SPEAKER_02 0:00

You know, the new rules will require uh providers to disclose Ephemeris or where their spacecraft is to a third-party provider. And the idea here is it's you know, you can launch your stuff into space, but you have to register with a credible registry that everybody can look up and see uh you know where the objects are to avoid collisions. So we're gonna stand up the process to identify who those third party providers are.

SPEAKER_00 0:48

You are joining episode 177 as we talk about the modernization of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. The RF spectrum that's used to carry data to and from space in during launch is at a premium right now as the sector grows, and it's considered a finite resource with users all over the world. While new technologies like optical laser communications are promising for certain cases, the FCC is working on greater efficiency when it comes to licensing companies' use of spectrum without interfering with each other and while speeding up the launch licensing process. Enter part 100. Go ahead and look it up. So in this show, Audrey Allison, senior analyst here at CSPS, is talking to the FCC Chairman Brendan Cummer's Senior Council, our conserva. Audrey, our resident space lawyer, has been in this regulatory affairs for spectrum management, spanning her 35-year career at both national and international levels, including in the United States participation with the ITU, the International Telecommunications Union, and the UN. And as a top aid to FCC Chair, Arpan Serv has been leading the Commission's modernization efforts in the space sector. Audrey caught up with him to find out more information about what they're doing.

SPEAKER_01 2:14

Thank you, Carleen, and welcome, Arpin, to our space policy show, and welcome to our audience. I have to say, um I we were kind of surprised this morning to realize that, Marpin, you are the first time we've had an FCC FCC, Federal Communications Commission speaker on our space policy show. So um it's a lot of responsibility to cover all of this important information today. So thank you so much. But let's start off um learning a little bit about you, about your background and the role you have now at the FC.

SPEAKER_02 2:55

Absolutely. Thanks so much for having me, Audrey. My name is Arpensura. I work at the FCC for Chairman Carr. I'm a senior counsel on space, spectrum, and technology issues, and I also serve as the agency's chief AI officer. All spectrum policy, whether at the Wireless Bureau or the Space Bureau, the Office of Engineering and Technology, or the Office of International Affairs, all of that spectrum policy authority rolls up through me in the chairman's office. And so I have a privilege of working with a wide variety of spectrum-based technologies, whether it's terrestrial 5G, fixed satellite service, D2D, unlicensed wireless, um, ultra-wide band, as well as any of the international wireless services that are rolling through ITU. And it's been a really exhilarating and fun job. And you know, the teams have been doing great. Um, and I'm eager to talk about all the stuff that they've been doing.

SPEAKER_01 3:51

Well, that is quite a workload you carry. So we really appreciate you're here today to talk to us about some of these space-related activities you've overseen in your time at the commission. And in particular, we wanted to talk about the space modernization in the 21st century, uh, which was started off about a year ago, uh, last October with a with a notice of proposed rulemaking. And uh we saw this massive report in order and further notice of proposed rulemaking released uh in July. Uh so uh I wonder, I mean, it's a huge topic to tackle. Uh the report in order alone is over 130 pages, just the narrative. But what can you tell us about some of the high-level drivers uh behind this um amazing and intensive proceeding?

SPEAKER_02 4:48

Absolutely. So when Chairman Carr came in, we noticed a couple of things. We noticed that application volumes were going through the roof, and they started going through the roof, you know, in the prior administration. Meanwhile, we saw that our licensing processes that we had set up under the legacy part 25 rules, which had dated back to the 1990s, were ill-equipped to keep pace with the cadence and volume of licensing applications. And so what we were seeing is we were seeing increasing supply of applications. We were not able to satisfy that demand. And so, and then, you know, one thing that was also becoming clearer is that the value of these licenses were growing. They became uh exponentially more valuable as we're seeing more investment and innovation in the space economy. It's uh you know becoming more valuable and more meaningful to investors. And so the impact of our delay was having significant financial consequences. And so we were left with a fork in the road at the very beginning of Chairman Carr's term. Are we going to iterate or tinker around the edges, or are we going to take a bold new approach? And we're very fortunate that we were, you know, the team came together and developed a comprehensive rule rewrite, part 100, that was based on our years of experience, uh, you know, seeing the problems that had occurred in the preceding years. And so what we're doing in part 100 is we're moving uh from a bespoke license by license analysis to a presumption that your in your application is going to serve the public interest if it meets uh enumerated rules and criteria. And what we wanted to do is we wanted to make licensing less of a guessing game about what the criteria, what the rules were going to be, and more of a check the box. And that's why we call it an assembly line. We set out all the criteria, you meet the criteria, and then we stamp it. And if there has to be an off-ramp, we've enumerated five or six off-ramps that pertain to the FCC's core functions, like harmful interference, like um uh efficient spectrum usage, like national security, and like orbital debris. And we are very you know considered about when we offline an application for a longer look, for a harder look, for a closer look. But in general, most applications should breeze through the fast lane and you know achieve that presumption of approval. And I think that's what we've been able to do in record time. Let me just close with just one thing that that you you you mentioned at the very beginning, and that's sort of the ambition and the breadth of this undertaking. Usually when regulators come in, they don't tinker around the edges, they do tinker around the edges. They don't throw out the rule book and they write another rule book in its stead. And they certainly don't do that within the span of 18 months. But I think we've been able to land the rare trifecta where we've been able to move fast, you know, we we've been able to make fundamental changes and we've been able to do it in a responsible way that I think everybody in the industry, everybody across party lines agrees is a step in the in the right way uh forward.

