IC Docket No. 94-31
Preparation for International Telecommunication Union World Radiocommunication Conferences
Adopted: January 30, 1995 Released: January 31, 1995
Comment Date: March 6, 1995
Reply Date: March 21, 1995
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
III. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
A. Mobile Satellite Service Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11
1. Constraints on MSS Below 1 GHz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
a. Technical Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-15
b. Allocation Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-19
2. Constraints on MSS Between 1 and 3 GHz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
a. Technical Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-31
b. Allocation Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-35
3. Review of Regulatory/Procedural Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
a. Regulatory/Procedural Constraints - MSS Below 1
GHz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-40
b. Regulatory/Procedural Constraints - MSS Between . . . . . . . . . . . 1
and 3 GHz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41-44
4. MSS Feeder Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
a. MSS Feeder Link Regulatory Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45-52
b. MSS Feeder Link Spectrum Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
c. MSS Feeder Link Spectrum Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54-55
5. MSS Spectrum Requirements/Proposed Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . 56
a. Spectrum Requirements/Proposed Allocations - MSS
Below 1 GHz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56-58
b. Spectrum Requirements/Proposed Allocations - MSS
Between 1 GHz and 3 GHz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59-62
6. Date of Entry Into Force of MSS Spectrum Allocations
Around
2 GHz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63-67
B. Other WRC-95 Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
1. Space Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
a. Earth Stations in the 2025-2110 MHz Band . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68-70
b. Fixed Satellite Service Use of 13.75-14.0 GHz Band . . . . . . . . 71-75
c. Space Services Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2. Appendices 30 and 30A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77-82
3. High Frequency Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83-85
4. Review of the Final Report of the Voluntary Group
of Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86-91
C. Planning for Future World Radiocommunication Conferences . . . . . . . 92
1. 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92-94
2. Suggested Topics for Future Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95-100
D. Related Conference Preparatory Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
1. 1995 Conference Preparatory Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2. Other International WRC Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3. Preliminary U.S. Government Agency-Developed WRC-95
Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4. Conference Preparatory Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104-108
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109-112
Recommended United States Proposals for World Radiocommunication
Conference (Geneva 1995) -- Preliminary FCC Draft
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Industry Advisory Committee Recommended Candidate Bands
for Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Additional Allocations for Below 1 GHz MSS
Commenting Parties to Notice of Inquiry Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will
convene WRC-95 from October 23, to November 17, 1995, at
its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The agenda for
the conference includes substantive topics such as facilitating
the introduction of global mobile-satellite services (MSS)
and simplifying the international Radio Regulations. It
also includes further consideration of an agenda for the
next conference, WRC-97, and drafting a preliminary agenda
for WRC-99. Presentation of the Commission's preliminary
views on these topics is intended to stimulate discussions
and is part of an overall effort to achieve early consensus
on U.S. proposals to WRC-95. The preliminary proposals
described below are subject to modification, however, and
the Commission's further development of its proposals will
include consideration of comments received in response
to this Second NOI and of additional recommendations of
the IAC. The Commission's ultimate recommendations for
U.S. proposals will be released in a Final Report prior
to WRC-95.
4. Notice of Inquiry. This proceeding addresses technical
and regulatory matters related to the agenda for WRC-95,
and solicits information to assist the Commission in preparing
cogent U.S. proposals for that conference. The initial
Notice briefly reviewed the results of WRC-93 and its recommendations
for WRC-95, including: review of the Radio Regulations
based on the Final Report of the Voluntary Group of Experts
(VGE); facilitating use of frequency bands allocated at
WARC-92 to the mobile-satellite service (MSS); and review
of other selected topics, including future agendas.(n5) In
the Notice we invited comment on these matters and also
on certain procedural matters relating to ways in which
the Commission might best structure its own processes to
be responsive to industry needs and, in light of the ITU's
new quadrennial conference planning cycle, to ensure timely
and effective planning for future WRCs.
5. WRC-95 Industry Advisory Committee. Shortly after
the release of the initial Notice, the Commission established
the WRC-95 IAC to develop independent private sector proposals
for consideration by the Commission in parallel with this
proceeding.(n6) The IAC, which is chaired by a member of the
private sector and includes experts from industry, is comprised
of six Informal Working Groups (IWGs) studying issues of
regulatory procedures for coordination, MSS below 1 GHz,
MSS above 1 GHz, MSS feeder links, space sciences, and
future conference agendas. IAC and IWG meetings are announced
by Public Notices and all interested members of the public
are encouraged to attend. A preliminary version of the
IAC Report was released on December 30, 1994, and its views
have been incorporated here where appropriate.(n7) The results
of the IAC's work are being fully considered by the Commission
which will, in consultation with the Department of Commerce's
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) and the Department of State, develop final U.S.
proposals for WRC-95.
7. In addition to seeking comment on specific MSS proposals,
we invite input on other subjects raised in the first Notice.
These topics include: various space service allocation
matters; review of Appendices 30 and 30A; availability
of high frequency broadcasting bands (HFBC); the Final
Report of the VGE; and agendas for WRC-97 and for the 1999
and 2001 WRCs.(n10) Commenters should also consider the long-range
planning aspects of the ITU's conference cycle -- the two-year
WRC schedule and four-year WRC planning cycle. In that
regard, parties should comment on topics not addressed
in the first Notice, or here, that may be appropriate for
conferences beyond WRC-97. Further comment is also sought
on the Commission's conference preparatory methods in light
of the ITU's new conference and planning cycle.
A. Mobile Satellite Service Issues
9. This Second NOI includes discussion and consideration
of some frequency bands that are allocated exclusively
for federal government use and other bands that are shared
co-equally between the private sector and the federal government
agencies. Opposition to preliminary non-government MSS
proposals for some of these bands has been expressed by
NTIA and, through NTIA's Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee (IRAC), by the government agencies. FCC WRC-95
proposals for these bands will be the subject of detailed
discussions between the Commission and NTIA. U.S. proposals
to WRC-95 and to future WRCs ultimately require agreement
among the FCC, NTIA and the Department of State.
10. WRC-95 provides an opportunity to review technical
constraints associated with MSS frequency bands below 3
GHz and to review any associated provisions, resolutions
and recommendations. Parties to this proceeding, relevant
ITU-R Task Groups and the IAC have identified such constraints
whose removal or modification would improve the use of
frequency bands allocated for MSS.
11. Constraints identified thus far fall into general
categories: 1) technical constraints, such as those that
specify the maximum power a satellite beam can produce
at the Earth's surface(n14) -- devised presumably to assist
sharing spectrum with other services, or to determine if
and where coordination with services of other administrations
is required; or, constraints that limit the radiated power
emitted fromMSS earth stations; 2) allocation constraints
on existing MSS allocations, such as those that limit MSS
networks to a lower allocation status, to certain categories
of service or to certain geographic areas;(n15) and 3) regulatory/procedural
constraints, particularly those relating to non-geostationary
orbit (NGSO) MSS coordination procedures. Our discussion
on these issues is divided into two sections. Parties
should bring to our attention any constraints not identified
whose removal would ease use of frequencies for MSS (either
below 1 GHz or between 1 and 3 GHz).
1. Constraints on MSS Below 1 GHz
13. As in the case of footnote RR 608A, RR 608B imposes
a PFD limit of -150 dB (W/m2/4kHz) for METs in the 149.9-150.05
MHz band. This limit was devised to protect terrestrial
fixed and mobile services from harmful interference from
MET operations. This band, however, has no terrestrial
allocations, and is shared with no terrestrial services.
14. Below 1 GHz MSS proponents suggest that the United States work to remove both the RR 608A and RR 608B PFD limits. STARSYS Global Positioning. Inc. (Starsys) states that because radiofrequency transmissions do not stop at international borders, the RR 608A and 608B requirements are impractical. Starsys contends that those requirements should either be removed or apply in instances where potential interference situations cannot be resolved between administrations.(n16) The IAC proposes that the -150 dB (W/m2/4kHz) PFD limit be eliminated, and replaced with an appropriate coordination triggering mechanism. Specifically, the IAC recommends that countries wishing to implement MSS systems be compelled to coordinate MET operations with administrations falling within a specified threshold distance of the implementing country's borders.(n17) With regard to RR 608B, the IAC notes that this limit was devised to protect terrestrial fixed and mobile services fromharmful interference from MET operations. This band, however, has no terrestrial allocations, and is shared with no terrestrial services. Accordingly, the IAC states that this footnote is unnecessary and recommends that it be eliminated.(n18)
15. We agree that RR 608A and RR 608B would cause unnecessary
difficulties in implementing NVNG systems. We believe
in this case that PFD limits would be best negotiated between
affected admistrations and would likely vary depending
on the circumstance. We accept the IAC's recommendation
and propose to eliminate RR 608A in favor of the coordination
threshold distance methodology referenced above, and we
propose to modify RR 608B as set forth in Proposal No.
2/L-LEO, Appendix 1.
16. Allocation Constraints. Within the band 137-138 MHz space research and meteorological satellite (MetSat) operations have primary status. MSS has co-primary status in the 137-137.025 MHz and 137.175-137.825 band segments, and secondary status elsewhere. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has indicated it has worldwide commitments to operate in these bands at least until the year 2006 and will have continuing operations until around the year 2010.(n19)
17. The IAC recommends phasing out MetSat operations in
the 137.175-137.825 MHz segments of the 137-138 MHz band
where MSS now has co-primary status. It proposes a new
footnote to the international table that will provide a
co-primary status for MetSats until 2006 and a secondary
status until 2010. This recommendation would provide for
MetSat needs while later providing less encumbered spectrum
for MSS. We note that the situation is similar for the
137-137.025 MHz portion of the band. We accept the IAC's
recommendation, but also extend the IAC's proposal to the
137-137.025 MHz band, noting that the time frame for migrating
MetSats has not been finalized. We invite comment on
this proposal set forth in Proposal No. 2/L-LEO, Appendix
1. We also invite parties to comment on whether there
is continued need for the space operation and space research
alloctaions that also have co-primary status throughout
the 137-138 MHz band.
18. At WARC-92 the band 149.9-150.05 MHz was allocated
to the land mobile-satellite service on a co-primary basis.
The IAC has recommended that this allocation be redesignated
to a generic mobile-satellite service. Below 1 GHz MSS
proponents have noted that services they intend to provide
would extend beyond strictly "land mobile" offerings and
could include maritime and possibly aeronaurical offerings.
Their view is that potential service offerings should
not be limited needlessly.(n20)
19. We continue to believe that generic MSS allocations
afford operators maximum flexibility in introducing needed
services. This is particularly important in the case of
a service such as MSS that require a large initial capital
outlay. Without the flexibility of generic allocations,
providers may not find it economically feasible to launch
systems devoted strictly to discrete applications. In
addition, we note that this proposal aligns with the VGE's
recommendations that service allocations be made as broadly
as possible.(n21) Therefore, we accept the IAC's recommendation
and propose that the 149.9 - 150.05 MHz band be allocated
to MSS generically as given in Proposal No. 2/L-LEO. Comment
is invited.
2. Constraints on MSS Between 1 and 3 GHz
RR 732,(n22) MESs are limited to an e.i.r.p. of -15 dB (W/4
kHz) in those parts of the band where such stations operate.
In other parts of the band, MESs can operate up to an
eirp of - 3 dB (W/4kHz). However, RR 731E does not specify
whether these levels correspond to peak or mean values.
21. TG-8/3 noted that there is a need to clarify the e.i.r.p. density limits of RR 731E. Its view is that the limits should be in terms of the mean e.i.r.p. in a reference bandwidth of 4 kHz.(n23) The IAC, in its Interim Report endorses that view.(n24)
22. RR 731E also provides that mobile-satellite stations
shall not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection
from stations in the aeronautical radionavigation service,
stations operating in accordance with RR No. 732 and fixed
stations operating in accordance with RR No. 730. MSS
parties state that this provision effectively places co-primary
MSS operations in a secondary status relative to stations
operating pursuant to RR 732 and 730.(n25) In its Interim Report,
the IAC argues that RR No. 953 provides sufficient recognition
of the need to protect radionavigation services operating
in the band.(n26) The MSS parties and the IAC recommend that
this apparently contradictory text be deleted.
