FCC 96-54 
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)Amendment of the Commission's 
Rules to Establish) CC Docket No. 92-166 
Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite ) 
Service in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz ) 
Frequency Band )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: February 12, 1996 Released: February 15, 1996 
By the Commission:
L INTRODUCTION
1. By this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission continues the 
development of a regulatory structure conducive to the rapid and successful deployment of the 
global mobile satellite service systems known as "Big LEOs."1 These systems have a wide 
range of potentially revolutionary applications, including: 1) providing a comparatively low- 
cost means of connecting to the world-wide public telephone network, particularly in areas too 
remote or underpopulated to receive service through wires; 2) allowing global "roaming" by 
users of mobile phones, including hand-held phones; 3) providing "fill-in" service for areas 
not reached by terrestrial "wireless" services such as cellular telephones; and 4) providing for 
global competition in telephone and data services, both satellite and terrestrially based. A 
prior Report and Order2 in this proceeding adopted rules and policies for the Big LEO service.
1 In general parlance, the term refers to low-Earth orbit ("LEO") mobile satellite service 
("MSS") systems operating in frequencies above 1 GHz. As used in this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, it refers specifically to LEO MSS in the 1.6/2.4 GHz frequency 
bands.
2 Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a 
Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency Band. 9 
F.C.CRcd. 5936 (1994)("Big LEO Report").
12861
By this order we address requests for reconsideration of that decision,3 and make minor 
changes and clarifications to the rules and policies we adopted.
2. The particular changes adopted here address concerns raised by the Big LEO 
licensees and applicants. Specifically, we conclude that the "interim plan," designed to avoid 
interference between the Big LEO systems and the Russian Global Navigation Satellite 
System ("GLONASS"), is unnecessary at this time. We also clarify our views concerning 
position determination capabilities in Big LEO earth terminals, and modifications to feeder 
link proposals. In .order to ensure that United States licensees do not engage in practices that 
are contrary to the goal of competitive markets world-wide, we also adopt a rule concerning 
exclusive arrangements for provision of Big LEO service. We also clarify our ."two-tiered" 
processing scheme for financial qualifications. In addition we make a number of minor 
editorial and clarifying changes to our technical rules.
3. We decline to adopt a number of other changes proposed by the applicants and 
licensees. We leave intact the protections to radio astronomy -- protections developed in 
negotiations between Big LEO and radio astronomy interests. We decline at this time to 
adopt certain technical rules concerning interference between the competing Big LEO systems 
in order not to preempt prematurely private negotiations. We also decline to modify our 
construction milestone requirements or system replacement procedures.
H. BACKGROUND
4. The Big LEO Order resulted from a series of actions beginning in 1990, when 
"Ellipsat Corporation, now known as MCHI, and Motorola Satellite Communications Inc. filed 
applications to provide mobile satellite service ("MSS") above 1 GHz using LEO satellites. 
The Commission established a deadline for filing applications to be considered simultaneously 
with Ellipsat's and Motorola's. Constellation, LQP, TRW, and AMSC filed applications by 
that deadline.
AMSC Subsidiary Corp., Constellation Communications, Inc., Loral/Qualcomm 
Partnership, L.P. ("LQP"), Motorola, Inc., and TRW Inc. filed petitions for 
reconsideration and/or clarification. AMSC, Constellation, LQP, TRW, and Motorola 
filed timely oppositions. AMSC, Constellation, LQP, Motorola, and TRW replied. 
The Committee on Radio Frequencies ("CORF") operated by the National Council for 
the National Academy of Sciences, filed an opposition, and a motion for leave to file 
that opposition, nine days late. In view of the fact that relevant parties were able to 
reply to that opposition on a timely basis, we have considered the opposition. Mobile 
Communications Holdings, Inc. ("MCHI") filed a petition for review with the Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. By order of the court dated December 
13, 1994, the case was held in abeyance pending completion of proceedings before the 
Commission.
12862
5. At the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference, the 1610-1626.5 MHz 
band was allocated on a co-primary basis with other radio services for MSS operations in the 
Earth-to-space direction, and the 2483.5-2500 MHz band was allocated on a co-primary basis 
for MSS operations in the space-to-Earth direction. The 1613.8-1626.5 MHz band was also 
allocated, on a secondary basis, for MSS operations in the space-to-Earth direction. The 
United States adopted conforming changes to its domestic frequency allocation table in 
December 1993.4
6. To develop technical and licensing rules, the FCC conducted a "negotiated rule 
making proceeding" from January through April 1993. The proceeding provided the 
applicants and other interested parties the opportunity to develop recommendations to the 
Commission on issues such as compatibility among the proposed MSS systems, sharing 
between the proposed MSS systems and other services, and operation of inter-satellite and 
feeder links. The negotiated rule making proceeding resulted in consensus recommendations 
on a number of these issues.
7. However, no consensus could be reached on how to accommodate the six 
systems and three different system types proposed by the applicants. Four applicants 
(Constellation, MCHI, LQP, and TRW) proposed to use Code Division Multiple Access 
(CDMA) technology. CDMA-systems are capable of sharing use of the same frequencies. 
These CDMA applicants proposed to use the 1610-1626.5 MHz frequencies for Earth-to-space 
operations, and the 2483.5-2500 MHz frequencies for space-to-Earth operations. Motorola 
proposed a time division multiple access/frequency division multiple access (TDMA/FDMA) 
system operating bi-directionally in a portion of the 1610-1626.5 MHz band. TDMA/FDMA 
systems do not allow frequency sharing with other systems. Instead, they require separate 
dedicated frequencies. AMSC proposed to use either TDMA/FDMA or CDMA technology in 
the 1616.5-1626.5 MHz frequency band, as part of its authorized but not yet operating 
geostationary system hi the 1545-1559/1646.5-1660.5 MHz frequency bands.
8. The Bis LEO Order adopted rules for the Big LEO service. The FCC 
designated the 1621.35-1626.5 MHz band for TDMA/FDMA operations, the 1610-1621.35 
MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz bands for CDMA operations. This basic frequency sharing plan 
is subject to conditions, including an interim plan to address potential incompatibilities with 
the Russian Global Navigation System (GLONASS). The Commission concluded the basic 
plan could accommodate 4 CDMA systems and one TDMA/FDMA system.