SPEAKER_01 7:59

So um, as I was uh preparing for this conversation, I noticed that this modernization is really a theme that is contained in an arc across the last several months of various rulings. Um uh most recently we we see um just uh announced a new uh, well, it hasn't been approved yet, but a new modernization of the direct-to-device rules, which you call supplemental coverage from space. But we also see modernization of the environmental NEPA rules and modernization of spectrum sharing rules. So I really see a theme going across um this period of time. Uh so that that's it's really amazing. And what resonates is it's true that the old PAR25 rules would, as you said, tinker around the edges, would shoehorn new innovations in new provisions, building on top of old provisions. And here you're starting with a clean slate uh to um really be able to make that um leap forward in terms of using modern approaches. But tell me, um, in terms of people who aren't as familiar with the FCC's rules, does it still um, I know there's a series of certifications that are made by applicants and various other measures uh to make this to make it more of an assembly line. But is the FCC still um following the the basic requirements, the fundamental requirements of uh a signatory to the outer space treaty for mission authorization and supervision of commercial space within the framework of Part 100 as sketched out here?

SPEAKER_02 9:54

Yeah, that's a great question. So as your question sort of correctly observes, the FCC is not the only regulator in space. Um the Department of Commerce has authorities, you know, NASA has some authorities to some extent, um, the FAA has authorities, NOAA has authorities. And so what the um the White House has done is uh they have directed the Office of Space Commerce, which sits in the Department of Commerce, to develop a framework for a mission authorization that would apply to novel space activities. And the idea here is for applicants to go to a single one-stop shop and get the US government's seal of approval that whatever this novel space activity is being proposed, uh it meets all the federal government's requirements. This authority is you know still being beta tested. It's been announced in various stages, and my expectation is going to continue to be piloted, and then you're gonna you're gonna see iteration before it matures. Um and we, you know, we've been happy to work with our colleagues at Office of Space Commerce to you know advise them on some of the issues that will you know arise. Now, to your specific question, you know, how does this interact with the FCC's regulations? Our part 100 rules were being written as this conversation was ongoing, and as we were having that conversation across the government. And so we've actually built in a little pocket um to accommodate this development if and when it occurs. And you know, our goal is this thing to interlock hand in glove so that whenever whichever path applicants want to take, right, they can go through this novel process, they can work through us. Um, what it's easy for them to follow and understand. And that's really what is the most important thing out of all of this is you know, do applicants have the regulatory certainty they need to be able to invest?

SPEAKER_01 11:50

Indeed. Well, well, thank you for that. Um and for our audience, uh the FCC's role as the spectrum regulator from the United States is going to continue, whatever happens with the Commerce Department um aspect for novel mission authorization. So it's great to hear that your new part 100 fully will accommodate that and be adaptable to that. Um one of the things I thought might be interesting to talk about a little bit is you there are some aspects about conditional approvals. And one of them is when the spectrum needed for or requested by the applicant is it's either shared with federal government users or is federal government spectrum. So if you could talk a bit a little bit about how under this new proceeding um you you will work with uh um the NT, the National Telecommunication and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce, who is the regulator of the federal use of spectrum. How it will we see an overall improvement when we have you have to also coordinate with the federal services as well? I know that's been a difficult nut to crack.

