BSS qualify to use the compulsory copyright licenses granted under sections 119 and 122 of the Copyright Act and, if so, whether broadcast carriage requirements should apply. See 17 U.S.C. 119, 122. These statutory licenses permit satellite carriers, as defined in the Copyright Act, to provide television broadcast signals to their subscribers. Section 119 of the Copyright Act defines “satellite carrier” as an entity that uses a satellite operating in the FSS or DBS service for point-to-multipoint distribution of television signals. See 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(6). See also 47 U.S.C. 339. This section of the Copyright Act allows satellite carriers to offer distant broadcast signals under certain circumstances. Section 122 of the Copyright Act provides a license for local-into-local service and defines “satellite carrier” by reference to the definition in section 119. See 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(3). See also 47 U.S.C. 338. 44. Both DIRECTV and EchoStar, as well as NAB, support allowing 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to qualify to use the compulsory copyright licenses. DIRECTV asserts that while the 17/24 GHZ BSS service is not totally in either the DBS or FSS frequency bands, the uplink for this service is in a frequency band allocated to FSS and, therefore, the copyright license could be construed to cover 17/24 GHz BSS. Alternatively, DIRECTV asserts that the Commission could amend its definition of “DBS” to include use of the 17/24 GHz BSS downlink band. Although we will not offer an opinion on the appropriate construction of the Copyright Act, we believe that sections 338 and 339 of the Communications Act would apply to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees and that operators in this band, to the extent that they provide DBS-like service, qualify for use of the statutory copyright licenses. These licensees will provide point-to-multipoint service, in part using FSS frequencies, and thus they appear to come within the definition of a satellite carrier. Licensees availing themselves of the statutory copyright licenses must, of course, abide by the accompanying broadcast carriage requirements in the statute and in Commission rules, and, if they offer service to more than 5 million customers, must provide television broadcast signals to subscribers in Alaska and Hawaii. 45. EEO Requirements Adopted: The NPRM noted that § 25.601 of the Commission's rules requires an entity that owns or leases an FSS or DBS service facility to provide video programming directly to the public on a subscription basis to comply with the equal employment opportunity (EEO) requirements. These requirements are set forth in part 76 of the Commission's rules and apply if the entity exercises control over the video programming it distributes. We proposed to apply § 25.601 to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to the extent such licensees provide DBS-like services. In addition, we proposed to require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to comply with any other EEO requirements that may be subsequently adopted or enforced by the Commission for broadcasters and multichannel video service distributors (MVPDs). We sought comment on this proposal. 46. EchoStar states that if we impose EEO obligations on 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, we should apply them uniformly to all licensees. Bermuda states generally that it supports our proposals. We find that it is in the public interest to apply § 25.601 of our rules to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to the extent such licensees provide DBS-like services, as well as to require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to comply with any other EEO requirements that may be subsequently adopted or enforced by the Commission for broadcasters and MVPDs. Accordingly, we will apply § 25.601 of our rules to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to the extent such licensees provide DBS-like services, and 17/24 GHz BSS licensees will be required to comply with any other EEO requirements that may be subsequently adopted or enforced by the Commission for broadcasters and MVPDs. 47. Service Requirements for Alaska and Hawaii Adopted: The Commission is committed to establishing policies and rules that will promote service to all regions in the United States, particularly to traditionally underserved areas, such as Alaska and Hawaii, and other remote areas. To achieve these goals, the NPRM proposed to apply geographic service rules for the states of Alaska and Hawaii in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Specifically, to the extent that 17/24 GHz BSS space stations are used to provide video programming to consumers in the United States, we proposed to adopt rules analogous to those in effect for DBS satellites in § 25.148(c) of the Commission's rules. These rules require DBS licensees to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii where such service is technically feasible from the authorized orbital location. DBS applicants who do not propose to serve Alaska and Hawaii at the licensing stage must provide technical analyses to the Commission demonstrating that such service is not feasible as a technical matter or that, while technically feasible, such service would require so many compromises in satellite design and operation as to make it economically unreasonable. The Commission sought comment on this proposal. In addition, the NPRM noted that it is likely that many of the satellite operators in the 17/24 GHz BSS will operate multiple satellites. We asked whether, in such instances, we should apply geographic service rules at each orbital location or on a system-wide basis. 48. Commenters generally support adopting rules analogous to the DBS rules. DIRECTV and EchoStar also support applying the rules on a system-wide basis rather than on an orbital location basis. DIRECTV states that applying the rules on a system-wide basis will provide flexibility without compromising the goal of comparable service to all regions of the United States. EchoStar notes that the technical feasibility of service from a particular orbital location may not be the same for the 12 GHz and 17 GHz bands. 49. Accordingly, 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, to the extent that such licensees provide DBS-like services, are required to certify that they will provide service to Alaska and Hawaii comparable to that provided to locations in the 48 contiguous United States (CONUS), unless such service is not technically feasible or not economically reasonable from the authorized orbital location. In addition, we require applicants to design and configure 17/24 GHz BSS satellites to be capable of providing service to Alaska and Hawaii that is comparable to the service that such satellites will provide to CONUS subscribers. Furthermore, we require applicants to design and configure these satellites to be able to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii from any orbital location capable of providing service to either Alaska or Hawaii to which they may be relocated in the future. Thus, regardless of the location to which the satellite is initially authorized to operate from, if moved to a location capable of providing coverage to Alaska and Hawaii, the satellite will be configured to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii at the new orbital location. Applying geographic service requirements to 17/24 GHz BSS operators in this manner will best ensure that 17/24 GHz BSS service provided to Alaska and Hawaii is comparable to that provided to CONUS locations. Although we are applying these requirements to each satellite where technically feasible instead of on a system-wide basis as proposed by DIRECTV and EchoStar, we believe that operators will have sufficient flexibility to design their systems in a manner that will be both technically and economically efficient. We also require licensees to certify that replacement and relocated satellites at locations from which service to Alaska and Hawaii had been provided by another 17/24 GHz BSS satellite will have the capability to provide at least the same level of service to Alaska and Hawaii as the previous 17/24 GHz BSS satellite at that location. 17/24 GHz BSS applicants who do not intend to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii must provide, in their initial application, technical analyses to the Commission demonstrating that such service is not feasible as a technical matter or that, while technically feasible, such service would require so many compromises in satellite design and operation as to make it economically unreasonable. 50. EAS Requirements Adopted: In the NPRM, the Commission noted that, in the EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice, the Commission amended part 11 of its rules to require participation in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) by digital broadcast stations, digital cable systems, DBS services, and DARS. The NPRM also noted that in the EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice, the Commission defined DBS broadly to include the “vast majority of DTH services, particularly those which viewers may have expectations as to available warnings based on experience with broadcast television services.” Because the same concerns the Commission addressed in the EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice are presented with the introduction of services by 17/24 GHz BSS providers, the NPRM proposed to apply the EAS requirements to providers of those services to the extent that 17/24 GHz BSS licensees provide DBS-like services. 