9. The rules required that applicants propose a non-geostationary system capable 
of serving all areas of the fifty United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 
continuously, and in all areas of the world as far north as 70  latitude, and as far south as 55  
latitude, for 75% of the day. The rules also required applicants to demonstrate they have
4 See Allocation of the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Band to Mobile Satellite Service. 
9 F.C.CRcd. 536 (1993), recon. granted in part. 10 F.C.C.Rcd. 3169 (1995).
12863
sufficient financial resources to construct, launch, and operate for one year the satellites in 
their system.
10. The Commission concluded that, if all six applicants complied with the new 
rules, the five available licenses would be awarded through an auction. We gave the 
applicants until November 16, 1994 to amend their applications to conform to the new rules. 
Applicants had the option, however, of delaying their financial showings for one year.
11. On January 31, 1995, the International Bureau issued licenses to LQP, 
Motorola, and TRW, for construction, launch, and operation of satellites to provide service in 
the 1.6/2.4 GHz bands.5 The Bureau also found that Constellation and MCHI needed 
additional time to establish they were financially qualified, and deferred further consideration 
of their applications until January 31, 1996..6 AMSC elected to defer its financial showing. 
Each of the five orders issued on January 31, 1995, is the subject of a petition for 
reconsideration or application for review.
in. DISCUSSION
A. Interservice Sharing Issues
12. The Interim Sharing Plan and GLONASS Operations. The Russian Global 
Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) currently operates at frequencies of 1606-1616 
MHz. GLONASS operations are being moved to frequencies below 1606 MHz, but until this 
transition is complete, protection of GLONASS operations in the United States could make 
some frequencies unavailable for Big LEO use, and in particular the frequencies at 1610-1612 
MHz. Under the basic sharing plan, this 2 MHz shortfall would fall solely hi the 11.35 MHz 
of spectrum from 1610-1621.35 MHz to be used by the CDMA applicants. In the Big LEO 
Order, the Commission determined that if GLONASS is incorporated into a system for 
aeronautical navigation, and particularly for aircraft precision approach and terminal 
communications, protection of GLONASS operations in the U.S. might be required. Under 
such circumstances, the Commission stated, an adjustment in the basic sharing plan would be 
appropriate until GLONASS operations move to frequencies below 1606 MHz. Specifically, 
the Commission indicated that CDMA operations would be permitted in 1.25 MHz of 
spectrum, from 1621.35-1622.60 MHz, designated under the basic plan for FDMA/TDMA 
operations. It indicated that this adjustment would allow the CDMA applicants one additional
5 See Loral/Oualcomm Partnership. L.P.. 10 F.C.C.Rcd. 2333 (Int'l Bur. 1995);
Motorola Satellite Communications. Inc.. 10 F.C.C.Rcd. 2268 (Int'l Bur. 1995); TRW 
Inc.. 10 F.C.CRcd. 2263 (Int'l Bur. 1995).
6 Constellation Communications. Inc.. 10 F.C.C.Rcd. 2258 (Int'l Bur. 1995); Mobile 
Communications Holdings. Inc.. 10 F.C.C.Rcd. 2274 (Int'l Bur. 1995).
12864
channel each.
13. LQP and Motorola seek reconsideration of the interim sharing plan. LQP 
argues that the sharing plan should not protect any GLONASS operations above 1606 MHz, 
and that, in any event, the sharing plan is premature. It suggests that an interim plan, if 
needed at all, should only be adopted after RTCA, Inc., develops protection criteria for 
GLONASS receivers.7 Similarly, Motorola argues that GLONASS receivers are not currently 
entitled to protection other than those provided by the ITU regulations and coordination 
process, and that the interim plan is, therefore, unnecessary. Motorola argues that the 4 MHz 
guardband between CDMA and GLONASS operations on which the sharing plan is premised 
is unjustified by the record, and that until protection values between GLONASS receivers and 
MSS terminals are adopted, the Commission should, at most, condition Big LEO licenses on 
compliance with future out-of-band emission standards.8 Motorola also argues that the sharing 
plan disproportionately affects its system. It observes that the interim plan was based on 
earlier CDMA channeling plans which have since been substantially modified by the CDMA 
applicants.
14. On reconsideration, we conclude that the interim sharing plan is unnecessary to 
protect GLONASS operations in the United States at this time. GLONASS has not been 
incorporated into or accepted as part of the global navigation satellite system for aeronautical 
navigation either domestically or through the International Civil Aviation Organization, and at 
this time there is no date certain by which that may occur. As Motorola correctly observes, 
the interim plan was premised on the potential incorporation of GLONASS into a global 
aeronautical navigation system. Thus, given the substantial uncertainty as to whether 
protection of GLONASS will ever be necessary in any configuration other than its final 
configuration at frequencies below 1606 MHz, we conclude that no interim protection of 
GLONASS is necessary in the United States. We need not, therefore, address whether 
adjustments to the interim plan might be necessary -or appropriate in light of changes in the 
system design of the CDMA applicants, or whether any other adjustments of the interim plan 
are warranted. We note, however, that in the event other administrations require protection 
of GLONASS in their own airspace at frequencies other than its final frequency configuration, 
our position in any ITU frequency coordination of our Big LEO systems with GLONASS
7 RTCA, Inc., is an advisory committee to the Federal Aviation Administration, and is 
studying out-of-band emissions from mobile earth stations and other potential 
interference sources as they affect global navigation satellite service receivers, 
including GLONASS receivers.
8 Radio transmitters are typically designed to concentrate the signal transmitted in a 
specific frequency band. However, the transmitter is not technically capable of 
completely limiting all signals it generates to the specific frequency band. The signals 
generated in frequency bands outside the intended bands are referred to as "out-of-band 
emissions."
12865
operations will, like the interim plan, distribute the burden of that protection on all of the Big 
LEO systems.
15. Standards for Protection of Radio Astronomy. The Big LEO Order adopted 
rules concerning the protection of radio astronomy hi the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz frequency band. 
Radio astronomy is allocated on a co-primary basis with mobile satellite services, and is, 
therefore, entitled to protection from harmful interference. The Commission adopted fixed- 
radius protection zones for radio astronomy sites. Within those zones, during periods of radio 
astronomy observations, mobile earth stations may not operate in the frequencies 1610.6- 
1613.8. The Commission required that mobile earth stations have position determination 
capabilities to ensure compliance with these limits.9 The Commission also adopted out-of-band 
emission limits. The limits require that mobile earth stations licensed in the 1610-1626.5 
MHz band produce power flux densities that do not exceed, at the radio astronomy site, the 
power flux density that would be produced by a mobile earth station operating in the 1610.6- 
1613.8 MHz bands at the edge of the site's protection zone. As an alternative means of 
compliance with the out-of-band emission limits, the Commission specified fixed protection 
zones around radio astronomy sites. The Commission also indicated it would consider smaller 
geographic protection zones or the use of beacon-actuated systems10 if coordination 
agreements could be reached with radio astronomy interests, specifically the Electromagnetic 
Spectrum Management Unit (ESMU) of the National Science Foundation.
