Resources

What the NPRM Actually Proposes

The NPRM responds to a SpaceX petition asking the FCC to revisit its EPFD rules, arguing they’re built on “flawed and outdated assumptions” and constrain modern NGSO systems.

In broad terms, the FCC is asking four big questions:

1. Are the current EPFD limits still fit for purpose?
   These limits were designed around early NGSO architectures and much smaller constellations. The NPRM asks whether they are now overly restrictive on NGSO while still adequately protecting GSO.
2. Should there be an alternative sharing framework?
   The Commission specifically calls for comment on “performance-based” approaches—like the degraded-throughput methodology already used for NGSO–NGSO sharing and V-band NGSO–GSO cases (see ITU Radio Regulations Resolution 770)—rather than hard EPFD ceilings alone.
3. How should aggregate NGSO interference be handled?
   With tens of thousands of satellites planned across dozens of NGSO filings, the FCC wants input on tools for addressing aggregate effects, not just single-constellation compliance.
4. What information-sharing and coordination requirements are needed?
   The NPRM seeks comment on whether formalized data-sharing (e.g., reference links, technical parameters, coordination procedures) between GSO and NGSO operators should replace the use of hard limits.

For operators, this is not a minor cleanup. It’s a potential rewrite of how U.S. regulations treat GSO–NGSO coexistence in core FSS downlink bands. It also puts into question the process occurring internationally at the ITU and might help shape the resulting discussions in WP 4A.

Comment Themes: Three Main Camps

The record splits broadly into three camps: NGSO-leaning reformers, GSO and incumbent protectors, and public-interest / cross-industry voices.

1. NGSO-Leaning Reformers: “The EPFD Regime Is Holding Back Capacity”

A coalition of NGSO operators [is there more than SpaceX and Amazon? Telesat?] and tech/business associations argue that the current EPFD regime has become a structural drag on NGSO broadband.

Key arguments from groups like CCIA, SIIA, the Commercial Space Federation, Public Knowledge/OTI, ICLE, ITIF, and the Chamber of Progress include:

• The EPFD limits are based on 1990s assumptions. They were designed for a world with a handful of NGSO systems, not constellations of thousands of satellites.
• They force large design concessions on NGSO systems. Commenters describe reduced spectral efficiency, more satellites than technically necessary, and constrained beamforming and power control as a result of EPFD limits.
• Modernized rules could dramatically increase capacity. Some filings cite analyses suggesting that updating the limits or moving to a degraded-throughput framework could boost LEO broadband capacity by up to ~180% in some bands, with knock-on benefits for cost and pricing.
• A performance-based approach is preferable. Several commenters urge the FCC to mirror the NGSO–NGSO practices and the V-band approach, using degraded throughput or service-level metrics such as increase in unavailability as the protection criterion instead of static EPFD tables.

These parties generally support giving NGSO operators an alternative compliance path—for example, “follow EPFD or demonstrate you meet a throughput- or availability-based protection benchmark.”

2. GSO & Incumbent Protectors: “Don’t Undermine GSO Reliability”

On the other side, GSO operators and some traditional incumbents warn that relaxing or replacing EPFD could erode hard-won protection for GSO FSS/BSS. While specific filings vary, recurring points from SES, Eutelsat, DIRECTV, Viasat, EchoStar and others include:

• EPFD is a known quantity. It may be conservative, but network design, business models, and long-term GSO investment rely on these predictable ceilings.
• Aggregate interference is still poorly understood. With multiple LEO constellations growing, these stakeholders are wary of changing limits before aggregate modeling and validation tools are fully proven.
• Keep alignment with ITU. Since EPFD is tied to ITU Radio Regulations and tools like ITU-R Recommendation S.1503, a radically different U.S. framework could complicate international coordination and create a two-track compliance world.
• If changes are made, make them incremental. Many GSO-leaning commenters leave room for targeted updates (e.g., better GSO reference link definitions, refined modeling), but oppose wholesale replacement of EPFD.

In short, they see EPFD modernization as a potential risk to service availability and long-lived satellite investments unless handled very carefully.

3. Public-Interest and Cross-Industry Views: “Update the Rules, Keep Guardrails”

Public-interest organizations and some think tanks occupy a middle space: broadly supportive of modernizing EPFD, but pushing for safeguards and more transparent coordination. Public Knowledge/OTI, ITIF, and others urge the FCC to:

• Model real-world operations more accurately, then update the rules.
• Make coordination obligations explicit between GSO and NGSO systems, not just implicit in the background.
• Ensure changes increase total productive use of spectrum, not just shift advantage to one orbital regime.

These filings often echo the degraded-throughput idea but stress the need for clear benchmarks and enforceable obligations.

Reply Comments: Sharpening the Lines

Reply comments submitted in August and early September further crystallized the debate.

Pro-Modernization Replies

Groups like CCIA, SIIA, Chamber of Progress, and others doubled down on the argument that EPFD limits are now a “regulatory bottleneck” for NGSO broadband.