51. Commenters disagree as to whether the Commission should apply EAS requirements to all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees. SES Americom and Intelsat maintain that EAS requirements should apply only to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees that distribute programming to end users and not to FSS licensees that provide satellite capacity, such as SES Americom and Intelsat. According to SES Americom, FSS operators have conclusively demonstrated that placing EAS obligations on the licensee instead of the programming distributor impairs the effectiveness of the EAS program and prevents the Commission from penalizing a programming distributor that fails to deliver a required alert. SES concludes that if the Commission decides to apply EAS requirements to the 17/24 GHz BSS, it should ensure that they are placed only on programming distributors and not on the underlying satellite operators. 52. EchoStar and DIRECTV disagree with SES Americom and Intelsat. On reply, EchoStar and DIRECTV argue that all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, whether they provide programming or underlying capacity, should be subject to EAS requirements. DIRECTV also notes that the Commission has previously determined that satellite licensees, such as Intelsat, should be subject to EAS requirements for other satellite services. Consequently, DIRECTV argues, unless the Commission changes its policy regarding the application of EAS requirements to other services it should not adopt Intelsat and SES Americom's proposal for the 17/24 GHz service alone. 53. Bermuda also submitted comments in support of applying EAS requirements to all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees that provide DBS-like services. Bermuda argues that imposing this requirement not only insures that all satellite operators providing DTH-like or DBS-like services will be subject to the same requirements, but also means that consumers will receive equal services in the event of an emergency. Bermuda further states that in the broader context of EAS, it has concerns regarding extreme weather conditions and recognizes that resilient communications are necessary for the dissemination of vital information to the public in times of emergency. 54. We believe that customers of the new 17/24 GHz BSS services would likely have similar expectations regarding these services as they do towards those other satellite services where video programming is provided directly to consumers. The particular band in which DTH services are offered has no relevance to customers' expectations regarding their ability to receive warnings. In other words, the EAS obligations for these services should be uniform no matter what portion of spectrum a particular provider chooses for its services. In this regard, we note that, pursuant to the rules adopted in the EAS First Report and Order , entities providing DBS services as defined by § 25.701(a) of the Commission's rules, will be subject to the part 11 EAS rules effective May 31, 2007. In light of this precedent and the reasons stated above, we conclude that, where 17/24 GHz BSS space stations are used to provide video services directly to consumers, the EAS requirements will apply. This will ensure consistent application of the EAS requirements irrespective of the different spectrum being used. We note, however, that PanAmSat Corporation, SES Americom, Inc. and Intelsat, Ltd. (collectively the “FSS Group”) filed a petition for partial reconsideration of the EAS First Report and Order , making arguments essentially identical to those raised in their comments in this proceeding. We will address these issues in an Order dealing with the reconsideration petitions in the EAS proceeding. 55. Use of BSS Spectrum at 17.7-17.8 GHz: Although the international allocation for Region 2 BSS in the space-to-Earth direction extends from 17.3-17.8 GHz, in the 18 GHz Report and Order , the Commission extended the domestic allocation to the BSS only to 17.7 GHz. As discussed in the NPRM , the Commission based its decision in part upon the ubiquitous nature of broadcasting-satellite services which we believed would preclude successful coordination with a terrestrial service that was similarly widely deployed, and taking into account the amount of terrestrial fixed spectrum being lost as a result of that proceeding. In the NPRM , the Commission recognized that U.S. satellite operators might wish to use the 17.7-17.8 GHz band to provide service to receiving earth stations located within ITU Region 2, but outside of the United States. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to permit U.S. operators to use the international allocation to the BSS, but to limit use of the downlink to international service only, i.e., to receiving earth stations located outside of the U.S. and its possessions. The NPRM sought comment on this proposal and any rule changes that might be necessary to effect its implementation. Recognizing that the footprint of satellite beams serving nearby Region 2 countries could illuminate portions of the United States, the NPRM also proposed to adopt Power Flux Density (pfd) limits in order to protect terrestrial service antennas from co-frequency interference from space station transmissions. Specifically, it proposed to adopt the same pfd limits that were imposed on FSS transmissions in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band by § 25.208(c) of the Commission's rules prior to the adoption of the 18 GHz Report and Order in 2002, and are also the same limits that Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations currently imposes on FSS operators in this band. See Table 21-4 of the ITU Radio Regulations. The NPRM sought comment on extension of these proposed pfd limits to the 17/24 GHz BSS. 56. Commenters responding to this issue consistently favor the Commission's proposal to permit use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band outside of the United States and its possessions. However, many argue that the Commission's proposal did not go far enough with regard to domestic service. DIRECTV and EchoStar both request that the Commission also allow satellite operators to provide service to U.S.-based receiving earth stations on a non-protected, non-interference basis, arguing that there is very little chance that downlink transmissions from a BSS satellite would interfere with the much stronger terrestrial service transmissions in this portion of the band and stating that spectrum should not be required to remain fallow in areas where there is little terrestrial use. Intelsat further argues that coordination with Fixed Service (FS) operators in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band is feasible particularly if FS deployment is frozen after a certain date to permit BSS operators to deploy their earth stations with full knowledge of the locations of FS earth stations. Alternatively, Intelsat suggests that the Commission could grant BSS and FS co-primary status and protect receive earth station sites on a case-by-case basis while permitting FS deployment in the band to continue. Finally, SES Americom states that the Commission should entertain requests for a waiver of the Commission's rules to permit use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band on a case-by-case basis. 57. The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) opposes satellite operators' requests for authority to provide domestic service in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. The FWCC claims that the FS used the band heavily even prior to the 1998 18 GHz Report and Order and that the number of FS links continues to increase. It argues that such an action on the Commission's part would be both bad policy and contrary to law as the NPRM expressly took such a possibility off the table. The FWCC further argues that satellite operators seek to reopen the issue of terrestrial service and satellite service sharing that has already been thoroughly aired and considered, and urges the Commission to state that the matter is closed. FiberTower also opposes 17/24 GHz BSS domestic use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, stating that it would not be possible to effect coordination with ongoing FS operations in the band and that such a reallocation would once again disrupt FS operations in order to rechannelize the 18 GHz band. 58. In the NPRM , the Commission made clear that it did not intend to reexamine the question of BSS and FS sharing in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band in this rulemaking. We believe that undertaking examination of such a technically complex issue would only result in a protracted and contentious rulemaking. As stated in the NPRM , this could only disserve our goal of establishing technical and service rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS in a timely manner, particularly recognizing the April 1, 2007 date at which the allocation became effective. Moreover, the Commission also stated that no applicant had provided either convincing evidence that terrestrial FS spectrum relocation requirements are less demanding than predicted, or a compelling argument that coordination of widely deployed terrestrial services with ubiquitously located 17/24 GHz BSS receivers would be readily feasible. That remains true to date. For these reasons, we agree with the FWCC's assertion that reopening the issue in this rulemaking is not appropriate, and we decline to consider requests to make the 17.7-17.8 GHz band available for domestic BSS operations as a part of this proceeding. 