16. TRW and Constellation seek reconsideration of these requirements. TRW 
observes that it intends to employ a beacon-actuated system, and urges the Commission to 
reconsider the requirement that licensees using such systems reach a coordination agreement 
with ESMU. It argues that ESMU should not receive what amounts to an effective veto 
power over beacon-actuated systems, that the Commission should clarify that it will exercise 
its power to waive the coordination requirement if necessary, and that the Commission should 
be the final arbiter of any dispute concerning the adequacy of protection to radio astronomy 
by such beacon-actuated systems. TRW also seeks clarification that a system need not use 
other position determination techniques if authorized to use a beacon-actuated system. TRW
9 Position determination equipment allows a mobile terminal to calculate, based on 
signals received from multiple satellite or ground-based stations, its geographic 
location and altitude. This information can then be used to determine if the mobile 
terminal is within the protected radio astronomy zone, and, if it is, to avoid 
transmitting signals that would cause harmful interference. In addition to GPS, the 
satellite-based global position system, and LORAN, a terrestrially based position 
determination system, Big LEO satellites may also, depending on system design, act as 
a source of position determination information for mobile terminals.
 '  A "beacon-actuated system" uses a radio signal generated at or near the radio 
astronomy site. A mobile earth terminal receiving this signal is prevented from 
transmitting if doing so would interfere with radio astronomy.
12866
also argues that, as an alternative means of limiting out-of-band interference, the Commission 
allow compliance based on limits defined in terms of a one megahertz reference bandwidth, 
rather than a more restrictive, worst-case, per-hertz value.
17. Constellation also seeks reconsideration of the requirement that mobile 
transceivers have built-in position determination capabilities under all circumstances. 
Constellation argues that the Commission should allow transceivers to be built without such 
capabilities, so long as they also are incapable of transmitting in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz 
bands. Constellation notes that such transceivers would be substantially less expensive and 
represent a reasonable method of providing low-cost MSS, especially during the early phases 
of Big LEO development. Constellation also argues that transceivers should not be required 
to provide but-of-band protection to radio astronomy, and opines that International 
Telecommunication Union regulations preclude such protection."
18. CORF, representing radio astronomy interests, opposes these requests. With 
respect to beacon-actuated systems, it states that TRW's requested clarifications are 
unnecessary, since there is no disagreement or ambiguity on the points raised. LQP also 
opposes TRW's clarification request. CORF also opposes TRW's request to use a one 
megahertz reference bandwidth, arguing that, because radio astronomy measurements can be 
made in extremely narrow bandwidths, an out-of-band emission limit based on a worst case, 
per-hertz value is correct. LQP suggests, as an alternative, the use of an assumed spectral line 
channel bandwidth of 20 kHz. CORF also opposes Constellation's request to eliminate out- 
of-band emission limits, noting that ITU RR 733E requires such protection. 12 LQP argues 
that eliminating the requirement that transceivers have position determination capabilities 
would unduly complicate coordination among the CDMA applicants.
19. TRW correctly observes that, with respect to protection of radio astronomy 
facilities, the use of beacon-actuated systems is an alternative to the use of other position- 
determination techniques. Therefore, earth terminals employing beacon-actuated radio 
astronomy protection need not have other position-determination capabilities, unless such
ITU RR 344 provides:
For the purpose of resolving cases of harmful interference, the radio astronomy 
service shall be treated as a radiocommunication service. However, protection 
from services in other bands shall be afforded the radio astronomy service only 
to the extent that such services are afforded protection from each other.
12 RR 733E provides that:
Harmful interference shall not be caused to stations of the radio astronomy 
service using the band 1610.6-1613.8 MHz by stations of-the 
radiodetermination-satellite and mobile-satellite services.
12867
capabilities are required for other reasons. 13 Furthermore, we will grant Constellation's 
request to clarify that mobile earth terminals not capable of transmitting in the 1610.6-1613.8 
MHz bands need not include position determination capabilities for the purpose of complying 
with our rules concerning protection of radio astronomy services. In response to LQP's 
concern that it would unduly complicate the coordination process among the CDMA 
applicants to authorize mobile earth terminals to operate only in the frequencies above 1613.8 
MHz, we clarify that licensees choosing to construct earth terminals that are not capable of 
operating in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band will not be allowed to compensate for the resulting 
loss of system capacity by increasing power levels or otherwise adjusting their system's 
parameters in other portions of the 1610-1621.5 MHz band.
20. We also clarify, however, that we will not authorize mobile earth terminals 
capable of global roaming, unless equipped with position determination capabilities adequate 
to prevent transmissions at locations in other countries at which they are not authorized to 
transmit, or upon a showing that other comparably effective methods of preventing 
unauthorized transmissions are in place. This safeguard will ensure that U.S.-authorized Big 
LEO systems do not become a source of unauthorized and interfering transmissions in other 
countries, and should facilitate international coordination of Big LEO systems.
21. We deny Constellation's and TRW's requests to reconsider the out-of-band 
emission limits adopted to protect radio astronomy services. Although Constellation correctly 
observes that the rules adopted provide greater protection to radio astronomy than under the 
general principle of ITU RR 344,14 we conclude that the provisions of the radio regulations 
specifically applicable to the 1610-1626.5 frequency bands, and specifically ITU RR 733E,
13 We note that in the Big LEO Order, we indicated that position determination capability 
may be required in connection with the provision of enhanced 911 services for 
terminals capable of interconnecting with the public switched telephone network, and 
indicated that such issues could be addressed in connection with the Commission's 
proceeding on enhanced 911 services. See Enhanced 9-1-1. Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making in CC Docket 94-102, 9 F.C.C.Rcd. 6170 (1994). Accordingly, we express no 
view at this time concerning whether a mobile earth terminal with no capability for 
position determination would comply with any policies or rules adopted in that 
proceeding.
