[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43462-43476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13503]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 27, and 101

[GN Docket No. 22-253; FCC 23-36; FR ID 149901]


Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final report and order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or FCC) finds that it is not in the public interest to add 
a mobile allocation to permit a two-way terrestrial 5G service in the 
12.2 GHz band based on the current record.

DATES: The report and order is effective on July 10, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madelaine Maior of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 
[email protected] or 202-418-1466; Simon Banyai of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-1443; 
or Nick Oros of the Office of Engineering and Technology, at 
[email protected] or (202) 418-2099.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order (R&O) in WT Docket No. 20-443 included in the Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Order, FCC 23-36, adopted on May 18, 2023 and released 
May 19, 2023. The full text of this document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-36A1.pdf. The R&O and the 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WT Docket No. 20-443), and the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the Order (GN Docket No. 22-352), 
i.e., the four FCC actions in FCC 23-36, are published separately in 
the Rules and Regulations and the Proposed Rules sections, as 
applicable, of this issue of the Federal Register.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio 
recordings), please send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 
418-0432 (TTY).
    Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 
as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemakings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' In the Report and Order, the Commission declines to adopt 
rule changes and, therefore a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has 
not been performed.
    Congressional Review Act: The Commission will not send a copy of 
the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A), because it does not adopt any rule as defined in the 
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
    Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. In proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) or for which the 
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex 
parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Documents shown or given to Commission staff during 
ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and 
must be filed consistent with Sec.  1.1206(b). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.

Synopsis

I. Report and Order

A. Background

    1. In this R&O, the Commission takes steps to ensure current and 
future satellite services relied upon by millions of people across the 
country are preserved and protected in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band (12.2 GHz 
band) \1\ The Commission finds that authorizing two-way, high-powered 
terrestrial mobile service in the 12.2 GHz band would impose a 
significant risk of harmful interference to existing and emergent 
services in the band, including satellite services. Such interference 
could undermine investments made by incumbent licensees and jeopardize 
their potential to provide new services to underserved communities, 
including rural communities. The 12.2 GHz band is allocated on a 
primary basis for non-Federal use for Broadcasting Satellite Service 
(BSS) (referred to domestically as Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)), 
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) (space-to-Earth) limited to non-
geostationary orbit systems (NGSO FSS), and Fixed Service.\2\ While the 
three services are

[[Page 43463]]

co-primary, NGSO FSS and Fixed Service are allocated on a non-harmful 
interference basis to DBS.\3\ Currently there are three services 
operating in the band: DBS providers operating under the primary BSS 
allocation, NGSO FSS licensees operating under the co-primary NGSO FSS 
allocation, and Multi-Channel Video and Data Distribution Service 
(MVDDS) licensees operating under the co-primary Fixed Service 
allocation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In order to distinguish references to the bands in this 
item, the Commission refers to the 12.2-12.7 GHz band as the 12.2 
GHz band throughout. See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz 
Band, WT Docket Nos. 20-443 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
36 FCC Rcd 606 (2021), (86 FR 13266 (March 8, 2021)) (12.2 NPRM).
    \2\ See 47 CFR 2.106, United States Table of Frequency 
Allocations, non-Federal Table for the band 12.2-12.7 GHz. NGSO FSS 
(space-to-Earth) operations are authorized pursuant to international 
footnote 5.487A (revised as 47 CFR 2.106(b)(487)(i), at 88 FR 37318, 
June 7, 2023, effective July 7, 2023), which provides additional 
allocations including in Region 2 as follows ``[The 12.2-12.7 GHz 
is] allocated to the fixed-satellite service (space-to-Earth) on a 
primary basis, limited to non-geostationary systems and subject to 
application of the provisions of [International Telecommunication 
Union (ITU) Radio Regulations] No. 9.12 for coordination with other 
non-geostationary-satellite systems in the fixed-satellite service. 
Non-geostationary-satellite systems in the fixed-satellite service 
shall not claim protection from geostationary-satellite networks in 
the broadcasting-satellite service operating in accordance with the 
Radio Regulations, irrespective of the dates of receipt by the [ITU 
Radiocommunication] Bureau of the complete coordination or 
notification information, as appropriate, for the non-geostationary-
satellite systems in the fixed-satellite service and of the complete 
coordination or notification information, as appropriate, for the 
geostationary-satellite networks, and [ITU Regulations] No. 5.43A 
does not apply. Non-geostationary-satellite systems in the fixed-
satellite service in the [12 GHz band] shall be operated in such a 
way that any unacceptable interference that may occur during their 
operation shall be rapidly eliminated.''
    47 CFR 2.106, n.5.487A (n.5.487A revised as 47 CFR 
2.106(b)(487)(i), at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023, effective July 7, 
2023). When an international footnote is applicable without 
modification to non-Federal operations, the Commission places the 
footnote on the non-Federal Table. See 47 CFR 2.105(d)(5).
    \3\ See 47 CFR 2.106, n.5.490 (International Footnote) (n.5.490 
revised as 47 CFR 2.106(b)(490), at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023, 
effective July 7, 2023). In Region 2, in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, 
existing and future terrestrial radiocommunication services shall 
not cause harmful interference to the space services operating in 
conformity with the broadcasting satellite Plan for Region 2 
contained in Appendix 30. ``Harmful Interference'' is defined under 
the Commission's rules as ``[i]nterference which endangers the 
functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services 
or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a 
radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the ITU 
Radio Regulations.'' 47 CFR 2.1(c). See also Annex to the 
Constitution of the ITU, 1003 (defining harmful interference).
    \4\ 47 CFR 101.147(a) n.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. While DBS service began in 1994, and NGSO FSS systems were 
authorized in the early 2000s, the Commission permitted MVDDS to 
operate in the 12.2 GHz band starting in 2004 under technical rules to 
ensure that MVDDS stations do not cause harmful interference to DBS or 
earlier-in-time NGSO FSS fixed subscriber receivers.\5\ To that end, 
MVDDS service was limited to a relatively low power, one-way, digital 
fixed non-broadcast service, including one-way direct-to-home/office 
wireless service with each proposed transmitter subject to detailed 
prior coordination requirements.\6\ In April 2016, a coalition of MVDDS 
licensees filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting reforms to the 
12.2 GHz band rules, including permitting MVDDS licensees to use the 
band for two-way mobile broadband services.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to 
Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and 
Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range, Amendment of the 
Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 
12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees and Their 
Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband 
Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed 
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98-206, First 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC 
Rcd 4096, 4177, para. 213 (2000) (First Report and Order and FNPRM).
    \6\ See 47 CFR 101.1407 (two-way services can be provided using 
spectrum in other bands for the return link). See also Amendment of 
Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO 
FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-
Band Frequency Range, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report 
and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002) (MVDDS Second Report and Order) 
(aff'd Northpoint Technology, LTD et al. v. FCC, 414 F.3d 61 (D.C. 
Cir. 2005)).
    \7\ Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition for Rulemaking, RM-
11768, at 17-18 (filed Apr. 26, 2016), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/60001658886/1 (MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition). See also 
Petition for Rulemakings Filed, Public Notice, Report No. 3042, at 
8, 17-18 (May 9, 2016) (Petition Public Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Later in 2016, the International Bureau opened a processing 
round to accept NGSO FSS applications and petitions for market access 
in several frequency bands \8\ and the Commission reformed its NGSO FSS 
rules.\9\ In 2017, the Commission granted the first of the new 
generation NGSO FSS requests--a petition for market access by WorldVu 
Satellites Limited (OneWeb) for a planned Low Earth Orbit (LEO) NGSO 
FSS satellite system of 720 satellites authorized by the United Kingdom 
in the 10.7-12.7 GHz Band (in addition to several other bands).\10\ The 
Commission concluded that ``the pendency of the MVDDS 5G Coalition's 
Petition for Rulemaking was not a sufficient reason to delay or deny 
these requests to use the band under the existing NGSO FSS allocation 
and service rules.'' \11\ In granting this request, however, the 
Commission conditioned access to the 12 GHz band on the outcome of the 
MVDDS 5G Coalition's Petition and any other rulemaking initiated on the 
Commission's own motion.\12\ The Commission also agreed with comments 
of the MVDDS 5G Coalition that MVDDS should not have to protect any 
NGSO FSS earth stations in motion operations in the band, if authorized 
in the future, because such operations had not been contemplated under 
the longstanding first-in-time MVDDS/NGSO FSS sharing approach.\13\ The 
NGSO FSS Report and Order adopted, among other things, spectrum sharing 
rules and a more flexible milestone schedule for NGSO FSS systems.\14\ 
The Commission subsequently granted five additional NGSO FSS requests 
to use bands that include the 12.2 GHz band (among others).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Satellite Policy Branch Information; OneWeb Petition 
Accepted for Filing (IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041), Cut-Off 
Established for Additional NGSO-Like Satellite Applications or 
Petitions for Operations in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 14.0-14.5 GHz, 17.8-
18.6 GHz, 18.8-19.3 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 28.35-29.1 GHz, and 29.5-
30.0 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 7666 (IB July 15, 2016).
    \9\ In September 2017, the Commission adopted the NGSO FSS 
Report and Order, updating several rules and policies governing NGSO 
FSS systems. See Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-
Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters, 
Report and Order (82 FR 59972 (Dec. 18, 2017)) and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (82 FR 52869 (Nov. 15, 20217)), 32 FCC Rcd 7809 
(2017) (NGSO FSS Report and Order).
    \10\ See WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for Declaratory 
Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the OneWeb NGSO FSS 
System, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 5366 (2017) (OneWeb 
Order).
    \11\ Id. at 5369, para. 6.
    \12\ Id. at 5378, para. 26 (``This grant of U.S. market access 
and any earth station licenses granted in the future are subject to 
modification to bring them into conformance with any rules or 
policies adopted by the Commission in the future.''). See also id. 
at 5369, para. 6 (``Accordingly, any investment made toward 
operations in this band by OneWeb in the United States assume the 
risk that operations may be subject to additional conditions or 
requirements as a result of such Commission actions.'').
    \13\ Id. at 5370, para. 8.
    \14\ See NGSO FSS Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7821-31, 
paras. 37-68.
    \15\ Space Norway AS, Petition for a Declaratory Ruling Granting 
Access to the U.S. Market for the Arctic Satellite Broadband 
Mission, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 9649 (2018) (Space 
Norway Order); Karousel Satellite LLC, Application for Authority to 
Launch and Operate a Non-Geostationary Earth Orbit Satellite System 
in the Fixed Satellite Service, Memorandum Opinion, Order and 
Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 8485 (2018) (Karousel Order), Space 
Exploration Holdings, LLC Application For Approval for Orbital 
Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite 
System, Memorandum Opinion Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 3391 
(2018) (SpaceX Order), Kepler Communications Inc. Petition for 
Declaratory Ruling to Grant Access to the U.S. Market for Kepler's 
NGSO FSS System, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 11453, (2018) (Kepler Order), 
Theia Holdings A, Inc. Request for Authority to Launch and Operate a 
Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit System in the Fixed-Satellite 
Service, Mobile-Satellite Service, and Earth-Exploration Satellite 
Service, Memorandum, Opinion and Authorization, 34 FCC Rcd 3526 
(2019) (Theia Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. NGSO FSS systems have continued to deploy. In particular, SpaceX 
received modified authority for its first generation (Gen 1) system to 
decrease the altitude from the 1,100-1,300 km to the 540-570 km range 
for 2,814 satellites as well as approval of its updated orbital debris 
mitigation plan.\16\ To date, SpaceX has deployed