59. EchoStar, DIRECTV and SES Americom all suggest that reception of some non-protected BSS transmissions at U.S. earth stations might be accommodated successfully in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. EchoStar notes that a similar approach has been undertaken successfully with FSS DTH antennas in the extended Ku-bands. In certain instances, FSS applicants seeking to use extended Ku-band spectrum for domestic service, have obtained waivers of the Commission's rules and agreed to accept all interference from FS stations as a condition of authorization. However, in the extended Ku-bands, there is an existing primary allocation to the FSS in the 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz bands, although footnote NG 104 to the United States Table of Frequency Allocations (Table of Allocations) limits FSS use to international systems only. See 47 CFR 2.106 and NG 104. In the case of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, neither a primary nor a secondary domestic allocation to the BSS exists in the space-to-Earth direction. The Commission will not modify the Table of Allocations to provide a secondary allocation to the BSS in this band for the reasons stated above—we do not intend to reexamine BSS/FS sharing issues in this rulemaking. 60. Commenters also support the adoption of pfd limits in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band to protect terrestrial networks. SES Americom and Intelsat agree with the Commission's proposal to apply the pfd limits of Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations for FSS systems operating in the 17.7-19.7 GHz band to BSS downlink transmissions in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. DIRECTV, although proposing a different (graduated) set of pfd values for 17/24 GHz BSS downlink transmissions in general, states that the ITU Article 21 pfd limits are sufficient to protect terrestrial services from interference. EchoStar also proposes a graduated set of pfd values for the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band and compares its proposed values to the limits proposed in the NPRM , noting that at low elevation angles its values are actually 8 dB more stringent than those of Article 21, hence sufficient to protect terrestrial services from interference. Accordingly, as proposed in the NPRM , we extend the FSS pfd limits of Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations to 17/24 GHz BSS in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Consistent with other pfd requirements in our rules, See , e.g. , 47 CFR 25.208(a)-(c), the maximum values will apply to elevation angles (δ) between 25° and 90° above the horizontal plane. We will restrict pfd values by a factor of (δ −5)/2 for elevation angles between 5° and 25° above the horizontal plane, and to values of 10 dB lower for elevation angles between 0° and 5° above the horizontal plane. 61. The NPRM also sought comment on Tracking, Telemetry and Command (TT&C) operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Section 25.202(g) of the Commission's rules requires that TT&C functions for all U.S. domestic satellites be conducted at either or both edges of the allocated band(s). See 47 CFR 25.202(g). In the case of the 17.3-17.7 GHz allocation, this rule would permit TT&C operations at frequencies just above 17.3 GHz or just below 17.7 GHz. The Commission's rules would not permit TT&C operations into U.S.-based earth stations at frequencies just below 17.8 GHz. Recognizing that reliance upon foreign-based TT&C facilities for on-station operations could adversely affect the U.S. operator's ability to maintain control of its spacecraft, the NPRM sought comment on how best to accommodate TT&C operations for those applicants seeking to use the 17.7-17.8 GHz band for international service. The NPRM asked further whether there was sufficient spectrum available above 17.3 GHz to accommodate these operations, particularly in light of the reverse-band sharing situation, and potential for out-of-band interference from radar systems operating just below 17.3 GHz. 62. EchoStar proposes that the Commission set aside 10 MHz guardbands at the edges of the 17/24 GHz bands for on-station TT&C operations. In the 17 GHz band, EchoStar asks us to define a guardband at the lower band edge near 17.3 GHz, but not at frequencies near 17.7 GHz because of the planned use by many operators of the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz bandwidth. Rather, EchoStar asserts that the upper guardband is better defined at 17.790-17.800 GHz. At present, § 25.202(g) of our rules does not set aside any specific bandwidth for TT&C transmissions. Instead, it requires only that these functions be conducted at the edges of the allocated band. In the case of DBS satellites, the ITU Radio Regulations' Region 2 BSS and feederlink Plans of Appendices 30 and 30A do designate 12 MHz guardbands at either edge of the allocated band, and our rules require DBS operations to be in accordance with the technical characteristics contained in these appendices. However, the planned-band guardbands are set out in the larger context of a channelization scheme over the entire allocated bandwidth. Similarly, EchoStar makes its request for designated TT&C guardbands in the context of its more general request that the 24 MHz channelization scheme used for DBS satellites be applied to 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. The possibility of channelization schemes are addressed in more detail in this Order below, where the Commission declines to enforce a particular channelization scheme for the 17/24 GHz BSS. 63. Moreover, we do not believe that it is practicable to plan for TT&C operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Our rules require that TT&C operations take place at the edges of the allocated band. Although we may authorize operators to provide international service in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, there is no domestic allocation to the BSS in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, and we have declined to modify the Table of Allocations to provide for one. Accordingly, we do not propose to designate guardbands limited to on-station TT&C operations for 17/24 GHz BSS systems. For these reasons we will make no changes to § 25.202(g). 64. Both EchoStar and Intelsat urge the Commission not to permit TT&C operations at the band edge just below 17.7 GHz, arguing that such transmissions would fall within band for those operators seeking to use the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band, and as a result, TT&C transmissions of one operator could be incompatible with the communications transmissions of another operator. However, this request is made in conjunction with their assertions that the Commission should permit domestic BSS operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Commenters do not offer alternatives in the event that the Commission declines this request. In addition, although commenters believe TT&C operations should occur at edge of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band segment, they do not address where to accommodate the TT&C transmissions of future applicants who choose not to provide international service in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. In addition, the NPRM recognized significant interference potential from both adjacent band and secondary in-band government radar systems at frequencies just above 17.3 GHz. DIRECTV cautions that higher frequencies correspond with higher reliability for TT&C operations due to their separation from government radar systems. For these reasons, we believe that operators should be afforded sufficient bandwidth, particularly at higher frequencies, to provide for flexibility and reliability in planning their TT&C operations. 65. Moreover, we are not convinced that TT&C transmissions will present a significant interference problem to the communications transmissions of adjacent satellite operators using the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. The worst interference case likely will occur into small-diameter earth station antennas that receive off-axis telemetry signal transmissions from nearby 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. However, TT&C transmissions are relatively narrow-band—typically a few megahertz—and the resulting interference would be averaged across the much wider bandwidth of the typical BSS signal. In addition, at four degrees or greater of orbital separation the interfering telemetry signal power should be significantly reduced. A somewhat analogous situation occurs in the extended Ku-bands between 11.45-11.7 GHz and the standard Ku-band between 11.7-12.2 GHz. Although the adjacent, extended Ku-band (11.45-11.7 GHz) may be used to provide international service, and many operators choose to make use of the entire 11.45-12.2 GHz bandwidth, the Commission does not preclude TT&C operations at frequencies just above 11.7 GHz. Accordingly, we will not prohibit TT&C operations at frequencies just below 17.7 GHz. 66. Orbital Spacing: The NPRM sought comment on whether the Commission should adopt an orbital spacing policy in the 17/24 GHz BSS, and if so, what separation would be appropriate. We asked specifically how best to balance our conflicting goals of making available the maximum GSO orbital capacity while simultaneously minimizing interference into small-diameter receiving antennas. Most commenters recognize the importance of adopting a well-considered orbital spacing policy, noting the critical role that spacing plays in determining required receive antenna diameters, quality of service, efficiency of design and types of services possible to deliver that result as a consequence of orbital separation. Only Bermuda differs in its view, advocating that the Commission should remove the minimum orbital separation requirement from all services, including DBS services, and instead should allow operators to coordinate their services using the procedures in the ITU Radio Regulations. Bermuda does not address how operators within the same administration should reconcile instances of interference arising among each other, which is a primary objective we seek to address by developing appropriate requirements within this proceeding. 