14 RR 344, if applied literally, would appear to contemplate affording the radio
astronomy sites the same type of protection that would be afforded a Big LEO mobile 
earth terminal from transmissions by another Big LEO mobile earth terminal. While 
such an analysis may provide meaningful protections where radio stations involving 
single channel analog signals are involved, it appears ill-suited to digital multiple 
access systems, such as the Big LEO systems. Accordingly, we do not view the more 
specific limitations of RR 733E as inconsistent with the general principle of RR344.
12868
contemplate a greater degree of protection. 15 We also decline to adopt the alternate out-of- 
band emission limits proposed by TRW and LQP, limits which could have the effect of 
nullifying the protections for radio astronomy sites adopted in the Big LEO Order. To the 
extent LQP and TRW believe that adequate protection to radio astronomy sites can be 
achieved through the use of a fixed emission limit, rather than fixed protection radii, our rules 
allow use of such limits if coordinated with radio astronomy interests. It is our experience 
that radio astronomy interests are receptive to reasonable adjustments in protection limits if 
substantial benefits to the public can be achieved, and that they are mindful that the public 
can benefit, if, for example, the costs of radio equipment can be reduced while maintaining 
reasonable protections to radio astronomy. These issues are best addressed under the 
coordination procedures adopted in the Big LEO Order.
22. Because it does not appear that there is currently any uncertainty or any 
controversy which would be resolved, however, we decline to issue the clarifications TRW 
seeks concerning what role the Commission would play in any dispute which may arise 
concerning the adequacy of protection to radio astronomy by beacon-actuated systems. 16 
Furthermore, we fully expect that the parties will cooperatively resolve any issues that arise in 
connection with the use of a beacon-actuated system. Therefore, we see no reason to alter 
the requirements of our rules concerning coordination with radio astronomy.
23. Miscellaneous Inter-Service Sharing Issues. Sections 25.213 (c) and (d) of the 
rules adopted in the Big LEO Order incorporate by reference or refer to a number of ITU 
regulations concerning protection of aeronautical radionavigation systems and fixed stations. 
TRW and Constellation raise a number of issues concerning these rules, argue that they may 
create unnecessary ambiguity, and request that we delete or revise substantial portions of the 
rules.
24. We will delete these rule sections as unnecessary. Relevant provisions have 
been incorporated separately in the Commission's rules. 17 Accordingly, deletion of these two 
subsections is a non-substantive editorial action and should not be construed as altering the 
requirements arising under the Commission's rules or international regulations. To the extent
15 We also note that RR 733E, which is a note to the table of frequency allocations in the 
ITU regulations, is referenced not only in the 1610.6-1613.8 frequency bands in which 
radio astronomy is a primary allocation, but also in the adjacent bands of 1610-1610.6 
and 1613.8-1626.5. This method of notation indicates that RR 733E's protections of 
radio astronomy are intended to be applied to emissions from services operating in the 
adjacent bands.
16 Moreover, contrary to TRW's contentions, we do not believe that any clarification of 
our authority to waive our rules is required.
17 See Allocation of the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Band to Mobile Satellite Service. 
9 F.C.CRcd. 536 (1993), recon. granted in part. 10 F.C.C.Rcd. 3169 (1995).
12869
TRW's and Constellation's requests seek statements as to the proper interpretation of ITU 
Radio Regulations with respect to services to be provided internationally, we believe such 
issues should be addressed as necessary in the context of individual coordinations, and those 
requests are, therefore, denied.
25. TRW also seeks a declaratory ruling that Section 74.396 of our rules is 
intended to protect Big LEO operations hi the 2483.5-2500 MHz range from out-of-band 
emissions from ITFS and MMDS systems. We are unaware* of any controversy such a ruling 
would resolve, or of any existing uncertainty concerning this matter. Accordingly, we decline 
to issue the requested declaratory ruling. As we concluded in the Big LEO Order, new out- 
of-band emission limits would be premature at this time with respect to these particular 
services.
B. Licensing Policies and Intra-Service Issues
26. LEO Design Requirement/Eligibility to File for Big LEO Frequencies. In the 
Big LEO Order, the Commission adopted a requirement that applicants for MSS in the 1.6/2.4 
GHz bands specify a LEO design. It observed that geostationary orbit ("GSO") systems have 
a proven ability to deliver telecommunication service, but concluded that several potential 
technical advantages of LEO service warranted a LEO design requirement. The Commission 
observed that LEO systems are capable of voice transmissions with significantly shorter 
delays, that they possess inherent advantages with respect to coverage, and that they are more 
conducive to the use of small, lightweight, low- power, handheld transceivers. The 
Commission concluded that primary use of the spectrum should be reserved for LEO systems, 
in order to provide an opportunity for development of this potentially more efficient 
technology. The Commission indicated, however, that it would consider authorizing a GSO 
system in the bands upon a showing that its operations would not cause interference to or 
affect LEO MSS operations.
27. Several parties seek reconsideration on this issue. AMSC argues that the LEO 
design requirement is ill-considered and unsupported by the record. It argues that the 
Commission incorrectly based its conclusions on LEO systems' alleged novelty, superior 
coverage capabilities, and superior ability to provide service to hand-held transceivers. AMSC 
observes that LEO technology is not novel, that GSO systems are as capable as LEO systems 
of providing the coverage required under the rules adopted by the Commission, and that 
future GSO systems will be able to provide service to hand-held receivers. AMSC also 
submits a detailed list of potential technical and regulatory advantages of GSO systems, 
advantages which Constellation contests.
28. Constellation, LQP, Motorola, and TRW, on the other hand, argue that the 
eligibility standard is not sufficiently stringent. Constellation and Motorola argue that the 
Commission should have limited eligibility to apply for frequencies in the 1.6/2.4 GHz band 
to new entrants, entities not already licensed to provide MSS, or some other class of entities 
that would make AMSC ineligible to apply to use Big LEO spectrum. Motorola observes that
12870
doing so would prevent AMSC from lengthening its head start in the MSS industry, and 
provide a level playing field for competition among MSS systems. Motorola notes that 
 AMSC is already authorized to provide MSS in 27 MHz of spectrum in the 1545-1559 
MHz/1646.5-1660.5 MHz bands, and is also seeking authority to use an additional 33 MHz of 
spectrum in the so-called "lower L-Band," specifically at 1530-1544/1626.5-1645.5 MHz, for 
MSS. LQP argues that the Commission's indication in the Big LEO Order that it would 
"consider authorizing a GSO system in these bands upon a showing that its operations would 
not cause interference to or affect LEO operations," is arbitrary and capricious because it is 
directly contrary to the LEO eligibility requirement, and is unsupported by the record. TRW 
argues that the Commission should clarify this statement by emphasizing that GSO systems 
will only be authorized if they would have no demonstrable effect on both actual and 
potential LEO system capacity.
