Intelsat and SES Propose Joint-Use of C-band by Satellite and Terrestrial Mobile Operators in the U.

Status
Please reply by conversation.

Martyn

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 25, 2005
597
221
Annandale, VA
I'm not sure how this would affect us. Satellite operators clearly want their signals reliably received while mobile operators have large buckets of cash to throw at the government. I suspect any spectrum sharing rules drawn up will be aimed at preserving the link budgets used at cable operator and TV stations, not direct-to-home reception, but it's something to watch.



News Release
2018-01

Intelsat and SES Propose Joint-Use of C-band by Satellite and Terrestrial Mobile Operators in the U.S.

U.S.-specific proposal would protect C-band video and data transmissions and support accelerated 5G rollout by mobile operators

Luxembourg/Washington, 9 February 2018
Leading satellite companies Intelsat S.A. (NYSE: I) and SES S.A. (Euronext Paris and Luxembourg Stock Exchange: SESG) today announced alignment on a proposal to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which seeks to protect the wide array of established satellite services in the 3700-4200 MHz C-band downlink spectrum while opening a specified portion of that spectrum for terrestrial mobile use.

The joint proposal, which was developed in response to the unique
U.S. telecommunications environment, aims to protect the quality and reliability of the extensive services provided by satellite operators in C-band to U.S. broadcasters, media and data companies. The proposal ensures the continued seamless distribution of video and audio programming to more than 100 million U.S. households, and the reliable provision of critical data connectivity in rural areas and emergency situations, as well as services delivered to the U.S. government.

The proposal, which builds on an innovative model first put forward to the FCC by Intelsat and Intel Corporation in October 2017, sets a commercial and technical framework that would enable wireless operators to quickly access approximately 100 MHz of nationwide C-band downlink spectrum in the United States, speeding the deployment of next-generation 5G services.

The proposal specifies the creation of a consortium, which would be open to all satellite operators delivering services in the C-band downlink frequencies in any part of the lower 48 United States. The consortium would oversee the governance of the initiative, define and implement the methodology for spectrum clearance, and serve as the sole interface for market-based transactions with parties interested in deploying terrestrial mobile services in specific portions of the C-band. SES and Intelsat have begun briefing the FCC on this proposal.

Karim Michel Sabbagh, President and CEO of SES, said, “The C-band is and remains a critical component of the U.S. network architecture. Space and ground segment operators have invested billions of dollars in U.S. C-band networks and connectivity and generate important value out of it. It is therefore our duty and mission to protect the C-band in the U.S. from any form of disruption and preserve its use. The C-band satellite consortium is to be set up to ensure that the expansion of the C-band ecosystem in the U.S. will protect the interests of hundreds of established services and millions of American end-users, while at the same time paving the way for the creation of next-generation 5G terrestrial services.”

Peter Pitsch, Associate General Counsel, Intel, said, “Intel's goal remains to facilitate timely access to high quality terrestrial 5G services. We welcome the announcement of the alignment of Intelsat and SES on significant details of the proposal, and plan to continue to support this market-based approach, which we believe paves the way for the accelerated deployment of 5G in the U.S., creating new experiences in every part of our lives – from smart cars to rich entertainment.”

Intelsat CEO Stephen Spengler said, “Our priority continues to be creating a framework that provides certainty and protects the quality and reliability of the services we provide to our media, network services and government customers. Our proposed market-based solution provides a speedy resolution to the U.S. objective of accelerating deployment of 5G services. With Intelsat and SES now in agreement on major tenets of the framework and with the support of Intel, we are confident in our ability to implement this proposal quickly and efficiently, ultimately to the benefit of American consumers and the U.S. economy.”
 

Comptech

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 26, 2006
2,570
1,892
Travelers Rest SC
I think the spectrum they are talking about is the 3400 to 3700 area. it won't affect our domestic sats, but for anyone looking over the Atlantic for birds can you say INTERFERENCE?
 

danristheman

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 25, 2011
3,140
1,127
85w
Comptech we have that here with Lakeland internet. I already called the engineer he was really nice told me it stops at 3500 mhz so they don't get trouble with the FCC.
 