67. In their comments, DIRECTV, SES Americom, and Intelsat all propose orbital-separation schemes of four degrees, expressing a preference for alignment with existing Ku- and Ka-band FSS locations, some of which are currently used to provide DTH-FSS services. DIRECTV maintains that four degrees of orbital separation will support deployment of the 60 cm diameter antennas it plans to implement. SES Americom and Intelsat maintain that a four-degree separation scheme will permit their planned use of 45 cm antennas. DIRECTV also argues that a separation scheme of four degrees will facilitate use of hybrid BSS-FSS satellites enabling operators to capture the inherent efficiencies associated with these platforms thereby significantly reducing the cost of providing services. Intelsat supports a four-degree orbital separation scheme, stating that it offers a good balance between the use of small diameter antennas and the need to achieve good coverage of the United States from a reasonable number of orbital positions. 68. In contrast, EchoStar, in its comments, advocates a 4.5-degree orbital separation scheme centered upon current DBS locations. EchoStar plans to employ low-cost single-feed, dual-frequency (12/17 GHz) 45 cm diameter subscriber antennas, utilizing a system design predicated upon near co-location with its DBS satellites. EchoStar argues that a spacing scheme based on four degrees is not workable due to heavy use of many of the integer orbital locations for FSS satellites, and that non-integer (constant offset) spacing would be incompatible with Region 2 BSS Plan assignments used by DBS satellites at many orbital locations. However, in its Reply Comments, EchoStar relaxes its position, stating that what is of primary importance is near co-location with conventional DBS positions, and that the differences between four-degree and 4.5-degree spacing can easily be reconciled. 69. To this end, EchoStar and SES Americom propose a mutually-agreed orbital assignment framework for the portion of the geostationary arc between 56.9° W.L. and 147.6° W.L. This proposal seeks to reconcile the differing business models, system designs and accompanying concerns raised by the various commenters. The proposed orbital locations place new 17/24 GHz BSS satellites close enough to selected U.S. DBS locations to permit single-feed earth stations to simultaneously access downlink transmissions from both. Additionally, the proposal seeks to provide sufficient flexibility to allow alignment with FSS orbital positions as well as to permit any adjustments necessary to avoid other presumed unsuitable satellite positions, including those designated for non-U.S. DBS satellites. The orbital positions proposed by EchoStar and SES Americom range from 4° to 5.9° in separation. In contrast, DIRECTV submits a proposal for the portion of the geostationary arc between 83° W.L. and 123° W.L. that assigns in-orbit satellites at four-degree spacing intervals. DIRECTV argues that this framework accommodates most commenters' proposals to co-locate 17/24 GHz BSS satellites with FSS satellites. DIRECTV also submits that its proposed framework would preserve the flexibility to locate 17/24 GHz BSS satellites near certain U.S. DBS locations while avoiding orbital locations that are too close to Appendices 30 and 30A Plan assignments of other Region 2 administrations. Intelsat similarly supports assigning satellites at four-degree spacing. Later, in an ex parte statement, DIRECTV, EchoStar, and Intelsat proposed another spacing scheme, in which the proposed orbital positions ranged from 4° to 6.5° in separation between 81° and 124° W.L. 70. All operators agree that orbital separations as small as four degrees are feasible and will permit deployment of consumer antennas of a size consistent with their system designs and marketing strategies. Even EchoStar, who initially argued for a 4.5-degree separation requirement, agrees that four degrees of separation can be implemented if we allow some flexibility and in this context supports use of 45 cm antennas. After studying the technical discussions presented, we concur that a minimum orbital separation of four degrees between 17/24 GHz BSS satellites is feasible, and that it best affords all applicants the flexibility to design and deploy systems consistent with their stated plans. Moreover, we believe that such a minimum spacing requirement realizes our mutual goals of maximizing orbital capacity while accommodating small-diameter receiving antennas. Accordingly, we will require that BSS satellite networks operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS be capable of operating at four-degree orbital spacing. 71. In discussing orbital spacing policy, all commenters stress the need for some flexibility relative to mandating adherence to a rigid in-orbit spacing grid. While we agree that some flexibility is beneficial, uniform orbital spacings maximize use of scarce orbital resources and opportunities for competitive entry. Indeed, uniform two-degree spacing has been the cornerstone of the Commission's licensing framework for GSO FSS satellites since 1983, and has served to create a competitive and interference-free operating environment. Therefore, we will require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to place their satellites in orbit so that all 17/24 GHz BSS satellites are placed at multiples of four degrees away from each other, as set forth in Appendix F of this Order. Allowing complete flexibility in orbital spacing would result in inefficient use of scarce geostationary satellite orbit resources and limit opportunities for competitive entry. 72. Parties opposing uniform four-degree orbital spacing do not provide adequate justification for their positions. First, we find concerns regarding co-location with DBS to be unpersuasive. In the FNPRM below, we note that commenters argue that DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites should be able to operate as close as 0.2° to 0.4° away from each other. Furthermore, we find concerns that the orbital assignment plan may need revision in the future to be speculative at best. In any case, the potential need for revision at some time in the future does not warrant allowing inefficient use of the geostationary orbit and limiting opportunities for competitive entry in the interim. Finally, we conclude that parties' concerns regarding potential physical interference between satellites operating with overlapping station-keeping volumes are misplaced. 17/24 GHz BSS satellite licensees will be able to offset their satellites in order to address any undesirable operational constraints arising from satellite co-location. 73. Consequently, we will adopt the orbital spacing framework set forth in Appendix F of this Order. This orbital spacing scheme is consistent with the locations of FSS satellites in the Ku-band and Ka-band, as recommended by DIRECTV and Intelsat. Moreover, we agree with DIRECTV that this framework will accommodate most commenters' proposals for the portion of the geostationary arc between 83° W.L. and 123° W.L. No one has suggested in the record another four-degree spacing configuration that accommodates other commenters' proposals better than DIRECTV's proposal. 74. However, we also agree to some extent with the commenters who argue for some flexibility in orbital assignments. In particular, we recognize that it may not be possible to locate a 17/24 GHz BSS satellite precisely at some of the orbital locations specified in Appendix F, e.g. , because there are undesirable operational constraints required to coordinate physical operations with co-located satellites, or because there is a DBS or other ITU Region 2 BSS satellite receiving feeder-link signals in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band at or very near that location. Thus, we will not require that 17/24 GHz BSS satellites be located precisely at the orbital locations specified in Appendix F. However, an applicant seeking an authorization to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS satellite at a location offset from an orbital location specified in Appendix F will be required to make a technical showing that the proposed satellite will not cause any more interference to any 17/24 GHz BSS satellite operating at a location specified in Appendix F, and in compliance with the rules for this service, than if the proposed satellite were positioned precisely at the Appendix F orbital location. In addition, such applicants must also agree to accept any increased interference that may result from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space stations that are operating in compliance with the rules for this service. As with all applicants, such applicants must also make a technical showing demonstrating that their system design accommodates any additional interference from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operating at the maximum allowed pfd levels, and otherwise in compliance with the rules for this service, that may result from the location offset of their proposed satellite. Applicants that have reached a coordination agreement with an operator at an Appendix F 17/24 GHz BSS orbital location up to 10° away from the location listed in Appendix F from which their proposed satellite is offset to allow that operator to exceed the pfd levels specified in the rules for this service must use those higher pfd levels for the purposes of this showing. 