[[Page 43464]]

approximately 4,000 satellites.\17\ The Commission also recently issued 
a partial grant to SpaceX to begin deploying its second generation (Gen 
2) system, with a grant approving up to 7,500 satellites to operate in 
the Ka- and Ku-frequency bands.\18\ OneWeb also recently received 
modified authority for its constellation \19\ and, to date, it has 
deployed over 580 satellites.\20\ On June 30, 2022, the International 
Bureau authorized SpaceX and Kepler to serve earth stations in motion 
(ESIMs) in the 12.2 GHz band on an unprotected, non-harmful 
interference basis.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Modification 
of the Authorization for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, Order and 
Authorization, 36 FCC Rcd 7995 (2021).
    \17\ See, e.g., Mike Wall, SpaceX launches 56 Starlink 
satellites, lands rocket at sea, space.com (``SpaceX has now lofted 
more than 4,200 Starlink satellites overall, according to 
astrophysicist and satellite tracker Jonathan McDowell.'') (Mar. 29, 
2023), https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-group-5-10-
launch#:~:text=SpaceX%20launched%20another%20big%20batch,p.m.%20EDT%2
0(2001%20GMT).
    \18\ Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Orbital 
Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO 
Satellite System, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20200526-00055 and SAT-AMD-
20210818-00105, Order and Authorization, FCC 22-91, 2022 WL 
17413767, at *54, para. 135(ii) (Dec. 1, 2022) (SpaceX Gen2 Order) 
(stating that the ``authorization is subject to modification to 
bring it into conformance with any rules or policies adopted by the 
Commission in the future. [And, that] . . . any investments made 
toward operations in the bands authorized [by the] Order by SpaceX 
in the United States assume the risk that operations may be subject 
to additional conditions or requirements as a result of any future 
Commission actions . . . [including, but not limited to] . . . any 
conditions or requirements resulting from any action in the 
proceedings associated with. . .WTB Docket 20-443. . .'').
    \19\ WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for Declaratory Ruling 
to Modify the U.S. Market Access Grant for the OneWeb Ku-band and 
Ka-Band NGSO FSS System, Order and Declaratory Ruling, DA 22-970 
(IB, rel. Sept. 16, 2022) (petition to modify grant of U.S. market 
access granted in part and deferred in part to approve minor 
adjustments to number of satellites per plane without exceeding 
previously-approved total of 720 satellites).
    \20\ See, e.g., Letter from Kimberly M. Baum, Vice President, 
Spectrum Engineering & Strategy, WorldVu Satellites Limited, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 20-443 et al. at 1 
(filed Mar. 20, 2023); https://oneweb.net/resources/oneweb-confirms-successful-deployment-40-satellites-launched-spacex-1 (``OneWeb 
confirms successful deployment of 40 satellites launched with 
SpaceX. Launch 17 brings the total OneWeb constellation to 582 
satellites. Third launch with SpaceX makes penultimate mission to 
achieving global coverage.'').
    \21\ SpaceX Services, Inc. Application for Blanket Authorization 
of Next- Generation Ku-Band Earth Stations in Motion et al.; Kepler 
Communications Inc. Application for Blanket Authorization of Ku-Band 
Earth Stations on Vessels, Order and Authorization, DA 22-695 (IB 
June 30, 2022) (ESIMs Authorizations). DISH and RS Access had argued 
that granting these applications would constrain the Commission's 
decision-making in the instant 12.2 GHz band rulemaking proceeding 
by injecting new ESIM encumbrances into the 12.2 GHz band. ESIMs 
Authorizations at 11-12, para. 22. DISH and RS Access also argued 
that authorizing ESIMs in the band on an unprotected basis would 
likely result in primary users in the band being required to assume 
the costs to prevent service interruptions to SpaceX customers. Id. 
at 11, para. 18. The International Bureau found that granting the 
applications served the public interest but also recognized that the 
introduction of a potentially significant number of additional end 
users in motion could affect the 12 GHz spectrum environment. 
Therefore the Bureau imposed conditions to ensure grant of those 
applications would not materially impact the outcome of the 12 GHz 
rulemaking proceeding. ESIMs Authorizations at 12-13, paras. 23-27. 
The Bureau imposed conditions on the grants related to the 12.2 GHz 
band including: (1) requiring operations to be on a non-interference 
basis; (2) subjecting the operations to the outcome of any future 
rulemaking including the instant 12.2 GHz band GHz proceeding, with 
the understanding that the presence of ESIMs is not anticipated to 
materially affect the analysis therein, and subject to modification 
to conform to any rules or policies adopted, including in the 
instant 12.2 GHz band proceeding, and assumption of this risk; (3) 
subjecting the grant to the applicants' representations, including 
that their NGSO systems have been engineered to achieve a high 
degree of flexibility to facilitate spectrum sharing with other 
authorized satellite and terrestrial systems. Id. In addition, the 
Bureau explained that its case-by-case analysis was limited to the 
applications before it and have no broader applicability. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (12.2 NPRM) to allow interested parties to address 
whether it could add a mobile allocation and make other changes to 
expand terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band without causing harmful 
interference to incumbent licensees and, if so, whether such action 
would promote or hinder the delivery of next-generation services in the 
12.2 GHz band given the existing and emergent services offered by 
incumbent licensees.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 614, para. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 5G Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band

    6. By this R&O, the Commission finds that it is not in the public 
interest to add a mobile allocation to permit a two-way terrestrial 5G 
service in the 12.2 GHz band based on the current record.\23\ The 
Commission finds that a new ubiquitous terrestrial 5G service 
introduced throughout the band would create a significant risk of 
harmful interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) and Fixed 
Satellite Service (FSS) (space-to-Earth) limited to non-geostationary 
orbit systems (NGSO FSS) operators. Although the Commission declines to 
authorize two-way, high-powered terrestrial mobile use, the Commission 
seeks further comment in its related further notice of proposed 
rulemaking in WT Docket No. 20-443 (see FCC 23-36, paras. 48-57) (FR 
2023-13501), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, 
on how best to maximize use of this 500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum. 
The Commission takes these actions with respect to the 12.2-12.7 GHz 
band in conjunction with its related action to issue a notice of 
proposed rulemaking in GN Docket No. 22-352 (see FCC 23-36, paras. 58-
142) (FR 2023-13500), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register, proposing to expand the use of the 12.7-13.25 GHz band for 
mobile broadband or other expanded use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In this R&O, record references and citations refer to WT 
Docket No. 20-443, unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In April 2016, the MVDDS 5G Coalition, which included eleven of 
the twelve Multi-Channel Video and Data Distribution Service (MVDDS) 
licensees at that time, filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting 
reforms to the 12.2 GHz band rules, including permitting MVDDS 
licensees to use the band for two-way mobile 5G broadband services.\24\ 
In support of the Petition, the Coalition also provided two Coexistence 
Studies that it claimed illustrated that a new 5G service could coexist 
with DBS operators in the band but would be incompatible with NGSO 
FSS.\25\ Subsequently, however, some members of the MVDDS 5G Coalition 
suggested the possibility of 5G terrestrial use and NGSO FSS sharing in 
the band.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For brevity and convenience, the Commission refers to 
terrestrial, 2-way, high-power mobile operations herein as ``5G.''
    \25\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments, Attach. 
1, MVDDS 12.2-12.7 GHz Co-Primary Service Coexistence (Coexistence 
1) and MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Reply, Appx. A, 
MVDDS 12.2-12.7 GHZ Co-Primary Service Coexistence II (Coexistence 
2) (collectively, Coexistence Studies).
    \26\ See e.g., Letter from Martha Suarez, President, Dynamic 
Spectrum Alliance (DSA), to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 
Docket No. RM-11768, at 2 (filed Aug. 21, 2020) (DSA Aug. 21, 2020 
Ex Parte); Letter from Trey Hanbury, Counsel, RS Access, to Marlene 
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 2-3 (filed Sept. 
21, 2020) (RS Access Sept. 21, 2020 Ex Parte); Letter from Jeffrey 
Blum, Executive Vice President, External and Legislative Affairs, 
DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 
4 (filed Nov. 12, 2020) (DISH Nov. 12, 2020 Ex Parte) (stating that 
``since the 2016 studies, developments in the satellite industry 
indicate that NGSO FSS constellations possess geostationary-like 
functions and properties that could prove more compatible with 5G 
services in the 12 GHz Band than the last-generation NGSO earth 
stations.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released its 12.2 NPRM to 
allow interested parties to address whether it could add a mobile 
allocation and make other changes to expand terrestrial use of the 12.2 
GHz band without causing harmful interference to incumbent licensees 
and, if so, whether such action would promote or hinder the delivery of 
next-generation services in the 12.2 GHz band given the existing and 
emergent services offered by incumbent licensees.\27\ In the 12.2 NPRM, 
the Commission stated that it would proceed mindful of the

[[Page 43465]]

significant investments made by incumbents and that it valued the 
public interest benefits that could flow from investments made to 
provide satellite broadband services, particularly in rural and other 
underserved communities that might be more expensive to serve through 
other technologies. The Commission initiated the instant 12.2 GHz band 
proceeding to allow interested parties to address whether additional 
operations can be accommodated in the band while protecting incumbent 
operations from harmful interference and to provide an opportunity for 
the Commission to assess the public interest considerations associated 
with adding a new mobile allocation.\28\ In particular, the Commission 
sought information on the status of technologies that have been 
developed or are currently in development that would allow for two-way 
mobile communications in the 12.2 GHz band; whether standards have been 
set related to such technologies; whether there are any international 
agreements on a band plan or air interface for the 12.2 GHz band; and 
the impact (if any) on international rights for U.S.-licensed systems 
that might be affected as a result of the U.S. providing for expanded 
shared use of the band.\29\ Comments were due May 7, 2021, reply 
comments were due July 7, 2021, and interested parties have added many 
ex parte filings to the rulemaking dockets since the comment 
deadlines.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 614, para. 2.
    \28\ See, e.g., id. Additionally, the Commission explained that 
Section 303(y) provides the Commission with authority to provide for 
flexible use operations only if: ``(1) such use is consistent with 
international agreements to which the United States is a party; and 
(2) the Commission finds, after notice and opportunity for public 
comment, that (A) such an allocation would be in the public 
interest; (B) such use would not deter investment in communications 
services and systems, or technology development; and (C) such use 
would not result in harmful interference among users.'' Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, 111 Stat 251, 268-69 sec. 
3005 Flexible Use of Electromagnetic Spectrum (codified at 47 U.S.C. 
303(y)). See also 47 CFR 2.106, 27.2, 27.3.
    \29\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 21, n.67 (citing 
Letter from David Goldman, Director of Satellite Policy, SpaceX, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, Attach. A, 
Questions Necessary to Balance the 12 GHz NPRM, at 3-4 (filed Jan. 
6, 2021) (SpaceX Jan. 6, 2021 Ex Parte)).
    \30\ See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, et 
al., WT Docket No. 20-443, et. al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 6534 (WTB 
2021); Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, et. al., WT 
Docket No. 20-443, et. al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 9531 (WTB 2021); see 
generally WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket 17-183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. In response to the 12.2 NPRM, several of the MVDDS licensees, 
and one DBS provider that is also a major MVDDS licensee, contend that 
5G terrestrial and incumbent services can coexist in the band, the 
other DBS provider and the NGSO FSS commenters contend that such 
coexistence is not yet technically feasible. Multiple technical 
analyses were submitted into the record that purport to model the 
potential interference between a new 5G mobile terrestrial service and 
incumbent satellite services in the band.\31\ These models rely on 
various technical assumptions about which the parties greatly disagree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ RS Access Comment, Appendix A, Assessment of Feasibility of 
Coexistence between NGSO FSS Earth Stations and 5G Operations in the 
12.2-12.7 GHz Band, at 6 (filed May 7, 2021) (RS Access Comment RKF 
Study I); Letter from Noah Campbell, CEO, RS Access, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, The Effect 
of 5G Deployment on NGSO FSS Downlink Operations in the 12.2-12.7 
GHz Band (filed May 19, 2022) (RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II); 
Letter from David Goldman, Senior Director, Satellite Policy, Space 
Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, SpaceX Analysis of the Effect 
of Terrestrial Mobile Deployment on NGSO FSS Earth Stations and 5G 
Operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band (filed June 21, 2022) (SpaceX 
June 21, 2022 Analysis); Letter from V. Noah Campbell, CEO, RS 
Access, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, 
Attach. A, Analysis of Starlink Submission Regarding the Effect of 
5G Deployment on NGSO FSS (filed July 15, 2022) (RS Access July 15, 
2022 RKF Response Study); Letter from Stacy Fuller, Senior Vice 
President, External Affairs, DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, 12 GHz Co-Frequency 
Interference from Terrestrial Mobile into DBS (filed July 18, 2022) 
(DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis); Letter from Kimberly M. Baum, 
Vice President, Spectrum Engineering & Strategy, WorldVu Satellites 
Limited, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, 
Annex, Monte Carlo Analyses of the Potential Impact of an Expanded 
Terrestrial Service on NGSO FSS Systems in the 12 GHz Band (filed 
July 11, 2022) (OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses); Letter from David 
Goldman, Senior Director, Satellite Policy, Space Exploration 
Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 
No. 20-443, Exh. A, Evaluation of SpaceX Study Related to 12 GHz 
Interference from Terrestrial Mobile into Starlink (filed Oct. 4, 
2022) (SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission finds 
that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial mobile service cannot coexist with 
DBS operations in the band without a significant increase in the risk 
of harmful interference. The Commission is not persuaded by the 
assurances of one of the two nationwide DBS providers that DBS will be 
protected,\32\ particularly given that the other nationwide DBS 
provider raises significant concerns.\33\ The Commission finds that the 
study submitted by the 5G advocates is based on unsupported assumptions 
that undermine its reliability. As explained below, the 5G proponents 
have not demonstrated that a new 5G service will be able to meet the 
Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits required to protect DBS 
receivers in the 12.2 GHz band. Also, the Commission finds that the 5G 
proponents have not adequately addressed the issues raised both in the 
12.2 NPRM and by commenters regarding the applicability of burden-
shifting protection obligations, lower earth-station elevation angles, 
power limits, EPFD limits and receiver location information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ DISH states that the presence of higher-power two-way 
mobile and fixed services at 12 GHz are possible and fully 
consistent with protecting DBS in the band. See DISH Comment at 1.
    \33\ AT&T has argued on behalf of DirecTV that RKF has not 
established that expanded terrestrial mobile operations could be 
added without causing harmful interference to DBS operations--a 
service which RKF's Study completely ignores, and a factor which 
alone, it argues, should nullify the study. See AT&T Reply at 14. 
AT&T asserts exclusion and/or coordination zones are neither 
practical nor feasible in the 12 GHz band as a means of protecting 
DBS because millions of DBS receivers are spread throughout the U.S. 
and are constantly being added, moved, or relocated. See id. at 26. 
AT&T states its concerns are not lessened just because DISH is not 
concerned about the possibility of harmful interference posed by 
terrestrial mobile operations. See id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Further, the Commission also finds that ubiquitous two-way 
mobile broadband 5G service is likely to create a significant risk of 
harmful interference to ubiquitous NGSO FSS operations. The 5G 
terrestrial advocates' analysis rests on the speculative assumption 
that 5G and NGSO FSS operations will not be geographically near each 
other (i.e., 5G advocates offer studies that assume NGSO FSS will 
largely serve rural areas, and 5G will serve urban/suburban markets) 
without pointing to any basis for this assumption. The Commission finds 
that this unsupported assumption, which is not in line with current 
deployment practices and plans, renders the technical studies offered 
by the 5G advocates unpersuasive, and therefore such studies cannot 
serve as a basis on which to conclude that the public interest would be 
best served by allowing a new, ubiquitous 5G service into the band at 
this time. The Commission specifically asked whether geographic sharing 
could allow higher-power terrestrial operations in certain areas, and 
if so, how such geographic sharing should be structured.\34\ But apart 
from studies based on non-binding, hypothetical assumptions, the 
Commission notes that 5G proponents did not offer any rules to limit 
their proposed 5G operations to less than all of the geographic areas 
authorized by their MVDDS licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 5G Interference to DBS
    12. As a threshold matter, the Commission finds that a new 
ubiquitous