29. We decline to alter the LEO system design requirement adopted hi the Big 
LEO Order. LEO systems possess inherent design advantages that may prove desirable in 
providing mobile satellite services to the public. Our statements in the Big LEO Order 
concerning these technical advantages were not intended, however, to suggest that LEO 
systems are superior to GSO systems. We fully expect that, as with many competing 
technologies, GSO and LEO systems will each have distinct advantages and disadvantages 
which will render neither technology superior for all uses. While LEO design advantages 
(such as shorter signal delay) may, as AMSC argues, prove a matter of indifference to 
consumers, consumers are in the best position to make this decision. They should be given 
the opportunity to do so as promptly as possible. Consistent with our mandate under the 
Communications Act to promote the "wider and more effective use" of radio, we conclude 
that the LEO design requirement in the 1.6/2.4 GHz band is likely to result in consumers 
having the widest range of choices in service available at the earliest possible date. This is 
particularly true since these bands are not the only bands available for the provision of MSS. 
We have already authorized AMSC to provide MSS with a GSO satellite. 18 Furthermore, the 
1.6/2.4 GHz bands present a significant opportunity for development of LEO MSS, since in 
these bands a number of the international coordination considerations which contributed to 
prior decisions to foreclose LEO operations in other bands are absent.19
18 See AMSC Final Decision. 7 F.C.C.Rcd. 266 (1992). As several of the LEO 
applicants observe, we declined to permit LEO operations in the bands in which 
AMSC was authorized to operate because, among other things, it appeared that doing 
so would slow the implementation of MSS in those bands. We expressly indicated, 
however, that we would pursue authorizing LEO systems in other bands.
19 See AMSC Final Decision. 7 F.C.C.Rcd. 266, 272-273 (1992)(listing factors that 
weigh against authorizing LEO systems in the particular bands at issue, including loss 
of priority in international notification procedures and difficulties in coordinating with 
already operational GSO systems).
12871
30. We decline also to establish more stringent eligibility standards designed to 
foreclose AMSC or similarly situated entities from pursuing a LEO system in the 1.6/2.4 GHz 
bands. Although the Commission has in a number of instances adopted incentives for 
initiation of service by new entrants, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that new 
entrants would provide superior service to the public. Furthermore, each of the applicants 
here is a new entrant into the LEO MSS industry. To the extent that the petitions for 
reconsideration raise concerns that applicants with interests in potentially competing mobile 
and/or satellite services have incentives to act anti-competitively, there is currently no 
evidence of any such behavior. Furthermore, these potential concerns are either outweighed 
by the benefits of licensing entities with experience in related areas of communications, or are 
adequately addressed by the competitive safeguards inherent in our policy of accommodating 
multiple LEO MSS systems.
31. We also decline to retract our statement that we would "consider" authorization 
of a GSO system in the 1.6/2.4 GHz bands. The Commission's rules expressly provide for 
waiver.20 However, applicants requesting a waiver of the LEO requirement will be required 
to justify their request'with relevant, detailed and comprehensive evidence. We would expect 
that during the development and initial operation of the LEO MSS systems, such applicants 
demonstrate, at a minimum:
a) That no other spectrum is allocated or proposed to be allocated by which the GSO 
service they propose, or a reasonably comparable service, could be provided.
b) That such services can be provided without interference to LEO systems.
c) That such services will not adversely affect the capacity of both authorized and 
potential LEO MSS systems.
Such evidence would provide a basis for reasoned consideration of any requested waivers.
32. Intra-Service Sharing Plan. AMSC urges the Commission to reverse its 
conclusion that the Big LEO spectrum is capable of effectively accommodating only five 
licensees. It argues that there is no record support for this conclusion. Motorola opposes 
AMSC's request as premature. It argues that the Commission should defer action on AMSC's 
request until it finally determines whether all the applicants are financially qualified, because 
if one applicant is not financially qualified the issue will be moot.
33. We believe the record supports our conclusion that the Big LEO spectrum is
20 See47C.F.R. § 1.3.
12872
capable of accommodating effectively only five licensees.21 However, we agree with Motorola 
that more information on the technical ability of the CDMA systems to share frequencies 
should become available to the Commission and the other applicants as the licensed systems 
are constructed and placed in operation. In addition, this issue may well be rendered moot if 
one or more applicants does not establish its financial qualifications. We therefore decline to 
address this issue further at this time.
34. Effect of Deferring a Financial Showing. AMSC seeks clarification that 
applicants who defer their financial showings share "full rights" with other applicants. AMSC 
asserts that since all the applicants met the initial June 1991 cut-off date together, they must 
be licensed or dismissed together. A contrary outcome, AMSC argues, would violate 
"principles of administrative fairness" and the provisions of Section 309 of the 
Communications Act that, as construed in Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC.22 "require 
simultaneous selection proceedings." LQP, TRW, and Motorola argue that the Commission's 
bifurcated processing plan is fully consistent with precedent and statutory provisions. 
Constellation observes, and AMSC agrees, that clarification of the role of deferred applicants 
in inter-system coordination with licensed Big LEO systems would be helpful.
35. The Big LEO Order addressed the treatment of those applicants in the current 
"processing group"23 with respect to any subsequently filed applications. The Big LEO Order 
clearly indicated that applicants that do not establish then- financial qualifications until January 
31, 1996, will have the same rights as all other applicants in the current processing group with 
respect to potential future applicants. We stated explicitly that "new applications for Big LEO 
systems will not be considered until after action on the six pending applications is 
completed."24 Therefore, no clarification is required in this regard. The Big LEO Order 
made clear that no mutual exclusivity would arise between the six applications in the current 
processing groups and any later-filed applications.
36. Concerning mutual exclusivity among the six applicants in the current
21 As detailed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, the spectrum 
requirements for the Big LEO systems were derived from the statements of the parties 
to this proceeding in various proposals to the Commission, and on the detailed 
technical information compiled in connection with the negotiated rule making 
proceeding.
22 326 U.S. 327 (1945).
23 By applicants hi the current processing group, we mean those applicants that filed an 
application by the deadline for filing Big LEO applications to be considered 
concurrently. See supra., ff 4-10. Establishing such a deadline is within the 
Commission's authority. See Ashbacker. n.9.
