Tiered Satellite Fee Proposal Leads to Jockeying Around Cutoffs
As the FCC considers a tiered approach to non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) constellations' regulatory fees, it isn't finding consensus about where to draw the lines. That's according to comments last week in docket 24-85 as the agency solicits input on ideas raised during the FY 2024 space regulatory fee proceeding (see 2502260017).
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!
The proceeding also saw NAB push to amend its earth station fees. The group said that last year's changes to earth station regulatory fee structures meant a big jump in the percentage of regulatory fees allocated to earth station fee payers. It called for receive-only earth stations to be exempt from fees and transmit/receive earth stations to pay lower amounts than more complex ones. The current earth station fee regime -- with a single earth station paying the same fee as the operator of thousands of earth stations under a blanket license -- goes against FCC policy that entities benefiting more from regulatory activities should cover more of the regulatory fee costs, it said.
The fee regime for satellites, which considers geostationary orbit satellites differently from NGSOs and breaks down NGSOs into categories, "has become unwieldy and disconnected from the costs and benefits of Commission regulation to licensees," Iridium said. It and multiple other operators backed the FCC proposal that all authorized satellites be included in regulatory fee calculations. Iridium said a sliding-scale approach of NGSO fees, with dividing lines at 100 and 500 satellites, would better reflect the agency's costs.
The Commercial Smallsat Spectrum Management Association said the smallest regulatory fee tier of NGSO satellites should be 1-500 -- rather than 1-100, as the agency proposes -- because it would better represent the distinction in FCC Space Bureau workload between small and midsize constellations versus mega constellations. The group said small and midsize NGSO system operators carry a disproportionate share of fee burdens.
Backing the FCC's proposed NGSO tiers, Telesat said that if the agency doesn't go that way, "the next best alternative" would be a two-tiered fee structure: up-to -1,000 satellites and 1,000-plus satellites. That 1,000-plus large constellation share of NGSO fees should be at least 50%, as the largest NGSO constellations are responsible "for a disproportionate share, which appears to be in excess of 50%, of the Commission’s NGSO regulatory burden," it said.
Eutelsat/OneWeb advocated assessing regulatory fees on NGSO systems in tiers of 1,000 satellites. It also backed fees on NGSO systems that are authorized but not deployed. At the same time, the commission needs to be sure it doesn't penalize operators with pending requests to reduce their constellation size that the FCC hasn't acted on.
Two tiers, with 500 satellites being the dividing line, would be "a significant step toward a fairer, more predictable, and administrable regulatory fee structure," Kepler Communications said. The current fee methodology often results in uncertainty due to frequent changes in fee allocations, it added.
Tiers set at 500 or 1,000 satellites don't help "truly small systems" like Tomorrow.io's, which has an authorization for 18 satellites, the operator said.
Big NGSO constellations clearly require more agency manpower than small ones, Myriota said. While it supported a methodology based on constellation size, it said incorporating the mass of the constellation into the fee methodology will more closely align fees with the agency labor involved.
Sirius XM said there shouldn't be regulatory fees for satellites that aren't providing service, such as limited-function satellites, or limited-function satellites should pay a fraction of what satellites in active use do. It said the agency also should make clear it won't assess regulatory fees for satellites that are entirely deactivated, such as GSOs in disposal orbit.
The FCC's regulatory fee structure is unfair to Loft Orbital and its fellow mission-as-a-service operators that fly payloads on behalf of clients, the company said. Obtaining a separate license for each mission subjects it to higher regulatory fees than if it could get a single license, and the agency treats it differently from other regulatees that also operate under multiple satellite licenses but offer more traditional satellite services. Loft Orbital said it operates far fewer satellites than nearly all authorized satellite operators, yet it would be potentially assessed far more in annual regulatory fees.