[[Page 43466]]

5G terrestrial mobile service cannot coexist with DBS operations in the 
band without a significant increase in the risk of harmful 
interference. As noted above, pursuant to the Table of Allocations, 
both terrestrial and NGSO FSS services are obligated to protect DBS 
from harmful interference.\35\ The Commission has long recognized the 
public interest benefits that incumbent DBS services provide to 
millions of subscribers, and has required the other co-primary services 
in 12.2 GHz band to operate on a non-harmful interference basis with 
respect to DBS.\36\ Congress, too, sought to ensure that DBS would not 
be subject to harmful interference from any new terrestrial service by 
requiring that the Commission ``provide for an independent technical 
demonstration of any terrestrial service technology proposed by any 
entity that has filed an application to provide terrestrial service in 
the direct broadcast satellite frequency band to determine whether the 
terrestrial service technology proposed to be provided by that entity 
will cause harmful interference to any direct broadcast satellite 
service.'' \37\ The Commission ultimately adopted rules for MVDDS based 
on the extensive record of a multi-year rulemaking proceeding,\38\ 
which included the statutory mandates to avoid harmful interference to 
DBS \39\ and an independent analysis \40\ of potential MVDDS 
interference to DBS.\41\ These rules include detailed frequency 
coordination procedures that require an MVDDS licensee to ensure that 
the EPFD \42\ from a proposed transmitting antenna does not exceed the 
applicable EPFD limit \43\ at any DBS receiving antenna of a ``customer 
of record.'' \44\ The MVDDS rules also include other limitations on 
signal emissions, transmitter power levels, and transmitter 
locations.\45\ When an MVDDS licensee proposes a new station, 
coordination with DBS is necessary to demonstrate that the relevant 
EPFD limit will not be exceeded at the DBS antenna of any DBS 
subscriber of record.\46\ Once an MVDDS station has been successfully 
coordinated, however, the burden to ensure that DBS subscribers do not 
suffer interference from that MVDDS station shifts to the DBS 
operator--immediately for new subscribers \47\ and after one year for 
customers of record.\48\ The Commission determined that shifting this 
burden to DBS from MVDDS--only after successful coordination by the 
MVDDS operator in the first instance--was reasonable in light of the 
one-way, relatively low-power limit on MVDDS. In doing so, the 
Commission did not alter its previous finding that allowing two-way 
MVDDS operations in the band ``would unnecessarily complicate the 
sharing scenario'' and ``significantly raise the potential for 
instances of interference among the operations'' sharing the band.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra para. 1 & n.3.
    \36\ See generally MVDDS Second Report and Order.
    \37\ See Prevention of Interference to Direct Broadcast 
Satellite Services, Public Law 106-553, App. B., Title. X, 1012, 114 
Stat. 2762, 2762A-128, 2762A-141 (2000) (LOCAL TV Act 1012); see 
also Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, Public Law 106-113, App. I., 
Title II, sec. 2002, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-544 (1999). In December 
2018, however, this provision the LOCAL TV Act was stricken. Public 
Law 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, 265-66, sec. 1012, Prevention of 
Interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite Services, stricken by 
Public Law 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4777-78, sec. 6603, Amendments 
to Local TV Act.
    \38\ See ET Docket No. 98-206.
    \39\ See LOCAL TV Act 1012(a).
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 
9635, para. 56 (citing MITRE Corporation, ``Analysis of Potential 
MVDDS Interference to DBS in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band'' (Apr. 18, 
2001) (MITRE Report)).
    \42\ The EPFD is the power flux density produced at a DBS 
receive earth station, taking into account shielding effects and the 
off-axis discrimination of the receiving antenna assumed to be 
pointing at the appropriate DBS satellite(s) from the transmitting 
antenna of a MVDDS transmit station. See 47 CFR 
101.105(a)(4)(ii)(A).
    \43\ The Commission established different EPFD limits in four 
regions of the U.S., see 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(ii)(B), mainly due to 
differences in rainfall in each region. See, e.g., MVDDS Second 
Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9691, para. 197.
    \44\ See 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(ii) (referencing the procedures 
listed in 47 CFR 101.1440). Among other things, an MVDDS licensee 
must conduct a survey of the area around its proposed transmitting 
antenna site to determine the location of all DBS customers of 
record that may potentially be affected by the introduction of its 
MVDDS service and must coordinate with DBS. See 47 CFR 101.1440(a)-
(d).
    \45\ See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 
9634-9664, paras. 53-125; 9690-9695, paras. 196-209; 47 CFR 25.139 
(NGSO FSS coordination and information sharing between MVDDS 
licensees in the 12.2 GHz to 12.7 GHz band); 25.208(k); 101.103; 
101.105; 101.111; 101.113; 101.129; 101.1409; 101.1440. Notably, the 
rules limit the EIRP for MVDDS stations to 14 dBm per 24 megahertz. 
See 47 CFR 101.113(a) note 11; 101.147(p). In the MVDDS Second 
Report and Order, the Commission explained that ``placing a limit on 
MVDDS EIRP will ensure that DBS entities are not unduly hindered in 
their ability to acquire customers in areas in close proximity to 
MVDDS transmit facilities. Thus, we are not permitting higher powers 
over areas containing mountain ridges or over presently unpopulated 
regions because the higher power may cause too great of an exclusion 
zone for future DBS and NGSO FSS subscribers. The Commission 
recognizes that a higher power benefit for MVDDS providers would not 
offset the potential constraints placed on other service subscribers 
in the 12 GHz band. MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 
9691-92, para. 198.''
    See also id. at 9653, para. 88 (discussing the EIRP limit as a 
factor in adopting DBS mitigation obligations because ``this power 
limit will not inhibit the introduction of new DBS customers [near] 
the MVDDS transmitting system, i.e., later-installed DBS receive 
antennas can be properly sited and shielded from the MVDDS 
signal'').
    \46\ ``DBS customers of record are those who had their DBS 
receive antennas installed prior to or within the 30 day period 
after notification to the DBS operator by the MVDDS licensee of the 
proposed MVDDS transmitting antenna site.'' 47 CFR 101.1440(a).
    \47\ ``DBS licensees are responsible for providing information 
they deem necessary for those entities who install all future DBS 
receive antennas on its system to take into account the presence of 
MVDDS operations so that these DBS receive antennas can be located 
in such a way as to avoid the MVDDS signal. These later installed 
DBS receive antennas shall have no further rights of complaint 
against the notified MVDDS transmitting antenna(s).'' 47 CFR 
101.1440(e).
    \48\ Once the new MVDDS station is coordinated and begins 
operating, the MVDDS licensee must satisfy all complaints of 
interference to DBS customers of record received during a one-year 
period. 47 CFR 101.1440(g).
    \49\ MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9668, para. 
137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. In its 2016 Petition for Rulemaking, the MVDDS 5G Coalition 
proposed that a new 5G mobile terrestrial service could also share with 
existing DBS in the 12.2 GHz band.\50\ The Coalition provided two 
Coexistence studies that--through careful selection of mobile 
deployment areas, adjustments to radio frequency design parameters, use 
of geographic separation, clutter loss, and transmitter power 
constraints on terrestrial operations--purported to show that sharing 
with DBS would be possible.\51\ In the first Coexistence Study, which 
studied three potential 5G use cases including point-to-point 
communications, mobile broadband, and indoor mobile use, the Coalition 
asserted that these potential uses could be engineered such that 
terrestrial users would not exceed the existing EPFD limit for 
MVDDS.\52\ In its subsequent Coexistence 2 study, the Coalition studied 
a different building environment to show that even in a ``more 
challenging'' sharing environment, a new 5G service could protect DBS 
up to the level it ``enjoys

[[Page 43467]]