75. DIRECTV's Reference Interference Baseline Not Adopted: In its reply comments, DIRECTV advocates a broad approach proposing that the Commission define a “reference interference baseline” for the 17/24 GHz BSS. Under this proposal, we would establish routine processing standards for satellite applications. A 17/24 GHz BSS satellite applicant would be allowed to receive routine processing even if it deviates from standard parameters set forward in the rules, provided it makes offsetting changes to create no additional interference beyond the reference situation. DIRECTV also advocates that applicants be able to receive routine processing by obtaining consent through coordination to operate outside of the reference situation parameters, and that more flexible requirements would apply outside of the domestic arc (i.e., at least four degrees below 83° W.L. or above 123° W.L.). DIRECTV argues that this approach would create opportunities for individual flexibility, eliminate the burden and delay of unnecessary coordination while maintaining the stability of the overall environment. 76. We decline to adopt DIRECTV's approach of defining a reference interference baseline to be used for routine processing of satellite applications in this proceeding. There is little information or comment on the record to develop or to support what would amount to a rather extensive set of interdependent values. Nor is DIRECTV specific in its proposal other than to say that the baseline should assume four-degree spacing and receiving antennas compliant with ITU Recommendation BO.1213. Accordingly, we find that DIRECTV has not adequately supported its proposal. 77. Minimum Antenna Diameter and Performance Standards—45 cm/ITU-R Recommendation BO.1213-1 Minimum Antenna Standards Adopted: The NPRM sought comment on what minimum diameter earth stations the Commission should seek to accommodate in formulating service rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS. In addition, the NPRM also asked whether we should afford interference protection to 17/24 GHz BSS systems only to the extent that they meet certain receive-antenna performance characteristics. The Commission also noted that it has typically chosen not to explicitly regulate receive-only antenna characteristics, but rather has opted to regulate other characteristics shaping the interference environment, thereby leaving the choice of antenna characteristics to the operator. However, the NPRM recognized that receiving earth station antenna off-axis discrimination performance will affect the interference experienced by BSS subscribers arising from other systems and we asked whether in this instance we should depart from our established policy. In particular, the NPRM requested comment on what types of antenna performance regulation, if any, might be appropriate. 78. Most commenters support accommodating a minimum antenna diameter of 45 cm and Intelsat proposes that the Commission adopt a specific 45 cm minimum antenna size requirement. EchoStar and SES Americom advocate less stringent approaches, urging the Commission to adopt rules and policies that would facilitate the deployment of receiving antennas as small as 45 cm or afford interference protection only to receiving antennas no smaller than 45 cm. DIRECTV expressed the view that 60 cm is the minimum antenna diameter that the Commission should accommodate when considering an orbital spacing policy. DIRECTV notes that 60 cm dishes have become more prevalent in recent years and have long been the consumer standard in Europe and elsewhere. DIRECTV states further that BSS operators needing to combine capacity from multiple orbital locations will likely require multi-feed receive antennas with an effective diameter greater than 60 cm. Alternatively, SES Americom argues that limiting interference protection to 17/24 GHz BSS receiving antennas that are greater than 45 cm would preclude new BSS entrants from successfully competing with established DBS operators for a customer base. SES Americom asserts that affording interference protection to receiving antennas as small as those commonly used for DBS today (45 cm) is critical to ensuring the usefulness of the band for new competition. 79. As a general matter, commenters also favor adoption of reference antenna performance characteristics that will ensure sufficient interference protection for subscriber antennas and to establish a baseline for protection in licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS systems. Although advocating different minimum antenna diameters, SES Americom, DIRECTV, and Intelsat all propose that the reference antenna pattern given in ITU-R Recommendation BO.1213-1 be used as an appropriate standard for the protection of receiving antennas in the 17/24 GHz BSS. DIRECTV cautions that while protection should be granted only to the extent that receiving antennas conform to the ITU-R standard, the Commission should continue its policy of letting operators retain the discretion to determine the characteristics of their equipment. As such, DIRECTV believes operators should remain free to deploy non-conforming antennas, but with the understanding that they must accept any resulting increase in interference levels. Bermuda, in contrast, argues that the Commission should not regulate 17/24 GHz BSS receiving antenna performance characteristics, but rather that they should be determined by the requirements of the system in which they are deployed. 80. Although the Commission has historically chosen not to regulate the antenna performance characteristics of non-transmitting earth stations, we recognize that the 17/24 GHz BSS confronts an operating environment different from the one in which most other GSO satellite services, must operate. In particular, the reverse-band sharing situation that exists between BSS receiving antennas and transmitting DBS feeder link earth stations in the 17 GHz band creates significant potential for interference from sources other than neighboring co-frequency space stations. Such an interference environment may not be as satisfactorily managed by the Commission's more traditional approach to regulating the downlink interference environment by establishing an orbital separation scheme and accompanying pfd limits, particularly given the widespread deployment of such small-diameter receiving antennas in a four-degree spacing environment. We agree with DIRECTV that establishing performance standards for receiving antennas could help to create a more stable and predictable interference environment. Moreover, we note that the majority of commenters concur as evidenced by their support for inclusion of the ITU antenna performance standards of Rec. BO.1213-1 in the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we adopt a rule that 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations 45 cm or greater in diameter may claim protection from interference, but only to the extent that they meet the antenna performance characteristics given in ITU-R Recommendation BO.1213-1. This rule does not apply to 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry earth stations that are subject to the antenna performance requirements of § 25.209. 81. In adopting this rule, we recognize that we have already bounded the downlink interference environment by establishing a minimum orbital separation requirement in combination with the downlink pfd limits addressed in section III.E. Thus, by specifying a minimum antenna diameter and reference antenna pattern for interference protection, we are departing from past practice in our treatment of receive-only earth stations and adding an additional interference mitigation requirement. However, as discussed above, we concur with commenters' concerns regarding the need to establish a predictable environment, particularly in light of the unique reverse-band frequency operations in the 17 GHz band. In addition we support DIRECTV's request to preserve operator discretion with regard to choice of antenna characteristics. We note that this new antenna performance standard does not preclude operators from deploying receiving earth stations smaller than 45 cm, or antennas that do not conform to the reference patterns in the ITU-R Recommendation. However, the operator must accept the additional levels of interference that results from its use of the non-conforming antenna. 82. Technical Requirements for Intra-Service Operations—Uplink Power Levels. Standards For Routine/Non-Routine Licensing of Feeder Link Antennas Adopted: In the NPRM , the Commission stated that successful implementation of any orbital spacing scheme in the 17/24 GHz BSS will likely require adoption of uplink power density and antenna off-axis performance standards similar to those established for the FSS. However, we also recognized that space stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS are likely to operate at orbital separations greater than those existing in the FSS, and that feeder uplink earth stations typically operate with larger diameter antennas that exhibit good off-axis rejection properties. Both of these factors will tend to mitigate the problem of off-axis interference into neighboring space stations. Consequently, we sought comment on the need to establish uplink off-axis power limits for this service. Additionally, the Commission's rules currently provide for routine licensing of FSS earth stations when specific antenna performance standards and uplink power levels are met. The NPRM sought comment on whether analogous criteria might be developed to expedite licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link stations, and if so, what criteria might be appropriate. 83. Because, by definition, feeder links operate in the FSS, the NPRM stated that the antenna performance standards of § 25.209, See 47 CFR 25.209 , could be applied to 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth stations. The Commission proposed to apply these off-axis performance standards in combination with the highest uplink Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) density proposed by an applicant, i.e., 5.6 dBW/Hz. We sought comment on this proposal, recognizing that absent a clearly defined orbital separation scheme at that time, the resulting contribution to adjacent satellite interference would be difficult to determine. We also asked what form any uplink off-axis power density requirement should take, and whether it would be most appropriate to specify separate off-axis antenna performance standards and uplink power density requirements, or a single composite off-axis EIRP density curve. 