SPEAKER_02 13:11

It has been, and it is actually uh more symptomatic of a broader issue that we were seeing under part 25. So the way part 25 worked, it was a very sequential order of operations, right? And if you didn't do A, then you couldn't look at B. And if you didn't do B, then you couldn't look at C. And so sometimes you were ready on everything else except the one bottleneck, but you couldn't even pass that point because of everything being structured so sequentially in nature. And so when we were designing part 100, we made our authorizations modular so that you can look up uh any sort of gating issue and solve it in real time. And then if there's a longer pole in the tent, you can reserve that to the end, but that shouldn't hold everything up. And so we've you know seen that in the case of orbital debris, where in a lot of cases orbital debris needs to be considered last, but everything else can go first. Um, and federal coordination is the same way, where you can solve all the non-federal side issues, you can have an authorization, and the authorization will condition before the commencement of service the licensees to coordinate successfully with federal users. And that's something we've done already to date in multiple, you know, groundbreaking authorizations involving major megaconstellations. And so what we're doing in part 100 is we're building that edifice to institutionalize that more, you know, pervasively.

SPEAKER_01 14:36

And and how do you expect the implementation of this? What are the next steps? Do you need to um engineer uh more modern IT systems to support some of these assembly line activities? When will we start seeing the benefits, I guess?

SPEAKER_02 14:53

Yeah, that's that's it's it's such an important question. So we adopted this in record time in July. Last July, we adopted final rules. But again, Audrey, as your question, you know, astutely points out that's not the end of the game. There's so much implementation that has to be done. First of all, the rules have to be published in the Federal Register, and then they have to become effective, right? After some period of time. And then there's a paperwork, you know, reduction act component of this that could take additional time. So there's a lot of like sort of uh necessary regulatory steps that has to, you know, happen, especially for a rule change of this nature. That's just that's just the way the rules work. And so you're gonna see that runway. And what we're doing in the meantime is we're focusing on rules and we're focusing on tools. Uh and in terms of rule implementation, we're gonna be issuing public notices on delegated authority, you know, seeking comment on how to transition existing part 25 authorizations to part 100 and relevant terms like bonds and and and milestones. So that's you know something that we're gonna be looking out for. Another is uh, you know, the new rules will require uh providers to disclose ephemeris or where their spacecraft is to a third party provider. And the idea here is it's you know, you can launch your stuff into space, but you have to register with a credible registry that everybody can look up and see uh, you know, where the objects are to avoid collisions. So we're gonna stand up the process to identify who those third party providers are. Uh and there are a lot of other steps of that nature. And then there is a tools part of this, right? And for many of you veterans out there, we operated on this thing called uh IBFS, the International Bureau of Filing System for 30 years. It looked like it was designed in the prehistoric era, and we recently uh refreshed it to ICFS a couple of years ago, but even that system has its bugs, and we recognize that uh it can do a lot better. And so we're using Part 100 as an opportunity to take a fresh look at our IT systems as well. But you know, our hope is that um uh the rules itself can be operationalized in a low-tech way, and people can still get the benefits of it, right? The benefits of faster review are technology agnostic, it's just requiring people to, you know, it requires the applications just to be granted faster, just a lot of human discipline. But then the tools will be the force multiplier. And so our our goal is to be able to do this without the tech, and then once the tech gets in, it's just gonna be amazing.

SPEAKER_01 17:33

That's great. That's great. So um let me ask you, how what has been the industry's reaction to space modernization?

SPEAKER_02 17:44

I don't know of anybody who was against space modernization. I think this was a unanimous uh uh you know uh voice of cheer uh from the geos to the to the non-geos. Um, you know, even the terrestrial industry seemed to be fine with it. And uh, you know, both uh on across left and right, we got great support. And so I think that this is a nonpartisan, non-industry sector specific issue. It's good government, it's really focusing on the things that we need to focus on here at the FCC. And we've been really pleased by the outpouring of support and uh the constructive feedback that we received throughout.

SPEAKER_01 18:25

And and of course, uh you're not done yet because part of the well, after page 131, we find a further notice of proposed rulemaking in this proceeding. And that in includes issues such as building on the uh the ephemeris data sharing uh provision that you just mentioned to us. Uh so what what is what tell us about the further notice?

