Preventing Interference from Earth Station Vessels in Shared Bands

1. Preventing Interference fromEarth Station VesselsNational Spectrum Managers AssociationMay 19, 2004Mitchell Lazarus | 703-812-0440 | lazarus@fhhlaw.com

2. Introduction • ESVs seek to operate in several bands shared with the Fixed Service (FS): • 3700-4200 MHz • 5925-6425 MHz • 11.7-12.2 GHz • 14.0-14.5 GHz • The FS is concerned only about 5925-6425 MHz. • Even there, the FS does not oppose ESVs if FS operation is protected.

3. FS is Entitled to Protection from ESVs • Long-standing FCC policy: Incoming services must protect incumbents. • The FS is entitled to full interference protection from ESVs at 5925-6425 MHz. • ESV pleadings object to the FCC’s “overt bias toward the FS” and ESVs’ quest for “fair and balanced rules” • These statements misunderstand the FCC’s statutory obligation. • As the interfering latecomer, ESVs are subordinate to the FS. • Past ESV authorizations have included this condition.

4. Fixed Service Use of C-Band • FS applications include: • public safety communications • coordinating railroad trains • controlling natural gas and oil pipelines • regulating the electric grid • backhauling wireless telephone traffic • These links are constructed for 99.999% 99.9999% availability.

5. Threat from ESVs • Transmit beams on ESVs threaten interference into coastal FS receivers. • The threat is exacerbated by: • in-motion sources • lack of terrain • possible transmission from non-coordinated regions.

6. ESVs Claim “No Past Interference” • ESV assertions of “no demonstrated interference” must be disregarded. • Signals from an ESV are intermittent, transient, and hard to track down. • Identifying an ESV as the source of interference requires taking the FS link out of service for an extended period. • ESV providers have refused to give FS operators the information needed to link particular ESVs to particular interference events.

7. Frequency Coordination Is Necessary But Not Sufficient • Frequency coordination of ESVs is fundamentally different from that for fixed earth stations. • Frequency coordination depends a precise knowledge of each facility’s location. • A moving source opens the risk of transmission from a non-coordinated location.

8. Needed Protective Measures (1) • Bar ESV operation on C-Band within 300 km of the U.S. coastline. • OR . . .

9. Needed Protective Measures (2) • Require frequency coordination; ESVs must suspend transmission on route segments where coordination failed. • Renew frequency coordination every six months. • Require a GPS device to shut down the ESV in non-coordinated waters. • Give FS operators real-time access to ESV data and a 24/7 contact capable of shutting down ESV transmissions. • Limit ESV coordination as to bandwidth, satellites, azimuths, and elevations. • Limit ESV license terms to two years. • Limit ESVs to ships of 5,000 gross tons or larger.

10. Who Bears the Costs? • The FS acknowledges these measures will entail costs for ESVs and may limit service. • The costs and limitations result from the ESV industry decision to use congested C-band frequencies. • If ESVs do not protect the FS, the FS will incur costs and/or lose revenue. • . . . which amounts to forced subsidy of ESVs by the FS.

11. Conclusion • The FCC should adopt the interference-prevention measures set out by the FS.

12. Thank you! Mitchell Lazarus | 703-812-0440 | lazarus@fhhlaw.com