84. Commenters in general acknowledge the need to apply uplink off-axis uplink EIRP limits to 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link stations, recognizing that such limits would help to address off-axis interference concerns as well as facilitate coordination with other services. Intelsat initially stated that such requirements were unnecessary, but, in its reply comments, provides off-axis EIRP density limits that it believes would be adequate. 85. Commenters addressing this issue support applying the Ka-band FSS uplink off-axis power density requirements contained in § 25.138(a)(1)—(4), See 47 CFR 25.138(a)(1)-(4), of our rules to feeder link earth stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Commenters assert that this rule has been effective in the Ka-band, sets limits that are consistent with levels proposed in applications already before the Commission, and will successfully address adjacent satellite interference concerns. Commenters also agree that in the case of the 17/24 GHz BSS, these values should be scaled to a 1 MHz reference bandwidth rather than the 40 kHz resolution specified in our current rule. In addition, commenters suggest expressing the requirement as a limit on the off-axis EIRP density (rather than as separate off-axis antenna requirements and uplink power density limits) such that the operators must meet this EIRP density value regardless of on-axis absolute EIRP or actual antenna performance. 86. Although the off-axis EIRP density limits favored by commenters are approximately 3 dB greater than those tentatively proposed by the Commission, we agree with the commenters that the higher level has proven effective in the Ka-band FSS two-degree spacing environment and will effectively mitigate adjacent satellite interference in the 17/24 GHz BSS four-degree spacing environment. Accordingly, for routine processing of feeder link antennas transmitting to GSO satellites in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, we adopt the off-axis antenna performance requirements of § 25.138(a) scaled to a 1 MHz reference bandwidth as follows: (1) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral density for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values, within ±3° of the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions: 32.5-25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 2° ≤ θ ≤ 7° 11.4 dBW/MHz for 7° ≤ θ ≤ 9.2° 35.5-25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 9.2° ≤ θ ≤ 48° 3.5 dBW/MHz for 48° ≤ θ ≤ 180° Where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe. (2) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral density for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values, for all directions other than within ±3° of the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions: 35.5-25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 2° ≤ θ ≤ 7° 14.4 dBW/MHz for 7° ≤ θ ≤ 9.2° 38.5-25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 9.2° ≤ θ ≤ 48° 6.5 dBW/MHz for 48° ≤ θ ≤ 180° Where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe. (3) The values given in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section may be exceeded by 3 dB, for values of θ > 10°, provided that the total angular range over which this occurs does not exceed 20° when measured along both sides of the GSO arc. (4) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral density for cross-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values, in all directions other relative to the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions: 22.5-25log(θ) dBW/MHz for 2° ≤ θ ≤ 7° 1.4 dBW/MHz for 7° ≤ θ ≤ 9.2° Where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe. 87. The off-axis EIRP density curves given in § 25.138(a)(1)-(4) of our rules, See 47 CFR 25.138(a)(1)-(4), include the term N, which is defined as the likely maximum number of simultaneously transmitting co-frequency earth stations in the receive beam of the satellite. Commenters do not include this term in their proposed formulae and we have chosen not to include it in our rules. Section 25.138 addresses blanket licensing of FSS earth stations where a number of co-frequency earth stations may be transmitting simultaneously in cases where contention protocols or CDMA may be used. We do not anticipate multiple simultaneous co-frequency transmissions from 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth stations, and as a consequence, these access schemes likely will not be relevant. Commenters do not explicitly address EIRP density envelopes for directions other than within 3 degrees of the GSO arc. Neither do they specifically address envelopes for cross-polarized signals or allowable exceedences, as contained in other parts of § 25.138. Rather, they make more general references to a rule modeled on the framework of § 25.138. We include these requirements here on the strength of those comments, and also because they are consistent with the Commission's approach to off-axis EIRP density limits in general. 88. The NPRM also recognized that in some instances applicants might seek to operate at higher EIRP density levels than those permitted under the above requirement. Our current rules provide a mechanism for licensing such non-conforming systems operating in the FSS by placing the burden on the applicant to provide a technical showing to the Commission, and to coordinate its non-conforming operations with adjacent operators. We proposed a similar approach to licensing non-conforming systems in the 17/24 GHz BSS and sought comment on whether our proposal was appropriate to adopt. We also asked over what angular distance coordination should be required, recognizing that the orbital spacing in the 17/24 GHz service could very likely be greater than the two-degree separation typical of the FSS. 89. Commenters consistently favor allowing a mechanism by which operators could be licensed for non-conforming systems seeking to operate at higher off-axis power levels than those permitted for routine licensing. All commenters favor the general approach employed for FSS systems whereby applicants for non-conforming earth stations must submit the necessary technical showing to the Commission and coordinate their non-conforming operations with adjacent space station operators. At present, our rules require non-compliant FSS operators to coordinate with potentially affected neighboring operations over an angular arc of six degrees, corresponding to up to three adjacent positions on each side. At an orbital separation of six degrees, off-axis power levels are decreased by nearly 12 dB relative to those at the nearest neighbor at two degrees, and at a separation of eight degrees, power levels relative to the two-degree neighbor are decreased by more than 13 dB. These values are true for an antenna that complies with FSS antenna gain envelope rules of 29-25*log10(θ). Accordingly, we believe that an angular arc of ±8 degrees, which in a four-degree spacing environment corresponds to the two nearest possible neighboring co-frequency space stations, is sufficient. 90. Commenters differ somewhat on the precise angular separation over which operators should be required to coordinate their non-conforming operations. DIRECTV and SES Americom, both of whom favor a four-degree orbital spacing scheme, propose coordination arcs of ±8 degrees and ±9 degrees, respectively. EchoStar proposes a slightly more complex coordination arc requirement whereby operators would be required to obtain the agreement only of the immediate neighboring satellites (spaced at approximately four degrees away) for exceedences up to 3 dB, with the additional agreement of the second adjacent operator for exceedences up to 6 dB; no exceedence greater than 6 dB would be permitted. We find that EchoStar's proposal affords significant interference protection to adjacent co-frequency satellites, while reducing the coordination burden on both the conforming and non-conforming parties. However, we also recognize that space stations may not always be located along a perfectly spaced four-degree grid, but sometimes may be offset from the orbital locations specified in Appendix F. To accommodate such instances, we will extend the angular coordination distance proposed by EchoStar by two degrees. 91. Accordingly, we will adopt a requirement that each applicant for an earth station license that proposes off-axis EIRP density levels in excess of those defined above shall certify that all potentially affected parties acknowledge and do not object to the use of the applicant's higher power densities. For proposed power levels less than 3 dB in excess of the limits defined above, the affected parties shall be those co-frequency operators authorized to provide service to the U.S. at up to ±6 degrees away; for excesses of greater than 3 dB and up to 6 dB, affected parties shall be all those co-frequency U.S. licensed operators at up to ±10 degrees away. We will not permit exceedences greater than 6 dB above the limits defined above. Although we take a slightly more flexible approach with regard to coordination of downlink pfd excedeences, we believe that the sharing situation with 24 GHz fixed service systems requires a somewhat more conservative approach. In addition, we require non-compliant operators to coordinate with any future applicants or licenses over these same orbital separation distances. We also require a non-compliant licensee to reduce its power levels should a coordination agreement not be reached. In addition, non-conforming applicants will be required to submit link budget analyses of the operations proposed along with a detailed written explanation of how they have derived each uplink and each transmitted satellite carrier density figure. Applicants will also be required to submit a narrative summary that must indicate whether there are margin shortfalls in any other licensee's current baseline services as a result of the addition the applicant's higher power service, and if so, how the applicant intends to resolve those margin shortfalls. 