23. We intend to clarify footnote RR 731E by proposing
that the e.i.r.p. density limit be expressed in terms of
a "mean" rather than a "peak" value.(n27) We also agree that
RR No. 953 provides appropriate and sufficient recognition
of the need to protect safety services operating in accordance
with RR No. 732. With regard to fixed services operating
in accordance with RR No. 730, we believe that sufficient
protection can be afforded to these services in the coordination
process. Consequently, we propose to delete the last sentence
of RR 731E and replace it with text noting that the application
of RR No. 953 applies in the 1610-1626.5 MHz band. See
attached Proposal No. 3/B-LEO, Appendix 1.
24. RR 733E states that stations of the radiodetermination-satellite and mobile-satellite services shall not cause harmful interference to stations of the radio astronomy service (RAS) in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band.(n28) MSS parties contend thatRR 733E creates ambiguity in the status of 1.6 GHz MSS networks. Constellation argues that the RR 733E requirement that MSS not cause harmful interference to RAS is an apparent contradiction to MSS's primary status in the table of frequency allocations.(n29)
25. The consensus of MSS participants in the IAC is that RR 733E should be suppressed. In its Interim Report, the IAC states that RR 733E was originally adopted at WARC-87 to protect RAS when RAS had a secondary status worldwide and RDSS was being introduced on a secondary basis. The IAC claims that since RAS has been made primary in the subject bands by WARC-92, special recognition bestowed upon RAS by WARC-87 is no longer needed. Further, it claims that RR 733E creates confusion and ambiguity with regard to the status of MSS and RDSS in the 1610.6-1626.5 MHz band. It also notes that in its Big LEO Report, the FCC has adopted sufficient protection for RAS in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band.(n30)
26. RAS interests who participated in the IAC oppose suppression of RR 733E. The RAS community maintains that RR 733E is a flag that reminds other spectrum users of the need to use special coordination measures when operating in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band. They note that the special needs of RAS have been recognized by several WARCs, the VGE and the Commission in its Big LEO Report.(n31)
27. We will not propose to suppress RR 733E at this time.
We note that the rules for protecting RAS we adopted in
the Big LEO Report were based on those agreed to by MSS
and RAS interests who participated in the Commission's
Above 1 GHz MSS Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.(n32) One solution
might be to suppress RR 733E and propose a new international
footnote that incorporates the RAS protection rules embodied
in the Big Leo Report.(n33) We request comment on this suggestion,
and also invite alternative proposals.
28. RR 753F subjects the radiodetermination-satellite
and mobile-satellite services in the 2483.5-2500 MHz band
to the coordination and notification proceduresof Res.
46. With respect to terrestrial stations, coordination
is required only if the space station PFDs at the Earth's
surface exceed limits established in RR No. 2566.
29. NGSO MSS proponents contend that RR No.2566 PFD values should be regarded as a "trigger" value for coordination rather than absolute limits. Further, those proponents argue that the current PFD levels should be increased, as it is likely that their systems can operate at higher PFD levels without causing interference to terrestrial systems.(n34)
30. The IAC notes that since RR 753F was adopted at WARC-92, substantial analyses have been undertaken that show the RR No. 2566 PFD limits are unduly restrictive. It contends that relaxing these limits would ease introducing NGSO MSS systems and would still provide sufficient protection for fixed terrestrial systems. Additionally, it contends that relaxing PFD limits would eliminate unnecessary coordinations that impact both MSS and fixed system providers.(n35) The IAC recommends that we propose to revise RR 753F by striking the reference to RR No. 2566 and providing increased PFD limits that are specific to RR 753F.(n36)
31. Our concern is that MSS operators not be forced
into unnecessary coordinations because of restrictive or
unnecessary technical limits. We also believe that, in
general, absolute PFD limits should be developed between
administrations in the coordination process or be based
on technical justifications relative to specific sharing
or coordination cases. We concur with the IAC's recommendation
and incorporate it in Proposal No. 3/B-LEO, Appendix 1.
Comments are invited.
32. Allocation Constraints. The 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz bands are allocated to MSS, but have a structure that allocates various portions of the bands to mobile-satellite service, maritime-mobile satellite service, aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service and the land mobile-satellite service. At past conferences the U.S. has consistently proposed generic allocations for MSS. However, our efforts have not met with total success.(n37)
33. MSS proponents and the IAC recommend that the United
States propose a generic MSS allocation throughout these
bands with appropriate footnotes to provide safeguards
and priority access for aeronautical and maritime safety
services.(n38) We continue to believe that generic MSS allocations
offer the most cost and spectrum efficient use of spectrum
allocated to satellite services. Consequently, consistent
with our action for all proposed MSS allocations, we propose
to make a generic MSS allocations in the referenced band
and to include the appropriate safeguards for aeronautical
and maritime safety services. See Proposal No. 3/B-LEO,
Appendix 1.
34. The 1675-1710 MHz band is allocated to, among other
services, the meteorological-satellite (MetSats) and meteorological
aids (MetAids) services on a primary basis. In Region
2 there is a co-primary allocation for MSS. However, footnote
RR 735A provides that MSS shall not cause interference
to, nor constrain the development of MetSats in this spectrum.
35. The IAC notes that Task Group 8/3 ITU-R Working Party
7C has completed a draft new recommendation regarding sharing
between MetSats and MSS in the 1675-1710 MHz band.(n39) It
points out that sharing may be possible given certain conditions
relating to sharing between earth stations and space stations
in the two services, co-channel separation distances and
how the band is used by meteorological satellite operators.(n40)
The IAC recommends proposing this band in WRC-95. We
include this band as a preliminary draft FCC proposal for
co-primary MSS in all three Regions. See Proposal No.
3/B-LEO, Appendix 1. We invite comment on thisproposal,
recognizing that the 1675-1700 MHz portion of the band
is also allocated on a co-primary basis for meteorological
aids for which additional sharing studies will be required.
3. Review of Regulatory/Procedural Constraints
37. Regulatory/Procedural Constraints - MSS Below 1 GHz . Resolution 46 (WARC-92) (Res. 46) provides an interim procedure for the coordination and notification of non-geostationary satellite networks with other services in spectrum they share. Res. 46 recognizes that specific criteria and calculation methods necessary for coordination of these systems are undergoing development. Although band specific footnotes dictate where Res. 46 applies and offer some guidance for determining when coordination is necessary, parties have indicated that specific improvements to Resolution 46 would ease coordinating MSS networks and therefore, could speed introducing MSS service.(n42)
38. The IAC has identified several areas of Res. 46 for
improvement that would affect Below 1 GHz MSS. Specifically,
the IAC notes that Res. 46 requires coordinations to take
place on the basis of identified frequency overlap of services.
However, the IAC contends that even in such cases coordination
may be unnecessary if certain space-to-Earth PFD levels
are not exceeded. The IAC has indicated that the present
requirements of Appendix 3(n43) do not give information sufficient
for calculatingPFD levels precisely. It claims this could
lead to an overestimation of the potential for interference
into other systems and services. The IAC has recommended
that the information requirements of Appendix 3 be expanded
so that instantaneous PFD levels can be calculated as a
function of the elevation angle from a point on the earth.(n44)
We believe that more accurately determining PFD levels
could reduce the number of space and terrestrial systems
of other administrations with whom an administration must
coordinate its proposed NVNG MSS system. We invite parties
to comment on this point and to provide specific proposals
for expanding Appendix 3 requirements.
39. Section 2.8 of Res. 46 requires administrations that
do not agree with the bringing into use of a frequency
assignment shall, within a six month period of the notification
of the requesting administration, send technical details
and other information on its systems upon which its disagreement
is based. The IAC has stated that in the experience of
its members, this provision is not being followed.(n45) It
notes that without more detailed technical information
on potentially affected systems, administrations cannot
determine in a given situation whether coordination is
actually necessary. The IAC recommends that to facilitate
a more effective and efficient process, it may be useful
to provide an Appendix to Res. 46 that specifies detailed
information that should be provided.
40. The Radiocommunication Bureau (BR) in its analysis
of Res. 46 determined that it should take into account
the modulation and type of multiple access employed by
NGSO systems. In addition, in Res. 46, the BR has identified
technical terms for which definitions should be provided.(n46)
We invite parties to identify additional information necessary
to address these points.
41. Regulatory/Procedural Constraints - MSS Between 1 and 3 GHz. In its Interim Report, the IAC states that Resolution 46 may need further refinement based on experience gained since its adoption in 1992.(n47) The IAC proposes changes to the Radio Regulations associated with specific 1-3 GHz MSS allocations and relating tothe regulatory procedures of Resolution 46 and it suggests the following improvements to current Resolution 46 footnotes concerning technical and operational matters and coordination:(n48) Some of the technically-oriented proposals listed below were addressed previously and are included below for completeness.(n49)
Modify footnotes to replace PFD thresholds of RR 2566 to reflect different pfd thresholds for specific frequency bands identified by Task Group 2/2;(n50)
Modify RR 731E to specify that the maximum e.i.r.p. density limits are based on the use of average (as opposed to peak) values;(n51)
Replace Section 2.5 of Resolution 46 (coordination with terrestrial services) with new methodology to be used to determine which Administration is to be coordinated with when the PFD limit for a specific 1-3 GHz MSS allocation is exceeded;(n52)
Modify Resolution 46 to provide a specific method to calculate coordination regions for purposes of paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 which direct Administrations to effect coordination of satellite networks and stations of terrestrial networks "where assignments might be affected;"(n53)
Revise Note 1 of Resolution 46, Section III to replace current definition of coordination area with a new methodology contained in Recommendation ITU-R IS 847 (except in the case of aircraft stations);(n54)
42. The IAC also identifies in general terms several areas
where further improvement to Resolution 46 is in order,
but it does not propose specific solutions:
Current provisions fail to protect existing MSS systems
from excessive interference caused by fixed service transmitters;
Information provided in Appendix 3 is insufficient to perform necessary calculations relating to NGSO MSS satellite networks including: (a) orientation of satellite transmitting antenna beams necessary for PFD calculations, (b) specification of what data is to be included for purposes of coordination and agreements between Administrations set forth in Section 2.8; and (3) the type of multiple access and modulation and the maximum and average beam peak e.i.r.p./4 KHz and e.i.r.p./1 MHz for each beam should be submitted to better represent interference potential.(n55)
43. Finally, the IAC Interim Report references Reservation 79 taken by the United States and the United Kingdom to the Final Acts of WARC-92. This reservation provides that the two Administrations will not apply Resolution 46 to geostationary satellite systems in certain frequency bands, e.g., the 1525-1559/1626.5-1660.5 MHz bands, in order to ensure that systems already in coordination (such as AMSC and INMARSAT) are not subject to additional coordination procedures.(n56) The IAC recommends that this position be clarified at WRC-95 by appropriate footnotes to the Table of Allocations.(n57)
44. We will not make specific proposals that modify Res.
46 at this time. We note that as part of its effort to
simplify the Radio Regulations the VGE has suggested changes
that could substantially modify Res. 46.(n58) We also note
that the IAC is continuing its ongoing analysis of MSS
regulatory/procedural issues and of the work of the VGE.(n59)
Recognizing the continuing work of the IAC and NTIA's
RCS, parties are invited to comment on the issues we identify
above and to provide further comment on potential modifications
to Res. 46. In particular, we note that various MSS interests
suggest specific revisions to Res. 46. We request that
those parties note all proposed revisions to Res. 46 and
that they develop a comprehensive Res. 46 revision "package."
We also invite interested parties to examine closely
the potential effect of the VGE work in this regard.
Mobile Satellite Feeder Links
46. Accommodating NGSO MSS feeder links in FSS bands has been addressed by parties to this proceeding, the IAC and ITU-R Task Groups 8/3 and 4/5. These groups have identified specific spectrum use, technical and regulatory issues that point to actions needed to satisfy NGSO MSS feeder link spectrum requirements. Task Group 4/5 recently concluded: "[t]here is a general recognition that both the GSO FSS satellite networks and NGSO MSS feeder link networks must have a regulatory base which permits their orderly operation without any regulatory uncertainties to their full operational life."(n63)
47. Task Group 4/5 noted that additional uncertainty
results from the ITU Radiocommunication Bureau's non-application
of RR 2613 in connection with its examination of systems
under RR 1503.(n64) TG-4/5 noted further that since NGSO MSS
feeder links and NGSO/FSS systems are not subject to Res.
