FCC 2 GHz Order Needs Reconsideration, Say CTIA, U.S. GPS Industry Council
The FCC overextended itself in its order changing spectrum rules for mobile satellite services when it weighed in on the responsibility for receivers that pick up signals outside of their allocated spectrum, said the U.S. GPS Industry Council and CTIA. The industry groups filed petitions for reconsideration or clarification on the order, based in part on the agency’s take on the role of incumbent users with receivers that pick up signals outside their spectrum. The order was part of the commission’s effort to increase terrestrial broadband use of spectrum allocated for MSS (CD April 7 p6).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The FCC wrote in the order that the “responsibility for protecting services rests not only on new entrants but also on incumbent users themselves, who must use receivers that reasonably discriminate against reception of signals outside their allocated spectrum.” That phrase “is substantively at odds with past commission pronouncements and current Commission policy concerning MSS [ancillary terrestrial component implementation],” said the USGIC. Its concern goes back to its ongoing fight with LightSquared over interference with GPS signals. LightSquared’s terrestrial service is said to overload GPS receivers because they pick up LightSquared signals, which are much stronger than the GPS satellite signals, even though they're transmitted in a neighboring band. While LightSquared has since revised some of its plans (CD July 1 p1), USGIC continues to believe LightSquared’s operation would harm the GPS industry.
The FCC has made clear previously that “unwanted emissions from terrestrial stations in the MSS will have to be carefully controlled in order to avoid interfering with GPS receivers,” said USGIC. As early as 2003, the agency found that if ATC operations cause interference to other services “the ATC operator must resolve any such interference,” the council said. Giving “such unprotected MSS ATC operations special rights is fundamentally incompatible” with the ITU’s spectrum environment, USGIC said. It also took issue with the FCC’s description of extensive terrestrial operations being “anticipated in the L-band for at least 8 years.” The statement, which didn’t include a footnote or explanation, “not only is completely unrelated to the 2 GHz MSS rulemaking proceeding, it is demonstrably incorrect,” said the council.
There are times when the agency should balance the responsibilities of new entrants and incumbent users on interference, but “this is not the place,” said CTIA. The agency previously set up rules that placed the full responsibility for interference on the MSS/ATC licensee, it said. As such, the regulator should clarify that it didn’t mean to limit interference protections previously set and shift the burden of interference protection to incumbent users. If it was the agency’s intent to shift that burden, it needs to reconsider the order and give the public opportunity to comment, said CTIA.
.