FCC Response to Satellite, Terrestrial Fight Over Earth Station Siting Unclear
As satellite broadband operators and terrestrial interests continue to jostl​e over siting of earth stations in the 28 GHz and 37/39 GHz bands, it's not clear how those competing arguments are being received at the FCC. The commissioners might not have a position yet, with nothing having been circulated, an eighth-floor official said. And it's tough to know how Chairman Ajit Pai might look at revisiting that spectrum frontiers issue, said a satellite industry executive. The agency didn't comment Friday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
It's hard to say if the satellite broadband arguments are getting any traction, though the FCC is open to evidence of how their suggested changes would meet spectrum frontiers goals, the satellite executive said. The executive also said a compromise position between satellite and terrestrial interests seems unlikely given that when it comes to maximizing coverage of a geographic area, it's an either/or proposition and the band in question is needed by satellite operators for high-throughput service.
A lawyer with a client involved in spectrum frontiers reconsideration issues said there has been some talk the FCC thinks it leaned too far in favor of terrestrial wants in the proceeding because of 5G enthusiasm, and that some tweaks -- though not sizable changes -- that would benefit satellite could be likely.
Another satellite industry executive said there are FCC staffers who back revising the rules for more flexibility for satellite deployment, seeing that as benefiting consumers. The executive also said the record at the agency makes clear that terrestrial 5G deployment will focus on more densely populated areas, so it doesn't make sense to preclude satellite operators from siting earth stations in areas with sparser population density since the net result would be spectrum sitting unused in sizable areas of the country.
The 2016 spectrum frontiers order, passed unanimously, was the result of compromise, and the agency's likely not going to want to move that middle ground, said a wireless industry official. The agency instead is likely going to be more focused on the bands discussed in the Further NPRM (see 1611040043) and finding the proper balance there between terrestrial and satellite interests, the official said.
Satellite broadband operators and Straight Path have been in a back-and-forth over spectrum frontiers rules for siting individually licensed earth stations. In a docket 14-177 letter posted Wednesday, the satellite interests disputed Straight Path arguments it previously had made in its own filing, saying more flexibility in earth station siting would go to the heart of the proceeding's purpose. They also said arguments that more earth station siting flexibility in the 28 GHz and 37/39 GHz bands would hurt deployment of 5G terrestrial networks "belie credibility" and it's highly unlikely satellite operators would deploy earth stations across counties or partial economic areas ubiquitously, given those earth stations need to be near employees, roads, fiber backbones and electricity. They also challenged the idea earth stations could employ physical shielding, given its cost and the need of earth stations to transmit and receive in all directions. And they said the biggest flaw in Straight Path's argument is that terrestrial interests would use millimeter wave spectrum to make wide area networks in rural areas. Behind the satellite letter were Boeing, EchoStar, Intelsat, Inmarsat, O3b, SES and OneWeb. Straight Path, in its filing, argued satellite rights in the 28 GHz and 37/39 GHz bands already were expanded in the spectrum frontiers proceeding and expanding them further would be detrimental to 5G terrestrial wireless services. Straight Path didn't comment Friday.