46 coordination procedures, there exists no procedure for
providing protection to NGSO/FSS systems, including feeder
links for NGSO MSS, from existing and future GSO/FSS systems.
48. The IAC encourages consideration of changes to Article 8, as recommended by Task Group 4/5, to qualify many FSS allocations to accommodate NGSO MSS feeder link networks on a more equal basis. Specifically, in bands below 17.7 GHz, due to the difficulty of co-directional sharing of frequencies between NGSO MSS feeder links and GSO FSS networks, the IAC proposes that regulatory changes be made to give NGSO MSS feeder links priority status over GSO FSSnetworks in specific reverse transmission directions(n65) in certain bands allocated to FSS networks.(n66) In any FSS allocations where this priority approach could not be applied, particularly in bands now heavily used by GSO FSS systems, RR 2613 would be maintained, but modified to clarify its specific application.(n67) In addition. Res. 46 (possibly modified by WRC-95) would apply to coordination between GSO FSS and NGSO FSS networks, between multiple NGSO FSS networks and between NGSO FSS networks and terrestrial services.(n68) These revisions would be accomplished by adding suitable footnotes to the Table of Frequency Allocations in the relevant bands.(n69)
49. In bands above 17.7 GHz, where in many instances it appears that co-directional sharing between GSO FSS and NGSO MSS feeder link networks is feasible (with appropriate constraints), TG -4/5 identified a potential method for accommodating NGSO MSS feeder links in specific frequency sub-bands.(n70) This method would apply to bands used relatively lightly by GSO FSS systems. It would provide a footnote attendant to such bands that would place competing NGSO FSS networks on an equal regulatory status with GSO FSS networks. NGSO networks would be exempt from RR 2613 and would be coordinated using Res. 46 or Article 11, modified suitably. Successfully coordinated systems would have full protection rights from other users. As in the below 17.7 GHz case, these revisions would be accomplished by adding suitable footnotes to the relevant bands.(n71)
50. The IAC also noted possible revisions to Article 8
and Resolution 46 identified by TG-4/5 that would make
all coordination procedures applied to GSO FSS networks
also applicable to NGSO MSS feeder link networks in those
bands identified for co-primary use. Specifically, Article
8 would be revised to state clearly frequency bands and
directions of transmission, whether bands are limited to
NGSO MSS feeder links or are shared on a co-equal basis
with GSO FSS networks and whether Resolution 46 would apply.
Additionally, text would be added to the Annex to Resolution
46 to cover the cases of coordination between NGSO MSS
feeder link stations and GSO earth stations operating in
opposite transmission directions.
51. Finally, the IAC indicates that a key factor in accommodating
NGSO MSS feeder links in FSS bands is how the BR takes
the current RR 2613 (Art. 29) into account when evaluating
GSO FSS and NGSO MSS feeder link networks. It notes that
in addition to the possible revisions discussed above,
it may be necessary to modify RR 2613 and other relevant
provisions to make NGSO MSS feeder link access to FSS bands
easier. The IAC notes that for any allocations where NGSO
MSS feeder links would operate in the space-to-Earth direction,
there is a need to include appropriate satellite PFD limits
to protect terrestrial networks and GSO FSS space stations
operating in the opposite direction of transmission. The
IAC suggests that WRC-95 decide what modifications may
be required.
52. Obtaining sufficient NGSO feeder link spectrum for 1.6/2.4 GHz 'Big LEO' MSS networks is critical for the introduction of those networks in the U.S. andglobally.(n72) Introducing additional such systems in, for instance, an expanded 2 GHz MSS allocation, will require even more NGSO feeder link spectrum. Consequently, spectrum must be made available for NGSO feeder link use either exclusively or on regulatory/procedural parity with GSO FSS networks. Therefore, in conjunction with the IAC we are developing specific regulatory/procedural revisions that align with the preliminary findings of the IAC and of TG-4/5 discussed above. These proposals would include footnotes to frequency bands identified for use exclusively by NGSO feeder link networks,(n73) and any associated revisionary text to Articles 11 and the Annex to Resolution 46. We invite parties to comment on the above topics and to provide specific alternative proposals to modify RR 2613 to accommodate NGSO MSS feeder links and to eliminate the current ambiguity in its general application for NGSO FSS and GSO FSS networks.(n74)
53. MSS Feeder Link Spectrum Requirements. In order to implement the NGSO MSS systems currently proposed in the United States and elsewhere, it is critical that sufficient suitable spectrum be identified and made available for use for NGSO MSS feeder links. The IAC estimated the spectrum requirements for severalfrequency bands in the 4-31 GHz range given in the table below. These estimates agree with conclusions reached by Task Group 8/3.(n75) Final spectrum requirements will be based on each NGSO MSS system's specific design and its operator's service objectives. The table assumes that the satellite systems' antennas will be able to use dual polarization for the frequency bands below 16 GHz which serves to reduce the amount of spectrum required.(n76)
Current Estimates for Feeder Link Spectrum Requirements
[Table omitted]
The commenters generally express support with the above
estimates.(n79) Further comment on this matter is welcome.
54. MSS Feeder Link Spectrum Allocations. The following
frequency bands have been identified by the IAC and the
Commission staff as potentially suitable for sharing by
NGSO MSS feeder links in the direction(s) indicated. Some
bands are identified as candidates for U.S. proposals.(n80)
See Proposal No. 1/FL-MSS. Otherbands might remain under
consideration at this time.(n81) Certain bands are identified
as being candidates for pairings with other bands in the
table. We request comment on these pairings. In cases
where one part of a proposed pairing has more spectrum
than the other, but has relatively high existing service
use, we invite comment and proposals on alternatives (e.g.
band segmentation in the larger band; specific frequency
pairings;(n82) etc.) for linking the two bands. Additional
comments are requested on all of the candidate bands,
including their sharing possibilities.(n83) Interested parties
should also note bands to which the regulatory provisions
discussed in the preceding section could apply.
55. Some bands are identified for feeder link transmissions
using reverse band working (RBW).(n84) Generally, these are
bands below 17.7 GHz.(n85) Task Group 4/5 studied the possibility
of reverse band operation of NGSO MSS feeder links in FSS
bands. It concluded that RBW appeared promising in the
C and Ku bands.(n86) For the C and Ku cases, Task Group- 4/5
developed NGSO PFD limits (applied at the geostationary
orbit) designed to protect GSO networks and eliminate the
need to coordinate RBW feeder links. The limit is:
4 - 8 GHz (C band) -168 dB(W/m2/4 kHz)
10 - 16 GHz (Ku band) - 168 dB(W/m2/4kHz)
If we finalize proposals for RBW bands we would also propose
to adopt these limits and consequently to make the appropriate
modifications to Section V. of Article 28 (RR). These
limits would apply only to those bands identified for RBW
use. We request comment on these limits. Parties who
disagree with these PFD limits for NGSO MSS feeder links
should provide a technical basis for alternative limits.
Candidate Bands for NGSO MSS Feeder Link Spectrum1
[Table omitted]
* Indicates candidate band is attached as a preliminary
proposal. New footnotes proposed in the preceding feeder
link regulatory section would apply.
= uplink (Earth-to-space) direction
= downlink (space-to-Earth) direction
ARNS: Aeronautical Radionavigation Service
Note 1
BA: Broadcast Auxiliary Service
FS: Fixed Service
FSS: Fixed-Satellite Service
MS: Mobile Service
MSS: Mobile-Satellite Service
SR: Space Research
Notes to Table 2., continued
Note 2 - Task Group 4/5 noted that sharing was feasible
if the frequency band was not being used by fixed troposcatter
systems. However, the 4660-4685 MHz band portion of the
4.5-4.8 GHz band is under consideration in ET Docket No.
94-32, where it has been identified for potential fixed
and mobile service use. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
(Spectrum Transfer Notice) ET Docket No. 94-32, 9 FCC Rcd
6779 (1994). Therefore, it is unlikely that we would propose
the 4.5-4.8 GHz band for feeder link use.
Note 3 - See ITU-R Document 8-3/TEMP/54-E, Geneva, 1994,
for an analysis of frequency sharing with mobile services
in this band.
Note 4 - The 5-5.25 GHz band is proposed to be paired with
the 6.825-7.075 GHz band.
Note 5 - The 5-5.25 GHz band is allocated to the aeronautical
radionavigation service and in accordance with RR 796,
the Microwave Landing System (MLS) has precedence over
all other uses of the band. Currently, MLS occupies the
5030-5091 MHz portion of the band and is planned to extend
its use up to 5150 MHz. Task Groups 8/3 and 4/5 have analyzed
the sharing situation between MLS and NGSO MSS feeder links
and have indicated that sharing may be feasible given certain
constraints. However, Task Group 4/5 recommends that,
given the safety aspects of MLS, the two services use non-overlapping
spectrum. Additionally, Task Group 4/5 notes that MLS
could be 'reorganized' in the future into the 5000-5120
MHz portion of the band. This would yield 130 MHz of non-overlapping,
contiguous spectrum that could be used for NGSO MSS feeder
links. See ITU-R Document 4-5/Temp/38 (Rev.1) at 2.1.3.8.1.1.
U.S. delegation members, including those from the FCC,
NTIA, the Department of State, and the FAA did not oppose
these conclusions.
Note 6 - See ITU-R Document 8-3/TEMP/55-E, Geneva, 1994,
for an analysis of frequency sharing in this band.
Note 7 - The 10.7-10.95 and 11.2-11.45 GHz bands are proposed
to be paired with the 12.75-13.25 GHz band.
Note 8 - Proposed to be paired with spectrum in the 18.9-19.2
GHz band.
Note 9 - See ITU-R Document 8-3/TEMP/54-E, Geneva, 1994,
for an analysis of frequency sharing in this band.
Note 10 - Footnotes RR 869 and 870A limit the use of the
band by the fixed-satellite service to feeder links for
the broadcasting-satellite service. If NGSO MSS feeder
links are permitted in these bands those footnotes would
need to be suppressed or modified.
Note 11 - The 18.6 - 18.8 GHz band is allocated to the
Earth exploration-satellite service in Region 2.
Note 12 - We proposed to pair the 19.2-19.7 GHz band with
500 MHz of spectrum within the 27.5 - 29.5 GHz band. The
most logical pairing would be with the 29.0-29.5 MHz band.
However, the Commission is engaged in other rulemaking
proceedings thatcould affect the availibility of the 29.0-29.5
MHz band for feeder links. Therefore, we request comment
on both the 29.0-29.5 GHz and alternate 500 MHz segments
within the 27.5-29.5 GHz range for pairing with the 19.2-19.7
GHz band. We include the 29.0-29.5 MHz band as an example
'500 MHz' proposal.
Further details on the constraints associated with these
bands are identified in the IAC Interim Report.(n87) Additionally,
parties should take account of the proposed regulatory
provisions described previously that apply to candidate
bands as indicated in footnotes to Table 5.
5. MSS Spectrum Requirements/Allocations
57. While the proposed bands total more than 10 MHz,
the identification of a number of candidate bands will
likely be necessary to ensure the worldwide allocation
of 10 MHz at WRC-95. Note that the IAC has prioritized
candidate bands into three categories. They are:
Priority Onebands the IAC considers as most desirable
for allocation in the near term and on a worldwide basis;
Priority Twobands where NVNG MSS can share with existing
services, however, achieving worldwide allocations might
be difficult; and
Lowest Prioritybands used heavily in the U.S. However,
the nature of existing operations might permit sharing.