SPEAKER_02 18:54

Yeah, so the further notice, um so as we were looking at this root and branch change of what part 100, we knew that there was just gonna be issues that we wouldn't even foresee that would that that would show up in the rulemaking. We got like amazing suggestions. And so at some at some level, modernization is going to be a flash cut event, but at a certain level, another level, we're always going to be modernizing upon ourselves. And so we want to use this proceeding as the flywheel to continue to generate new ideas, whether it is looking at uh ways we can rethink geostationary orbit licensing, whether it's you know how we're thinking about e-sims in the context of user terminals or we can define e-sims, our pen. Thank you. ESIMs are Earth stations in motion. So for you non-technical folks, think of an Earth station as the big satellite dish on the ground, right? And then there are some things that are that operate like the big satellite dish on the ground, ships, they're on planes, they're on drones. Um, and this is another area where we had this regulatory category that was designed for this hulking satellite dish on the ground. It didn't think about Earth stations in motions or eSIMs. And so we asked further questions in the in the further notice about uh whether we should rethink our regulatory classifications and categories from first principles in a way that can simplify and streamline uh the regulatory treatment of lightweight, ubiquitous conservatives. Uh, so that's just a a flavor of many issues that we have teed up in the further notice.

SPEAKER_01 20:30

And in terms of orbital debris mitigation, uh you you talk about when the processing happens, but actual substantive consideration of that topic would lie for a different proceeding. Is that correct?

SPEAKER_02 20:45

Yeah, so you know, I think that there's uh a couple of issues in in orbital debris. I think number one is you know how much level of review is required and what documentation you must be submitting for. And then I there's this more theoretical heady question about like what exactly is the issue that you're trying to solve when you're thinking about collision risk and um sort of uh an existential Kepler, Kessler type syndrome event. And we've saved those questions for another day. That is an issue where we rely on the good thinking of our interagency partners and expert scientists, and that has been uh instrumental in developing the orbital debris mitigation practices. It's something that we regularly consult. And you know, that's not uh that's not an area where we tend to wade in on our own. So uh that's a conversation that we'll have to have, you know, with industry, with scientists, with other regulators, um, potentially, you know, internationally. And so, you know, we're eager to continue to have that conversation because it's a really important issue that does deserve sensible uh guardrails.

SPEAKER_01 21:50

Indeed. Indeed. Well, well, thank you for that clarification. So while the FCC is doing all this fantastic work, we are Seeing in other nations and continents are also updating their regulatory approaches. Um, and we're we're seeing a real uh trend uh towards improvement of sovereign access to space. And uh in one glaring or particular example, of course, is in Europe with the draft EU Space Act and then the EC's draft digital services act, both um very interesting uh large pieces of legislation. Um so I I wanted to see uh how you know we have our what's happening here in the United States. How is the FCC reacting uh to some of these other um efforts going on? Not that they're all new, but it's kind of uh that's more serious now than it's been for a while. Um it's an interesting subject area, and I know the the FCC has been looking at it.

SPEAKER_02 23:02

Yeah, uh as you said, it it's it's it's not new in a sense because we've seen these cross currents from the EU over the last 20 years when it comes to privacy, when it comes to tech, uh DSA, DMA, um, GDPR. And so the the Space Act is uh, I think a manifestation of continued Brussels effect thinking. And it's unfortunate because the United States at the and the FCC, we've traditionally operated on a policy of non-discrimination and reciprocity ever since you know the 90s when we signed the important WTO uh paperwork.

SPEAKER_01 23:44

And we're a trade organization, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 23:46

Yeah, yeah. And and so we've been signatories to those commitments for 30, 30, 40 years. And we have had an open door policy where we don't discriminate in favor of our US satellite providers, we don't have quotas on spectrum or set-asides for national champions. Um, we don't try to pop prop up our mediocre companies uh to withstand uh foreign competition. And yet that's exactly what we're starting to see from our trusted trade partners. And, you know, the chairman has been very clear that the United States has always operated on a policy of non-discrimination reciprocity, and we will continue to operate on a policy of reciprocity. And, you know, uh, I hope that folks in Europe uh sort of think seriously about whether we want fragmentation in trade or whether we want to have harmonization and openness and the benefits that it's brought for the last 30 years. And so it's a serious situation that affects US competitiveness, and we'll continue to monitor the situation. Earlier this year, we opened a docket seeking comment on this very issue of space reciprocity in in response to some of the development we had we had been seeing, especially on two gigahertz in the European Union, where they're proposing to take, you know, dismantle the spectrum that SpaceX has bought from EchoStar. And so uh, you know, our hope is that, you know, as as as the Europeans are considering those various proposals in the next year, that you know will you know coalesce towards a position of greater harmonization, less fragmentation, and more trade on open and non-discriminator, non-discriminatory terms.