today from MVDDS licensees.'' \53\ In the 12.2 NPRM, the Commission 
sought comment on whether the approach proposed by the MVDDS 5G 
Coalition in the 2016 Coexistence studies was feasible and the costs 
and benefits of such an approach.\54\ The Commission sought comment on 
whether, and to what extent, the MVDDS 5G Coalition's proposals to 
license two-way, mobile operations in the band, and to eliminate the 
equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) limit, would substantially 
redefine the scope of DBS operators' obligations and potential burdens 
under the current regime.\55\ Additionally, the Commission asked how 
other factors--such as geographic separation, transmitter power 
constraints on terrestrial operations, and other siting parameters for 
flexible-use base stations--could minimize the risk of interference to 
DBS users.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See supra para. 7.
    \51\ See, e.g., Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Executive Vice 
President, External and Legislative Affairs, DISH, to Marlene 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 3 (filed Sept. 22, 
2020) (DISH Sept. 22, 2020 Letter). See also Coexistence 1 at 35 
(finding that ``coexistence between MVDDS 5G operations and DBS 
receivers is possible with modest adjustments to MVDDS site 
locations and radiofrequency design parameters''); Coexistence 2 
(revalidating the original coexistence study in different 
topological use-cases); Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition for Petition 
to Deny, WT Docket No. 10-112, Exh. 1, MVDDS 12.2-12.7 GHz NGSO 
Coexistence Study (filed Aug. 15, 2016), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10816077623256/1 (Coexistence 3 Aug. 15, 2016 Study).
    \52\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments at 4-6.
    \53\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Reply at 8-9.
    \54\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616-617, para. 24.
    \55\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 23.
    \56\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The advocates for a new 5G service in the band did not directly 
address the 12.2 NPRM questions but instead continued to rely on the 
2016 Coexistence studies. Specifically, DISH stated that ``the 
feasibility of sharing between DBS and 5G is demonstrated by two 
studies commissioned by the MVDDS 5G Coalition and prepared by [an] 
expert satellite engineer.'' \57\ Similarly, RS Access stated that, 
``the coexistence studies submitted in the petition for rulemaking 
proceeding demonstrated that coexistence between DBS and terrestrial 5G 
is possible, even under a worst-case scenario.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ DISH Comment at 3.
    \58\ RS Access Comment at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Opponents of the Coalition's proposals responded to the 12.2 
NPRM by criticizing the Coexistence studies. AT&T, which owned DIRECTV, 
the only current DBS operator that does not hold MVDDS licenses, argued 
that the 2016 Coexistence studies, ``too narrowly and simplistically 
defined the areas in which a DBS receiver could establish a direct 
line-of-sight path with DBS satellite orbital locations.'' \59\ 
Moreover, AT&T argued that ``these studies made inaccurate baseline 
assumptions regarding the nature of deployments and relied upon cherry-
picked use cases that are not representative of real-world 
deployments.'' \60\ Subsequently, DIRECTV, which AT&T spun off in 
2021,\61\ argued that the 2016 Coexistence studies are ``outdated or 
irrelevant, and thus do not accurately reflect the characteristics of 
either a ubiquitous, modern, high-power terrestrial mobile service or 
DIRECTV's DBS service.'' \62\ Moreover, SAVID LLC (SAVID), an 
engineering firm that DIRECTV hired to analyze 5G-DBS coexistence, 
found that, even if it made favorable assumptions of the terrestrial 
mobile systems, 5G service in the band would ``cause extensive harmful 
interference to DIRECTV receivers, exceeding the limits currently in 
place to protect DBS customers by a factor of 100 to 100,000 over areas 
extending well beyond the intended coverage area of the mobile base 
stations.'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ AT&T Reply at 11.
    \60\ AT&T Comment at 8.
    \61\ See AT&T, AT&T & TPG Close DIRECTV Transaction (Aug. 2, 
2021), https://about.att.com/story/2021/att_directv.html; AT&T, AT&T 
Completes Acquisition of DIRECTV (July 24, 2015), https://about.att.com/story/att_completes_acquisition_of_directv.html.
    \62\ DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
    \63\ DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission finds 
that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial mobile service cannot coexist with 
DBS operations in the band without a significant increase in the risk 
of harmful interference to the DBS operations. In particular, 5G 
advocates have not shown how such new mobile operations could meet or 
exceed the metric upon which the Commission based regional EPFD limits 
(ranging from -172.1 to -168.4 dBW/m\2\/4kHz) that the FCC adopted to 
protect DBS from a fixed, lower power MVDDS service at every existing 
DBS subscriber's dish. In addition, because MVDDS is a fixed service, 
the rules were able to take advantage of the discrimination between 
southern facing DBS antennas and MVDDS antennas; a mobile service does 
not provide for such accommodations and results in a much more 
challenging interference environment than MVDDS. Moreover, to meet the 
existing EPFD limits, it appears that a mobile terrestrial service 
would need to be restricted to such low power levels that it is 
unlikely that any given base station could provide substantial 
geographic coverage or significant 5G service.\64\ According to the 
Coexistence 1 study, 5G services could meet these EPFD limits only when 
using ``newly available spectrum planning tools, and careful 
engineering of MVDDS systems'' to isolate them from DBS receivers, 
either through geographic separation or terrain blocking.\65\ Given the 
careful and exacting engineering that would be needed to meet these 
conditions, it is not apparent that terrestrial mobile systems, if 
installed, could be expanded by adding new base station locations in 
the future to meet increased consumer demands without significantly 
impacting DBS service. It is not reasonable to assume that ubiquitous 
two-way 5G mobile terrestrial service would meet these conditions 
consistently with respect to ubiquitous DBS which serves millions of 
customers in all areas of the United States where the location of 5G 
mobile units could be anywhere in the operator's service area, 
including right next to the DBS antenna.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See, e.g., DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 6. Largely 
to protect DBS receivers installed after an MVDDS transmitter is 
successfully coordinated with DBS, the MVDDS transmit power limit is 
14 dBm/24 MHz (or 20 dBm/100 MHz). By comparison, the 2016 MVDDS 5G 
Coalition coexistence study assumed two-way terrestrial operations 
at 48 dBm/100 MHz, and the most recent RKF Study assumed a new 5G 
system would operate at 65 dBm/100 MHz, however, 5G advocates have 
not proposed any rules regarding power limits that they would deem 
reasonable to provide 5G service while still protecting incumbent 
DBS subscribers. The Commission notes that a 28-45dB higher transmit 
power for the proposed 5G service would make meeting the regional 
EPFD limits to existing DBS subscribers much more challenging and 
would significantly increase the burden on DBS operators to protect 
new or modified DBS subscriber receivers.
    \65\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments at 4-6.
    \66\ See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1 (the 
assumptions made by the Coexistence Studies ``do not accurately 
reflect the characteristics of either an ubiquitous, modern, high-
power terrestrial mobile service or DIRECTV's DBS service.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. When DIRECTV commissioned a study from SAVID using what it 
deemed more reasonable assumptions than those of the 5G advocates, that 
study found that at power levels of 69 dBm/100 MHz \67\ ``mobile 
operations in the band would cause extensive and harmful interference 
to DIRECTV receivers.'' \68\ DISH raises several criticisms of the 
SAVID study,\69\ but even the MVDDS 5G Coalition's own study found that 
at 48 dBm/100 MHz in certain small areas actual harmful interference 
could occur if a DBS receive antenna were present.\70\ The Commission 
notes that the power levels used in the Coexistence studies

[[Page 43468]]

are substantially lower than the 62 dBm/MHz (82 dBm/100 MHz) generally 
permitted in most other terrestrial mobile bands which operate at lower 
frequencies with more favorable propagation characteristics and even 
less than the maximum 47 dBm/10 MHz (57 dBm/100 MHz) permitted in the 
Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) service designed specifically 
for small cell coverage. While the Coexistence studies and the SAVID 
study do not reach identical conclusions due to differing assumptions, 
collectively they illustrate that two-way mobile terrestrial 5G 
operations could not ubiquitously meet the regional EPFD limits that 
the FCC adopted to protect DBS. As DBS receivers may be located 
anywhere (and can be either roof-mounted or installed on the ground), 
and as the Coalition's own Coexistence studies shows the potential for 
harmful interference from 5G into DBS in some instances, the Commission 
finds that a new 5G service cannot adequately protect incumbent DBS 
operators in the band from a significant risk of harmful interference. 
Moreover, the Commission notes that DISH and other 5G advocates have 
not proposed or agreed to rules or limits on 5G operations (such as 
horizon nulling) that DISH suggests might reduce some risk of harmful 
interference into DBS. However, even if the 5G advocates agreed to use 
advanced techniques for interference mitigation, that would not solve 
the underlying problem that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial service 
poses a significant risk of harmful interference to DBS given the 
ubiquitous nature of both the existing DBS service and the proposed 5G 
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The base station EIRP is 75 dBm/100 MHz but the base 
station EIRP density is reduced by the base station TDD activity 
factor of 75% to 69dBm/100 MHz. See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS 
Analysis at 4-5.
    \68\ DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
    \69\ See Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel, DISH, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, at 2-3 
(filed August 8, 2022) (DISH Aug. 8, 2022 Letter). Among other 
things, DISH questioned SAVID's assumptions about 5G transmit power 
and DBS dish location; its decision to ``ignore'' the potential for 
horizon nulling and time variability; and its failure to use LIDAR 
data to accurately account for clutter loss. Id. at 2-3.
    \70\ Coexistence 1 at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The 5G advocates do not address the increased coordination and 
DBS interference mitigation burdens that would be placed on DIRECTV and 
its tens of millions of subscribers if the Commission was to permit 
mobile 5G operations in the 12.2 GHz band.\71\ The original Coexistence 
study proposed to eliminate the MVDDS EIRP limit as duplicative of the 
EPFD limits, suggesting that keeping terrestrial signals below the 
applicable EPFD limit at all DBS antenna locations generally could 
avoid harmful interference to existing DBS subscribers regardless of 
the EIRP or whether the terrestrial operations were fixed or mobile, or 
one- or two-way.\72\ However, the proposal to eliminate the EIRP limit 
would substantially redefine the scope of the burden on DBS operators, 
particularly for the deployment of additional DBS antennas in the 
future. While the current rules place the burden to ensure that new DBS 
subscribers do not suffer interference from previously coordinated 
MVDDS stations on DBS operators, the Commission is not convinced that 
similarly shifting this burden from 5G to DBS, going forward, would be 
reasonable because protecting DBS receivers installed in the future 
from previously coordinated higher-power, two-way, 5G base and mobile 
stations would be significantly more burdensome--and in some scenarios 
impossible--than protecting new DBS receivers from previously 
coordinated, one-way, low-power, fixed MVDDS transmitters. Due to the 
mobile nature of the proposed 5G service, the location of devices 
cannot be determined and therefore cannot be avoided through 
coordination. Also, a two-way service requires the DBS operator to 
consider both incoming and outgoing signals. Finally, at higher powers, 
even using advanced techniques, a DBS receiver might not be able to 
coordinate operation near a 5G base station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Letter from Michael P. Goggin, Assistant Vice 
President--Senior Legal Counsel, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, Appx. A, AT&T Response to the 
MVDDS 5G Coalition Technical Studies, at 4 (filed June 14, 2018) 
(AT&T June 14, 2018 Ex Parte) (arguing that eliminating the EIRP 
limit would render the EPFD analysis impossible to model and have 
the effect of shifting the burden of interference mitigation from 
MVDDS licensees to DBS licensees because the EIRP limits were 
established specifically to mitigate the potential impact of MVDDS 
operations on future DBS customers).
    \72\ See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition at 19; MVDDS 5G Coalition 
Comments at 6, n.21 (citing Coexistence 1 at 4). AT&T had argued 
that there may be potential statutory issues including whether 
proposed two-way, mobile use of the band would require an 
independent technical analysis showing that DBS would be protected. 
AT&T Opposition at 2, n.4 (citing section 1012 of the LOCAL TV Act). 
In December 2018, however, this provision of the LOCAL TV Act was 
stricken. Public Law 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, 265-66, sec. 1012, 
Prevention of Interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite Services, 
stricken by Public Law 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4777-78, sec. 6603, 
Amendments to Local TV Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Additionally, given that all DBS earth stations look toward the 
southern sky for communication with geostationary orbit (GSO) space 
stations orbiting at the equatorial plane, and given that high-gain 
antennas are necessary for base stations, the 12.2 NPRM sought comment 
on whether base station location or antenna orientation can be adjusted 
to provide greater protection to DBS earth stations.\73\ The 5G 
advocates did not address this issue in their comments, replies, or 
additional studies, though DIRECTV, in its SAVID study, pointed out 
that lower earth-station elevation angles generally increase the 
potential for harmful interference from line-of-sight terrestrial 
transmitters while higher angles generally result in off-axis 
attenuation.\74\ 5G terrestrial advocates did not address how DBS 
subscribers in the far northern U.S. could be protected from 5G 
interference, given the relatively low elevation angles required for 
subscriber dishes in these regions to point at DBS GSO satellites over 
the equator. For example, to point a dish in Fairbanks, AK, at a 
DIRECTV satellite at 95.1[deg] W, an elevation angle of 6.47[deg] is 
required. Even if the Commission excluded Alaska (as it did in 
addressing the 3.7 GHz band), an elevation angle of 12.21[deg] is 
required to point a customer's dish in Bangor, ME, at a DISH satellite 
at 129[deg] W, and an elevation angle of 17.67[deg] is required in 
Seattle, WA, to point at a DISH satellite at 72.7[deg] W. That failure 
of the 5G advocates to acknowledge or address the challenge of 
adequately protecting DBS customers whose location may render them 
uniquely susceptible to interference from 5G adds weight to the 
Commission's conclusion that the record does not support a finding that 
5G can coexist with ubiquitous DBS dishes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 617, para. 25.
    \74\ See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 6 (noting SAVID's 
Study assumed that all DBS antennas were pointed toward DIRECTV's 
central orbital location at 101[deg] W.L.--an assumption that 
ensures high elevation angles and does not, like the Peters Studies, 
seek out the worst possible angle over the full range of DBS orbital 
locations available); see also DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 
3 (noting its deployments were modeled at Orlando, FL, which has 
high elevation angles to DBS satellites, adding conservatism to the 
analysis by tending to reduce indicated interference levels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. RS Access and DISH contend that concerns about interference to 
DBS should be given little weight because DISH is one of the country's 
two DBS providers and one of the advocates of a new 5G terrestrial 
service in the band. As such, RS Access and DISH state, ``DISH would 
not join a proposal that endangers its own service to about 14 million 
households.'' \75\ Admittedly, DISH expresses willingness to accept any 
resultant increase in coordination and DBS interference mitigation 
burdens in return for new authority to use its 82 MVDDS licenses for 
two-way mobile broadband.\76\ This is not a case,