The priorities above are the IAC's assessment of the potential for using the bands it identifies. We note that all of the 'Priority One' bands for which the IAC has submitted draft conference proposals are either allocated exclusively for government use or for shared government - non-government use. NVNG MSS use of these bands has not been coordinated or agreed upon among the FCC, NTIA or government agency users. Therefore, it is premature to indicate that these bands will be U.S. proposals to WRC-95. We invite parties to comment on potential NVNG MSS allocations in the bands in the table, particularly the 'Priority One' bands,(n88) noting that, with the exception of the399.9-400.05 MHz band, such use has not been coordinated or agreed upon between the FCC and NTIA. We also invite parties to identify and give consideration to potential below 1 GHz NVNG MSS allocations in non-Government spectrum.(n89) Additionally, recognizing that it may be difficult to agree on U.S. proposals for allocations in spectrum with primary Government allocations, parties should attempt to identify potential allocations that might use both Government and non-Government spectrum.(n90)
58. Two of the IAC's candidate bands are being included
as preliminary FCC proposals for WRC-95. One, the 399.9-400.05
MHz band has an operation that will cease by 1 January
1997. The IRAC's RCS also includes this band as a preliminary
WRC-95 proposals for NVNG MSS. The other, the 137-138
MHz band is used in the U.S. by NOAA and DoD for MetSats
operations. However, Congress has mandated that those
entities consolidate their MetSat programs. This convergence
of programs is still under discussion. Consequently, the
time frame during which MetSats might migrate from this
band is as yet uncertain. Discussions with NTIA on the
eventual availability of this band continue. We invite
further comment on including this band as a FCC proposal
for a NVNG MSS allocation at WRC-95.
59. Spectrum Requirements/Allocations - MSS Between 1
and 3 GHz. There are numerous existing or proposed MSS
networks worldwide. These networks will compete for approximately
200 MHz of MSS spectrum currently available on a worldwide,
co-primary basis. In the IAC, a methodology for converting
traffic projections for MSS to needed spectrum was developed.(n91)
Using that methodology, the IAC arrived at the following
spectrum requirements, given in Table 4, for handheld terminal,
NGSO MSS.
MSS Spectrum Requirements by the Year 2005.
(Handheld Terminal, NGSO MSS)
(n92)[Table omitted]
61. The table below lists candidate bands for future MSS spectrum allocations. This table includes both potential "new" MSS allocations and bands listed earlier in the Allocation Constraints section. Bands that we intend to propose for allocation at WRC-95 at this juncture are noted and appear in Proposal No. 1/B-LEOAppendix 1.(n95) The 1675-1710 MHz band is listed in the table, however, discussion is continuing between the FCC, NTIA and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration on conditions for access to this band continue.(n96) We request comment on these and any other bands between 1 and 3 GHz that may be suitable for MSS .(n97)
Candidate Bands for Worldwide MSS Spectrum Allocations
= proposed Earth-to-space transmission direction
= proposed space-to-Earth transmission direction
62. Parties should note that the attached 1-3 GHz MSS
proposals (No. 1/B-LEO) incorporate proposed adjustments
to current 2 GHz MSS allocations made at WARC-92. These
adjustments reflect the Commission's allocation of the
1850-1990 MHz band for Personal Communication Services
(PCS),(n100) and its effect on our ability to use that spectrum
for MSS in the United States. Specifically, WARC-92 made
a secondary allocation for MSS in the 1930-1970 MHz band
for Region 2 only. We are proposing to eliminate this
allocation in the 1930-1945 MHz portion of this band.
WARC-92 also made a primary allocation for MSS in the 1970-1980
MHz band for Region 2 only. We are proposing to drop the
status of MSS in this band to secondary. This would reflect
the current PCS use in the U.S. but could allow some MSS
operation. Finally, we propose to eliminate the primary
MSS allocation in the 1980-1985 MHz band in all three Regions.
This last proposal leaves a 5 MHz primary MSS overlap
with the our domestic PCS allocation. Although this spectrum
may not be useable for primary MSS in the U.S.,(n101) it may
be useable in other parts of Region 2 and it provides additional
spectrum for coordinating spectrum use between administrations
international MSS networks. We invite comment on this
proposed MSS allocation structure.
6. Date of Entry Into Force of MSS Spectrum Allocations
Around 2 GHz.
64. Parties take positions on both sides of the date of entry issue. Motorola opposes advancing the date of entry. Motorola argues that the U.S. should not support advancing the date of entry, because that action would be inconsistent with the use of 2 GHz spectrum for Future Public Land Mobile Telecommunication Systems (FPLMTS)-compatible satellite systems.(n103) Motorola states that it would support moving the U.S. date in RR 746C to 1 January 2005 so that all potential MSS operators would face identical constraints.(n104)
65. COMSAT Mobile Communications (COMSAT) argues that
the U.S. should propose moving the RR 746B date of entry
forward to be compatible with the U.S. date (1996-2000).
COMSAT contends that there will likely be early saturation
of MSS bands, therefore, it is urgent that WRC-95 provide
access to 2 GHz bands around the year 2000.(n105) COMSAT also
maintains that early access to 2 GHz spectrum would facilitate
provision of a FLMPTS-compatible satellite component worldwide.
66. The Commission's IAC recommends that the United States
propose no change to its RR 746C date. It takes no position
on advancing the RR 746B date. However, it does recommend
that the U.S. adopt a position supporting a transition
plan to gradually introduce MSS into 2 GHz bands sometime
prior to the year 2005.
67. We note that although the current 1996 U.S. date of
entry of RR 746C affords the United States maximum flexibility
in implementing U.S.-based MSS networks, advancing the
2005 date of RR 746B could facilitate early introduction
of global MSS networks -- including future networks in
which U.S. entities may have interests. Therefore, we
believe that consideration of the differing dates of entry
into force of 2 GHz MSS allocations should be in the context
of an overall approach to making available 2 GHz MSS spectrum,
including potential expansion of existing allocations as
proposed elsewhere in this document. Therefore, we will
not make a specific proposal at this time.
B. Other WRC-95 Issues
69. Currently, RR 2541 specifies power limits for space
services and Earth stations operating in a number of frequency
bands shared by space and terrestrial services. The 2025-2110
MHz band, however, is not included in this provision.
Accordingly, ITU-R Joint Ad Hoc Working Party (JWP) 7B/9D
was tasked with developing appropriate power limits for
Earth stations operating in this band. Recently, JWP 7B/9D
reached a consensus that the power limits given in No.
2541 are appropriate to apply to the 2025-2110 MHz band.(n106)
The IAC and NTIA's RCS have developed draft language to
implement these power limits by adding No. 2544 bis to
Article 28 of the Radio Regulations to read as follows:
ADD 2544 bis (6)As an exception to the limits given in
No. 2541, the equivalent isotropically radiated power (e.i.r.p.)
towards the horizon for an earth station in the Earth exploration-satellite
service, space research service and space operation service
in the 2025-2110 MHz band shall not exceed +XXdBW in any
4 kHz band.
70. The IAC continues to address this subject. CTA,
Incorporated, the only commenter to address this issue,
supports consideration of guidelines for sharingwithin
this band.(n107) We renew our request for comments on this
issue -- specifically whether the RR 2541 limits are appropriate.
71. Fixed Satellite Service Use of the Band 13.75-14.0
GHz. WARC-92 made a primary allocation for FSS in the
13.75-14.0 GHz band. This band is shared with the radiolocation
and radionavigation services and is available on a secondary
basis for the space research, Earth exploration-satellite,
and standard frequency and time- signal satellite services.
To facilitate shared use of this band, WARC-92 adopted
footnote RR 855A to the international Radio Regulations
that specifies technical criteria for primary services
in this band.(n108) Resolution 112 (WARC-92) resolves that the
criteria specified in RR 855A be studied and that studies
be conducted on the technical compatibility between FSS
and secondary allocations in the 13.75-14.0 GHz band.
72. ITU-R Task Group 4/4 has completed its technical studies
relative to
RR 855A and has confirmed that the RR 855A values are
appropriate. In Recommendation ITU-R S.1068, it provides
further details on FSS sharing with the radiolocation and
radionavigation services. In addition, WARC-92 adopted
footnote RR 855B granting equal status with FSS operations
to geostationary space stations in the space research service
that were advance published prior to January 31, 1992.
Radio Regulation 855B also stipulates that FSS stations
shall not cause harmful interference to non-geostationary
stations in the space research service prior to January
1, 2000.
73. ITU-R Task Group 7/3 studied the compatibility between
FSS and other services in the 13.75-14.0 GHz band taking
into consideration RR 855B. The group developed criteria
necessary to provide protection to non-FSS services. Task
Group 4/4 developed constraints on FSS operations to provide
the necessary protection. As a result of their efforts,
the two groups developed recommendations ITU-R S.1069 and
ITU-R SA.1071 setting forth the sharing criteria for the
band. In considering Item 2.3 on the WRC-95 Agenda, the
CPM determined that all studies necessary to satisfy Resolution
112 have been performed and that the above Recommendations
contain the appropriate sharing criteria.
74. COMSAT World and Hughes support the work of Task Groups
4/4 and 7/3 and urge approval of their conclusions.(n109) The
IAC and NTIA, on behalf of participating federal government
agencies, concur and they have developed draft proposals
consistent with these conclusions.(n110) These draft proposals
modify RR 855A and 855B to eliminate references to Resolution
112 and future studies on technical criteria. They add
to RR 855A a reference to Recommendation ITU-R S.1068 and
add references to Recommendations ITU-R S.1069 and ITU-R
SA.1071 to RR 855B. Finally, their draft proposals suppress
Resolution 112 as no longer necessary.
75. We note that there appears to be general agreement
on the values affirmed by the relevant ITU-R groups and
on the suppressions of Resolution 112. As an initial matter,
we accept the IAC's recommendation on this issue and incorporate
it as Proposal No. 4/SS, Appendix 1. However, we invite
comment, noting that RR 855A stipulates that after 1 January
2000, non-geostationary space stations in the space research
and Earth exploration-satellite service will operate on
a secondary basis relative to the fixed-satellite service.
76. Space Services Allocations. Agenda item 3 for WRC-95
provides for consideration of Resolution 712 (WARC-92),
with a view towards taking action at WRC-97. The following
issues relating to space science services are considered
under Resolution 712: (1) providing worldwide primary
allocations for the Earth-exploration and space research
services in appropriate bands within the 8-20 GHz range;
(2) satisfying inter-satellite service requirements for
up to 50 MHz of spectrum near 23 GHz; (3) providing up
to 1 GHz of spectrum for space-based active Earth sensors
around 35 GHz; and 4) including certain CCIR-approved space
science service coordination parameters in Appendix 28
of the Radio Regulations. Technical studies are currently
underway regarding each of these issues, including spectrum
requirements, the allocation status of these services in
various bands, and the feasibility of sharing between services.
No parties commented on this issue in response to the
Notice. A detailed discussion of these issues and the
status ofconsiderations is contained in the IAC's Interim
Report.(n111) Parties are invited to address these issues, bearing
in mind that substantive action is planned for WRC-97.
