FCC's Pair of EchoStar Proceedings See Both Sides Digging In
EchoStar allies and critics fortified their positions in the FCC's twin EchoStar proceedings in docket 22-212 and 25-173 reply comments, which were due Friday. The replies covered much of the same turf as initial comments did. One side argued that EchoStar has sunk billions into its 5G network buildout, and FCC action could chill future investments by it and others, while the opposing side questioned the legality of longer buildout deadlines (see 2505280002).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The commission is probing whether EchoStar is using the 2 GHz band for mobile satellite service (MSS) consistent with its authorizations, while it also seeks comment on VTel Wireless' recon petition on an extension of EchoStar's 5G network buildout deadlines (see 2505130003).
EchoStar said there “is still no evidence" that supports revisiting its exclusive rights to the 2 GHz MSS band or the buildout extensions. “Never before in the Commission’s history has the agency considered taking away so much based on so little,” it said. The public record "once again refutes the opportunistic attempts of SpaceX and VTel to pirate EchoStar’s spectrum.” The company also said Spectrum Financial Partners' (SFP) flawed technical finding contradicts mountains of data showing EchoStar has greatly exceeded its download speed commitment.
Telecomm Strategies’ Richard Barnett said the introduction of a separately operated MSS system in the 2 GHz band “would be infeasible from an interference perspective." Co-frequency co-coverage sharing between an MSS system and advanced wireless services works only if the two systems are operated by the same entity, he said.
As long as the extension that EchoStar received for its construction permits was proper, the FCC should deny VTel's reconsideration request, the Free State Foundation said. That denial "would protect EchoStar’s investment-backed expectations," while rescinding the buildout extensions would create uncertainty for regulated parties in other agency proceedings, it said.
The Opposition
EchoStar “attempts to deflect from its shortcomings by grousing about the deadline and pointing to how hard it has worked,” VTel Wireless said. It said arguments about EchoStar’s progress in deploying a 5G mobile network and the importance of that deployment to open radio access network technology don't have any bearing on whether the FCC Wireless Bureau exceeded its authority in extending EchoStar’s buildout deadlines.
Pointing to SFP's initial comments questioning EchoStar's buildout, Kristian Stout, director of innovation policy for the International Center for Law & Economics, said technical discrepancies in EchoStar filings potentially indicate that it's not building the network it had committed to. It's "entirely appropriate for the Commission to reconsider its continued tolerance for EchoStar’s warehousing practices -- especially in light of what appear to be wildly exaggerated claims about what it has actually accomplished and what it committed to accomplish,” Stout said.
Multiple satellite operators said EchoStar clearly isn’t offering meaningful MSS services in the 2 GHz band. Kepler Communications said the record supports the FCC's consideration of a more open licensing regime that accommodates multiple MSS providers in the band. Omnispace also argued that the record reinforces that the band could accommodate more intensive use. Satellite-based IoT startup Orbits IQ said that if the FCC opens the S band to sharing, it shouldn't limit availability to incumbent large satellite operators. SpaceX also reiterated its assertion that EchoStar is underutilizing the 2 GHz band.