[[Page 43469]]

however, where the Commission can conclude--as with DISH's position as 
the sole licensee with respect to both services in connection with 
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)-4 service--that the concerns about 
harmful interference are capable of resolution by one party. Here, as 
previously noted, DISH is not the only DBS provider in the band.\77\ 
DISH's support for a new 5G service in the band does not address the 
potential for harmful interference to DIRECTV's tens of millions of 
subscribers. For instance, the Commission notes that DISH and DIRECTV 
dishes may not have an equal susceptibility to harmful interference in 
any given locale, because their respective subscribers may use 
different types of dishes (e.g., varying in size) aimed at one or 
several satellites at different orbital slots in the GSO arc. In short, 
DISH's DBS system architecture and structure, not to mention its 
motivations and business plans, may be very different from DIRECTV's. 
Thus, DISH's lack of concern about and/or willingness to work around 
potential harmful interference from 5G service in the band cannot be 
viewed as probative of the question of likely interference to DBS 
service.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 4.
    \76\ AT&T June 14, 2018 Ex Parte at 5-6 (arguing that because 
DISH holds MVDDS licenses in most of the major markets and has 
developed an alternative means of video distribution that does not 
require DBS capabilities, DISH may have less incentive to protect 
DBS operations than it once did). ``At a minimum, DISH would now 
balance the impact of the Coalition's proposals on its existing and 
future DBS subscriber base against the advantages--arguably very 
profitable ones for existing MVDDS licensees--that would flow to its 
other services if the request is granted.'' Id. at 6. The Coalition 
responds that ``DISH would have never been member of the Coalition 
if 5G terrestrial mobile services posed a meaningful risk of harmful 
interference to its DBS operations.'' Letter from MVDDS 5G Coalition 
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 3-4 
(filed Aug. 29, 2018) (MVDDS 5G Coalition Aug. 29, 2018 Ex Parte).
    \77\ In the 12.2 GHz band, as one of two DBS providers, DISH is 
in a different position than in the 2000-2020 and 2180-2200 GHz 
bands, where in 2011 it became the only Mobile Satellite Service 
(MSS) authorization holder. See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless 
Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, WT Docket 12-
70, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 
16102, 16109-16110, para. 14 (2012). In that context, despite 
concerns that multiple satellite and terrestrial operators could not 
coexist in the same frequency band without interference, the 
Commission granted DISH authorization to use the 2 GHz MSS bands for 
terrestrial mobile operations, reasoning that a single operator 
could manage potential interference between two different systems in 
the band. See id. at 16165-16167, paras. 164-168.
    \78\ See AT&T Reply at 22 (``the fact that DISH may not worry 
about harmful interference from terrestrial, mobile, flexible-use 
operations does not lessen AT&T's concerns.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Finally, DISH argues that DIRECTV does not use the 12.2 GHz 
band extensively and mostly relies on other spectrum bands to provide 
service to its customers. Specifically, DISH claims that ``[a] review 
of DIRECTV's satellites and orbital slots suggests that DIRECTV has 
more bandwidth outside the 12 GHz band than DISH has in the 12 GHz 
band.'' \79\ DISH goes on to claim that DIRECTV serves its customers 
mainly using the Ka-band and Reverse Band working Broadcasting-
Satellite Service payloads on its satellites at 99[deg], 101[deg], and 
103[deg] W.L. slots.\80\ DIRECTV responds to this claim by pointing out 
that it ``continues to rely heavily on the 12 GHz band'' for delivery 
of its video service to a majority of its DBS customers throughout all 
fifty states, including customers receiving services on aircraft, boats 
and RVs, as well as through set-top boxes.\81\ The record reflects that 
DIRECTV continues to use the 12.2 GHz band, having deployed a ``12 GHz 
payload on a relatively new T16 satellite at 101[deg] W.L.'' \82\ 
Similarly, the Commission finds DISH's arguments about the recent 
decline of DBS subscribers--both DISH and DIRECTV--unavailing.\83\ 
Regardless of overall subscription trends, each DBS operator continues 
to add new subscribers that can be located anywhere in the United 
States, and there continue to be millions of existing DBS customers 
whose service is entitled to protection from harmful interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel, DISH, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, at 1 (filed 
Apr. 4, 2022); DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 7.
    \80\ DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 7.
    \81\ Letter from Stacy Fuller, Senior Vice President, External 
Affairs, DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 
No. 20-443, at 2 (filed May 3, 2022).
    \82\ DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 8.
    \83\ DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 5G Interference to NGSO FSS
    22. The Commission also finds that ubiquitous two-way mobile 
broadband 5G service is likely to create a significant risk of harmful 
interference to ubiquitous and increasing NGSO FSS operations.\84\ 
While deployment of NGSO FSS service in the 12.2 GHz band is still 
developing, terrestrial 5G service in the band is hypothetical. For 
this reason, the 5G advocates supported their arguments by submitting 
Monte Carlo simulation analyses that attempt to model the coexistence 
of the two services.\85\ However, 5G advocates did not then use the 
assumptions underlying their models as a basis for proposing specific 
rules that would enable coexistence. NGSO FSS operators responded by 
submitting their own Monte Carlo analyses which sought to correct 
various assumptions they claim to be erroneous. While the studies 
provided by the opposing sides contain many contradictory assumptions, 
ultimately they all agree on the fundamental point that there will be a 
significant risk of harmful interference to NGSO FSS operations without 
some geographic separation between a new two-way mobile broadband 5G 
service and NGSO FSS. The 5G advocates, however, do not propose to 
limit such new 5G terrestrial service geographically, nor is it clear 
how such limitations could be consistent with the nature of the 5G 
service for which they seek authorization. Neither are the 
authorizations granted to existing NGSO FSS operators limited to 
specific geographic areas. The Commission therefore finds it would not 
be in the public interest to allow for a new 5G service in the band as 
it would cause a significant risk of harmful interference to NGSO FSS 
where these services are deployed ubiquitously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 2 (``Regardless of the 
assumptions made with respect to NGSO FSS and two-way terrestrial 
deployments, harmful interference from the proposed terrestrial 
service will not only exceed the existing interference envelope for 
MVDDS in the 12 GHz band, but will cause additional harmful 
interference''); See also SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 2 (``Yet 
even with . . . favorable assumptions, SpaceX customers could expect 
to experience harmful interference in the 12 GHz band the vast 
majority of the time, which would essentially preclude a consumer-
oriented commercial satellite service in the band'').
    \85\ A Monte Carlo (probabilistic) analysis is a simulation that 
uses random sampling and statistical modeling to estimate 
mathematical functions and mimic the operations of complex systems. 
RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 3, n.8 (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Significantly, the Commission notes that initially, the MVDDS 
5G Coalition (i.e., the petitioners for a new 5G service in the 12.2 
GHz band) argued that coexistence with NGSO FSS was not possible. 
Specifically, the Coexistence studies concluded that 5G terrestrial 
operations and NGSO FSS operations could not co-exist in the 12.2 GHz 
band and therefore, the MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition proposed to delete 
or demote the NGSO FSS allocation to a lower regulatory status with 
respect to 5G.\86\ 5G advocates subsequently shifted their argument to 
claim that co-existence is possible with the new generation of NGSO FSS 
systems.\87\ When the Commission issued the 12.2 Notice in response to 
the Petition, it noted the public interest in protecting the 
significant investments made by NGSO FSS operators in the band. To 
determine whether NGSO FSS operations could coexist with a new 5G 
service, the 12.2 Notice sought comment on what technical criteria 
would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS from harmful interference from 
high-powered, two-way mobile operations.\88\

[[Page 43470]]

Specifically, the 12.2 NPRM asked which maximum power levels could be 
granted to new terrestrial operations within a framework of service-
rule sharing that would still protect incumbents from harmful 
interference.\89\ The 12.2 NPRM further inquired as to whether applying 
the existing MVDDS interference criteria \90\ to new terrestrial 
systems would be sufficient to protect NGSO FSS operations.\91\ 
Notably, it specifically inquired about whether subscribers of 
satellite services were typically located in more rural areas, the 
propagation characteristics and cell coverage areas that could be 
expected from 5G base stations in the band, and whether smaller-sized 
cells could mitigate potential interference from terrestrial services 
into DBS and NGSO FSS services.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ The earlier MVDDS 5G Coalition studies found ``MVDDS and 
NGSO [FSS] cannot effectively share the [12] GHz band, either under 
the current rules or under any new rules that may be added in 
response to the Coalition's petition.'' See Coexistence 3 Aug. 15, 
2016 Study at 18.
    \87\ See supra paras. 3-4 for a discussion of NGSO FSS systems 
authorized by the Commission in recent years.
    \88\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 619-620, para. 30.
    \89\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 42.
    \90\ See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11, (f)(1); 101.147(p). See also 47 
CFR 101.105(a)(4)(i) (limiting the PFD level beyond 3 km from an 
MVDDS station to -135 dBW/m\2\ in any 4 kHz measured and/or 
calculated at the surface of the earth), 101.129(b) (prohibiting 
location of MVDDS transmitting antennas within 10 km of any 
qualifying NGSO FSS receiver absent mutual agreement of the 
licensees).
    \91\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 619-620, para. 30.
    \92\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. In response to the questions raised in the 12.2 NPRM, RS Access 
commissioned RKF, a systems engineering firm, to conduct a nationwide 
simulation of how NGSO FSS and terrestrial 5G systems might 
interact.\93\ Ultimately, RKF provided two studies, both probabilistic 
Monte Carlo analyses meant to show that terrestrial 5G can coexist with 
NGSO FSS. In its first study, submitted in May 2021, RKF used the 406 
Partial Economic Area (PEA) geographic license areas \94\ in the 
contiguous United States (``CONUS'') to define where the 5G network 
will be deployed, and broke these into urban, suburban, and rural based 
on their population density thresholds.\95\ Because the May 2021 RKF 
Monte Carlo analysis assumed the new 12.2 GHz terrestrial 5G service 
was likely to be deployed in the most densely populated areas with high 
demand for broadband service, RKF modeled deployment of 5G in census 
tracts with a population density greater than 7,500 people per square 
mile in each PEA. It explained, however, that if deployment in these 
``urban'' density census tracts did not result in deployment to areas 
that encompassed 10% of a market's population, it added the most 
densely populated census tracts in each PEA until the area of 
deployment covered 10% of the market population.\96\ RKF's terrestrial 
model assumed a 5G network of 49,997 terrestrial macro-cell base 
stations,\97\ 89,970 fixed small-cell base stations,\98\ 1,949,760 
simultaneously active mobile devices \99\ and 6,999 point-to-point 
backhaul links across CONUS.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ RS Access Comment at 33.
    \94\ See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details 
About Partial Economic Areas, GN Docket No. 12-268, Public Notice, 
29 FCC Rcd 6491 (2014).
    \95\ Urban has a population more than 7,500, suburban between 
7,500 and 600, and rural fewer than 600. RS Access Comment RKF Study 
I at 6.
    \96\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 26-27.
    \97\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 13. Macro cells were 
deployed by multiplying the capped total of almost 50,000 macro 
cells by the ratio of the high population density area in a given 
PEA divided by the total such population in 12.2 GHz eligible areas 
in all PEAS--i.e., each PEA got a percentage of Macro-cell base 
stations equal to its proportion of the high population density 
areas across CONUS. Id. at 31. The model deployed Macro-cell base 
stations in three consecutive waves of decreasing inter site 
distances between them ranging from 500 meters to 200 meters between 
base stations for urban areas and 1732 meters between base stations 
for rural areas. Id. at 32.
    \98\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 34. Small cell base 
stations were deployed in the same manner as the macro cell base 
stations but with smaller distances between these and other small-
cell base stations and or macro-cell base stations. See id. at 34-
35.
    \99\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 38. The mobile devices 
were dropped uniformly but randomly within the base stations' 
coverage areas, and 80% of the mobile devices were assigned as 
indoor and 20% as outdoor. Id. at 37. Outdoor mobile devices were 
assumed to have a height above ground level (HAGL) of 1.5m. Id. at 
37.
    \100\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 39. The Study 
estimated that there were a total of 2,500 macro-cell base stations 
and 4,499 small-cell base stations without fiber access and required 
microwave backhaul via the 12.2 GHz band, for a total of 6,999 
links. See id. at 39. The Study assumed that in 2025, less than 5% 
of the cell-sites will use microwave backhaul in the 7 GHz to 40 GHz 
band and hence it distributed such use so that 5% of rural macro-
cell base stations, 5% of other macro-cell base stations and 5% of 
small-cell base stations all use microwave backhaul. See id. at 38-
39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. RKF then modeled the distribution of only SpaceX's NGSO FSS 
satellite terminals, although there are multiple NGSO FSS operators in 
the band. RKF's satellite model assumed SpaceX would deploy 2,500,000 
satellite user terminals in both urban and rural areas,\101\ but for 
this model, it used a different definition of rural and urban areas 
than it did for modeling terrestrial 5G operations.\102\ RKF assumed 
the majority of NGSO FSS systems, or 1.65 million Starlink user 
terminals, would be dropped in random locations in non-metropolitan 
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) blocks \103\ either won by 
Starlink or won by another bidder,\104\ and that the remaining 850,000 
Starlink terminals would be deployed in non-RDOF but also `rural 
areas.' \105\ Starlink terminals were allowed to be within 5 meters of 
5G base stations, and the possibility technically exists that RKF's 
modeling could place NGSO FSS user terminals near 5G terrestrial base 
stations.\106\ However, such proximity appears unlikely because the 
study endeavored to separate terrestrial 5G and satellite equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 16-17.
    \102\ Compare RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 6 with id. at 8. 
RKF adopted the Census Bureau's definition of metropolitan areas as 
``urban areas'' which include both cities and surrounding suburbs 
and it assumed and weighted deployment of satellite terminals to 
whatever was not metropolitan but instead a ``rural'' area. RS 
Access Comment RKF Study I at 8.
    \103\ RDOF blocks are census blocks made available by the 
Commission's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction where no 
provider is offering, or has committed to offer service of at least 
25/3 Mbps. See FCC, Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction 
Information, Fact Sheet, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/
904#:~:text=The%20Rural%20Digital%20Opportunity%20Fund%20will%20ensur
e%20that%20networks%20stand,applications%20as%20well%20as%20today's.
    \104\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 17. RKF states that for 
purposes of this analysis, the study assumes that SpaceX would have 
a penetration rate of 60% in non-metropolitan RDOF areas (or 327,511 
terminals) in which they won funding. Id. Likewise, the study 
assumes a 30% penetration rate in non-metropolitan RDOF areas (or 
1.3 million Starlink terminals) where another auction participant 
won funding. Id. For those metropolitan RDOF areas that SpaceX won, 
the study assumes a penetration rate of 15%, which amounts to an 
assumed 14,600 total Starlink terminals. Id. These assumptions, 
along with metropolitan RDOF areas that SpaceX did not win, resulted 
in an assumed 1.65 million Starlink terminal deployments. Id.
    \105\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 18. In this case of NGSO 
FSS terminals dropped over ``non-RDOF'' rural areas, `rural' is 
defined for NGSO FSS operations the same as for 5G terrestrial 
deployments--less than 600 people per square mile. Id. at 17. NGSO 
FSS terminals are placed using the Gridded Population of the World 
(GPW) population density database in proportion to the population 
density in more populous rural areas, which is similar to how the 
model sites 12 GHz terrestrial base stations. Id. In other words, 
the model's siting methodology for Starlink terminals in non-RDOF 
regions is more likely to place terminals in the more populous 
census tracts in rural areas, where they are deployed in proportion 
to the population therein using a population density database 
similar to the method used for siting terrestrial 5G equipment. Id. 
at 17-18, n.39.
    \106\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 18. 5G terrestrial base 
stations and NGSO FSS user terminals could be near each other, for 
example if the latter were placed in `non-urban' areas from a Census 
Bureau perspective but if these areas still had populations greater 
than 7,500 persons and were ``urban'' under RKF's standards and 
therefore also receiving terrestrial 5G equipment. Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. In RKF's study, the potential for harmful interference to NGSO 
FSS from multiple elements of 5G systems is aggregated.\107\ With 
respect to each of