SPEAKER_01 25:28

And in the meantime, with space modernization, you're you're increasing the appeal of the United States as uh a place to go to for authorization, which I know at the FCC it's been long concerned about.

SPEAKER_02 25:43

Yeah, we want to be the best place in the world to launch and operate a space business. And that's one of our animating principles uh since Chairman Carr came in, is to make this the easiest place in the world. And that's for everybody. It's not just for US companies, but for foreign companies as well. And and you know, we we would expect to see that policy of openness reciprocated, adopted. It's what has brought America to the forefront of space innovation to date, and and it's going to be the fuel that keeps us going in the future, uh, especially in contrast to command economies that want centralized top-down control um uh in choreography of their space programs. We think that our open model offers a better approach.

SPEAKER_01 26:26

And it so in the space modernization proceeding, you've continued this openness to uh serving as the authorization point for foreign systems as before. That's correct. Yep.

SPEAKER_02 26:39

Yeah, we so if if if if if a foreign company grants uh if a foreign company gets a license in a different country, they have to apply for what's called market access to be able to you know provide service to US citizens in US companies. And so a lot of companies will be licensed in Europe and they'll have to apply with us to be able to offer the service here. And so um, and the same thing is true with our companies. We might license a company here in the United States, but they still have to go to every single country before they can offer service there and get that market access. And that's where you see the issues of reciprocity, where we're granting market access to companies on easier terms than our companies can get abroad, and that's not right.

SPEAKER_01 27:20

Indeed, indeed. Well, I think our audience will be learning about learning a lot about the regulatory side of these space services that they may not have been aware of. Well, our pan, as we mentioned at the top of the show, that your space modernization efforts at the FCC haven't only been with regard to the new Part 100, but they span across a number of uh other space regulatory issues. So uh I would love if we we could uh talk a little bit about other things uh that have recently been announced or decided by the commission.

SPEAKER_02 28:01

Yeah, absolutely. So there are a couple of things I want to mention, uh our spectrum abundance agenda, our recent actions on directed device, and uh EPFD. So I'll let you have the choice. Which one do you want to talk about first?

SPEAKER_01 28:14

Well, you'll have to let's do EPFD last, and you have to describe what that means, which is hard to do. Uh why don't we start off with uh spectrum abundance?

SPEAKER_02 28:26

Great. Yeah, so we are running a an ambitious project of what we are calling spectrum abundance here at the FCC. And the goal here is to eliminate spectrum whatsoever as a constraint on the quality of satellite services. For too long, we've been told that fixed satellite service cannot be a substitute for wireline to the home because of capacity constraints. We've been told that you know directed device will never be a substitute to uh 5G mobile because of capacity constraints, right? And so what we want to do is we want to open up the kind of spectrum resources to the satellite industry so that capacity shouldn't be an issue anymore. And so what we did in the in 2025 is we launched the Spectrum Abundance NPRM, where we started looking at bands that had been traditionally considered for terrestrial wireless, the higher frequency bands like upper 12 gigahertz or 42 gigahertz. And traditionally, over the last like five years, those were the bands that were being considered as 5G or 6G bands. And it just turned out there wasn't a lot of interest. And so we came in and said, what if we just created our own spectrum pipeline for the satellite industry and start with started with these two bands? And it's grown and it's we've added so many bands to the list. And last year, last month, we adopted an order that would open up a thousand megahertz in the upper 12 gigahertz in the 42 gigahertz bands, and that's going to be huge for satellite broadband to the home. We're opening up 500 megahertz more of spectrum in the KU band. That's the sweet spot neighborhood for those user link terminals that you know you get from the sky. Um, we're opening up 500 megahertz more of that just for uh you know the satellite industry. Uh a lot of it will be used by non-geostationary orbit satellites. A lot of it will also be used by geostationary orbit satellites for fixed sites. And so this is just an injection of a huge injection of spectrum into the satellite economy. And we have many, many more gigahertz of spectrum uh teed up for future consideration. And so we hope that every season is a season of spectrum abundance, and we you know intend to have many more orders on that front.