2. Appendices 30 and 30A
78. The IAC has addressed both the VGE's Final Report as it relates to this subject and WRC-95 agenda item 3a. In its Interim Report, the IAC notes that VGE Recommendation Nos. 2/3, 2/5, and 2/6 would eliminate the Plans for BSS and associated feeder links and disperse their provisions and procedures throughout the Radio Regulations. It questions whether this is a useful 'simplification' and maintains that it would be premature to apply the VGE's recommendations since WRC-95 will consider major revisions to Appendices 30 and 30A. Furthermore, the IAC suggests that the recommendations might be used as a model for revisions of the Appendices at WRC-97.(n114)
79. The IAC also states that in determining the impact on the Region 2 Plans of revising the Region 1 and 3 Plans (and associated inter-Regional sharing criteria), it is critical to note that BSS systems actually implemented in Region 2 differ from those described in the Region 2 Plan. These differences, it contends, could make operating BSS systems in Region 2 more vulnerable to interference from BSS and FSS systemsin the other Regions. The IAC maintains that unless modifications are made to the Region 2 Plan to reflect systems being implemented, Regions 1 and 3 would not be required to provide inter-Regional protection. In this regard, it observes that it might also be desirable to modify inter-Regional sharing criteria on a reciprocal basis.(n115)
80. To preserve the United States's interests, the IAC
recommends the following actions:
oppose adoption of VGE Recommendation Nos. 2/3, 2/5
and 2/6;
participate actively in options for revising the Plans
in Regions 1 and 3, with two objectives:
1)to ensure equitable assignments for U.S. territories
in Region 3;
2)to protect Region 2 assignments as implemented from
revised assignments for Regions 1 and 3; and
not oppose the adoption of new inter-Regional sharing criteria or new orbital assignments that permit co-location of BSS and FSS assignments (Appendix 30B aspect).(n116)
81. In comments responding to the Notice, Hughes notes that U.S. BSS systems would be vulnerable to interference from systems in Regions 1 and 3.(n117) Both Hughes and USSB comment that the U.S. should participate in studies being undertaken pursuant to Resolution 524 by ITU-R Working Party 10-11S and CPM-95.(n118) Hughes also remarks that the impact of taking account of Appendix 30B in revising the Plans of Regions 1 and 3 should be negligible.(n119)
82. We request further comment on the above including
the IAC's recommendations. Parties should note the work
being conducted by ITU-R Working Party 10-11/S in preparation
for substantive actions at WRC-97. Specifically, suggestions
have been made to change Appendix 30/30A and Resolution
42 to modify inter-regional sharing criteria as well as
service implementation procedures andmethods to provide
additional flexibility to accommodate new direct broadcast
satellite (DBS) technologies and services. Comment is
also requested on whether the U.S. should propose to WRC-95
that WRC-97 be given appropriate limited competence to
revise the Radio Regulations to ensure that these recommendations
apply to Region 2.
3. High Frequency Broadcasting
84. Task Group 10/5 has made significant progress. In
its draft report, the group examines planning procedures
associated with broadcasting and other radio services.(n120)
It enumerates guiding principles for a new planning procedure
and describes the procedure for a new, simple, and flexible
process for planning the HFBC bands. This approach is
premised on the concept of seasonal coordination carried
out at the regional level. Coordination is based on an
agreed upon technical evaluation of the incompatibilities
in the proposed broadcasting schedules. This technical
evaluation is based on existing ITU-R Recommendations.
This approach will be refined at subsequent meetings of
Task Group 10/5 scheduled after WRC-95. The direction
Task Group 10/5 takes appears to be consistent with U.S.
interests.(n121) Although the WRC-95 agenda does not provide
for substantive action on this issue, Task Group-10/5's
final report will likely be the basis for substantive action
at WRC-97.(n122) We invite further comment on the work of Task
Group 10/5 and alternate approaches to facilitating the
availability of HFBC bands.
85. Comments were received on an additional item regarding
the HFBC issue.(n123) Under the current WARC-92 constraints,
only Single Side Band (SSB) transmissions can be used in
this additional spectrum. This matter may be linked to
the approval of a planning procedure at WRC-97. At present,
SSB receivers are not widely available and represent a
very small fraction of the HF receiver market. Also, the
SSB receivers that are available are prohibitively expensive
in many areas of the world. Commenters indicate that with
the advent of new technologies, such as digital audio broadcasting
(DAB), it may be unwise to impose a SSB standard without
first giving further consideration to better long term
alternatives. We request comments on the requirement
of SSB transmissions in the new HFBC bands.
4. Review of the Final Report of the Voluntary Group of
Experts
87. In the Notice, we described the general approaches
of the VGE for simplifying the Radio Regulations and invited
parties to comment on those approaches and on specific
VGE recommendations.(n127) We further invited parties to identify
foreseeable difficulties with any aspect of the VGE's work
and, where possible, to propose alternative approaches
and solutions.(n128) The IAC has also been asked toreview the
VGE's Final Report. NTIA's IRAC and its subordinate group,
the Radio Conference Subcommittee (RCS), are also reviewing
the VGE's work and developing preliminary draft U.S. proposals
for WRC-95.(n129) Their preliminary views were shared with
the IAC.
88. Several parties express concern that full consideration
of the VGE Report could consume too much of the time and
resources of WRC-95 at the expense of affording full treatment
of the other issues on agenda, most notably MSS. AMSC
comments that "substantial danger exists that VGE deliberations
will dominate WRC-95."(n130) Further, some recommend that consideration
of the VGE Final Report be deferred altogether until a
future conference.(n131) AMSC suggests that WRC-95 categorize
the VGE issues according to service and then place specific
issues for consideration on appropriate future WRC agendas.(n132)
Other commenters, such as Comsat Mobile Communications,
propose that the VGE Final Report be addressed in a separate
committee at WRC-95 so work can continue simultaneously
on the other WRC-95 agenda items.(n133) The Commission shares
the commenters' concerns that adequate attention can be
devoted at WRC-95 for considering issues besides the simplification
of the Radio Regulations. Parties should note that it
has not yet been determined to what extent and how WRC-95
or subsequent conferences might consider the VGE Final
Report. That decision will likely develop at ITU meetings
preparing for WRC-95 and will be finalized at the conference
itself.
89. Other parties offer comment on specific VGE proposals.
Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) opposes VGE Recommendation
No. 1/7 to allocate frequencies to more broadly defined
service categories.(n134) COMSAT World expresses concern that
the VGE's "simplification" of notification, coordination,
and registration proceduresmight serve to hinder implementation
of satellite-based telecommunications service.(n135) The comments
reflect differing views on whether the VGE's proposed Simplified
Radio Regulations would improve the current interim procedures
for coordination and notification of NGSO satellite networks
contained in Res. 46.(n136) We invite parties to submit any
further comments on these identified issues or other concerns
regarding the VGE's Final Report.
90. The IAC concludes in its Interim Report that the VGE has successfully carried the majority of the provisions of the international Radio Regulations forward to the Simplified Radio Regulations without change to the present registration process for frequency assignments.(n137) The IAC also expresses general agreement with the preliminary views on this topic expressed by the federal government in the NTIA Draft Proposals.(n138) Specific variances from the views of the VGE and the federal government are described in the Interim Report.(n139)
91. Commission staff is continuing its own review of
the VGE Final Report and is evolving preliminary draft
U.S. proposals on this topic. In conjunction with these
efforts, it will take into account the further views expressed
by the IAC, the commenters, and NTIA. Parties are invited
to comment on the IAC's recommendations and other VGE issues.
C. Planning for Future World Radiocommunication Conferences
93. The preliminary agenda also provides for consideration,
at WRC-97, of the following outstanding resolutions and
recommendations from past conferences: Resolution 60 (WARC-79)
on revision of propagation information used in Appendix
28; Resolution 211 (WARC-92) on use by mobile service of
frequency bands 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz; Resolution
710 (WARC-92) on primary service requirements for Met-Sat
and Earth exploration-satellite services in band 401-403
MHz; and Resolution 712 (WARC-92) on issues dealing with
allocations to space services which were not placed on
the WARC-92 agenda;(n142) Recommendation 66 (WARC-92) on studies
of maximum permitted levels of spurious emissions;Recommendation
621 (WARC-92) on implementation of wind profiler radars;(n143)
Recommendation 711 (WARC-79) on coordination of Earth
stations; and Recommendation 715 (Orb-88) on multi-band
and/or multiservice satellite networks using the geostationary-satellite
orbit.(n144) Finally, WRC-97 is directed to recommend to the
Council items for inclusion on the WRC-99 agenda and to
provide its views on a preliminary agenda for the 2001
conference.
94. WRC-95 will review the WRC-97 preliminary agenda and recommend a final agenda to Council for its approval. WRC-95 will also recommend a preliminary agenda for WRC-99 and give its views on potential agenda items for future conferences.(n145)
2. Suggested Topics for Future Conferences
96. The IAC is also considering the subject of future conference agendas. The section of its Interim Report that is devoted to this topic has not yet been fully developed, however, and its discussion is therefore quite preliminary. Further comment is welcome on the IAC's preliminary discussion. The IAC preliminarily recommends that WRC-97 consider the following additional items to facilitate MSS above 1 GHz: (1) continuing revision of Res. 46 based on experience gained from operating and coordinating NGSO MSS systems; (2) reviewing the effect of RR 2613 on these systems; (3) reviewing the constraints against MSS service link spectrum at 1-3 GHz to ensure availability of sufficient amounts to accommodate future growth; and (4) reviewing the amount of spectrum for NGSO MSS feeder links to ensure sufficient amounts are available in future for MSS on a worldwide basis.(n152)
97. The IAC's Interim Report also identifies several potential subjects for future consideration relating to space services. It advises that WRC-97 consider allocating the 65.0-71.0 GHz band to the inter-satellite service (ISS) on a co-equal primary basis as an alternative to its present co-primary allocation in the 54.25-58.2 GHz band. The ISS will be used by commercial LEO satellite systems for their inter-satellite links and has the potential to interfere with passive earth sensors sharing the band. Specifically, the proposal is intended to protect passive sensing by the Earth exploration-satellite service of oxygen absorption lines that are unique to the 51.4-59.0 GHz band, for weather forecasting and climate studies.(n153) The following additional suggestions for future conference items are also described in the IAC Interim Report: (1) upgrading the status of space research in the 410-420 MHz band;(2) reviewing the allocation status for active space-based sensors; and (3) adopting sharing criteria between space services and fixed services in the 2025-2110 and 2200-2290 MHz bands.(n154)
98. The IAC Interim Report includes the following additional
suggestions which are of a very preliminary nature for
consideration as future conference topics. Comments on
these nascent proposals are specifically requested. The
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) suggests
consideration of additional international spectrum allocations
for terrestrial land mobile services for public safety
applications including possible reallocation of the 380-399.9
MHz band.(n155) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) proponents
are considering frequency bands below
6 GHz for communications and a band above 40 GHz for vehicular
collision avoidance. Noting European interest in the 5.8
GHz band, the ITS community has expressed a desire for
international compatibility of systems.(n156) We also invite
comment on which bands would be appropriate for
the above services.
99. As we have noted, under the four-year conference planning cycle, WRC-95 will adopt not only an agenda for WRC-97 (subject to Council's approval), but a preliminary agenda for WRC-99. The Notice therefore requested commenters to submit their views on issues for inclusion in the preliminary agenda for WRC-99.(n157) Few parties addressed this topic, however. The American Radio Relay League requests that WRC-99 consider adoption of an international amateur radio permit, such as one currently under development by the Inter-American Telecommunications Commission (CITEL).(n158) IVHS America posits that consideration of ITS spectrum allocation issues might carry over to the 1999 conference.(n159)
100. The opportunity offered at WRC-95 to identify
issues for consideration at future conferences is a significant
one that should not be overlooked due to the press of current
issues. We therefore renew our request and urge the parties
to take advantage of this opportunity for long-range planning
and to submit their views on issues for consideration at
WRC-99 and beyond.