[[Page 43471]]

the NGSO FSS terminals modeled, RKF computed the aggregate interference 
power from all 5G emitters within 50 km, and compared the result to the 
interference-to-noise ratio (I/N) threshold to determine the extent to 
which the threshold would be exceeded.\108\ RKF asserted the objective 
of the simulation was to model a large number of statistically 
significant interference paths to evaluate the risk of interference to 
the Starlink terminals.\109\ Initially, RKF found that about 0.888% of 
Starlink user terminals over CONUS could experience an event that 
exceeded a nominal ITU threshold of -8.5 dB.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 13. Each macro-cell base 
station beamforms a narrow beam toward each mobile device, and 5G 
transmissions are assumed to operate in time-division-duplex (TDD) 
mode with all the base stations coordinated such that uplink and 
downlink transmissions are synchronized. Id. The study assumes 5G 
backhaul operates in frequency-division-duplex (FDD) mode, and both 
uplink and downlink paths transmit continuously. Id. The base 
station antenna has 256 elements with a peak gain of 27.7 dBi which 
beamforms toward each mobile device but is constrained by the 
minimum antenna down tilt levels designed so that the gain directed 
toward a mobile device at 1.5m HAGL at the edge of coverage of the 
cell is 10 dB below the peak gain--allowing service at the edge of 
coverage; smalls cells have a peak gain of 15 dBi. RS Access May 19, 
2022 RKF Study II at 11. Starlink terminal selects a random pointing 
direction from the distribution of simulated pointing directions. RS 
Access Comment RKF Study I at 13. Then the aggregate interference 
from all simultaneously active macro base station beams and small-
cells on the downlink or all active mobile devices on the uplink, as 
well as the point-to-point backhaul uplink and downlink 
transmissions to each of the Starlink terminal receivers within 50 
kilometers is computed. Id. RKF states the model calculates the 
emissions from macro-cell base stations as they beamform a 
transmission path toward each mobile device within the coverage area 
of each base station. Small-cell emissions are also calculated; 
these emissions are not beamformed to specific mobile devices, but 
are instead transmitted omnidirectionally with fixed down tilt and 
nulling. RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 9. Then the model 
performs two separate aggregate interference power calculations: (1) 
from all simultaneously active macro base station beams, all small 
cells on the downlink, and all point-to-point backhaul 
transmissions, which continually transmit in FDD mode in both 
directions; and (2) from all active mobile devices on the uplink and 
all point-to-point backhaul transmissions. Id. at 9-10.
    \108\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 9-10.
    \109\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 10.
    \110\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. NGSO FSS operators, especially SpaceX, criticized many of the 
assumptions underlying RKF's 2021 study. As a result, in May 2022, RS 
Access submitted a revised study from RKF that modified certain 
parameters and specific assumptions to respond to the criticism.\111\ 
RKF's revised study still relied heavily on geographic separation to 
find that a new 5G service could avoid causing harmful interference to 
incumbent NGSO FSS operations. The study still assumed that new 12.2 
GHz 5G deployment and satellite terminals would have limited geographic 
overlap due to RKF's assessment of their respective use-cases--namely, 
that 12.2 GHz 5G services will be deployed most heavily in denser 
population centers, while satellite services are most useful in lower 
density population centers.\112\ RKF's second study modeled the same 
number of base stations, mobile devices and point-to-point links,\113\ 
and reached the conclusion that there would be no impact to 99.85% of 
NGSO FSS terminals by the terrestrial deployment it modeled. In 
particular, it asserted its study now found that only 0.15% of Starlink 
terminals which might hypothetically be deployed in the future 
throughout CONUS experienced an exceedance of the ITU's I/N threshold 
of -8.5 dB I/N from 5G operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz portion of the 
NGSO FSS downlink band.\114\ RKF asserted that several other factors 
contributed to the ``highly favorable environment'' for the coexistence 
of NGSO FSS and 5G systems, including the large antenna discrimination 
resulting from NGSO FSS antennas pointing with high elevation angle and 
the 5G base stations down tilted; interference mitigation achieved 
through 5G base station sidelobe suppression and antenna nulling toward 
the horizon; and, relatively localized 5G coverage due to the 12.2 GHz 
band's propagation characteristics.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 6.
    \112\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at iii.
    \113\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 2-3.
    \114\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 25. RKF asserts 
that the exceedance threshold of -12.2 dB, suggested by some 
critics, would not materially affect this study's findings. Id. at 
26. Furthermore, it noted that any exceedance event that might occur 
would also affect no more than two of the up to eight available 250-
megahertz Ku-band NGSO FSS channels at 10.7-12.7 GHz. Id. at 5, 25.
    \115\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 7. There are 
several additional differences from the May 2021 and 2022 RKF 
Studies, albeit RKF emphasized three. First, whereas in its 2021 
Study, RKF assumed Starlink terminals would point at satellites with 
look angles or elevation angels between 55[deg] and 85[deg], in 
response to Starlink criticism, it assumes terminals will more 
frequently employ a lower elevation angle closer to the minimum 
authorized angle of 25[deg]. Id. at 19. Second, RKF has changed the 
height above ground level for Starlink terminals from 20% sited at 
4.5 meters and 80% at 1.5 meters, instead to 55% at 4.5 meters and 
45% at 1.5 meters, in response to claims by Starlink that most users 
install their terminals ``as high as possible.'' Id. at 20. Third, 
in response to a Starlink claim, a maximum off-axis antenna gain 
pattern from an European Telecommunications Standards Institute 
(ETSI) standard for user terminals is used even though RKF asserts 
no party expressly claims that Starlink terminals perform at this 
standard and ETSI formulas results in a larger assumed off-axis 
gain, which in turn makes Starlink terminals more prone to 
exceedance events. Id. at 21-22. Other differences between the two 
studies include changes in the macro-cell and small-cell base 
station antenna patterns used, the peak EIRP of the macro cells 
decreased from 75 dBm/100 MHz to 65 dBm/100 MHz with gain of 27.7 
dBi (small-cell base stations likewise increased their EIRP from 45 
to 48 dBm/100 MHz but with an increased gain of 18 dBi and not 15 
dBi which is accomplished through including horizon nulling and 
beamforming technologies), and the application of end-point clutter 
loss at the user equipment (UEs) with an HAGL of less than 3m and at 
small-cell base stations (typically deployed on poles in the 
vicinity of buildings), incorporating horizon nulling into macro 
cell base stations. Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Both SpaceX and OneWeb submitted Monte Carlo analyses in 
response to the May 2022 RKF study commissioned by RS Access. SpaceX's 
Monte Carlo study modified certain key assumptions including basing 
buildout in an actual SpaceX market area in Las Vegas, Nevada upon its 
own asserted user data,\116\ and buildout requirement for terrestrial 
mobile services of 70 percent of population, among other 
assertions.\117\ SpaceX asserted its study showed an impact from 
interference from terrestrial mobile service that would degrade service 
to SpaceX's Starlink broadband terminals operating in the 12.2 GHz band 
more than 77 percent of the time, resulting in full outages 74 percent 
of the time.\118\ Furthermore, SpaceX stated its study showed the 
impact of this harmful interference would extend at least 21 km (more 
than 13 miles) from the macro base station in unobstructed conditions 
even for best-case far-sidelobe-to-far-sidelobe coupling.\119\ SpaceX 
used an antenna receiver pattern based upon the applicable ETSI 
standard (ETSI_EN_303_981 Class B WBES),\120\ and the SpaceX analysis 
is based on seven 240 megahertz channels with 250 megahertz spacing 
from 10.95-12.7 GHz.\121\ OneWeb's study similarly concluded that NGSO 
FSS user terminals cannot be deployed within the coverage area of a 
suburban macro-cell base station deployment without suffering from very 
high probability of harmful interference.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 3.
    \117\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 4.
    \118\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 2.
    \119\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 3.
    \120\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
    \121\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.
    \122\ See OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. While the analyses submitted by SpaceX and OneWeb have very 
little accord with the RKF analyses, all of these analyses agree, on 
some level, on one point: NGSO FSS user terminals will suffer harmful 
interference if they are operating in close proximity to 5G 
transmissions in the 12.2 GHz band. The RKF analyses come to this 
conclusion tacitly because rather than providing a calculation of the 
separation distance that would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS 
terminals from harmful emissions from 5G transmitters, these RKF 
analyses simply assume that in most situations 5G and NGSO FSS services 
will not be used by consumers

[[Page 43472]]