SPEAKER_01 30:41

Well, I have to say, Arpan, this is tremendously exciting because I know the industry has been wanting this for decades, several decades, but it was always really hard because there are a lot of other services in that band that all have some expectation of protection from harmful interference. And you always have to watch out for other more sensitive services, scientific services and and so forth. So, how how is the FCC magically able to make this happen this time?

SPEAKER_02 31:16

So, part of it is um, you know, we have clear first principles on what spectrum is good for what services. And, you know, we've sort of we we know what spectrum we want to focus on for the wireless industry, and that's the mid bands, right? And you know, we've already sort of worked through the low band spectrum for that industry. And then, you know, there's there's a natural break point where it becomes a lot more interesting for the satellite in industry. And like I think over the years we've been trying to be too cute about like who lives in what neighborhood instead of just seeing the common sense of physics. So I think there's there's part of that, right? I think part of it is also, you know, this growing interest in what we're calling light licensing. And the idea is that you can just, you know, the beam widths get so narrow at the higher frequencies that the scarcity kind of goes away, and that you can just register links. Um, and that that you can you can do like massive amounts of satellite sharing um at those higher frequencies. So we we're becoming more sophisticated about sharing in general. Um and then I think finally there's just more of a recognition that satellite spectrum is important, right? Like it wasn't a political priority before because satellites were kind of seen as speculative boom or bust cycles, right? But we know the satellite industry is real now and we're acting like it. And that's what the satellite uh abundance agenda is all about. The spectrum abundance agenda is all about recognizing that satellite needs spectrum in serious terms, the same way any other industry does.

SPEAKER_01 32:47

And uh so you have a further notice out on spectrum abundance that um why don't you talk a little bit about that? Yeah, absolutely.

SPEAKER_02 32:57

Absolutely. We're looking at you know, hundreds of gigahertz in frequency, and this is just like uncharted territory, you know, the a lot of it's being used for passive services. I think there's some radar technologies that are operating there, but it's mostly like a ghost land. And at those really, really high frequencies, like sharing again just becomes a lot more feasible. And so we're we're asking what's out there can be done today. Um, and you know, we'll be interested to see what what transpires. But uh, you know, at that level, at that realm of physics, our traditional licensing models or mental models are just like, you know, we'll have to think creatively about whether there's something else.

SPEAKER_01 33:42

And isn't it true that we don't even have the technology necessarily delivered for some of these very high-level uh frequency bands? But by coming up with a regulatory, you know, framework, perhaps uh it stimulates the development of these technologies.

SPEAKER_02 34:01

Yeah, I mean, it's it's such a paradox when you're dealing with something you know is gonna be hot, but everybody's still in experimental stages, and you don't want to like block off innovation by making assumptions about what the future is gonna hold, but you still want to skate to where the puck is gonna be. And it's that delicate balance between looking around corners and having that regulatory humility to understand that uh your prediction is just a prediction that you have to manage, like when you're dealing with those higher frequency bands, in my opinion at least.

SPEAKER_01 34:31

Well, tell us about the the latest on D2D, direct to device.

