Attachment Comments of the Util SES-LIC-20150616-00357

Attachment Comments of the Util

This document pretains to SES-LIC-20150616-00357 for License on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLIC2015061600357_1148923

Ms. Marlene Dortch
September 6, 2016
Page 2 of 6

I. Introduction and Background

Established in 1948, UTC is the trade association for the communications and information
technology interests of the nation’s electric, gas and water utilities, pipeline companies and other critical
infrastructure industries.3 Its members include large investor-owned utilities who serve millions of
customers in multi-state service territories, and smaller municipal and cooperatively-organized utilities
who may serve only a few thousand customers in remote areas and communities across the country.
These members all use communications in support of their core electric, gas and water services. These
communications systems are extensive and diverse, including wireline and wireless technologies –
including microwave communications systems in the 6 GHz band.

Utilities use the 6 GHz band for a variety of mission critical operations to support the safe,
secure and reliable delivery of essential electric, gas and water services. These systems need to meet
high standards of performance and service reliability. Any failure of their operations can have severe and
widespread consequences for public and worker safety, as well as operational integrity and security. The
microwave systems serve as the backbone for a variety of utility applications, such as supervisory control
and data acquisition (SCADA) networks that utilities use to monitor and control substations and valves,
as well as security and transfer-trip protection circuits that protect against external threats and isolate
faults on the grid. These microwave systems also support voice applications, including utility nuclear
emergency telecommunications systems. These microwave systems are used for both primary and
redundant communications. As such, interference to these 6 GHz microwave systems is a major concern
for utilities and the millions of customers they serve.

Utilities have significant systems in the 6 GHz band. The vast majority of the thousands of
licenses in the band are held by utilities, and these licensed systems have many more links that traverse
extensive areas. Utilities rely heavily on this band because it not only provides backhaul capacity, but it
is also well-suited for the large geographic areas that utilities need to serve, providing point-to-point
communications between and among critical utility assets. In addition to the sheer magnitude of these
networks, it is important for the Commission to recognize that many utilities migrated to the 6 GHz band
after the FCC reallocated the 2 GHz microwave band for Personal Communications Service (PCS) and
Mobile Satellite Services (MSS). Having been forced to relocate already, utilities should not be
displaced by Higher Ground’s proposed mobile use of the band. Finally, utilities lack reasonable
alternatives to these microwave systems to serve rural areas, which is exactly where Higher Ground
intends to operate. As such, the 6 GHz band serves as an essential source of communications and is
heavily used by the utility industry.

II. The Application and Waiver by Higher Ground is Procedurally Improper and
Substantively Defective and Should be Denied.

Higher Ground attempts to achieve through a rule waiver what it should request through a
petition for rulemaking. That said, its request fails to meet the requirements for a rule waiver because
Higher Ground has not demonstrated that the underlying purpose of the rule would be frustrated by its
application here, and it has failed to show that there are unique circumstances at issue or that an rules
represent an undue burden, such that the public interest would be served by waiver of the rule.

Higher Ground has requested waivers of the Commission's coordination rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.130(b),
25.203(c), and 101.103, based on low power operations of its transmitter and an automated frequency

3
See www.utc.org.

1129 20th Street, NW • Suite 350 • Washington, DC 20036 USA • 1.202.872.0030 • FAX: 1.202.872.1331

Ms. Marlene Dortch
September 6, 2016
Page 3 of 6

coordination analysis system described in the technical exhibit included in its application. Higher Ground
also has requested a waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, the Table of Allocations, to permit mobile earth station
operations as an application within the Fixed Satellite Service allocation. Both of these waiver requests
should be denied.

As the FWCC aptly stated in its petition, the purpose of the microwave coordination rules is “not
just to coordinate initial licensing, but also to provide licensees with the ability to pinpoint a potential
interfering station at a fixed location.”4 Higher Ground suggests that the coordination requirements can
be waived because it will coordinate its mobile operations through a database that will remotely and
automatically control the transmissions of its hand-held Satpaq devices to avoid causing harmful
interference to incumbent microwave operations in the band. In support of this assertion, Higher Ground
describes the underlying assumptions and algorithms upon which the database would function.
As the FWCC has pointed out, some of the assumptions are flawed, which raises questions about the
performance of the database.