24 Big LEO Order at t 41.
12873
processing group, we stated that applicants in the second tier (i.e.. that do not establish their 
financial qualifications until January 31, 1996)~"may find their applications are [in a] mutually 
exclusive situation."25 This statement was explicitly limited to second-tier applicants. We 
also clearly indicated that applicants in the first tier (i.e., applicants that established their 
financial qualifications by November 16, 1994) would, as part of a "two-tiered eligibility" 
scheme, be afforded "processing priority." Taken together, these statements cannot be 
reasonably construed to indicate that first-tier applicants may find themselves hi a mutually 
exclusive situation with second-tier applicants. To make this abundantly clear, however, we 
hereby explicitly state that "first-tier" applicants will not find themselves in a mutually 
exclusive situation due to "second-tier" applicants who establish their financial qualifications. 
First-tier applicants are insulated from any mutual exclusivity that may arise as any "second- 
tier" applicants, such as AMSC, establish their financial qualifications. Thus, if each of the 
three "second-tier" applicants establishes that it is financially qualified, leaving us with one 
more request for a license than the two licenses remaining available, we will apply selection 
procedures for- mutually exclusive applicants only to the second-tier applicants.
37. We disagree with AMSC's assertion that this two-tiered processing scheme 
violates Section 309 of the Communications Act, as construed in Ashbacker. It would have 
clearly been within our discretion to require that each of the six Big LEO applicants submit a 
financial showing by November 16, 1994, particularly hi light of our concerns that the 
benefits accruing to the public from prompt initiation of Big LEO service not be delayed.26 
Had we done so, applicants failing to submit an adequate financial showing would have had 
their applications dismissed,27 and would have been required to pursue any later authorization 
as part of a subsequent processing round hi which the potential applicants could include new 
applicants. Under these circumstances, the processing mechanism adopted, which in effect 
limited the rights of potential new applicants to file applications mutually exclusive with 
AMSC's, did not hi any way violate AMSC's Ashbacker rights. Moreover, Ashbacker 
cannot be reasonably construed as hi any way foreclosing the Commission's ability to 
distinguish in its procedural rules between applicants that are immediately ready, willing, and 
able to construct radio facilities, and those that are not.28
25 Big LEO Order at H 41..
26 The Commission has authority to establish eligibility criteria that distinguish between 
the applicants before it based on factors relevant to the public interest. U.S. v. Storer 
Broadcasting Company. 351 U.S. 192 (1956).
27 We note that AMSC has not alleged that it would have been able to meet our financial 
qualifications requirements on November 16, 1994.
28 Because there does not appear to be any concrete issue which has arisen concerning 
inter-system coordination between the licensed Big LEOs and the three other 
applicants, we decline at this time to clarify the role applicants may play hi 
intersystem coordinations. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2.
12874
38. Spectrum Sharing Between MSS Systems - Emissions Mask. In the Big LEO 
Order, the Commission declined to adopt out-of-band emissions limits more stringent than 
those already contained in Section 25.202(f) of the rules. We indicated, though, that the 
parties were free to negotiate guardband agreements once their system parameters became 
evident. Motorola argues that the Commission should develop more stringent out-of-band 
emissions limits, or adopt principles for developing such limits. Constellation, LQP, and 
TRW oppose this request, noting that Motorola is seeking protection as a primary service for 
its downlinks in the TDMA/FDMA band, which have only secondary allocation priority. 
Motorola replies that the existing limit on out-of-band emissions in Section 25.202(f), because 
the extent of protection varies based on the bandwidth of the primary emission, is unsuitable 
for providing consistent limits, particularly given the variations in the bandwidths proposed by 
the CDMA systems. It observes that this is true even for its uplinks, which are operating 
under a primary allocation.
39. We decline to address comprehensively at this time the issue of emissions 
limits between the CDMA and TDMA/FDMA systems. However, this does not mean we arc 
unconcerned with this issue. We therefore encourage the parties to investigate fully a!! 
potential means of mitigating the potential interference that may arise when mobile terminals 
are near one another (such as pulse shaping before modulation, the use of filters, and 
development of more robust TDMA/FDMA receivers). The public interest would be served 
by agreement among the parties for any necessary mitigation. We therefore urge that 
negotiations be undertaken well before any party seeks authorization for mobile earth 
terminals.29
40. Feeder Links. In the Big LEO Order, the Commission indicated that it would 
assign feeder links30 to applicants for Big LEO systems, conditioned on sufficient spectrum 
being made available through subsequent domestic and international proceedings to satisfy the 
requirements of all Big LEO licensees. We gave applicants the option, however, of not 
specifying specific feeder links. Each of the applicants chose to apply for specific feeder link 
bands, and Motorola, TRW, and LQP each received conditional grants in response to those 
requests.
41. TRW seeks clarification that, in the event the Commission makes frequencies
29 The CDMA applicants observe that the effect of their out-of-band emissions is OR 
TDMA/FDMA downlinks, and that those downlinks operate on a secondary basis. 
Motorola argues that out-of-band emissions affect both uplinks and downlinks. We 
decline to simply ignore the potential for harmful interference to the system.
30 Feeder links interconnect a mobile satellite system with other communications
networks or user transceivers by means of one or more central Earth stations. Because 
these Earth stations are at fixed locations, feeder links use frequencies allocated to the 
fixed-satellite service.
12875
below 15 GHz available for Big LEO feeder links, TRW should be provided an opportunity 
to modify its system to specify the lower frequencies. TRW's conditional feeder link 
authorization is for feeder links in the 20/30 GHz frequency bands. LQP and Constellation 
oppose this request.
42. We fully intend to allow proponents of Big LEO systems to modify their feeder 
link proposals if it becomes apparent, based upon the outcome of the World 
Radiocommunicatibn Conference (WRC-95)31 and relevant domestic proceedings, that the 
frequencies for which they have sought conditional assignments, or substantial portions of 
those frequencies, will not be available for feeder link use. We intend to treat such 
modifications as minor modifications.32 We do not intend, however, to allow proponents of 
Big LEO systems to modify their feeder link proposals simply because they believe a different 
set of frequencies would prove more desirable than those they have requested. We would 
consider such a request an unauthorized major modification. Therefore, if we are able, due to 
the completion of relevant international and domestic proceedings, to make an unconditional 
feeder link authorization that adequately addresses the needs of the licensee, we do not 
anticipate viewing favorably a request by the holder of that authorization for feeder links in a 
different frequency band. Such a request could cause unnecessary congestion in other 
frequency bands, make it difficult to obtain coordination with other systems, and, ultimately, 
slow the deployment of Big LEO service.