SPEAKER_02 34:36

So we have been uh, you know, in parallel with our spectrum abundance agenda, we have been running an all-across the board effort on D2D. And we're seeing it on the licensing front where we've granted SpaceX's D2D constellation uh a couple of weeks ago, 15,000 satellites for use uh with the spectrum that it had acquired from EchoStar. Um we're also seeing you know, uh winds on the licensing front where the 800 megahertz spectrum, which has been sitting around lying fallow for years, was recently transferred to grain, and then we made grain run a process to sell that spectrum or find a new buyer. And it appears that they will have found a buyer in SpaceX. So that's an enormously um important development. And here in both cases, the FCC was at the center of taking spectrum that was not being used. Okay, they're taking spectrum that not being used, and now it's going to be used productively in the hands of a company that is calling itself a fourth mobile carrier. And what we're seeing is an a really exciting expansion of competition through the growth of these D2D services. Now, if this, you know, sort of more fourth mobile carrier development transpires, you will have seen a shift from three players to four, which is really exciting and really demonstrates the potential and power of intermodal competition. But we haven't just been moving on the licensing front. We're doing a lot of important things on the rulemaking front to explore the boundaries and possibilities of D2D. In August, we voted on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would explore 200 megahertz in the 2.4 and 5.8 gigahertz bands, looking at unlicensed spectrum, low power spectrum that doesn't need an FCC license or a device to be able to use those frequencies, like our Wi-Fi routers, like our Bluetooth devices. Um any device on the ground can you know operate as a part 15 unlicensed device if it meets certain technical criteria, but we've never actually considered whether that thing on your wrist, that thing in your in your pocket can communicate directly to space satellites or not using unlicensed frequencies. And so for the first time, and I think international regulatory history, we're gonna ask those questions. And we're really excited to see what happens. I mean, the the unlicensed bands are an American success story, and our goal is not to interfere literally or figuratively speaking with that. We want to maintain the operational status quo, but we're also really curious to see if there's a way you can accommodate satellites without disrupting that beautiful ecosystem. And if there's a way to do it, it's uh you know, that's win-win. So we're really excited. This is like really like cutting edge, you know, stuff. Um more relevantly, we're looking at D to D on both the leasing side and the auction side. So let me talk about two exciting items that we've teed up for vote this October at our open meeting. Number one, we're going to be auctioning 25 megahertz of spectrum in the so-called L band. That's 1675 to 1695 megahertz and 2020 megahertz to 2025 megahertz. And this is in the sweet spot for directed device. All the big D2D operations are happening in this L band, right? We've found 25 megahertz, a lot, much of which NTIA is currently studying, has federal users. And depending on the output of that study, we will be auctioning that spectrum. And one thing that we're proposing that's interesting is we're gonna open it up a little bit. We're gonna say uh you can use it for terrestrial service, you can use it for 5G or 6G, or you could use it for D to D. It's your call. Uh, no matter what you do, you have to meet stringent performance requirements. But we're gonna try to introduce a little bit more competition because it's not a lot of spectrum, but it's in a great neighborhood. And we think that that's gonna be a really exciting development for the growth of mobile satellite services where operators need their own dedicated slice of spectrum and they can't share it the way that fixed satellite services normally do. The second thing that we're gonna be looking at, so there's more. Wait, there's more. There's more. Okay, so the next item we're gonna be looking at in October is supplemental coverage from space. Okay, so one of the ways that you can get cellular service in a dead zone like Yellowstone is a satellite company will essentially use frequencies held by the wireless companies, and they're leasing those frequencies, and then they'll use it to provide service to your cell phone in areas where there's no tower. It's magic. We authorized rules for this two years ago, and two years later, it's already clear that they're out of date. Uh, this is a modern, like you can't modernize fast enough sometimes, given the pace and scale of technology.

SPEAKER_01 39:38

But one thing that's becoming the first rules in the whole world for this service, so they were being carried out again.

SPEAKER_02 39:44

Again, yeah, just like unlicensed um D2D, we're just doing stuff here at the FCC for the first time in history. And then, you know, we did the 1.0, now we're gonna do the 2.0 with supplemental coverage, and we're gonna be looking at a lot more spectrum. We're gonna be looking at you know being able to cut more commercial deals, have fewer guardrails in place, and have more flexible interference protection criteria because the technology is getting so good at you know preventing interference that oftentimes, you know, what we're saying is gonna be overprotective in a matter of just a few years. And so we want to be more flexible to be able to keep up with the the technology and have our expectations reflect those reasonable expectations as technology matures. So, you know, lots of great stuff on the licensing front for D2D. We got SpaceX, AST, Amazon has an application. Um, you know, we're seeing other applications come in. You're seeing a lot on the rulemaking side, whether it's licensed spectrum, unlicensed spectrum, auctions, leasing, and we're just gonna be providing those the exact kind of resources that the companies need to come in and compete. And we don't want spectrum to be sort of a competitive chokehold uh to a thriving and competitive D2D market.

SPEAKER_01 41:05

Fantastic. Now tell us about EPFD.