92. The NPRM also sought comment on the need for uplink adaptive power control, particularly in presence of rain fade, noting that § 25.204(g) of our rules, See 47 CFR 25.204(g), requires all Ka-band FSS earth stations to employ adaptive power control or other methods of rain fade compensation. Commenters recognize the need for uplink power control in the event of rain fade and cite the specification already contained in our rules, See , e.g. , 47 CFR 25.138(a)(5), as appropriate for the 17/24 GHz BSS. We realize that systems operating in the 24 GHz band can suffer significant signal attenuation in the event of precipitation and concur that some provision for adaptive uplink power control is necessary. Accordingly, we amend our rules to require 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations to employ adaptive uplink power control or other methods of fade compensation. We also adopt a requirement for the 17/24 GHz BSS analogous to the Ka-band FSS requirement of § 25.138(a)(5), 47 CFR 25.138(a)(5). This rules provides that (1) The required clear-sky uplink off-axis power limits may be exceeded by up to 20 dB in the presence of uplink fading due to precipitation; (2) that the amount of this increase relative to the excess attenuation over the clear sky propagation conditions shall not exceed 1.5 dB or 15% of the actual amount, whichever is greater; and (3) that this should occur with a confidence level of 90% except for transient periods of no more than 0.5% during which the excess shall be no more than 4.0 dB. 93. Some commenters also object to requiring applicants to provide measured radiation patterns as specified in § 25.138(d), 47 CFR 25.138(d), of our rules as a means of demonstrating compliance with off-axis EIRP limits. Intelsat argues that the requirement to provide measured radiation patterns for antennas not yet built is often not practical and unduly burdens the applicant. Intelsat asserts that, instead, the Commission's evaluation process for earth stations in the 17/24 GHz service should follow the approach for earth stations on vessels (ESVs) contained in § 25.221, 47 CFR 25.221. That approach requires the applicant to submit a series of charts or tables calculated for a production earth station antenna, based on measurements taken on a calibrated antenna range. DIRECTV agrees that it is impractical to submit measured data, and argues further that because these very large feeder link antennas are typically assembled on site, it is simply not necessary to test these antennas on a range. Instead, DIRECTV proposes that 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link antennas be tested as they are built, using in-orbit satellite resources, with the earth station operator responsible for certifying after licensing that the tests were satisfactorily performed, as part of its notification to the Commission that construction has been completed. DIRECTV's proposed approach is based on a proposal submitted by the Satellite Industry Association in the Biennial Review docket, and are founded in part upon existing rules for large C- and Ku-band earth stations. 94. At present, our rules extend different earth station licensing requirements to different satellite services. Typically, C- and Ku-band GSO FSS applicants are required to meet the antenna performance requirements of § 25.209, 47 CFR 25.109, and may not exceed specified uplink power density levels and minimum antenna diameters. Those C- and Ku-band applicants who do not meet these requirements may still be licensed via the rules outlined in § 25.220, 47 CFR 25.220. In contrast, Ka-band earth station applicants must meet the off-axis EIRP density requirements of § 25.138(a)(1)-(4), 47 CFR 25.138(a)(4) and demonstrate such by providing the antenna radiation pattern measurements specified in § 25.138(d), 47 CFR 25.138(d). The earth station licensing requirement to submit with its application a series of measured test values over a range of frequencies is applied to any FSS earth station other than ESVs not meeting the antenna performance requirements of § 25.209, as well as to all earth stations operating in the 20/30 GHz service. We find that it will be generally unnecessary to constrain feeder link earth stations applicants in the 24 GHz band in this manner, particularly since such large-diameter earth stations generally comply easily with existing antenna performance requirements. Moreover, we agree with commenters that such a requirement could be both impractical and burdensome for very large diameter antennas typically used for feeder link operations. Accordingly, we do not restrict 17/24 GHz BSS earth station applicants to the approach of § 25.138(d). However, we will retain the option to allow non-compliant applicants to submit measured data. 95. We will require applicants for feeder link earth station licenses operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band to provide the particulars of operation identified on Form 312 and associated Schedule B, which may include an affirmative response that the earth station antenna conforms to the gain pattern criteria of § 25.209(a) and (b) and that combined with the input power density entered in schedule B, demonstrates that the off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set forth above will be met. Alternately, an applicant that does not meet the antenna performance requirements of § 25.209(a) and (b) may demonstrate that it meets the required off-axis EIRP spectral density requirements by providing: (i) A copy of the manufacturer's range test plots of the antenna gain patterns as specified in § 25.132(b)(3) as revised in this Order; and (ii) a series of EIRP density charts or tables similar to the current requirements for ESVs as set forth in § 25.222(b)(1), 47 CFR 25.222(b)(1). Finally, an applicant that meets the antenna performance requirements of § 25.209(a) and (b), but does not provide an input power density value in schedule B that will satisfy the off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set forth above, may also demonstrate its compliance by providing a series of EIRP density charts or tables. Applicants seeking to operate with off-axis power density values in excess of the specified envelope are subject to the coordination process discussed above. 96. In addition, § 25.132 of our rules sets forth the process for verification of earth station performance requirements. This rule is applicable to earth stations operating in the 24 GHz uplink band. Paragraph (a)(1) of this rule requires applicants to submit manufacturer certification of measurements demonstrating that the antenna is compliant with the requirements of § 25.209, and stipulates that the applicant be prepared to demonstrate these measurements to the Commission upon request. For non-compliant antennas, as discussed above, the requirements of § 25.132(b)(3), as revised in Appendix B of this Order, will apply. Finally, Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section recognize that while testing is typically performed at the manufacturer's facility, very large earth stations that are assembled on-site may require on-site measurements. Paragraph (d) specifies the on-site verification measurements that must be performed for each new or modified transmitting antenna over three meters in diameter. Thus, for large-diameter 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link antennas, applicants must submit on-site verification measurements to the Commission as part of the notification of completion of the construction process as required in § 25.133, 47 CFR 25.133. 97. Downlink Power Limits. Geographical Downlink PFD Limits Adopted: The downlink power levels transmitted by adjacent co-frequency satellites, when combined with the off-axis performance characteristics of the receiving antenna will determine the carrier-to-interference (C/I) value resulting from adjacent satellite interference. The NPRM sought comment on whether we should adopt pfd or other downlink power limits in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band to ensure that receiving antennas are not subject to unforeseen levels of adjacent satellite interference, particularly as newer-generation, higher-powered satellites are brought into use. The NPRM asked, in particular, whether the ITU Radio Regulations' pfd limit applicable to FSS systems in the 17.7-19.7 GHz band would be appropriate for BSS transmissions in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. 