in the same locations. Specifically, the RKF studies assume that 5G 
will most likely operate only in denser, more urban markets and NGSO 
FSS services will most likely serve only more rural subscribers. 
Satellite operators, and other parties in the record, have provided 
more express analyses than RKF of the potential for harmful 
interference to NGSO FSS operations from 5G operations in close 
proximity. For example, Google noted in its reply comments that 
although RKF's report did not separately present the potential 
interfering impact of a single UE (handset) located in the vicinity of 
a satellite terminal--because it assumed it was unlikely a handset 
would be near a satellite terminal--Google's calculations showed that 
when such a situation inevitably occurs, harmful interference can be 
expected out to a distance of as much as 0.2-1 km under realistic 
propagation assumptions, and as far as 3 km under worst-case 
conditions.\123\ For its part, SpaceX asserted that satellite user 
terminals would be subjected to significant interference whenever 
located in the line of sight of a 5G base station. Further, SpaceX 
states that even for best-case far-sidelobe-to-far-sidelobe coupling, 
the effect of harmful interference (I/N > -12.2dB) between these two 
operations will extend up to 21.4 km (more than 13 miles) from the 
macro base station in unobstructed conditions.\124\ According to 
SpaceX, its satellite user terminal is about 16 dB more sensitive to 
the interfering signal coming into its far sidelobes than the mobile UE 
is for its desired signal.\125\ As a result, if a SpaceX user terminal 
is located in an area where a mobile device can receive a signal from 
the base station, the interfering signal its terminal receives will be 
much stronger than the desired signal received by the user device.\126\ 
Because of their sensitivity, SpaceX states that even if its satellite 
terminal antennas are pointing only at high elevation angles so that 
terrestrial mobile signals are only received at large off-axis angles, 
interference will be overwhelming within the coverage area of a 
terrestrial base station.\127\ SpaceX asserts that RKF recognized this 
point when it admitted that ``Starlink terminals within the 5G coverage 
area typically suffered an exceedance.'' \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Google Reply at 14.
    \124\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 11. SpaceX used RKF's 
assumption that the macro base station has an input power of 41.3 
dBW per 100 MHz per user and that the SpaceX user terminal has a -2 
dBi far sidelobe gain and 200 K system noise temperature. SpaceX 
also assumed that the far sidelobe level of the macro base station 
is -2.3 dBi. RKF assumed a -30 dBi sidelobe performance for macro 
base stations. And, in its later Monte Carlo simulation, SpaceX used 
the same -30 dBi sidelobe floor for an individual sector antenna 
pattern, although SpaceX states this value is highly optimistic. Id.
    \125\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.
    \126\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13. SpaceX argues that 
even for a mobile UE with a very modest signal-to-noise ratio of 
only 0 dB (i.e., at the UE noise floor), for the SpaceX user 
terminal, this mobile signal becomes an interferer that is 16 dB 
above the noise floor of the user terminal (I/N = 16 dB) and 
completely wipes out the desired signal. Id.
    \127\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.
    \128\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13-14 (citing Letter from 
V. Noah Campbell, CEO, RS Access, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, Bringing 5G to the 12 GHz 
Band, at 11 (filed June 1, 2022)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Although RKF did not provide specific analysis of the 
separation distances necessary to protect NGSO FSS user terminals from 
5G transmissions, it argued that there would be a natural geographic 
separation between the two services, based on constraints on the number 
of user terminals an NGSO FSS system can deploy to one area. For 
example, the RKF study asserted that while an NGSO FSS licensee can 
deploy terminals in metropolitan areas, such as New York City or Los 
Angeles, satellite capacity constraints limit the total number of 
terminals NGSO FSS licensees can support in any one of these densely 
populated zones.\129\ To illustrate this point, RKF has pointed to 
statements by Starlink's CEO that its service is not well suited to 
urban areas.\130\ SpaceX does not directly address RKF's capacity 
argument but it responds that in the very few areas where RKF does 
consider terrestrial and NGSO FSS systems operating in close proximity, 
its model finds I/N ratios of 50 dB or more.\131\ Furthermore, SpaceX 
argues that, by assuming only 1.07 percent of SpaceX user terminals 
would be deployed in urban areas, RKF significantly underestimated the 
effect of the proposed system on the existing Starlink customers.\132\ 
OneWeb agrees that terrestrial separation of NGSO FSS and 5G terminals 
is an unrealistic assumption,\133\ and states that it intends to focus 
its initial service on enterprise, government, and mobile network 
operator customers, which will require connectivity across 
metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 8.
    \130\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 25, n.65 (citing 
Jon Brodkin, Elon Musk: Starlink latency will be good enough for 
competitive gaming, Ars Technica (Mar. 10, 2020), https://bit.ly/3dUrbbu (quoting Elon Musk: ``The challenge for anything that is 
space-based is that the size of the cell is gigantic . . . it's not 
good for high-density situations. We'll have some small number of 
customers in LA. But we can't do a lot of customers in LA because 
the bandwidth per cell is simply not high enough.'')).
    \131\ SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 3, 
n.9 (citing RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 27 and Fig. 3-3).
    \132\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9. SpaceX argues its 
actual distribution as based on the Las Vegas PEA is places 17% in 
urban areas, 37% in suburban areas and 46% in rural areas. Id.
    \133\ OneWeb has argued that suburban macro-cell base station 
deployments will result in harmful interference to NGSO FSS User 
Terminals when considering real world deployment scenarios. Letter 
from Brian D. Weimer, Counsel, OneWeb, to Marlene H. Dortch, WT 
Docket No. 20-443, Attach. B, 12 GHz NGSO FSS Earth station and 
Terrestrial Study, at 10 (filed Oct. 7, 2022). See also OneWeb July 
11, 2022 Analyses at 3 (notes omitted) (``The principle defect of 
the [RKF Study attached to Comments of] RS Access] is the assumption 
of geographical separation: that NGSO FSS user terminals will be 
deployed with a heavy bias towards rural areas while mobile base 
stations and devices will be heavily skewed towards urban areas. 
There is no real world justification for this bias.'').
    \134\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 3, n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. The Commission finds that the 5G proponents' arguments that a 
new 5G service could adequately protect NGSO FSS operations from 
harmful interference rely too heavily on the unsupported assumption 
that there will be geographic separation between the services. Neither 
the FCC's rules governing NGSO FSS operations in the band nor the 
authorizations that the FCC has granted to NGSO FSS operators place any 
limitations of the sort assumed by 5G proponents on where these NGSO 
FSS services may operate.\135\ NGSO FSS systems are not restricted to 
rural areas; indeed, SpaceX is currently authorized to deploy 
satellites throughout CONUS and for an unlimited number of its second-
generation user terminals anywhere within the United States.\136\ At 
this time, satellite operators' plans for, and rollout of service 
using, this band are still in the early stages, and operators have 
stated their intentions to serve urban and suburban areas.\137\ Based 
on the current record, and the Commission's experience, the Commission 
concludes that authorizing separate, ubiquitous satellite and 
terrestrial mobile systems in the same band would be significantly 
likely to result in harmful interference. Although the technical 
analyses that 5G advocates submitted made a number of

[[Page 43473]]

hypothetical assumptions about how both a new 5G service and NGSO FSS 
service would be deployed, including 5G operating parameters that could 
reduce or mitigate interference, 5G proponents did not propose or agree 
to be bound by any specific rules to codify these assumptions. Given 
the Commission's conclusion that NGSO FSS terminals will experience 
harmful interference if placed in close proximity to terrestrial 5G 
deployment, and the lack of apparent disagreement by 5G advocates, the 
Commission declines to authorize a new terrestrial 5G service in the 
12.2 GHz band based on the current record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See, e.g., Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-
Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters, 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC 
Rcd 7809 (2017), recon. pending (NGSO FSS Report and Order).
    \136\ See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application For 
Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the 
SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order 
and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 3391, para. 1 (2018); SpaceX June 21, 
2022 Analysis at 14, n.41 (citing Radio Station Authorization, Call 
Sign E210127 (issued Nov. 10, 2021)).
    \137\ See, e.g., supra para. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. As noted, the Monte Carlo analyses provided by the 5G advocates 
incorporate a set of assumed operating parameters intended, in addition 
to geographic separation, to reduce the possibility of harmful 
interference to NGSO FSS user terminals. These assumptions have become 
objects of criticism from NGSO FSS interests who argue that their 
adjustment can skew the interference picture away from showing the 
significant risk of harmful interference NGSO FSS systems would suffer. 
Below, the Commission discusses some of the major disagreements on 
assumptions the parties have raised in the record. The Commission 
cautions, however, that these assumptions do not change the 
Commission's bottom-line decision declining to permit 5G operations in 
the 12.2 GHz band, due to the risks of harmful interference into NGSO 
FSS user terminals when the two services are in close proximity. 
Accordingly, other than in a few instances where the Commission has 
pointed out that certain debates about assumptions may be missing 
critical information, the Commission declines to weigh in concerning 
the relative merits of particular assumptions.
    33. Ignoring Access to Other Bands and Other NGSO Deployments. The 
RKF study assumed that Starlink is assigned eight 250 MHz channels from 
10.7-12.7 GHz.\138\ SpaceX argues its model did not incorporate use of 
the 10.7-10.95 GHz portion of the band due to regulatory constraints 
imposed to protect Radio Astronomy activity in the adjacent 10.6-10.7 
GHz band.\139\ Accordingly, the SpaceX analysis is based on seven 240 
MHz channels with 250 MHz spacing from 10.95-12.7 GHz, whereas RKF 
appears to assume access to all bands. RS Access argues SpaceX's 
failure to incorporate the entire 10.7-12.7 GHz range into its 
calculations, and its use of only the 12.2-12.7 band for downlink 
increases the probability of interference exceedance experienced by 
Starlink terminals by a factor of four. RS Access finds this one of the 
most critical assumptions causing SpaceX's interference results to 
differ from its own. Furthermore, SpaceX argues RKF only models SpaceX 
terminal deployments and omits studies of any interference created by 
deployment of other NGSO FSS operations.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 11. Thus, a ``fully 
loaded'' 12 GHz sector can serve a maximum of 20 mobile devices 
simultaneously. Id.
    \139\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.
    \140\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Height of Fixed Subscriber Antennas. The height at which users 
mount their SpaceX user terminals has a dramatic effect on the 
interference to which they are subject--higher placement also means 
that they are more likely to receive more direct interference from 
mobile system base stations and UEs.\141\ The May 2021 RKF Study 
assumed a distribution of NGSO FSS fixed subscriber terminals more 
heavily weighted toward ground installations--80% of Starlink terminals 
would have an HAGL at 1.5m, and 20% would have an HAGL of 4.5m. RKF's 
May 2022 study modified this assumption and instead assumed that 45% of 
Starlink terminals would be installed near ground level with an HAGL of 
1.5m, and 55% of Starlink terminals would be installed on rooftops with 
an HAGL of 4.5m.\142\ In response, SpaceX argued this modification 
still failed to reflect that the majority of SpaceX's customers 
deployed their antennas on rooftops to avoid obstructions, which 
significantly increases the likelihood of an unobstructed path for 
interference from a mobile service base station.\143\ SpaceX argued its 
own informal customer surveys showed that most consumers mounted their 
antennas on a roof, and accordingly, SpaceX argued that 10% of its user 
terminals would be deployed at a height of 1.5m and 90% would be 
deployed at a height of 4.5m.\144\ OneWeb agrees most NGSO FSS user 
terminals are expected to be deployed on rooftops and that such 
installation practices are consistent with decades of satellite 
infrastructure deployments.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 7.
    \142\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 20.
    \143\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
    \144\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
    \145\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Number of Macro Cells Deployed. RKF's May 2022 study models 
49,997 5G macro base stations throughout CONUS, distributed in the most 
densely populated areas of each PEA, comprising at least 10% of the 
population of the PEA.\146\ SpaceX has criticized RKF's 10% coverage, 
contending that RKF's 10% minimum buildout assumption falls far below 
the 70% to 80% population coverage requirement the Commission has 
routinely applied to other recently allocated flexible use spectrum, 
and it asserts the lower percentage buildout results in less 
interference, thus skewing the results of RKF's study.\147\ SpaceX 
assumed 3,215 macro base stations in the Las Vegas market in its 
study,\148\ which RKF criticized as being a vast overestimation of 
typical 5G deployment.\149\ However, SAVID, which SpaceX hired to 
review the RKF studies, later argued that the number of macro base 
stations assumed in the SpaceX analysis did not have a material impact 
on the interference analysis results.\150\ The Commission notes that 
looking at the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) 
requirements for bands such as 24 GHz and above, licensees may fulfill 
their performance requirements in various ways, including providing 
mobile service to 40% of the population of the license area or by 
demonstrating coverage of at least 25% of their license's geographic 
area, or by showing the presence of equipment transmitting or receiving 
on the licensed spectrum in at least 25% of census

[[Page 43474]]