Recurring themes can be heard:

• The record shows broad recognition that the framework is outdated. They point to multiple commenters, including industry and think tanks, acknowledging that the underlying assumptions no longer match today’s constellations.
• GSO protection can be maintained with modern tools. Pro-modernization replies argue that performance-based criteria and more realistic models can preserve GSO service quality without locking in 25-year-old margins.
• Consumers and competition are at stake. SIIA and others explicitly frame EPFD reform as a pro-broadband, pro-competition, and deregulatory move aligned with the FCC’s mission.

Cautionary & Opposing Replies

On the other side, more conservative voices—including some GSO players, broadcasters, and CTIA representing terrestrial wireless operators —urge caution.

Their replies emphasize:

• Risk of unintended consequences. They argue that once EPFD ceilings are loosened or replaced, GSO interference problems may be hard to diagnose and even harder to undo.
• Need to protect adjacent terrestrial services. CTIA in particular warns that changes in satellite power rules cannot be considered in isolation from UMFUS deployments and other terrestrial operations in nearby or related bands.
• Prefer further study over immediate overhaul. Some suggest pilots, targeted band-specific changes, or waiting for additional ITU work before adopting a fundamentally new framework.

Other Stakeholders: Astronomy and Passive Services

The American Astronomical Society (AAS) and other science stakeholders use their replies to remind the FCC that EPFD and related limits interact with protection of radio astronomy and passive sensing bands. They caution that any relaxation must be examined for its impact on already-stressed scientific services.

What Happens Next Now That the FCC Has Reopened?

The October–November 2025 shutdown halted most FCC staff activity, including substantive work on open rulemakings. With appropriations restored in mid-November, the Commission is restarting proceedings and adjusting schedules where needed.

For the EPFD NPRM, the formal comment cycle is already complete, so the next steps are about internal analysis and decision-making:

1. Staff Review and Issue Identification (Near Term)

Space Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology staff will dig through the record to:

• Map out where there is broad consensus.
• Identify sharply contested issues: replacement of EPFD vs optional alternative, how to define GSO protection criteria, how to handle aggregate interference.
• Benchmark proposals against ITU developments and ongoing ITU-R SG 4 work on Article 22, Resolution 76, and Recommendation ITU-R S.1503.

Operators should expect a period of ex parte engagement here—technical briefings, white papers, and modeling examples can be especially influential in shaping the staff’s internal options memo.

2. Possible Further Notice or Targeted Public Notice (Medium Term)

Given how polarized the record is, it would not be surprising if the FCC:

• Issues a Public Notice seeking focused comment on one or two candidate frameworks (e.g., a specific degraded-throughput metric, or a hybrid EPFD + performance safety net), or
• Moves directly to a Report and Order + Further Notice, adopting limited near-term changes while seeking additional comment on more ambitious reforms.

Either path would let the Commission narrow the decision space and test specific implementation details with stakeholders.

3. Coordination with ITU and International Policy

Because EPFD is rooted in ITU Radio Regulations, any U.S.-only alternative has to coexist with ITU-based licensing and coordination. The NPRM already acknowledges ongoing international work to modernize EPFD and references S.1503 and related recommendations.

Realistically, the FCC is likely to:

• Preserve basic compatibility with ITU limits,
• Potentially offer an “alternative compliance path” (e.g., an optional performance-based test) for U.S. market access, and
• Use the U.S. proceeding to inform U.S. positions going into WRC-27 and ITU-R SG 4/WP 4A negotiations.

4. A Report and Order in 2026?

Putting it all together, a plausible trajectory—assuming no further funding disruptions—is:

• Late 2025 / early 2026: Staff analysis and heavy ex parte engagement
• Mid-2026: Draft decision circulated (Report and Order, possibly with Further Notice)
• Late 2026: Final decision on at least a first phase of EPFD modernization

That timeline would allow the FCC to align its domestic position with the international debates on EPFD and aggregate interference leading into WRC-27.

What Operators Should Be Doing Now

If you operate or plan to operate NGSO or GSO systems in the 10.7–12.7, 17.3–18.6, or 19.7–20.2 GHz bands, this proceeding goes directly to your link budgets and long-term business case.

Practical steps:

• Model your system under both regimes: current EPFD rules and the degraded-throughput or performance-based approaches proposed in the record.
• Clarify what “acceptable GSO degradation” actually means for you—in terms of availability, throughput, or quality-of-service.
• Prepare clear, operator-friendly explanations for staff of how your system manages interference, power control, and coordination.
• Continue ex parte engagement now that the FCC is open again; this is when staff are forming their internal recommendations.

The bottom line: EPFD modernization is no longer a theoretical discussion at ITU. It’s an active U.S. rulemaking that will determine how much capacity you can safely—and legally—pull out of your downlink spectrum over the next decade.

Telecomm Strategies supports the idea of revisiting the NGSO-GSO sharing regime, but that any changes must be supported by adequate sharing analyses that have been peer-reviewed, debated and where the conclusions are understood and generally agreed. We believe a middle-of-the road solution can be developed, which updates the framework for RR22 compliance, affording NGSO more flexibility to offer high bandwidth services while affording GSO businesses the protection they need to continue operating a reliable and competitive service.