98. Commenters favor adopting pfd limits in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band to protect against unforeseen levels of adjacent satellite interference and to obviate the need for time-consuming coordination among co-frequency networks. Intelsat favors adopting the ITU FSS pfd limits and maintains that these limits would satisfy the operational requirements in the band, provided that they are no more restrictive than the FSS pfd limits of Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations. All other commenters advocate adopting a system of graduated pfd limits. Under this approach, pfd limits would vary over different geographic regions of the United States, primarily to allow for the resulting signal attenuation arising from the variation in rainfall in different regions of the country. In formulating this approach, commenters considered the planned deployment of both wide-area beams, and more localized, high-power spot beams by 17/24 GHz BSS operators. Due to the expected higher antenna gain for spot beams, in a given geographic area, EIRP imbalances of 10 dB or more may be anticipated between adjacent satellite transmissions. Potentially, the resulting interference could significantly affect quality of service to those consumers receiving lower-power, wide-area beam signals. The various proposals' utilization of graduated pfd levels in differing regions seeks to balance the competing goals of permitting sufficient flexibility to spot beam operations while simultaneously protecting wide-area beams from unacceptable interference levels. This approach also considers the need to allow higher-power downlink transmissions in regions of the country where they are most needed in order to overcome rain fade effects. As a result, all proposals to adopt graduated power levels for downlink transmissions in the 17/24 GHz BSS recognize the need for the highest power limits in the Southeastern region of the United States, with lower levels in the Northeast and the lowest levels in the West. 99. Although the various proposals to adopt graduated pfd limits are similar in their general approach, they differ in certain respects. EchoStar's proposal advocates four geographic regions with the highest pfd level in the Southeast of −113 dBW/m 2 /MHz; −114.5 dBW/m 2 /MHz in the Northeast; −116 dBW/m 2 /MHz in the Upper Midwest; and −118 dBW/m 2 /MHz in the West. The westernmost region is defined by the 103° West Longitude line; the northern regions are above the 40° North Latitude line; and the 85° West Longitude line divides the Northeast Region from the Upper Midwest Region. For areas outside of the Contiguous United States (CONUS) including Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, the pfd limit would be −113 dBW/m 2 /MHz. EchoStar notes that its proposal does not differ significantly from that of DIRECTV, discussed further below, and maintains that the somewhat lower power limits proposed by DIRECTV result from its plan to offer service using 60 cm diameter antennas contrasted with the 45 cm antennas planned by EchoStar, SES Americom and Intelsat. Accordingly, EchoStar urges the Commission to accommodate the requirements of all operators and to permit pfd levels on the higher side. SES Americom supports EchoStar's proposal. 100. DIRECTV proposes adopting three geographic regions, with the highest power level in the Southeast of -115 dBW/m 2 /MHz; -118 dBW/m 2 /MHz in the Northeast; and −121 dBW/m 2 /MHz in the West. In DIRECTV's proposal the far western region is defined by the 100° West Longitude line and the Northeast and Southeast Regions are divided by the 38° North Latitude line. DIRECTV argues that its somewhat lower pfd levels are more appropriate because CONUS beams cannot match the higher power levels of −113 dBW/m 2 /MHz proposed by EchoStar and SES Americom, and should the Commission adopt pfd values this high, the result would only be to codify the power disparity between wide-area and spot beams. Later, in an ex parte statement, DIRECTV, EchoStar, and Intelsat proposed a jointly-agreed scheme, which proposed geographic regions and pfd levels in a four-degree spacing environment consistent with the values proposed in DIRECTV's original proposal as discussed above. This new scheme also proposes a formula by which pfd levels could be allowed to vary as a function of orbital separation. 101. We agree that there is merit in considering graduated pfd limits in differing regions of the country. We recognize the need to employ both wide-area and spot beams in the 17/24 GHz BSS and appreciate the inherent difficulties encountered in attempting to balance the requirements of both applications. While we wish to protect the more vulnerable wide-area beam receivers from adjacent satellite downlink interference, we also want to permit licensees the flexibility to achieve the power and spectral efficiencies attainable with spot beam transmissions, particularly when broadcasting local programming to restricted geographic areas. We concur with DIRECTV, EchoStar and SES Americom that the use of regional pfd values best balances these competing goals. Although it presents a somewhat more complex regulatory mechanism than does a uniform pfd limit, this approach has been applied to other services, notably MVDDS. Thus, after carefully considering the various regional pfd schemes, and recognizing the agreement among many of the commenting parties with regard to the regional boundaries and pfd levels, we believe that the proposal originally put forward by DIRECTV most successfully balances our goals of accommodating both beam technologies while best meeting the needs of all operators. Accordingly, we adopt the three-region graduated pfd plan presented by DIRECTV. We note that a key difference between DIRECTV's proposal and the approach contained in the Joint Ex Parte Statement , is the proposed use of formulae to determine the variation in pfd levels that would be permitted as a function of orbital separation. We decline to adopt this approach. Rather, we will adopt pfd levels consistent with a four-degree spacing environment, but will permit licensees to operate at higher levels subject to coordination, as discussed below. 102. In most cases, commenters propose pfd limits for the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band and do not separate the question of pfd limits in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band from the issue of pfd limits for BSS downlink transmissions in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. In adopting the graduated pfd scheme discussed above, the Commission seeks to facilitate intra-service operations by establishing a relatively homogeneous transmitting environment that will accommodate both wide-area and spot beam operations. Because U.S. domestic service is not allocated in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, we do not believe these intra-service sharing challenges will be present to the same extent. In contrast, pfd limits in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band are intended to facilitate inter-service sharing by protecting terrestrial service receivers from satellite transmissions serving other Region 2 countries, but that may illuminate portions of the United States. We believe that the pfd limits that are adopted in section III.C. of this Order, that vary as a function of elevation angle, will best accomplish that goal. Accordingly, we clarify here that the graduated pfd limits adopted above will apply only to the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, and that the elevation-angle-based pfd limits adopted in section III.C. will apply in the 17.7-17.8 GHz BSS GHz band. 103. Commenters also advocate applying the pfd levels in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band in a manner similar to the Ka-band FSS requirement in § 25.138(a)(6), See 47 CFR 25.138(a)(6). Under this approach an applicant seeking to operate outside the required pfd levels must submit a technical showing to the Commission that includes detailed link budgets and a narrative summary indicating whether there are margin shortfalls resulting from the applicant's higher powers, and if so, an explanation of how these shortfalls will be addressed. In addition, a non-conforming applicant must certify that its operations have been coordinated with all affected parties. EchoStar proposes that for non-conforming 17/24 GHz BSS operations, the angular separation over which coordination is required should be linked to the magnitude of the power excess. Specifically, EchoStar proposes that given the wider orbital spacing in the 17/24 GHz BSS as compared to the Ka-band FSS, the agreement of the immediately adjacent operators should be sufficient for excesses of no greater than 3 dB, and that coordination with the second adjacent neighboring satellite should also be required for excesses between 3 dB and 6 dB. EchoStar also proposes prohibiting power levels greater than 6 dB. DIRECTV and SES Americom support EchoStar's proposal, although DIRECTV argues that power exceedences of greater than 6 dB should be permitted if a coordination agreement can be reached, however unlikely that may be. 104. The Commission has always sought to afford satellite operators the maximum flexibility to design and operate their systems while simultaneously protecting other licensees from unacceptable levels of interference. Thus, we concur with commenter's proposals to provide a mechanism for licensing and coordinating systems operating with non-compliant pfd levels. We also agree that there are advantages in linking the angular separation over which coordination is required to the degree of the power excess, as this approach may avoid placing an unnecessary coordination requirement on the parties. Accordingly, we adopt a requirement for non-compliant systems in the 17/24 GHz BSS similar to the Ka-band requirement of § 25.138(b). However, to account for the different orbital spacing rules that we adopt for the 17/24 GHz BSS environment, as well as the possibility of offset from the locations specified in Appendix F, we will require applicants to coordinate with adjacent satellites within an angular separation of ±6 degrees for exceedences of up to 3 dB, and to coordinate with adjacent operators within an angular separation of ±10 degrees for exceedences of more than 3 dB. In addition, consistent with the Ka-band FSS requirement of § 25.138(c), we require non-compliant operators to coordinat [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%3AE7-16575. Public record. Not legal advice.