1 / 19

Satellite Harmful Interference: A U.S. Telecom Perspective

Exploring harmful interference and spectrum repurposing in the US telecom landscape, with case studies and federalism implications. Dive deep into satellite issues and regulatory challenges. Learn from real-world scenarios.

mjorge
Download Presentation

Satellite Harmful Interference: A U.S. Telecom Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Satellite Harmful Interference:A U.S. Telecom Perspective Justin (Gus) Hurwitz University of Nebraska College of Law June 6, 2014

  2. A US Telecom Perspective • Satellite issues are relatively “uninteresting” in US • E.g., satellite issues are handled by International Bureau • Non-specialists at FCC often not familiar w/ satellite issues • A key question is what is “harmful” interference • I’m going to talk about something different • When do changed uses of spectrum interfere with existing uses • Four case studies of problems resulting from efforts to repurpose satellite spectrum for non-satellite use • LightSquared; Dish/Echostar; Globalstar; Iridium vs. Globalstar Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  3. A US Telecom Perspective • Satellite issues are relatively “uninteresting” in US • E.g., satellite issues are handled by International Bureau • Non-specialists at FCC often not familiar w/ satellite issues • A key question is what is “harmful” interference • I’m going to talk about something different • When do changed uses of spectrum interfere with existing uses • Four case studies of problems resulting from efforts to repurpose satellite spectrum for non-satellite use • LightSquared; Dish/Echostar; Globalstar; Iridium vs. Globalstar • But first … why aren’t satellite issues “interesting”? Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  4. Federalism • The good • The bad • The ugly Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  5. Federalism • The good • Rules can be tuned to local conditions • Experimentation • The bad • Externalities & spillovers • Coordination problems • No economies of scale • The ugly • Competing jurisdictions (“race to the bottom”) Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  6. Spectrum Liberalization & ATC • Spectrum liberalization – transferable & flexible use • Trend started in US in 1980s in response to CMRS challenges • Is increasingly the default & preferred treatment • 2003 ATC Order(cf. Complementary Ground Component) • Two key requirements • “Substantial Satellite Service” • “Integrated Service Offering” (integrated receivers) • Purpose: gap-filling • Other Background: Nat’l Broadband Plan (2010) • 300 MHz spectrum for CMRS by 2015 (incl 90MHz from MSS) • 500 MHz spectrum for CMRS by 2020 Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  7. Case Study 1: LightSquared • LightSquared wanted to repurpose spectrum adjacent to GPS for nationwide LTE network • Spent $4 on two satellites and to buy & repack spectrum • 1.6265–1.6605 & 1.525–1.559 GHz • Est. consumer value $14–$120 billion • Worked with FCC & industry to design network • Started in 2001; conditional approval in 2011; denied in 2012 Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  8. Case Study 1: LightSquared • LightSquared wanted to repurpose spectrum adjacent to GPS for nationwide LTE network • Spent $4 on two satellites and to buy & repack spectrum • 1.6265–1.6605 & 1.525–1.559 GHz • Est. consumer value $14–$120 billion • Worked with FCC & industry to design network • Started in 2001; conditional approval in 2011; denied in 2012 Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  9. Case Study 1: LightSquared • LightSquared wanted to repurpose spectrum adjacent to GPS for nationwide LTE network • Spent $4 on two satellites and to buy & repack spectrum • 1.6265–1.6605 & 1.525–1.559 GHz • Est. consumer value $14–$120 billion • Worked with FCC & industry to design network • Started in 2001; conditional approval in 2011; denied in 2012 • Huh??? • GPS uses adjacent spectrum (1.559–1.610 GHz) • $millions of GPS receivers designed w/ insufficient filters Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  10. Case Study 1: LightSquared • LightSquared wanted to repurpose spectrum adjacent to GPS for nationwide LTE network • Spent $4 on two satellites and to buy & repack spectrum • 1.6265–1.6605 & 1.525–1.559 GHz • Est. consumer value $14–$120 billion • Worked with FCC & industry to design network • Started in 2001; conditional approval in 2011; denied in 2012 • Huh??? • GPS uses adjacent spectrum (1.559–1.610 GHz) • $millions of GPS receivers designed w/ insufficient filters Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  11. Case Study 2: DISH (a success story!) Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  12. Case Study 2: DISH (a success story!) Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  13. Case Study 2: DISH (a success story!) • DISH sought to repurpose MSS spectrum for LTE • 2012: acquired other two 2 GHz MSS providers • 2.000–2.020/2.180–2.200 GHz • Became only holder of “2 GHz” MSS spectrum • FCC reclassified 2 GHz band from Part 25 (MSS, w/ ATC possible) to Part 27 (AWS, flexible terrestrial) • 2 GHz band had seen little MSS and no ATC Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  14. Case Study 3: Globalstar • Repurposing satellite spectrum for terrestrial use Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  15. Case Study 3: Globalstar • Repurposing satellite spectrum for terrestrial use • 2.4835–2.495 GHz (exclusive sat. downlink license) • Globalstar seeks to offer terrestrial Wifiservice on ch.14 • 2.473-2.4835 (unlicensed) + 2.4535–2.495 (exclusive) =2.473–2.495 GHz = IEEE 802.11 Ch.14 • Key point: Wifi is a low power service • Seeking waiver of ATC rules • Need to demonstrate primary satellite service (minor) • That devices must support both MSS & terrestrial (major) • FCC NPRM is currently pending Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  16. Case Study 3: Globalstar • Repurposing satellite spectrum for terrestrial use • 2.4835–2.495 GHz (exclusive sat. downlink license) • Globalstar seeks to offer terrestrial Wifiservice on ch.14 • 2.473-2.4835 (unlicensed) + 2.4535–2.495 (exclusive) =2.473–2.495 GHz = IEEE 802.11 Ch.14 • Key point: Wifi is a low power service • Seeking waiver of ATC rules • Need to demonstrate primary satellite service (minor) • That devices must support both MSS & terrestrial (major) • FCC NPRM is currently pending Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  17. Case Study 4: Iridium vs. Globalstar • Globalstaralso wants to use its 1.6 GHz spectrumto deploy terrestrial LTE (high power!) service Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  18. Case Study 4: Iridium vs. Globalstar • Globalstaralso wants to use its 1.6 GHz spectrumto deploy terrestrial LTE (high power!) service • Iridium is petitioning FCC to prohibit this • 1.610000–1.617775 GHz (excl. GlobalstarMSS spectrum)1.617775–1.618725 GHz (shared b/w Iridium & Globalstar)1.618725–1.626500 GHz (excl. Iridium MSS spectrum) • Iridium is a pure-MSS play, wants shared spectrum reclassified for MSS-only use, promises immediate use of spectrum • FCC is slated to address this after 2.4GHz petition • Would Globalstar’s LTE ATC interfere with Iridium’s MSS • Globalstar’s higher-value use vs. Iridium’s immed. deployment Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

  19. Conclusions & Issues • High vs. Low value uses • Regulatory vs. Market control • ATC Rules & how (whether?) to allow flexible uses • Part 25 vs. Part 27 classification • High vs. Low power uses • Receiver design • Defining & Measuring Interference (not satellite specific) • Interference temperature • Harm-claim thresholds Harmful Interference – A US Perspective

More Related