Satellite Companies, NAB, Submarine Cablers Disagree on FCC Fees

on possible tweaks to regulatory fees (see 1908280021). “Such an assertion of FCC authority would be both unlawful and ill-advised,” said Telesat Canada. The FCC “has long recognized that its authority to assess space station regulatory fees is limited to those it has licensed under Title III of the Communications Act.” Imposing such fees on foreign licensed satellites isn’t supported by the facts and inconsistent with sound public policy, said Eutelsat. “Expanding the Commission’s regulatory fee regime to include all entities that have received U.S. market access will help to create a more equitable regulatory environment,” filed EchoStar, Hughes Network, Intelsat and SpaceX. Non-U.S. licensed space station operators “benefit from the Commission’s regulatory activities while leaving the U.S. operators to subsidize them by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees,” said SpaceX. The agency should also adjust the fees for entities overseen by the International Bureau, said the North American Submarine Cable Association (NASCA) and the Submarine Cable Coalition. “In prior years and rulemakings, the Commission expressly recognized that submarine cable system regulatory fees are excessive considering the regulatory activities the IB performs on submarine cable system operators’ behalf,” said NASCA. “Efforts by submarine cable interests to shift additional costs onto satellite service providers are unsupported and must be rejected,” said the Satellite Industry Association. Calculating regulatory fees for VHF stations by calculating the population inside a station’s contours instead of designated market area should also be changed, said NAB and Maranatha Broadcasting. “This burden on VHF stations is unjustified and should be rectified in this proceeding,” said Maranatha.