43. Mobile Earth Station Licensing and Milestones. Constellation and LQP 
propose several clarifications and technical corrections to our earth station licensing rules, 
specifically to sections 25.203(j) and (k), concerning frequency coordination requirements for 
feeder links, section 25.114(c)(6)(iii), concerning feeder link frequencies, and section 
25.136(b), concerning mobile earth terminals. The other petitioners support or do not oppose 
these changes. The proposed changes will simplify and clarify our rules and will therefore be 
adopted.
44. LQP requests clarification of the construction milestone requirements for Big 
LEO licensees, arguing that milestones should begin to run from initial licensing, not from the 
grant of an unconditional license. Constellation and TRW oppose this request. TRW and 
Constellation, on the other hand, urge that milestones should be flexibly applied. TRW
31 The outcome of WRC-95 was generally favorable to the deployment of Big LEO 
feeder links. Thus, it does not appear at this time that the WRC-95 outcome will 
require consideration of a request to move TRW's feeder links to frequencies below 15 
GHz. However, changes in TRW's authorization will be required for feeder link 
operations either in the 19/28 GHz bands or for reverse band working in the 19/15 
GHz bands.
32 Accordingly, we hereby delegate authority to the International Bureau to waive 47 
C.F.R. § 25.116 pursuant to the guidelines in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
12876
specifically requests that licensees be allowed to postpone compliance with milestones if they 
have already launched a sufficient number of satellites to comply with the Commission's 
national and global coverage requirements, if the launch of additional satellites would simply 
increase system capacity, and if the licensee recertifies its commitment to deploy the full 
constellation initially authorized. TRW also requests that, contrary to common practice in 
satellite licensing, missing a milestone should not automatically render an authorization null 
and void. Instead, TRW suggests, the Commission should issue an order to show cause why 
the license should not be revoked. Motorola and LQP oppose TRW and Constellation's 
requests.
45. LQP's request for clarification that construction milestones will run from the 
initial authorization, even if that authorization includes a conditional feeder link authorization, 
is denied. Although licensees are free to begin construction prior to the unconditional 
authorization of feeder links, they are not required to do so, and any construction is entirely at 
the licensee's risk. Therefore it is appropriate to set milestones only once that condition is 
removed.33
46. Concerning TRW's request that we announce now a policy of waiving 
construction milestones upon a showing that a licensee has launched sufficient satellites to 
comply with our coverage requirements, and has certified that it intends to launch additional 
satellites at some date in the future, we decline to adopt a blanket waiver policy concerning 
such situations. While the type of showing TRW contemplates would weigh in favor of 
granting milestone extensions, we can also anticipate circumstances in which such a showing 
should be considered inadequate, particularly where granting such a request would have the 
effect of requiring that other Big LEO systems limit system capacity to protect parts of a 
competing system   parts that will not be constructed on an expeditious basis. Moreover, 
extended construction periods necessarily have the effect of indefinitely foreclosing entry by 
third parties who may be ready and willing to initiate service expeditiously. Accordingly, we 
decline to announce an exemption from our construction milestone requirements.
47. We also decline to adopt TRW's proposal that we use "show cause" procedures 
to enforce construction milestones. Existing procedures, which permit the filing of requests to 
extend milestones,34 provide adequate opportunities to address any difficulties that may arise 
in system deployment.
48. Satellite Replacement Policies. The Big LEO Order adopted a blanket 
licensing approach to the space segment of Big LEO systems. Specifically, the Commission
33 For this reason, the licenses issued to LQP, Motorola, and TRW, n.5 supra., did not 
set milestones, but instead indicated that such milestones will be set once unconditional 
feeder link authorizations are made.
34 See47C.F.R. §25.117.
12877
indicated it would issue a license with a term of ten years to cover the multiple satellites in 
each Big LEO system, along with any in-orbit spare satellites. It also adopted a rule requiring 
that licensees file applications for renewal of that license during a 60 day filing window 
opening 90 days prior to the end of the seventh year of the license term, and closing 30 days 
prior to the end of the seventh year of the license term.35
49. Constellation, LQP, and Motorola seek reconsideration or clarification of these 
requirements. In particular, they fear the rules will be construed in a manner that hinders 
gradual improvement in satellite technology over time. TRW, on the other hand, argues that 
existing procedures for entertaining modifications of licenses are adequate to address the 
concerns raised. Constellation also raises concerns with the renewal expectancy afforded Big 
LEO systems.
50. In response to these concerns we hereby clarify that, in adopting the license 
renewal provisions for Big LEO services, we did not intend to foreclose system improvements 
or the authorization of such improvements through the normal procedures for entertaining 
license modifications. Our description of renewal applications in the Big LEO Order as "next 
generation Big LEO systems," was not intended to require Big LEO licensees seeking 
improvements in one or more satellites to delay doing so until the license renewal window. 
Such improvements can be implemented earlier through the normal process for license 
modification. We also clarify, in response to concerns raised by Constellation, that a licensee 
may launch "technically identical replacement satellites" under the certification procedure of 
Section 25.143(c) to replace either "operational" or authorized "in-orbit spares."
51. We decline at this tune to revisit issues of "renewal expectancy" for Big LEO 
satellite systems, as urged by Constellation. We are not prepared at this tune to offer a 
comprehensive policy pronouncement on such issues, and believe that for the time being such 
issues are best addressed in this service ~ as they are in many new services, and in a number 
of existing services ~ on a case-by-case basis. However, we anticipate that such issues may 
warrant further discussion as Big LEO service is deployed, and we invite the submission of 
any concrete proposals the Big LEO licensees may wish to offer.
C. International Issues
52. Extending the Spectrum Sharing Plan to All of North America. TRW seeks a 
specific Commission commitment to undertake coordination efforts to extend the U.S. inter- 
system spectrum sharing plan throughout North America. TRW observes that coverage to
35 The text of the Big LEO Order can be construed as setting a four-month filing window 
closing 30 days after the end of the seventh year of the license term. Big LEO Order 
at If 186. This construction is inconsistent with the express terms of the rule adopted, 
47 C.F.R. § 25.120(e); we hereby clarify that we intended the terms of the rule to be 
controlling.
12878
Alaska and U.S. territories in the Caribbean may be disrupted if Canada or Mexico adopts, for 
example, a plan which would authorize only FDMA/TDMA transmissions in the 1613.8- 
1626.5 MHz bands. Constellation supports. TRW. LQP and Motorola oppose this request, 
arguing that the Commission should not seek to give extraterritorial effect to domestic 
regulations.