D. Related Conference Preparatory Issues
2. Other International WRC Planning Activities
3. Preliminary U.S. Government Agency-Developed WRC-95
Proposals
4. Conference Preparatory Processes
105. Since the release of the Notice, the Commission has reorganized its international and satellite functions, formerly contained in the Common Carrier Bureau, Mass Media Bureau, Private Radio Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology,Field Operations Bureau, and Office of International Communications, by consolidating them into a single operating bureau -- the International Bureau.(n168) Within the new Bureau, an office has been established to continuously track the activities of the ITU's Radiocommunication Sector and to prepare for WRCs. That office, the Radiocommunication Policy Branch of the Satellite and Radiocommunication Division, includes permanent staff personnel with continuous conference planning responsibilities. The Bureau also plans to provide a consolidated international public reference room which will offer the public access to IAC and related documents to facilitate ongoing WRC preparations.(n169)
106. The parties express general support of the Commission's recommendations contained in the Notice and offer additional ideas to improve the process.(n170) COMSAT World suggests that the Commission create a WRC Preparatory Office to direct and coordinate all internal and external Commission preparations and that it name an Executive Coordinator for each of the next two WRCs.(n171) It further proposes that the Commission create a permanent IAC structure whose leadership would change for each conference. Orbcomm advises the Commission to organize the preparatory process on an issue basis, with small government/industry teams focusing on specific allocation and regulatory matters.(n172)
107. Several comments signalled a second theme -- a frustration with the current process which is closed to the public once final consultations among the Commission and federal government entities are underway to forge final U.S. proposals.(n173) In a similar vein, AMSC recommends that the IAC process be modified to encourage broader participation of members from other government agencies -- particularly IRAC members -- and that the Commission consider establishing a joint committee of FCC and NTIA representatives that would be open to members of the private sector to jointly study issues under consideration for WRC agendas.(n174)
108. Finally, the IAC urges the Commission to create
a "permanent" Industry Advisory Committee for WRC preparations
in order to: (1) maintain inter-conferencecontinuity of
private sector input into WRC preparations; (2) establish
a single repository for old and new WRC documents; and
(3) assuage antitrust concerns of industry participants.(n175)
According to the IAC, a "permanent" IAC would mirror the
federal agency preparatory process and would result in
better prepared U.S. positions, proposals, and delegations.(n176)
The IAC does recognize, however, that the Federal Advisory
Committee Act(n177) limits industry advisory committees to two-year
terms and that the President has requested agencies to
institute such committees only when necessitated by "compelling
circumstances."(n178) The IAC suggests the Commission follow
the success of the Industry Advisory Committee on Advanced
Television Service,(n179) for example, and seek timely and continuous
renewal of the IAC to facilitate preparations for WRC-97
and beyond.(n180) The Commission agrees that the IAC process
is important to U.S. preparations and we intend to seek
prompt renewal of the IAC's charter to prepare for future
conferences. We note that federal government agency representatives
are already active participants in the IAC, but agree that
their continued participation should be encouraged. Finally,
we also agree that broadening the opportunity for public
participation in the process of negotiating final U.S.
proposals is a worthy goal and should be considered further.
Accordingly, further comment on all of these matters is
requested.
109. Pursuant to Section 1.1204(a)(4) of the Commission's
Rules, 47 CFR § 1.204(a)(4), no ex parte restrictions apply
to this proceeding.
Comment Dates
Ordering Clause
Contact Persons
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton
Acting Secretary
RECOMMENDED UNITED STATES PROPOSALS -- PRELIMINARY FCC
DRAFT
WORLD RADIOCOMMUNICATION CONFERENCE
(GENEVA, 1995)
Washington, D.C.
January, 1995
METHOD OF PRESENTATION
2. Services shown with an initial capital letter and the
remaining letters in lower case (e.g., Fixed) in the Allocation
Table are services with secondary status.
3. Underlining (e.g., Underlining) indicates new text proposed
for adoption.
4. Strike-out text (e.g.) indicates existing text proposed
for deletion.
5. NOC indicates provisions for which no change is proposed.
6. NOC indicates a matter of particular significance, for
which it is important that no changes be made to the
current provisions.
7. SUP indicates provisions that are proposed for suppression.
8. MOD indicates a proposed modification to the existing
text.
9. (MOD) indicates proposed modifications that are strictly
editorial in nature.
10. ADD indicates new provisions that are being proposed
for addition.
NOC 797B
MOD
733 The band 1610 - 1626.5 MHz is also allocated to the
aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service on a primary
basis. Such use is subject to agreement obtained under
the procedure set forth in Article 14.
MOD
796 The band 5030 - 5091 MHz is to be used for the operation
of the international standard system (microwave landing
system) for precision approach and landing. The requirements
of this system shall take precedence over other uses of
this band. Future operations of MLS may extend into the
5000 - 5030 MHz band. Administrations should attempt to
satisfy the needs of MLS in the 5030 - 5091 MHz band before
expansion into the 5000 - 5030 MHz band. After January
1, 2015, the microwave landing system may also operate
in the band 5091 -5120 MHz, if the requirements of the
system in support of precision approach and landing cannot
be met in the 5000- 5030 and 5030 - 5091 MHz bands. In
the event that microwave landing system operations extend
beyond the 5030 - 5091 MHz band, the requirements of this
system shall take precedence over other uses of the occupied
bands.
797
SUP
797A
ADD
797C The use of the band 5000 - 5250 MHz (Earth-to-space)
and 15.4 - 15.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) by the fixed-satellite
service is limited to feeder links for non-geostationary
satellite systems of the mobile-satellite service.
797D The use of the band 5000 - 5250 MHz (Earth-to-space)
by the fixed-satellite service is subject to the application
of the coordination and notification procedures set forth
in Resolution 46 [suitably modified], for coordination
between non-geostationary satellite networks (Earth-to-space)
and between non-geostationary satellite networks (Earth-to-space)
and terrestrial services.
NOC 791, 809
MOD
792A The use of the bands 4500 - 4800 MHz (space-to-Earth),
6725 - 7025 MHz (Earth-to-space), 10.7 - 10.95 GHz (space-to-Earth),
11.2 - 11.45 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 12.75 - 13.25 GHz
(Earth-to-space), by the fixed-satellite service shall
be in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 30B.
ADD
809A The use of the bands 6825 - 7075 MHz (space-to-Earth)
and 12.75 - 13.25 GHz (space-to-Earth) by the fixed-satellite
service is limited to feeder links for non-geostationary
satellite networks of the mobile-satellite service. The
provisions of No. 2613 do not apply to these fixed-satellite
service allocations for the (space-to-Earth) direction
of transmission.
809B The use of the bands 6825 - 7075 MHz (space-to-Earth)
and 12.75 - 13.25 GHz (space-to-Earth) by the fixed satellite
service is subject to the application of the coordination
and notification procedures set forth in Resolution 46
[suitably modified], for the coordination between geostationary
satellite networks (Earth-to-space) and non-geostationary
satellite networks (space-to-Earth) and between non-geostationary
satellite networks (space-to-Earth). Non-geostationary
satellite networks shall not exceed the power flux-density
limit at the geostationary-satellite orbit as specified
in No. 2631. Coordination between non-geostationary satellite
networks and terrestrial services in the band 6825 - 7075
MHz (space-to-Earth) is required only if the power-flux
density produced at the Earth's surface exceeds the limits
specified in No. MOD 2567 and in the band 12.75 - 13.25
GHz (space-to-Earth) if the power-flux density produced
at the Earth's surface exceeds the limits specified in
No. MOD 2575.
GHz
10.7 - 12.75
MOD
[Table omitted]
ADD
792B The use of the bands 10.7 - 10.95 GHz (Earth-to-space)
and 11.2 - 11.45 GHz (Earth-to-space) by the fixed-satellite
service is limited to feeder links for non-geostationary
satellite networks of the mobile-satellite service except
as provided by No. 835 for broadcasting-satellite service
feeder links (Earth-to-space). The provisions of No. 2613
do not apply to these fixed-satellite service allocations
in the Earth-to-space direction of transmission.
792C The use of the bands 10.7 - 10.95 GHz (Earth-to-space),
and 11.2 - 11.45 GHz (Earth-to-space) by the fixed-satellite
service for feeder links for non-geostationary satellite
networks of the mobile-satellite service is subject to
the coordination and notification procedures set forth
in Resolution 46 [suitably modified] for the coordination
between geostationary satellite networks (space-to-Earth)
and non-geostationary satellite networks (Earth-to-space),
between non-geostationary satellite networks (Earth-to-space),
and between non-geostationary satellite networks (Earth-to-space)
and terrestrial services.
835 In Region 1, the band 10.7 - 11.7 GHz may also be
used by the fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) for
the provision of feeder links for the broadcasting-satellite
service.
ADD
835A
The use of the fixed - satellite service band 10.7 - 10.95
GHz (Earth-to-space), and the fixed - satellite service
band 11.2 - 11.45 GHz (Earth-to-space) in Region 1 for
feeder links for the broadcasting-satellite service is
subject to the coordination and notification procedures
set forth in Resolution 46 [suitably modified] for the
coordination between non-geostationary networks (Earth-to-space)
and geostationary satellite networks (Earth-to-space) operating
pursuant to No. MOD 835.
REASON: To allocate spectrum specifically for feeder links
to support mobile-satellite services provided from non-geostationary
satellite networks.
MOD
733 The band 1610 - 1626.5 MHz is also allocated to the
aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service on a primary
basis. Such use is subject to agreement obtained under
the procedure set forth in Article 14.
SUP
797
ADD
797E The use of the band 15.4 - 15.7 GHz (space-to-Earth)
by the fixed-satellite service is subject to the application
of the coordination and notification procedures set forth
in Resolution 46 [suitably modified], for coordination
between non-geostationary satellite networks (space-to-Earth)
and between non-geostationary satellite networks (space-to-Earth)
and terrestrial services.
ADD
Note
730B The use of the band 18.9 - 19.2 GHz (Earth-to-space)
by the fixed satellite service is limited to feeder links
for non-geostationary satellite systems in the mobile-satellite
service. The provisions of No. 2613 do not apply to these
fixed-satellite allocations in the Earth-to-space direction
of transmission.
730C The use of the band 18.9 - 19.2 GHz (Earth-to-space)
by the fixed satellite service for feeder links for non-geostationary
satellite networks is subject to the coordination and notification
procedures set forth in Resolution 46 [suitably modified]
for the coordination between geostationary satellite networks
(space-to-Earth) and non-geostationary satellite networks
(Earth-to-space), between non-geostationary satellite networks
(Earth-to-space), and between non-geostationary satellite
networks (Earth-to-space) and terrestrial services.
730D The band 19.2 - 19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) may also
be used by the fixed-satellite service on a primary basis
for feeder links for non-geostationary satellite systems
in the mobile-satellite service. The provisions of No.
2613 do not apply to this fixed-satellite allocation in
the space-to-Earth direction of transmission.
ADD
730E The use of the band 19.2- 19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth)
by the fixed-satellite service is subject to the application
of the coordination and notification procedures set forth
in Resolution 46 [suitably modified], for the coordination
between geostationary networks (space-to-Earth) and non-geostationary
satellite networks (space-to-Earth), between non-geostationary
satellite networks (space-to-Earth) and between non-geostationary
satellite networks (space-to-Earth) and terrestrial services.
Emissions from non-geostationary space stations shall
not exceed the power flux - density limits at the Earth's
surface as specified in No. MOD 2578. Non-geostationary
satellite space stations shall not exceed the power flux-density
limit at the geostationary-satellite orbit as specified
in No. 2631.
NOC 882B, 882C, 882D
ADD
882E The use of the band 29.0 - 29.5 GHz (Earth-to-space)
for feeder links for the broadcasting-satellite service
is subject to the coordination and notification procedures
set forth in Resolution 46 [suitably modified] for the
coordination between non-geostationary networks (Earth-to-space)
and geostationary satellite networks (Earth-to-space) operating
pursuant to No. 882D.
882F The band 29.0 - 29.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) may also
be used by the fixed -satellite service on a primary basis
for feeder links for non-geostationary satellite systems
in the mobile-satellite service. The provisions of No.
2613 do not apply to this fixed-satellite allocation in
the Earth-to-space direction of transmission.
Note
882G The use of the band 29.0 - 29.5 GHz (Earth-to-space)
by the fixed-satellite service is subject to the coordination
and notification procedures set forth in Resolution 46
[suitably modified] for the coordination between geostationary
satellitenetworks (Earth-to-space) and non-geostationary
satellite networks (Earth-to-space), between non-geostationary
satellite networks (Earth-to-space), and between non-geostationary
satellite networks (Earth-to-space) and terrestrial services.
REASON: To allocate spectrum specifically for feeder links
to support mobile-satellite services provided from non-geostationary
satellite networks.
MOD
ARTICLE 28
Proposed modification of No. 2567 b) and addition of No.
2567 c) to Article 28 of the Radio Regulations regarding
the power flux-density limits between 3400 MHz and 7750
MHz.
MOD
-154 dB(W/m2/4 kHz) for arrival angles 0o to 5o;
2567 b) The power flux-density at the Earth's surface produced
by emissions from a space station which operates as a feeder
link for a mobile-satellite service network in the fixed-satellite
service in the band 6825 - 7075 MHz (space-to-Earth), for
all conditions and for all methods of modulation, shall
not exceed the following values:
-144 dB(W/m2/4 kHz) for arrival angles 5o to 90o.
- fixed-satellite service (space-to-Earth)
- meteorological - satellite service (space-to-Earth)
- mobile - satellite service
- space research service
for transmission by space stations where these bands are
shared with equal rights with the fixed or mobile service.