SPEAKER_02 41:09

Or what does it stand for? All right, so let's get past the acronyms for a second. In the 1990s, there was really one dominant kind of satellite, and that was a geostationary satellite, right? And it stayed above the Earth in a fixed location, and its beam hit the same location on Earth all the time. And the idea of having non-geostationary satellites that just spun around the globe, that was very immature at the time. Now, you fast in and so in 1990, you know, the ITU came up with rules that would ensure that the geostationary satellites, which are at the time, were protected by these you know less mature non-geostationary orbit satellites. Now, fast forward 30 years, and the competitive landscape is totally different, right? Non-geostationary orbit satellites are much more um in number than they were ever imagined to be. Uh, geostationary uh satellites, their market share has been adjusted accordingly. And there are new techniques that will allow the LEOs, the NGSOs, to operate uh with higher power and to up, you know, provide better service to customers without impacting the geos. And so what we did again at the beginning of Chairman Carr's tenure is we decided to take a fresh look at that 1990s ITU sharing framework. And we asked ourselves, can we do better? Have the technological um methods of ensuring spectrum sharing, have they evolved to a point where we don't need this kludgy one-size-fits-all rule that sort of artificially throttles your power levels, irrespective of any other considering factor? And we ultimately looked at the evidence, we looked at the international studies, and we determined that yes, Starlink can increase its powers, more satellites can hit a phone, and they can offer meaningfully better service without impacting the geostationary orbits with whom they share spectrum. And that's what we did in this order that we released uh just a few months ago, right? It was it Q2? April? Uh April, yeah, Q2. So in April, we released an order that put in this new modernized sharing framework. And the number one rule of this modernized sharing framework is look, if you're two satellite systems and you're operating in the same spectrum, you're go work it out between yourselves and strike a coexistence agreement and negotiate in good faith. And that's a time tested approach that has served everybody well. You're supposed to talk to your commercial neighbors, and uh, I that's the approach that we've adopted here in the context of Geo's and uh Leo's. And we think it's gonna be great. We're already seeing a lot of interest from our international counterparts all around the world and they. They want to adopt the FCC's approach, and you know, we're also getting a lot of interest at the ITU. And so that's a conversation we continue to hope to have uh both in 27 and in 31.

SPEAKER_01 44:11

Well, yeah, that is where I really wanted to go for our closing comment here. Is all these innovative approaches, uh, spectrum abundance, uh new um approaches for D2D, all that only is going to apply to the United States, yet our satellites operate around the world. So, how do we how do we handle that? The FCC is right out in front, but we need the agreement of the world to some degree to make it work. So the next step, what you alluded to, is the World Radio Conference coming up in 2027, one year from now. Um, so we do you want to say anything uh about the preparations for that? Or actually, maybe that's a whole other show we should talk about.

SPEAKER_02 45:06

It could easily be another show, but I think it is important enough to talk about very briefly. Um American space innovators have markets all around the world. The satellite connectivity is inherently global. So whether it's Amazon, whether it's AST, whether it's SpaceX, whether it's somebody else, um they're gonna have to be applying. There's you're gonna have to be operating in all these other markets. And the ITU, the International Telecommunications Union, is an uh international regulatory body that determines the rules as defaults in a lot of these small countries, a lot of these small African nations, they don't have the regulatory capacity to you know develop their own rules or to do the kinds of innovations that we have the luxury of doing here in the United States. And so they'll apply these ITU rules right off the shelf. So they're enormously consequential for a huge segment of the world market. Um, and that's enormously consequential for our American space leaders. And we want them to succeed. And part and parcel of being the best place to regulate and to launch and open a business is to is the place where we see the most success. And so uh it's enormously valuable. And what we want to do here at the IQ is we want to take the market-driven, uh, light touch, pro-innovation policies we're developing here at the FCC, and we want to export them around the world. And part of that is showing people that our policies work. But also part of that is making it clear that, you know, whatever countervailing interest there may be in terms of like geopolitical strategy or national self-interest or economic protectionism or sort of um uh you know, repressive, you know, policy regimes, like we want to make sure that those are sort of overridden by the clear and convincing public interest benefits of providing greater LEO broadband connectivity and more satellite connectivity throughout the world. And so that's you know, that's a message that we hope to deliver, and we look forward to standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies as we continue to do that in the run up to 27.

SPEAKER_01 47:16

Well, thank you, Arpin. You gave us so much to think about and uh so much to celebrate today. Congratulations for all of that. And uh, we appreciate the discussion. So thank you for joining us today, and uh, we'll be sure to stay tuned with what with what happens next.

SPEAKER_02 47:37

I really enjoyed this conversation, Audrey. Cheers.

SPEAKER_00 47:42

Wow, that's a lot of changes coming up for licenses and processes as government tries to better enable the commercial space sector, and there's definitely more to watch out for. Our website is csps.aerospace.org/slash space policy show. You can find all of our shows there on YouTube and by podcast. And of course, follow us or subscribe to get notified of any new shows, as well as the center's deep research papers. Topics are from across the Space Enterprise. Thanks for listening.