Satellite EPFD Fight Expected Before FCC and During WRC-27 Prep

Before the FCC, NGSO and geostationary orbit (GSO) operators have been diametrically opposed about what WRC-23 decided on EPFD limits that protect GSO operators from NGSO interference (see 2401300032 and 2402090058). However, no one has asked the agency to act. In plenary minutes, WRC-23 invited the ITU's Radiocommunication Sector to conduct technical studies on the EPFD limits in its Article 22 space services rules and to inform WRC-27 of the results "without any regulatory consequences."

The meaning of that WRC-23 language "depends on who you ask," River Advisers CEO Katherine Gizinski said in an interview. There are two interpretations, Gizinski said: that the final act of WRC-27 won't include modification of radio regulations related to the EPFD, regardless of the study results, or that revising Article 22 is allowable as long as it doesn't result in regulatory consequences, such as if the changes offer the same or better protections to GSOs.

"Regulatory measures" is a more-typical term in radio regulations, and what "consequences" is supposed to mean will be debated for the next couple of years, said a lawyer with WRC experience who attended WRC-23. The working maxim at WRC is that each conference is sovereign and WRC-23 can't bind what members might want to do in -27, she said. While lobbying was heavy by some opposed to keeping the EPFD change from being a future agenda item, it could come up at WRC-27 via other routes, she said. A lawyer with space policy expertise said the teed-up EPFD study could result in an ITU director's report and recommendations, which also could be voted on. He said given that NGSOs see the EPFD issue as critical, pursuing a rules change with the FCC for just the U.S. would potentially be worthwhile for operators. Multiple WRC experts told us that while alternate routes other than agenda items are possible for getting Article 22 changes at WRC-27, going outside an agenda item would be unusual.

A lawyer with GSO experience told us that there was debate at WRC-23 about why an EPFD rule change should be made before better interference modeling can be put in place. He said given the deference the FCC has shown for the ITU's Article 22 rules -- conditioning numerous NGSO system approvals on compliance with those rules -- the FCC's opting to consider a proceeding on changing the EPFD limits in the U.S. would be a notable policy shift.

Part of the reason why the agenda for a WRC is set four years in advance, during the previous WRC, is because of the complexity of study and the engagement of stakeholders needed so all the preparatory work can get done, Gizinski said. She added that language in the WRC-23 minutes barring EPFD work being submitted under Article 9.1 -- 9.1 often being "a back door" to getting something on the agenda for the next cycle -- makes it difficult for there to be a WRC-27 agenda item, she said. She said advocates of EPFD changes likely want both avenues open -- via an FCC proceeding and the WRC process.

Often the U.S. will take on a regulatory topic still under study at the ITU, said economist and former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, who wrote a paper arguing for EPFD changes at WRC-23 (see 2312040046). He said the EPFD issue is one that must be addressed internationally, since NGSOs operate globally. Still, that doesn't mean the U.S. can't develop studies and conduct testing. Ultimately, international coordination is needed because it would be difficult to switch satellites on and off, he said.