Proposed modification of No. 2573 and addition of No. 2575
c) to Article 28 of the Radio Regulations regarding the
power flux-density limits between 12.2 GHz and 13.25 GHz.
MOD
2573 (6) Power flux-density limits between 12.2 GHz and
13.25 GHz.
MOD
-148 dB(W/m2/4kHz) for arrival angles 0o to 5o;
c)
2575 b) The power flux-density at the Earth's surface produced
by emissions from a space station which operates as a feeder
link for a mobile-satellite service network in the fixed-satellite
service in the band 12.75 - 13.25 GHz (space-to-Earth),
for all conditions and for all methods of modulation, shall
not exceed the following values:
-138 dB(W/m2/4kHz) for arrival angles 5o to 90o.
Proposed addition of No. 2578 b) and modification of No.
2579 to Article 28 of the Radio Regulations regarding the
power flux-density limits between 17.7 GHz and 19.7 GHz.
MOD
2578 a) The power flux-density at the Earth's surface produced
by emissions from a space station, including emission from
a reflecting satellite, for all conditions and for all
methods of modulation, shall not exceed the following values:
- 115 dB(W/m2) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival
between 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane;
- 115 + 0.5( - 5)dB(W/m2) in any 1 MHz band for angles
of arrival (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above
the horizontal plane;
- 105 dB(W/m2) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival
between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
These limits relate to the power flux-density which would
be obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions.
b) The power flux-density at the Earth's surface produced
by emissions from a space station which operates as a feeder
link for a mobile-satellite service network in the fixed-satellite
service in the band 19.2 - 19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), for
all conditions and for all methods of modulation, shall
not exceed the following values:
-115 dB(W/m2/MHz) for arrival angles 0o to 5o;
-105 dB(W/m2/MHz) for arrival angles 5o to 90o
These limits relate to the power flux-density which would
be obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions.
2579 c) The limits given in No. 2578 apply in the frequency
band listed in No. 2580 which are allocated to the following
space radiocommunication services:
- fixed-satellite service (space-to-Earth)
-earth exploration - satellite including meteorological
- satellite service (space-to-Earth)
for transmission by space stations where this band is shared
with equal rights with the fixed or mobile service.
REASON: Proposals for Nos. 2567, 2573, 2575, 2578, and
2579 facilitate the sharing between the non-geostationary
satellite networks providing MSS feeder links and other
radio services operating in the frequency band.
MOD
ARTICLE 29
Proposed modification of No. 2631 of Article 29 of the
Radio Regulations, Section V., Power Flux-Density at the
Geostationary-Satellite Orbit.
MOD
2631 § 6. a) In the frequency band 8025 MHz - 8400 MHz
which the earth exploration - satellite service using non-geostationary
satellites shares with the fixed -satellite service (Earth-to-space)
or the meteorological - satellite service (Earth-to-space),
the maximum power flux-density produced at the geostationary-satellite
orbit by any earth exploration - satellite service space
station shall not exceed -174 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz band.
b) In the frequency bands 6825 - 7075 MHz (space-to-Earth)
and 12.75 - 13.25 GHz (space-to-Earth) which feeder link
networks of the mobile-satellite service share with the
fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space), the maximum power
flux-density produced at the geostationary-satellite orbit
by any feeder link network space station shall not exceed
-168 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz band. These values apply within
+/- 5o of the geostationary-satellite orbit.
ADD 599XSpace operation, meteorological satellite service
and space research will be co-primary until [1 January
2006], and secondary until [1 January 2010] to protect
continuing operations.
Reason
To recognize the movement of space operations, meteorological
satellite and space research systems to other segments
of the 137 - 138 MHz band and to provide protection to
these services during the transition period. Note, however,
that in October 1994, Congress mandated that DoD and NOAA
combine their polar orbiting meteorological satellite
programs. This convergence, as well as the potential convergence
with similar European meteorological satellite programs,
is in the planning stage and the characteristics andfrequencies
of operation of new satellites are not defined. Consequently,
the time frame for migrating meteorological satellites
from the 137-137.025 MHz and 137.175-137.825 MHz band is
still under discussion. Therefore, the years 2006 and
2010, referenced in the text above, appear in square brackets
in the attached proposal for the 137-138 MHz band.
MOD
MOD 599B
WARC-92The use of the bands 137 - 138 MHz, 148 -149.9
MHz, 149.9 - 150.05 MHz, 399.9 - 400.05 MHz and 400.15
- 401 MHz by the mobile-satellite service is limited to
non-geostationary-satellite systems.
MOD 608A
WARC-92. Administrations using mobile earth stations
in the mobile satellite service shall use the coordination
distance threshold method in Recommendation (WP 8D)/TEMP/35
Rev.1) to determine coordination distance thresholds outside
national boundaries.
MOD 608B
WARC-92The use of the bands 149.9-150.05 MHz and 399.9
- 400.05 MHz by the mobile-satellite service is subject
to the application of the coordination and notification
procedures set forth in Resolution 46 (WARC-92). The
mobile-satellite service shall not constrain the development
and use of the radionavigation-satellite service in the
149.9-150.05 MHz and 399.9 - 400.05 bands .
MOD 609B
WARC-92In the band 149.9-150.05 MHz, the allocation to
the mobile-satellite service shall be on a secondary basis
until 1 January 1997.
Reason
To allow for maximum flexibility in system implementation
the land mobile satellite allocation in the 149.9 - 150.05
MHz band is proposed for any Mobile Satellite service.
Modification to No. 608A was required because the -150
dB(W/m2/kHz) has proven to be operationally unusable.
The coordination distance threshold is a more useful approach
to facilitate coordination across national boundaries.
The removal of 'land' in Footnotes 608B and 609B reflects
the change in the allocation table to Mobile Satellite
service. The removal of -150 dB(W/m2/4 kHz) power flux
density maximum in No. 608B reflects the fact that there
are no fixed or mobile services in this band.
MOD
Reason
In the 399.9 - 400.05 MHz band the TRANSIT system is being
phased out of this band making it available for an Mobile
Satellite service allocation.
SUP 726B
Reason
To make allocations for Mobile Satellite service.
Reason
To make allocations generic and to provide
priority access and immediate availability for maritime
distress and safety communications.
MOD
SUP 729A.
SUP730A.
MOD 730C In the bands 1545 - 1559 MHz and 1646.5 - 1660.5
MHz, the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service shall
have priority access and immediate availability over all
other mobile-satellite communications within a network
operating under this provision; mobile-satellite systems
shall be interoperable with the aeronautical mobile-satellite
(R) service; account shall be taken of the priority of
safety-related communications in the other mobile-satellite
services.
SUP 730B .
Reason
To make allocations availiable for all Mobile Satellite
services and to provide priority access and immediate availability
for aeronautical and maritime distress and safety communications.
MOD 731EThe use of the band 1610-1626.5 MHz by the mobile-satellite
service (Earth-to-space) and by the radiodetermination-satellite
service (Earth-to-space) is subject to the application
of the coordination and notification procedures set forth
in Resolution 46 (WARC-92). A mobile earth station operating
in either of the services in this band shall not produce
a mean e.i.r.p. density in excess of -15 dB (W/4 kHz)
in the part of the band used by systems operating in accordance
with the provisions of No. 732, unless otherwise agreed
by the affected administrations. In the part of the band
where such systems are not operating, a value of -3 dB
(W/4 kHz) is applicable. Application of the provisions
of No. 953 apply to the use of the 1610 - 1626.5 MHz band.
Reason
Inclusion of the term "mean" is intended to clarify how
the e.i.r.p. density limit should be measured. The text
proposed for deletion at the end of this provision is unnecessary
to protect the primary allocation status of the identified
services and creates confusion and ambiguity concerning
the primary status of the mobile-satellite service in the
1610-1626.5 MHz band.
Reason
To make allocations availiable to all Mobile Satellite
services and to provide priority access and immediate availability
for aeronautical and maritime distress and safety communications.
Note: If ITU-R Working Party 7C's draft new Recommendation
regarding sharing between MetSats and MSS is approved by
the Radiocommunication assembly or prior to WRC-95, the
MetSat service could be suppressed from footnote 735A.
Sharing between MetAids and MSS is also being addressed
in Working Party 7C. If the appropriate sharing criteria
are developedand approved for this situation, MetAids could
also be suppressed. However, that work is not yet completed.
MOD 746BThe use of the bands 1985 - 2025 MHz and 2160
- 2200 MHz by the mobile-satellite service shall not commence
before 1 January 2005 and is subject to the application
of the coordination and notification procedures set forth
in Resolution 46 (WARC-92). In the band 2160-2200 MHz
coordination of space stations of the mobile-satellite
service with respect to terrestrial services is required
only if the power flux density or Fractional Degradation
Percentage produced at the Earth's Surface exceeds the
threshold , in Recommendation (TG 2-2/TEMP/89 (Rev2).
In respect of assignments operating in this band, the provisions
of Section II, paragraph 2.2 of Resolution 46 (WARC-92)
shall also be applied to geostationary transmitting space
stations with respect to terrestrial stations.
MOD 746CIn the United States, the use of the bands 1985
-2025 MHz and 2160 - 2200 MHz by the mobile-satellite service
shall not commence before 1 January 1996.
MOD 753FThe use of the band 2483.5-2500 MHz by the mobile-satellite
service and the radiodetermination-satellite service is
subject to the application of the coordination and notification
procedures set forth in Resolution 46 (WARC-92). Coordination
of space stations of the mobile-satellite and radiodetermination-satellite
services with respect to terrestrial services is required
only if the power-flux density produced at the Earth's
surface exceeds:
-150 + 0.65 (-5) dB (W/m2) in any 4 kHz band for angles
of arrival (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above
the horizontal plane
-137 dB (W/m2) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival
between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
These limits relate to the power flux-density which would
be obtained under assumed free-space conditions
Reason
To facilitate the introduction of mobile-satellite systems
in this band while providing adequate protection of analog
point-to-point and multipoint fixed systems in the band.
MOD 855BIn the band 13.75-14.0 GHz geostationary space stations in the space research service, for which information for advance publication has been received by the ITU-R prior to 31 January 1992, shall operate on an equal basis with stations in the fixed-satellite service; after that date new geostationary space stations in the space research service will operate on a secondary basis. Until 1 January 2000, stations in the fixed-satellite service shall not cause harmful interference to non-geostationary space stations in the space research and earth exploration-satellite services; after that date these non-geostationary space stations will operate on a secondary basis in relation to the fixed-satellite service. See Recommendations ITU-R S.1069 and ITU-R SA.1071.
Reasons:
Resolves 2 of Resolution 112 called for studies with respect
to the technical compatibility between the primary allocation
to the fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) and the
secondary allocations to the space research and Earth exploration-satellite
services. ITU-R Task group 7-3 was established to study
this compatibility taking into account the time frames
given in No. 855B. Task Group 7-3 developed protection
criteria for the secondary services. Task Group 4-4 considered
constraints which would apply to the fixed-satellite service
to meet these protection criteria within the time frames
given in No. 855B. The two Task Groups, in close consultation,
developed two companion Recommendations: ITU-R S.1069 and
ITU-R SA.1071. These Recommendations provide further technical
details with respect to the compatibility between the
fixed-satellite services and these secondary services.
Necessary studies called for in Resolution
112 have been conducted and recommendations have been approved.
With modification to Nos. 855A and 855B Resolution 112
is no longer required.
Industry Advisory Committee Recommended Candidate Bands
for Additional Allocations for MSS below 1 GHz
addalloc.tbl
1) Basic Assumptions for All Candidate Allocation
No Displacement of Existing Services
No Harmful Interference to Existing Services
1. Aeronautical Radio, Inc.
2. AirTouch Communications
3. American Mobile Satellite Corporation
4. American Radio Relay League
5. Association of American Railroads
6. Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. & Other
Major Television Broadcasting Entities
7. COMSAT Mobile Communications
8. COMSAT World Systems
9. Constellation Communications, Inc.
10. DBS Industries, Inc.
11. Ellipsat Corporation
12. GE American Communications, Inc.
13. George Jacobs & Associates & FCC International Broadcast
Stations Licensees
14. Hughes Space and Communications Company & Hughes Communications
Galaxy, Inc.
15. Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Society of America
16. Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P
17. Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. & Iridium,
Inc.
18. National Association of Shortwave Broadcasters
19. Orbital Communications Corporation
20. STARSYS Global Positioning, Inc.
21. Teledesic Corporation
22. TRW, Inc.
23. United States Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc.
Reply Comments to NOI in IC Docket No. 94-31:
1. Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council
2. American Mobile Satellite Corporation
3. American Radio Relay League
4. Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc.
5. AT&T Corp.
6. COMSAT Mobile Communications
7. COMSAT World Systems
8. CTA Incorporated
9. Ellipsat Corporation
10. GE American Communications, Inc.
Reply Comments to NOI in IC Docket No. 94-31 continued:
11. Hughes Space and Communications Company & Hughes Communications
Galaxy, Inc.
12. Loral/QUALCOMM Partnership, L.P.
13. Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. & Iridium,
Inc.
14. National Association of Broadcasters
15. PanAmSat, L.P.
16. Primosphere Limited Partnership
17. Securicor Datatrak Limited
18. Teledesic Corporation
19. TRW, Inc.
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
a) have a reasonable and clearly defined health,
safety or aesthetic objective; and
b)do not operate to impose unreasonable limitations
on, or prevent, reception of satellite delivered
signals by receive-only antennas or to impose
costs on users of such antennas that are excessive
in light of the purchase and installation cost
of the equipment.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Evidence on Zoning Practices Under the Current Rule . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Residential Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Commercial Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. New Satellite Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. Views of Municipal Government Representatives. . . . . . . . . . . 30
5. Effects of Commission Forbearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B. Proposed Modification and Clarification of the Rule . . . . . . . . . 41
1. Procedures for Commission Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2. Revision of the Reasonableness Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
a. "Differentiation" and Inter-Service Competitiveness . . . . . . 52
Footnote 1 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.104.
Footnote 2 See In re Preemption of Local Zoning Regulations of Receive-Only Satellite Earth Stations, 100 F.C.C.2d 846, 847 (1985) (NPRM).
Footnote 3 In re Preemption of Local Zoning or Other Regulation of Receive-Only Satellite Earth Stations, 51 Fed. Reg. 5519 (Feb. 14, 1986) (Report and Order).
Footnote 4 Preemption Order ¶ 23.
Footnote 5 Id. ¶ 26.
Footnote 6 See, e.g., Id. ¶¶ 27-28.
Footnote 7 47 C.F.R. § 25.104.
Footnote 8 Preemption Order ¶ 39.
Footnote 9 Id. ¶ 40.
Footnote 10 SBCA Petition for Declaratory Ruling (April 16, 1991) ("SBCA Petition"), at iv.
Footnote 11 Mr. Carino filed an action in the New York state trial level court and appealed its adverse ruling to the state Appellate Division and to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. After losing in these courts, he filed an action in the U.S. District Court which ruled he was collaterally estopped from relitigating these issues [Carino v. Town of Deerfield, 750 F. Supp. 1156 (N.D.N.Y. 1990)] and that ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [ Carino V. Town of Deerfiled, Doc. No. 90-9116 (2d Cir. June 21, 1991).
Footnote 12 In re Preemption of Satellite Antenna Zoning Ordinance of Town of Deerfield, New York, 7 F.C.C. Rcd. 2172 (1992).
Footnote 13 Town of Deerfield v. FCC, 992 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1992). The Second Circuit did not discuss whether the same principles would apply to a state-court ruling.
Footnote 14 Petition of Hughes Network Systems, Inc. for Declaratory Relief (April 19, 1993) ("Hughes Petition"). Neither petitioner requests preemption of deed covenants or homeowners' association rules. We do not now propose to extend our preemption rule to these types of private restrictions. However, the Commission has received many complaints that such private restrictions are unduly interfering with access to interstate satellite communications. This issue may need to be addressed at a later date.
Footnote 15 In addition to formal comments, we received several letters from Hughes's customers supporting its petition and these will be included in the record as informal comments. All of these comments have been considered. A list of commenters is attached as Appendix I.
Footnote 16 Comments of National Association of Broadcasters (July 12, 1993); Comments of Association for Maximum Service Television (July 12, 1993); and Comments of American Radio Relay League, Inc. (July 12, 1993).
Footnote 17 Comments of the National League of Cities (July 12, 1993); Comments of the Northwest Municipal Cable Council (July 12, 1993); Reply Comments of the City of St. Louis (August 16, 1993).
Footnote 18 See Letter to Chief, International Bureau from Satellite Industry Representatives, Letter, (March 17, 1995).
Footnote 19 This designation refers to the 4/6 GHz frequency bands.
Footnote 20 Deerfield, 992 F.2d at 423.
Footnote 21 See Comments of American Satellite Television Alliance (March 14, 1991), at 15-19, (describing how one home owner in Ojai, California obtained preliminary approval from municipal authorities but was ultimately denied a permit because of neighbors' objections regarding visual impact).
Footnote 22 See Van Meter v. Township of Maplewood, 696 F. Supp. 1024, 1031 (D.N.J. 1988); Alsar Technology, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Town of Nutley, 563 A.2d 83, 88 (N.J. Super. L. 1989); Johnson v. Pleasanton, 781 F. Supp. 632, 638-39 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
Footnote 23 E.g., Alsar Technology, 563 A.2d at 88.
Footnote 24 Van Meter, 696 F. Supp. at 1032. In addition, variance decisions may be standardless, or may be based on standards that do not reflect the strong federal interest in promoting access to satellite-delivered video programming. Id., 696 F. Supp. at 1031.
Footnote 25 Preemption Order at n.77; In re Amendment of C-Band Satellite Orbital Spacing Policies to Increase Satellite Video Service to the Home, 7 F.C.C. Rcd. 456 (1992) ("3° Spacing").
Footnote 26 SBCA Petition at 17; Van Meter, 696 F. Supp. at 1030.
Footnote 27 SBCA Petition at 20; Cawley v. City of Port Jervis, 753 F. Supp. 128, 132 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Interestingly, other jurisdictions effectively require pole mounting by prohibiting less expensive roof mounting. See Nationwide v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 578 A.2d 389, 392 (1990) (testimony indicated that pole mounting cost the consumer an extra $3,500 to $4,000).
Footnote 28 In another example cited by commenters, an ordinance in Olympia, Washington required all earth station installations to be in the rear yard. Those who could not get reception in that location were forced to comply with a cumbersome variance procedure that required high fees, expensive plans, notification of neighbors, and a public hearing. Such burdensome procedures, according to commenters, will often discourage applicants who ultimately decide to abandon their plans to install earth stations. See Comments of ASTA (March 14, 1991), at 10-15.
Footnote 29 See City of Bloomfield Hills v. Gargaro, 443 N.W.2d 495 (Mich. App. 1989) (reversing the trial court's decision). The trial court's decision, which is unreported, is described in Comments of Satellite Dealers Ass'n of Michigan (July 2, 1991), at Exhibit A.
Footnote 30 SBCA Petition at 19.
Footnote 31 See, e.g., Comments of General Instrument Corp. (July 12, 1991); Comments of Tandy Corp. (July 12, 1991).
Footnote 32 See, e.g., Comments of Chris TV (February 28, 1992); Comments of Camco Cable Service (May 28, 1993).
Footnote 33 See, e.g., Comments of Home Box Office (July 12, 1993).
Footnote 34 This designation refers to the 12/14 GHz frequency bands.
Footnote 35 Hughes cites the zoning codes of Greenburgh, New York, and Plantation, Florida.
Footnote 36 Hughes Petition at 9-10. Hughes cites Carol Stream, Illinois and Mamaroneck, New York as jurisdictions that do not differentiate between differently-zoned areas of their cities in their satellite-antenna ordinances.
Footnote 37 Hughes Petition at 14-15.
Footnote 38 Hughes Petition at 14 n.28.
Footnote 39 Hughes cites the zoning codes of San Carlos, California; Radnor, Pennsylvania; Juno Beach, Florida; and Bloomingdale, Illinois.
Footnote 40 Carmel, California requires a $2,000 archaeological report.
Footnote 41 For example, Hughes states that Northfield, New Jersey requires that $1,000 be placed in escrow to cover the city's expenses. Hughes Petition at 17, n. 33.
Footnote 42 Hughes states that engineering drawings are required so frequently that Hughes must maintain arrangements with engineers licensed in all fifty states. Hughes Petition at 18.
Footnote 43 In addition, some jurisdictions require numerous stamped copies of documents, thus adding to the cost. For example, White Plains, New York requires thirty-six copies of engineering drawings. Hughes Petition at 19, n. 39.
Footnote 44 Hughes cites the zoning codes of Lauderhill, Florida and Voorhees, New Jersey.
Footnote 45 Hughes Petition at 21.
Footnote 46 Hughes states that Brookline, Massachusetts requires a "special permit" as well as an environmental impact statement, and also requires screening upon installation. Requests for "special permits" are considered in three stages: first staff review, then Planning Board design approval, then zoning approval by a Board of Appeals. Hughes estimates the extra cost of this procedure to be $5,000 per antenna, excluding screening costs. Hughes Petition at 22, n. 42.
Footnote 47 Hughes Petition at 31.
Footnote 48 Comments of GTE Spacenet Corp., attachment (July 12, 1993). See also Comments of EDS Corp., (July 12, 1993), at 3 (time and expense of obtaining local approval imposes excessive costs on the deployment and expansion of VSAT networks); Comments of Schlumberger Technology Corp. (July 12, 1993).
Footnote 49 Comments of Melville Corp. (July 6, 1993); Comments of Walgreens (July 12, 1993); Comments of The TJX Companies, Inc. (July 12, 1993); Comments of Toys "R" Us (July 12, 1993); and Comments of Target Stores (July 12, 1993).
Footnote 50 Reply Comments of DirecTv, Inc. (August 16, 1993); Reply Comments of United States Satellite Broadcasting Co., Inc. (August 16, 1993).
Footnote 51 DBS operates in other portions of the Ku-band.
Footnote 52 This designation refers to the 18/30 GHz bands. See File No. 3/4-DSS-P/LA-94.
Footnote 53 Comments of the National League of Cities (July 12, 1993), at 1.
Footnote 54
Id.
Footnote 55
Id.
Footnote 57 See, e.g., letters from County Council of Baltimore Co., Piedmont Triad Council of Governments, and Prince Georges's County Government.
Footnote 58 See, e.g., Comments of Home Box Office (July 12, 1993); Comments of Schlumberger Technology Corp. (July 12, 1993); Reply Comments of United States Satellite Broadcasting Co., Inc. (August 16, 1993); and Reply Comments of DirecTv, Inc. (August 16, 1993).
Footnote 59 See, e.g., Comments of HBO, DirecTv, Northwest, and GE Americom.
Footnote 60 Comments of Northwest Municipal Cable Council (July 9, 1993), at 2.
Footnote 61 Comments of American Satellite Television Alliance (July 12, 1991). See also Comments of Michael Couzens (July 12, 1991).
Footnote 62 Comments of the National League of Cities (July 12, 1993), at 2.
Footnote 63 Comments of City of St. Louis (August 13, 1993).
Footnote 64 Letter at 2.
Footnote 65 See 47 U.S.C. § 151.
Footnote 66 See 47 U.S.C. § 705.
Footnote 67 Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 699 (1984) (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941)). See also Michigan Canners and Freezers Ass'n, Inc. v. Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Bd., 467 U.S. 461 (1984); Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963); In re Preemption of Local Zoning or Other Regulation of Receive-Only Satellite Earth Stations, 51 Fed. Reg. 5519 (Feb. 14, 1986) at ¶ 23.
Footnote 68 Preemption Order, ¶ 40.
Footnote 69 47 U.S.C. § 151.
Footnote 70 47 C.F.R. § 25.104.
Footnote 71 Preemption Order, ¶ 32.
Footnote 72 See Petition at 26, Comments of ASTA.
Footnote 73 See Deerfield, 992 F.2d at 425.