53. The Commission's rules do not specify the position which the Commission will 
take in international coordinations, nor do they purport to have any extraterritorial application. 
Accordingly, we do not believe reconsideration of this point is appropriate. However, as a 
general matter, global satellite systems will be more likely to succeed if individual 
administrations adopt complementary systems for licensing them, and we fully intend to 
express this view in discussions with North American and other administrations. Furthermore, 
adoption by other administrations of our domestic inter-system sharing plan could, in many 
instances, provide a simple means of assuring a complementary licensing system in other 
countries, and speed the benefits of Big LEO MSS to the public. However, there may well be 
other means of achieving the goal of a complementary licensing system, and any decision on 
the issue of what, if any, method of inter-system sharing best serves its national interests rests 
with the particular administration.
54. Exclusionary Arrangements in Foreign Countries. TRW and Motorola argue 
that the Commission should adopt limitations on Big LEO licensees' ability to enter into 
exclusive arrangements concerning communications to or from the United States that have the 
effect of foreclosing other Big LEO licensees from providing service to foreign markets. 
They argue that such limitations have been adopted in connection with separate satellite 
systems, and are required to ensure that Big LEO service can be truly global. LQP does not 
oppose this request, but argues that any such limitation must be crafted so that it does not 
require extension of the domestic band segmentation plan to global markets.
55. We will adopt a rule that applies to the Big LEO licensees the restrictions 
typically included in separate system authorizations. The restrictions are limited in nature, 
applying only to the handling or interchanging of traffic to and from the United States, and 
we intend to construe them bearing in mind that spectrum coordination and availability in 
particular countries may limit the ability of Big LEO licensees to provide service to those 
countries.
D. Miscellaneous Matters
56. In its order granting LQP a license, the International Bureau declined to grant 
LQP's request for a waiver to allow operations in the United States in the 2483.5-2500 MHz 
band at power flux density (p.f.d.) levels in excess of those specified in international Radio 
Regulations, noting that, because of the potential effect on other applicants of such a request,
12879
the issue of p.f.d. levels would be better addressed in this rule making proceeding.36 The 
International Bureau noted that recommendations prepared for consideration at the then 
upcoming World Radiocommuhication Conference (WRC-95) addressed the p.f.d. levels 
appropriate in this band. Consistent with these recommendations, WRC-95 adopted p.f.d. 
levels that would reduce the number of international coordinations required.37 The levels 
adopted are intended to be triggers for the international coordination of MSS systems with 
fixed and mobile services operating in the 2483.5-2500 MHz, and became effective at the 
close of the WRC-95. Accordingly, the Commission will apply these revised p.f.d. levels in 
determining whether 'international coordination is required for MSS systems in this band.
36LOP Order at |21.
37 See Final-Acts of the World Radio Conference 1995, Resolution 46 (Rev. WRC-95), 
Annex 2, A2.L2.3ll. Theirevised power flux density levels, at the Earth's surface and for all 
conditions and for all methods of modulation, are as follows:
-150 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival between 0 and 5 degrees above the 
horizontal plane;
-150 + 0.65(8 - 5)dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival 8 (in degrees) between 5 
and 25 degrees >above the horizontal plane; and
-137 dB (W/m2) in any 4 -kHz band for angles of arrival between 25 and 90 degrees above the 
horizontal plane.
These levels relate to the power flux density which would be obtained under assumed free- 
space propagation conditions.
12880
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
57. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the "Petition for Reconsideration" filed by 
AMSC Subsidiary Corp. on November 21, 1994, the "Petition for Reconsideration," filed by 
Constellation Communications, Inc. on November 21, 1994, the "Petition for Clarification and 
Partial Reconsideration," filed by Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P., on November 21, 1994, 
the "Petition for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration," filed by Motorola Satellite 
Communications, Inc., on November 21, 1994, and the "Petition for Partial Reconsideration 
and.Clarification," filed by TRW Inc. on November 21, 1994, ARE GRANTED to the extent 
indicated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. AND ARE OTHERWISE DENIED.
58. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Rule Changes in Appendix A 
shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton 
Acting Secretary
12881
APPENDIX A 
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25, is amended as follows:
By deleting subsection (c)(6)(iii) of Section 25.114.
By revising subsection (b) of Section 25.136 as follows:
(b) User transceiver units in this service are authorized to communicate with and through U.S. 
authorized space stations only. No person shall transmit to a space station unless the user 
transceiver is first authorized by the space station licensee or by a service vendor authorized 
by that licensee, and the specific transmission is conducted in accordance with the operating 
protocol specified by the system operator.
By adding a new subsection (h) to Section 25.143, as follows:
(h) Prohibition of Certain Agreements. No license shall be granted to any applicant for a 
space station in the mobile satellite service operating at 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz if that 
applicant, or any persons or companies controlling or controlled by the applicant, shall acquire 
or enjoy any right, for the purpose of handling traffic to or from the United States, its 
territories or possession, to construct or operate space segment or earth stations, or to 
interchange traffic, which is denied to any other United States company by reason of any 
concession, contract, understanding, or working arrangement to which the Licensee or any 
persons or companies controlling or controlled by the Licensee are parties.
By revising subsections (j) and (k) of Section 25.203 as follows:
(j) Applicants for non-geostationary 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service/Radiodetermination 
satellite service feeder links in the bands 17.7-20.2 GHz and 27.5-30.0 GHz shall indicate the 
frequencies and spacecraft antenna gain contours towards each feeder-link earth station 
location and will coordinate with licensees of other fixed-satellite service and terrestrial- 
service systems sharing the band to determine geographic protection areas around each non- 
geostationary mobile-satellite service/radiodetermination satellite service feeder-link earth 
station.
(k) An applicant for an earth station that will operate with a geostationary satellite or non- 
geostationary satellite in a shared frequency band hi which the non-geostationary system is (or 
is proposed to be) licensed for feeder links, shall demonstrate in its applications that its 
proposed earth station will not cause unacceptable interference to any other satellite network
12882
that is authorized to operate in the same frequency band, or certify that the operations of its 
earth station shall conform to established coordination agreements between the operator(s) of 
the space station(s) with which the earth station is to communicate and the operator(s) of any 
other space station licensed to use the band.
By deleting subsections (c) and (d) of Section 25.213.
12883