Martyn

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 25, 2005
597
221
Annandale, VA
That's not the the way I read it:

"protect the wide array of established satellite services in the 3700-4200 MHz C-band downlink spectrum while opening a specified portion of that spectrum for terrestrial mobile use."

They're talking about allowing broadband services into a portion of the 3.7 to 4.2GHz band.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FTA4PA

Cham

VE4GLS
Pub Member / Supporter
Dec 19, 2008
2,269
823
Boonies
This part I find interesting:
reliable provision of critical data connectivity in rural areas and emergency situations, as well as services delivered to the U.S. government.
Not sure why they have to keep going up in frequency for rural areas where parts of the terrestrial TV UHF spectrum are being abandoned and mostly unused in rural areas? The higher the frequency, the less range and more expensive transmission and reception equipment is required. My thoughts are that the needs would more likely be in highly populated urban areas where lower frequencies are already saturated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpalone

Martyn

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 25, 2005
597
221
Annandale, VA
This part I find interesting:

Not sure why they have to keep going up in frequency for rural areas where parts of the terrestrial TV UHF spectrum are being abandoned and mostly unused in rural areas? The higher the frequency, the less range and more expensive transmission and reception equipment is required. My thoughts are that the needs would more likely be in highly populated urban areas where lower frequencies are already saturated.
I suspect it's because once you talk about the digital divide, connecting rural communities, emergency communications and first responders, politicians are much less likely to want to raise issues. But then I'm an old cynic.
 

wvman

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 19, 2014
2,698
1,268
N. Central WV
I suspect it's because once you talk about the digital divide, connecting rural communities, emergency communications and first responders, politicians are much less likely to want to raise issues. But then I'm an old cynic.
I think a part of the problem is having technology ignorant officials writing the rules for an industry they know very little about. When the FCC discussed making terrestrial providers go digital, I knew exactly what was going to happen. The changeover basically cut thousands of people in the area off from local broadcast television due to the mountains. Before, with the old analog broadcast, they at least had access to school closings, emergency broadcast such as local flooding, power outages and other important communications.

I get no OTA channels where I live and I'm only 8 miles from town. I wrote letters until I was blue in the face and it all fell on deaf ears. Half the people I contacted didn't have any knowledge of how the analog to digital conversion was going to affect rural residents. We had a small cable system here, but when they were forced to go digital, they shut it down rather than spending the money to upgrade.

I think it's that way with most of the legislators who make judgment calls on things like this. They're more prone to go along with lobbyist in the industry rather than making decisions based on public needs. It's only going to get worse as more companies fight for their share of the digital spectrum.
 

(((Garyd)))

Retired C-Band dealer
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 4, 2007
23,945
16,451
diamondsatellite@snet.net
I think a part of the problem is having technology ignorant officials writing the rules for an industry they know very little about. When the FCC discussed making terrestrial providers go digital, I knew exactly what was going to happen. The changeover basically cut thousands of people in the area off from local broadcast television due to the mountains. Before, with the old analog broadcast, they at least had access to school closings, emergency broadcast such as local flooding, power outages and other important communications.

I get no OTA channels where I live and I'm only 8 miles from town. I wrote letters until I was blue in the face and it all fell on deaf ears. Half the people I contacted didn't have any knowledge of how the analog to digital conversion was going to affect rural residents. We had a small cable system here, but when they were forced to go digital, they shut it down rather than spending the money to upgrade.

I think it's that way with most of the legislators who make judgment calls on things like this. They're more prone to go along with lobbyist in the industry rather than making decisions based on public needs. It's only going to get worse as more companies fight for their share of the digital spectrum.
Wow, you are remote big bucks going digital for them, I hear you, and can see why you're pissed off even a beam of won't work with mountains
 

olliec420

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 4, 2007
746
180
Pensacola, FL
Half the people I contacted didn't have any knowledge of how the analog to digital conversion was going to affect rural residents. We had a small cable system here, but when they were forced to go digital, they shut it down rather than spending the money to upgrade.
I'm convinced stuff like this is intentional.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Top