tracts within the license area.\151\ Accordingly, the relevant 
percentage buildout that would be required at 12 GHz may be different 
than either side's assumptions.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 9.
    \147\ SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 2. 
SpaceX has argued RKF's 10% buildout is also inconsistent with the 
economic study submitted by terrestrial mobile proponents, which 
``assume the terrestrial mobile operations in the 12 GHz band will 
be available ubiquitously''[. . .]and is also inconsistent with the 
public interests claimed by members of its coalition that mobile 
services in 12 GHz band be required to serve rural customers, left 
behind by other 5G deployments.'' SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 
11 (notes omitted).
    \148\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 15.
    \149\ See RS Access July 15, 2022 RKF Response Study at 9-10 
(``If a 5G operator sought to meet Starlink's assumptions and built-
out a nationwide 5G network that scaled the 540 POPs per cell 
Starlink modeled, the operator would have to deploy 610,000 base 
stations. By contrast, AT&T uses approximately 75,000 towers . . . 
to support a fully nationwide network . . . .''). However, RKF also 
modeled 89,970 fixed small-cell base stations. RS Access Comment RKF 
Study I at 34. OneWeb notes that 12 GHz terrestrial mobile 
deployments, should they be allowed, would mostly be on small-cell 
base stations like the C-band and Ka-band flexible-use deployments 
for in-fill where more capacity is desired, and according to CTIA, 
up to 800,000 small cells could be deployed within the next 5 years. 
See OneWeb Reply at 19-20. OneWeb states that even if half of these 
projected small cells included the 12 GHz band, it would represent a 
five-fold increase over the RKF study's small-cell deployment 
assumptions, and the number of affected Starlink terminals could be 
9 times higher than predicted for the small-cell base stations. Id. 
at 20-21.
    \150\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 12.
    \151\ See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio 
Services, et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014, 8088, para. 206 (2016) (stating that a 
licensee providing mobile service must provide coverage to 40 
percent of the population of the license area); Use of Spectrum 
Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al., Third Report 
and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Third Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 5576, 5580, para. 8 (2018) (stating 
that licensees may fulfill the requirements of [the geographic area 
performance] metric either by demonstrating mobile or point-to-
multipoint coverage of at least 25% of their license's geographic 
area, or by showing the presence of equipment transmitting or 
receiving on the licensed spectrum in at least 25% of census tracts 
within the license area . . . maintain[ing] parity with the 40% 
population coverage metric.).
    \152\ See, e.g., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at section V.C.6 
(Performance Requirements) (seeking comment on the appropriate 
coverage percentages for the 12.7 GHz band) in associated GN Docket 
No. 22-352 (FCC 23-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Technical Advancements. SpaceX argues that the RKF studies 
incorporated unreasonable technical advancements into their models of 
5G handsets, lowering the estimated interference received. For example, 
the May 2022 RKF study incorporated horizon nulling into the 
performance of 5G macro-cell base stations whereby 5G antennas can null 
the gain pattern at the horizon at all azimuth angles to mitigate 
ground-based interference to NGSO FSS terminals.\153\ SpaceX argued 
``[this] is a neat trick when the terrestrial operator does not know 
where the NGSO FSS antennas are located.'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12.
    \154\ SpaceX argues RKF assumptions about nulling technology 
rely on letters from NOKIA, Ericsson, and Samsung, but it states 
that first none of these materials refer to any specific level of 
sidelobe suppression capability from nulling and only Samsung 
mentions nulling at all, and only as a means of avoiding 
interference to other mobile user equipment. SpaceX June 3, 2022 
Response to Revised RKF Report at 5, n.23 (discussing RS Access May 
19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12, n.40 (citing Letter from Jeffrey Marks, 
Vice President, Nokia, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 
Docket No. 18-122 (filed Sept. 21, 2021); Letter from Mark Racek, 
Sr. Director of Spectrum Policy, Ericsson, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 18-122 (filed Sept. 13, 2021); Letter 
from Robert Kubik, Sr. Director, Samsung, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 18-122 (filed Sept. 20, 2021)). 
Second, SpaceX argues these letters were filed in the C-band 
proceeding and that RKF provides no explanation to justify its 
approach to scaling for the much higher frequencies at 12 GHz. 
SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 5. 
Furthermore, SpaceX notes there is no 12 GHz equipment and no ITU, 
3GPP, or other performance standard for 12 GHz and RKF does not 
explain how it came up with its assumptions for this band. Id. 
Third, SpaceX argues the letters from Ericsson and Samsung mention 
grating lobes, but RKF does not consider their effects in its model. 
Id. Fourth, even if nulling were feasible in the 12 GHz band, SpaceX 
argues it is expensive technology that operators are unlikely to 
deploy voluntarily--yet no one has proposed to make such technology 
a regulatory requirement, making RKF's assumption that it will be 
deployed facially unreasonable. Id. And SpaceX argues that, fifth, 
RKF assumes that the macro base stations use a 256-element antenna, 
while both Nokia and Ericsson indicate that they contemplated the 
use of much smaller 96-element antennas, which would result in lower 
gain, wider beam width, worse sidelobes, and reduced nulling 
ability. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Transmitter Power and Path Loss. As noted previously, RKF 
changed its transmitter power from 75 dBm to 65 dBm in its second 
study.\155\ SpaceX has supplied its own engineering report arguing that 
ITU WP 5D which studied terrestrial mobile in the 10-11 GHz bands also 
assumes 72.6 dBm/100 MHz as a typical base station EIRP value, making 
75 dBm the more likely number.\156\ OneWeb agrees that 75 dBm/100 MHz 
is more realistic.\157\ Furthermore, the OneWeb study uses the 
probabilistic clutter model found in Recommendation ITU-R P.2108, which 
provides a clutter assumption that is expected to be greater than 
predicted in 10% of the cases, and applies clutter only at the user 
terminals and only for those terminals deployed at ground level (as 
opposed to those presumed to be clutter-free on rooftops). Tailored in 
this manner, OneWeb can temper the recommendation's potentially overly 
aggressive prediction of clutter losses, yet model expected clutter 
losses at a range of geographic locations.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12.
    \156\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 4 (citing Report on 
the 38th meeting of Working Party 5D (e-Meeting 7-18 June 2021), 
Annex 4.4 to Document 5D/716-E, https://www.itu.int/dms_ties/itu-r/md/19/wp5d/c/R19-WP5D-C-0716!H4-N4.04!MSW-E.docx, Table 3-1 entry 
4.5 applicable to the 10-11 GHz band refers to Table 10 entry 1.9 
which defines the typical values for antenna element input power of 
22 dBm. Using the array parameters in Table 10 results in a typical 
BS EIRP of 72.6 dBm (in 100 MHz) which is comparable to the 75 dBm/
100 MHz maximum EIRP density used in this analysis based on the FCC 
limit defined in 47 CFR 30.202(a)).
    \157\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 6.
    \158\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Furthermore, both the RKF and SpaceX analyses model path loss 
using 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Specification 38.901, 
applying the Urban Macro-Cell model for both urban and suburban macro-
cells at 30 meters to 1 km distance, the Rural Macro-Cell model for 
rural macro-cells at 30 meters to 5 km, and the Micro-Cell (``Umi'') 
model for small-cells at 30 meter to 1 km distance.\159\ However, 
SpaceX argues, RKF subtly understates the high interference line of 
sight cases in the 3GPP 38.901 model by using a single weighted average 
between NLOS (non-line of sight) and LOS (line of sight) path loss to 
represent both cases.\160\ SpaceX argues RKF's approach of employing a 
weighted average to represent two distinctly different cases 
dramatically understates the line of sight cases that would actually 
occur under the 3GPP 38.901 model.\161\ SAVID asserts that while the 
parties debate either -8.5 dBm or -12.2 dBm I/N, an alternative 
interference protection criterion based on the Power Flux Density (PFD) 
limit set by 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)15 should be considered.\162\ In this 
regard, SAVID points out that the FCC specifically set the maximum PFD 
limit from an MVDDS service transmitting antenna in NGSO FSS stations 
at 12.2-12.7 GHz at -135 dBW/m2 in 4 kHz at 3 km, which is the 
equivalent of an I/N threshold of -10.8 dB.\163\ SAVID asserts this 
means that even for Starlink terminals in the most favorable location 
in the BS antenna pattern, there must be at least 25.5 dB of clutter 
loss to meet the FCC MVDDS PFD limit at 3 km separation.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9-10.
    \160\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 10.
    \161\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 10.
    \162\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 5-6.
    \163\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 6.
    \164\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 6. OneWeb stated its 
OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses uses the probabilistic clutter model 
found in Recommendation ITU-R P.2108, which provides a clutter 
assumption that is expected to be greater than predicted in 10% of 
the cases, and applies clutter only at the user terminals and only 
for those terminals deployed at ground level (as opposed to those 
presumed to be clutter-free on rooftops). OneWeb July 11, 2022 
Analyses at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. The parties' disagreements about the above assumptions 
underlying how two-way 5G mobile broadband and NGSO FSS user terminals 
should be modeled does not change the Commission's fundamental 
conclusion that there will be a significant risk of harmful 
interference to NGSO FSS where these services are deployed without 
adequate geographic separation. Even if the parties could agree about 
the values that should be assigned to each of the models' more minor 
assumptions, it would not change the models' more fundamental flawed 
assumption that the 5G and NGSO FSS services will be geographically 
separated. Rather, these disagreements present even more evidence of 
the difference in opinion between the parties as to the envisioned 
technical specifications of their respective operations. NGSO FSS 
continues to evolve and there is not enough data in the record on how 
these systems are currently configured and how the technical parameters 
will change over time as NGSO FSS systems add additional subscribers 
and continue to refine satellite technology.

[[Page 43475]]

Furthermore, this band is not internationally harmonized for 
terrestrial 5G use and there is significant disagreement about what an 
operable 5G system would look like in this band. 5G terrestrial 
advocates have not demonstrated that it is in the public interest to 
restrict or impact NGSO FSS operations in urban/suburban markets--
especially given that NGSO FSS systems are already serving customers. 
At this time, the Commission does not see a path forward for adding a 
terrestrial mobile allocation to the band that adequately protects the 
incumbent satellite operators.

C. MVDDS Construction Filings

    40. While the Commission declines to adopt service rules to allow 
5G terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band as originally proposed by the 
MVDDS coalition, the Commission recognizes that many of the MVDDS 
licensees in the band have filed the required buildout showings for the 
licenses they hold under the current framework. In the accompanying 
further notice of proposed rulemaking (WT Docket No. 20-443) (FR 2023-
13501) in FCC 23-36, the Commission seeks comment, among other things, 
on the possibility of changes to the existing framework. The Commission 
finds it's appropriate at this juncture to address any uncertainty as 
to the status of the existing MVDDS licenses under the current rules.
    41. Eight companies (10 legal entities) hold 191 MVDDS licenses: 
two DISH subsidiaries hold 82 licenses; RS Access, a subsidiary of a 
Dell investment fund, holds 60 licenses; two Go Long Wireless entities 
hold a total of 25 licenses; and five smaller companies hold a total of 
24 licenses.\165\ As a construction requirement, MVDDS licensees must 
make a showing of substantial service at the end of five years into the 
license period and ten years into the license period.\166\ The 
Commission is aware of only one current commercial MVDDS 
deployment,\167\ and most MVDDS licensees received two extensions of 
the MVDDS buildout requirement, which resulted in final deadlines in 
2019.\168\ All of the existing licensees have had buildout showings 
pending since 2019 for each of their licenses, which are available to 
view in the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS).\169\ In the 
191 pending filings, each licensee reports that it met the 2019 
buildout requirement for each license, mostly by satisfying the safe 
harbor that the Commission established for MVDDS in 2002 of operating 
at least four transmitters per one million pops in each license 
area.\170\ The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff's preliminary 
review of these construction filings is that they likely meet the safe 
harbor standard. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau to finalize the determination of whether the 
construction filings meet the safer harbor standard and if so to accept 
each of the pending MVDDS construction filings subject to the following 
condition: the Commission reserves the right to adopt additional 
buildout requirements for MVDDS if appropriate based on any revisions 
to the MVDDS rules adopted in response to the further notice of 
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ The remaining 23 licenses automatically terminated for 
failure to meet the buildout requirement. See Requests of Three 
Licensees of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data 
Distribution Service for Extension of Time to Meet the Final 
Buildout Requirement for Providing Substantial Service under Section 
101.1413 of the Commission's Rules, Applications of Three Licensees 
for Renewal of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data 
Distribution Service, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 10757 (WTB BD 2018), recons. 
pending. See also Blumenthal DTV LLC, Call Sign WQAR709 (Terminated 
July 26, 2014).
    \166\ 47 CFR 101.1413.
    \167\ The licensee uses one station that transmits towards the 
relatively distant urban market and surrounding suburbs from a 
unique site, geographically and topographically, that allowed the 
Commission to waive certain technical rules without increasing 
harmful interference to DBS or significantly increasing the area in 
which future NGSO FSS receivers would be precluded by this MVDDS 
transmitter. See MDS Operations Inc., Request for Waiver of Certain 
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Technical Rules for 
One Station in Sandia Part, New Mexico, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 7963, 
7968-69, paras. 13-14 (WTB 2010). From 2011 to 2013, a former MVDDS 
licensee offered fixed wireless broadband and voice service in 
Florida's Broward and Palm Beach counties. See, e.g., http://www.multichannel.com/news/finance/cablevision-completes-omgfast-shutdown/271409.
    \168\ See, e.g., Requests of Ten Licensees of 191 Licenses in 
the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service for Waiver of 
the Five-Year Deadline for Providing Substantial Service, Order, 25 
FCC Rcd 10097 (WTB 2010).
    \169\ See https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/searchAppl.jsp. Click on ``Advanced Application Search'' and select 
the following: Radio Service Code: ``DV,'' Status: ``2-Pending,'' 
Purpose: ``NT.'' Scroll to bottom of page, Customize Your Results, 
and click on ``Search.'' Ninety-five of the 191 filings were amended 
in 2020.
    \170\ See id. See also MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 
at 9684, para. 177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. The Commission further directs the Bureau to reconsider its 
denials of 2016 requests to extend buildout deadlines for 22 MVDDS 
licenses, and to extend the buildout deadlines for these licenses for 
18 months from the effective date of this item, subject to the same 
condition above.\171\ The Commission believes that the unique 
circumstances of this proceeding, namely the uncertainty created by the 
MVDDS 5G Coalition's request for 5G terrestrial use, makes strict 
application of the buildout deadlines contrary to the public 
interest.\172\ Eliminating the uncertainty over these 22 MVDDS licenses 
will best serve the public interest by promoting fuller participation 
in the record to be developed in response to the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking as well as by providing additional certainty 
regarding the status of these MVDDS licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See Requests of Three Licensees of 22 Licenses in the 
Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service for Extension of 
Time to Meet the Final Buildout Requirement for Providing 
Substantial Service under Section 101.1413 of the Commission's 
Rules, Applications of Three Licensees for Renewal of 22 Licenses in 
the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service, Order, 33 FCC 
Rcd 10757 (WTB BD 2018), recons. pending.
    \172\ See 47 CFR 1.925(b)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Ordering Clauses

    43. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 301, 302, 
303, 304, 307, 309, 310, and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 155, 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, and 
Sec.  1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411, the Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Order in the captioned dockets is adopted.
    44. The inquiry in Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum 
Between 3.7-24 GHz, GN Docket No. 17-183, is terminated as to the mid-
band spectrum between 12.2 GHz and 13.25 GHz.
    45. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comment on the Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 20-443 and the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 22-352 on or before the number of 
days shown on the first page of this document after publication in the 
Federal Register, and reply comment on or before the number of days 
shown on the first page of this document after publication in the 
Federal Register.

[[Page 43476]]

    46. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the 
Secretary, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, including the associated Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13503 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P