The FWCC argues, and UTC agrees, that prior coordination in accordance with the rules is
necessary to mitigate the potential for interference. That has proven effective in coordinating Earth
Stations on Vessels (ESVs) with offshore and coastal microwave facilities that operate in the 6 GHz the
band.5 It also reflects the fact that coordinating systems in the 6 GHz band can be difficult and is not
something that should be expected to be effectively conducted through a database. Moreover, the
process of prior coordination helps to enable licensees to determine the source of interference, should it
occur. The process suggested by Higher Ground would frustrate the underlying purpose of the rule by
making it more difficult for licensees to determine if interference is being caused by the proposed mobile
operations, which would be made even more difficult by the intermittent and mobile nature of the
interference that would likely be caused by Higher Ground’s network.

In addition to frustrating the underlying purpose of the rule, Higher Ground’s waiver request fails
to show any unique circumstances and/or undue burden that would justify the Commission’s granting a
waiver. As the FWCC has shown, Higher Ground does not explain why it is necessary to use this band,
such that the restriction against mobile operation in the 6 GHz band should be waived. Instead, this
appears to be a matter of convenience or preference for Higher Ground. Its argument largely rests on the
assertion that the public interest would be served if Higher Ground were able to offer services using this
band without having to comply with the rules requiring prior coordination of operations. This argument
is misplaced for two reasons. First and foremost, the public interest would not be served by causing
interference to incumbent microwave systems, many of which support mission critical communications
by utilities and others. Second, the threat of interference is much greater here than is the case with ESVs,
because there are many more devices that would be operational in Higher Ground’s network and they
would operate in closer proximity to incumbent microwave systems than the ESVs, which only operate in
proximity to microwave systems in coastal and offshore areas. As such, the facts weigh against a
waiver, not in support of one. The circumstances are not unique, the public interest would not be served,
and there is no undue burden that would justify a waiver in the case of Higher Ground’s application.
Higher Ground’s waiver request should be denied for these reasons, as well.

4
Petition to Deny of the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition against the application by Higher Ground, File
No. SES-LIC-20150616-00357 at 4 (filed Sept. 15, 2015).
5
Procedures to Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board Vessels in the 5925- 6425 MHz/3700-4200
MHz Bands and 14.0-14.5 GHz/11.7-12.2 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 674 (2005) (“ESV Order”).

1129 20th Street, NW • Suite 350 • Washington, DC 20036 USA • 1.202.872.0030 • FAX: 1.202.872.1331

Ms. Marlene Dortch
September 6, 2016
Page 4 of 6

III. Higher Ground’s Request Should Be Addressed in a Rulemaking, if the
Commission Decides Not to Deny the Application and Waiver.

UTC agrees with the FWCC and other comments in opposition to Higher Ground’s application
and waiver that the relief it seeks is more appropriately addressed in the context of a rulemaking. “[T]he
choice between rulemaking and adjudication lies in the first instance within the [agency’s] discretion,”
and the Commission should choose to conduct a rulemaking here because Higher Ground seeks a
fundamental change in the rules which could have dramatic and widespread impact on incumbent
operations in the 6 GHz band.6 As the Supreme Court has ruled, “an agency must proceed by rulemaking
if it seeks to change the law and establish rules of widespread application.”7 Higher Ground’s
application is not a minor request that could be considered administrative in nature, such that a waiver
could be considered appropriate. Higher Ground requests relief that would fundamentally change the
nature of the use of the 6 GHz band, and would affect incumbent licensees nationwide. Higher Ground’s
proposal for mobile operations in the 6 GHz band without prior coordination is a change in the rules that
would have widespread effect, not an exception that would have a limited impact.

To the extent that the Commission considers Higher Ground’s proposal, it should proceed
through a rulemaking so that interested parties have sufficient notice and an opportunity to comment, and
to provide the Commission with a sufficient record upon which to base its decision. While Higher
Ground claims that a rulemaking “would serve no purpose other than to cause unnecessary delay,”8 in
reality, a rulemaking would serve an important and essential purpose, namely, to protect the interests of
the parties that would be affected by Higher Ground’s proposed operations. Some of the comments on
the record have remarked that they only recently were notified about Higher Ground’s application and
waiver.9 These comments underscore the need to conduct a rulemaking, so that other parties may be
made aware of Higher Ground’s application and have a sufficient opportunity to comment on it. Finally,
the fact that Higher Ground is the first to propose such a network does not mean that others will not
attempt to operate a similar network of their own. Thus, the Commission should conduct a rulemaking to
consider fairly the interests of incumbent licensees, applicants and potential users of the band, not just
the interests of Higher Ground.

