Satellite Harmful Interference: A U.S. Telecom Perspective

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