IV. Higher Ground’s Proposed Mobile Operations Threatens to Cause Widespread
Harmful Interference to Mission Critical Microwave Communications in the 6 GHz
Band.

UTC has serious concerns with the substantive claims made by Higher Ground in this proceeding
and, therefore, urges the Commission to deny its application and waiver, and, instead, to proceed through
a rulemaking, if at all. Specifically, UTC agrees with FWCC and other comments on the record that
question whether the database has been sufficiently tested to reliably and accurately perform as claimed
by Higher Ground. As CenturyLink pointed out in its comments, Higher Ground proposes to rely on
transmission logs to determine the source of interference that it may be causing; “[y]et it remains
questionable – and untested – that transmission logs will be sufficient to identify a device that may be

6
NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 294 at ¶¶29-38 (1974).
7
Ford Motor Co. v. FTC, 673 F.2d 1008, 1009 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[A]n agency must proceed by rulemaking if it seeks
to change the law and establish rules of widespread application.”).
8
Consolidated Opposition of Higher Ground LLC, File No. SES-LIC-20150616-00357 at 6 (filed Sept. 23, 2015).
9
Letter from Al Burton, Director Federal Regulatory Affairs, Frontier Communications to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC in response to IBFS File No. SES-LIC-20150616-00357, Call Sign E150095 at 2 (filed Aug. 22,
2016).

1129 20th Street, NW • Suite 350 • Washington, DC 20036 USA • 1.202.872.0030 • FAX: 1.202.872.1331

Ms. Marlene Dortch
September 6, 2016
Page 5 of 6

causing interference.”10 UTC also agrees with CenturyLink that Higher Ground has proposed an
impractical process for remedying interference that would force incumbent licensees to attempt to trace
the source of the interference based upon the bandwidth of the signal. This would require the incumbent
licensee to conduct engineering tests and have specialized training in order to isolate the signal from
Higher Ground operations.11

Moreover, the technical submission in support of Higher Ground’s application is faulty and
makes false assumptions about incumbent utility operations. In addition to the concerns about the
database and its capabilities described above, Higher Ground’s assumptions about the performance
standards to suppress off-axis antenna gain underestimates the potential for its operations to cause
interference to incumbent microwave systems in the band.12 There are also a host of other technical
issues associated with Higher Ground’s application, including lack of transparency, conflicting
incentives, lack of recourse, adjacent channel interference, errors in the ULS database upon which
Higher Ground relies, insufficient modelling, differential fading, and reliance on phone sensors to turn
transmissions on and off. All of these issues need to be thoroughly addressed, as well.

Finally, UTC agrees that the transient nature of the proposed operations would exacerbate the
potential for interference to incumbent utility systems and make it extremely difficult for utilities to
detect, identify, isolate and remedy. As a practical matter, utilities would be subject to intermittent
interference at various times and locations, as the Higher Ground devices transmit at different times and
locations. This interference could prevent utilities from being able to control and monitor their
operations, which could result in outages and other potentially catastrophic impacts. It will be far too
late to correct the interference after it has happened as Higher Ground suggests; it needs to be avoided
beforehand – the very purpose of frequency coordination. Similarly, this interference could prevent
utilities from being able to communicate with personnel in the field and in substations, nuclear power
plants and other critical assets, which would threaten safety and reliability. Again, this is an
unacceptable risk for utilities.

10
CenturyLink Reply in Opposition, File No. SES-LIC-20150616-00357 at 3-4 (filed Sept. 28, 2015)(also
questioning “[h]ow does the fixed link operator know how to quickly identify if a SatPaq device is the cause of the
interference and where does it go to address that?”)
11
Id. at 4.
12
Petition to Deny by the FWCC at 10 (stating that “[w]hile HG describes its Figure A-8 pattern as typical, FWCC
believes that in fact only about 40% of 6 GHz antennas suppress the off-axis gain to this ultra-high performance
level. Most antennas are at lower performance levels, including about 40% that are either standard performance
(only meeting Category B1) or improved-performance (just meeting Category A).”)

1129 20th Street, NW • Suite 350 • Washington, DC 20036 USA • 1.202.872.0030 • FAX: 1.202.872.1331

Document Created: 2016-09-13 15:35:08
Document Modified: 2016-09-13 15:35:08

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC