Docket Rocket, Vol 4: Inquiry into EchoStar's Use of 2 GHz MSS

Summary of the Record: SB Docket No. 25-173 as of June 17, 2025

We thought this would be timely, in light of President Trump's recent involvement and the anticipated ‘deal’ suggested in the Oval Office.

Space Bureau Launches Inquiry Into EchoStar 2 GHz MSS Use

The FCC initiated a review of EchoStar Corporation’s use of the 2 GHz band for mobile-satellite service (MSS), seeking to determine if the company is meeting its licensing obligations and to explore options for more intensive use of the band. The inquiry, launched in proceeding 25-173, establishes a formal record for comments from industry stakeholders on the future of the band.

On May 12, 2025, the Space Bureau released a Public Notice to gather information on the status of EchoStar’s MSS operations.¹ The PN recounted that the 2 GHz bands, comprising 2000–2020 MHz (Earth-to-space) and 2180–2200 MHz (space-to-Earth), were initially authorized for MSS in 2001. EchoStar acquired the market access grants for the two remaining geostationary satellite operators in 2012 and is also the licensee for Advanced Wireless Service (AWS-4) terrestrial operations in these bands.

The Bureau noted that questions about the current use of the 2 GHz band for MSS by EchoStar subsidiaries Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. and DBSD Corporation have been raised. Gamma operates the Terrestar T-1 satellite, and DBSD operates the DBSD G-1 satellite. The agency sought comment on whether EchoStar is using the band for MSS in accordance with its authorizations and the Commission’s policies regarding robust MSS. The Commission also requested input on potential steps to promote more intensive use of the 2 GHz band, including the possibility of allowing new MSS providers to enter. The proceeding was designated as “permit-but-disclose” for ex parte purposes. Comments were originally due by May 27, 2025, with replies due June 6, 2025.

INCOMPAS moved for a 30-day extension of the comment deadlines for the MSS inquiry and a related proceeding (22-212) concerning an EchoStar construction deadline extension.² The group argued the 15-day comment period was insufficient to address complex legal, policy, and technical issues. PISC, which includes Public Knowledge and the Open Technology Institute at New America, filed in support, arguing the short deadlines would not allow for a complete record.³ SpaceX opposed the extension, arguing it was a delay tactic to perpetuate spectrum warehousing.⁴ The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau denied the requests, finding "nothing sufficiently unique or unusual" to warrant an extension.⁵

Commenters Urge Opening 2 GHz Band to New Entrants

In initial filings, several companies urged the Commission to open the 2 GHz band to new providers, arguing the spectrum is underutilized. In its comments, Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX) argued that EchoStar has never provided 2 GHz MSS service in the U.S. and is warehousing the spectrum. SpaceX contended that EchoStar’s market access authorizations for its foreign-licensed satellites have legally terminated, citing both the automatic termination provision for non-use in Section 25.161(c) and the expiration of the 15-year license term under Section 25.121(a)(1). SpaceX pointed to EchoStar’s financial reports valuing its two GSO satellites at zero and noting they have exceeded their operational lifetimes, as well as CEO statements indicating the company is years away from providing MSS service. SpaceX urged the Commission to reject what it called EchoStar's "absurd" claim to a perpetual right to the spectrum and instead process pending applications from new satellite operators to facilitate next-generation D2D services.⁶

Iridium Communications supported the inquiry, arguing that if the record shows the 2 GHz band is underutilized, the FCC should open it to new MSS applicants, noting its system faces capacity constraints.⁷ Satelio IoT Services USA, Inc. (Sateliot) also urged access for new entrants to facilitate satellite IoT services using the 3GPP NB-IoT Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) standard.⁸ Skylo Technologies, a D2D NTN provider, highlighted the importance of spectrum certainty in the 2 GHz band for the evolving D2D market, which it uses for emergency SOS and texting services.⁹ Skylo noted its 3GPP-based service operates on GEO satellites and has certified chipsets for the band, arguing that maintaining the MSS allocation aligns with international efforts to expand MSS use in adjacent S-band spectrum. Omnispace supported opening the band for D2D services and urged the FCC to rescind a 2013 waiver that reversed the 2000-2020 MHz band to a downlink direction for EchoStar's terrestrial use, arguing the reversal hinders harmonized D2D deployment.¹⁰

EchoStar and Supporters Defend Exclusivity, Warn of Competitive Harm

EchoStar filed extensive comments arguing it has met or exceeded all buildout commitments and is actively deploying next-generation MSS, asserting that allowing new entrants would be unlawful, discriminatory, and technically infeasible.¹¹ The company stated it has met all 5G buildout obligations, including accelerated milestones confirmed by the Bureau in 2023. It has deployed over 24,000 5G sites covering over 80% of the U.S. population. EchoStar argued that reconsidering its previously granted deadline extensions, for which it already provided the quid pro quo of accelerated deployment, would be "unlawfully retroactive." The company contended it meets its MSS obligations under the applicable "continued operation" standard for its GSO satellites and is pioneering NTN D2D services based on 3GPP standards it helped create, using its in-orbit Lyra NGSO satellite for testing and planning a new LEO constellation.

EchoStar's central technical argument was that sharing the 2 GHz band is infeasible. It asserted that for over a decade, the Commission has found that co-frequency sharing between separate MSS operators and terrestrial mobile service is not possible without causing "widespread harmful interference," and that a single, integrated operator is required for interference management. EchoStar claimed forcing a new entrant would "obliterate" its terrestrial 5G network and MSS operations, constituting an "effective revocation" of its licenses in violation of Section 312 of the Communications Act. The company argued that the Commission’s Supplemental Coverage From Space (SCS) framework, cited by opponents, affirms the need for integrated control, as SCS rules require a commercial lease agreement between a terrestrial licensee and a satellite partner. EchoStar characterized the inquiry as an attempt to "upend the Commission’s licensing regime" based on "misleading" and "repetitive" filings from SpaceX. EchoStar submitted a supplemental declaration from CEO Hamid Akhavan attesting to the company’s investment, its NTN development plans, and the technical infeasibility of sharing the band to bolster its position.¹² This technical position was supported by Dr. Richard J. Barnett, who affirmed the findings of a 2012 report he co-authored, concluding that co-frequency, co-coverage sharing between terrestrial and MSS systems is only feasible when controlled by a single operator. Barnett argued that technological advancements have not altered this conclusion, primarily because the omni-directional antennas used by mobile terminals in the 2 GHz band create unmanageable interference paths not present in higher frequency bands that use directional antennas.¹³

Support for EchoStar came from trade groups, public interest advocates, business partners, and other licensees. The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and INCOMPAS argued that revoking EchoStar’s licenses would harm competition by removing the nation's fourth carrier and create regulatory uncertainty.¹⁴ Public Knowledge and the Open Technology Institute at New America echoed these concerns, asserting that jeopardizing EchoStar’s multi-billion-dollar investment in a fourth nationwide O-RAN network would be contrary to the public interest.¹⁵ PK and OTI contended that the record does not demonstrate the feasibility of sharing without harmful interference and that the PN process was insufficient for such a significant policy reversal, which they argued would require a full notice and comment rulemaking. The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) added that such action would broadly chill network investment and could set a harmful precedent for other bands.¹⁶ In reply comments, the Free State Foundation (FSF) urged the FCC to deny reconsideration of EchoStar's deadline extensions, arguing it would protect the company's "investment-backed expectations" and maintain regulatory certainty. FSF asserted that allowing EchoStar's O-RAN deployment to continue serves the public interest by promoting supply chain diversity, enhancing national security with alternatives to untrusted equipment, and preserving consumer choice from a fourth facilities-based carrier, while warning that rescinding the extension would lead to harmful litigation and administrative delays.¹⁷

Terrestar Solutions, a Canadian MSS provider that jointly operates the Terrestar-1 satellite with EchoStar, argued that unified management of the band is essential for effective MSS/ATC deployment and cross-border coordination.¹⁸ A coalition of eleven Open RAN technology partners, including Mavenir, Dell, and Samsung, and the Open RAN Policy Coalition, filed letters highlighting EchoStar's central role in advancing the U.S. Open RAN ecosystem, arguing that harming its deployment would undermine U.S. leadership in next-generation infrastructure.¹⁹ Wind River Systems, another O-RAN vendor working with EchoStar, contended that the company's multi-vendor strategy is vital for competition and U.S. national security, providing alternatives to equipment from state-sponsored entities, and that any adverse action would undermine investment in O-RAN innovation.²⁰ VIAVI Solutions, also an O-RAN vendor for EchoStar, echoed these points, arguing any action imperiling EchoStar's network would adversely impact investment in O-RAN, a technology it described as critical for competition and U.S. national security.²¹ Infovista Corporation, also an EchoStar O-RAN partner, warned that halting the deployment would undermine investment in the O-RAN ecosystem and harm U.S. national security interests by weakening alternatives to untrusted equipment.²² Keysight Technologies and a group of 36 general contractors involved in the network buildout also warned of negative economic consequences and disruption to the O-RAN supply chain.²³ Harmoni Towers, a tower company, similarly expressed concern, highlighting EchoStar's deployment to over 24,000 sites and noting that the work supports tower jobs critical to its business.²⁴ The Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA), in reply comments, also urged the Commission to consider the potential negative impacts on continued wireless infrastructure deployment if actions taken in the proceeding were to hinder EchoStar's efforts.²⁵

Reply Filers Challenge EchoStar Claims, Urge Rulemaking

In reply comments, Kepler Communications argued that EchoStar is not providing meaningful MSS in the band and that its claims of technical infeasibility for sharing are unsubstantiated.²⁶ Kepler contended that EchoStar’s focus on its terrestrial AWS-4 buildout does not fulfill its MSS obligations and that the company’s partner, Terrestar, acknowledged that its future NGSO system is designed for capacity-sharing, undermining the argument that coordination with other MSS systems is unworkable. The company pointed to international examples, such as Australia and the EU, where regulators are enabling shared use of the 2 GHz band through segmentation and other models. Kepler urged the Commission to initiate a rulemaking to establish sharing criteria, viewing a petition from SpaceX as a "valuable starting point" for defining minimum service capabilities.

Omnispace argued in reply comments that the record demonstrates a "D2D Spectrum Deficit" that justifies authorizing additional MSS operators.²⁷ It reiterated its call to sunset the 2013 Bureau-level waiver that allows EchoStar's terrestrial AWS-4 to use the 2000-2020 MHz band for downlink, arguing this is essential to achieve global harmonization for MSS uplinks and prevent "operational and service paralysis." Omnispace asserted that the FCC has clear authority to revisit and revoke the waiver. Citing the technical needs of D2D user terminals, Omnispace also contended that new 2 GHz MSS authorizations must include exclusive-use rights, making co-frequency sharing between different operators impractical.

In its reply, SpaceX systematically attacked EchoStar’s legal and technical claims. They reasserted that EchoStar’s market access automatically terminated under Section 25.161(c) for non-use and also expired under the 15-year term limit in Section 25.121(a)(1), rejecting EchoStar’s theory of perpetual rights as a foreign licensee as illegal under the Communications Act.²⁸ SpaceX also argued that the Wireless Bureau lacked the delegated authority to grant EchoStar's most recent build-out extension, particularly since the failure to meet deadlines was based on a "business decision," which Commission precedent does not excuse. Citing analysis from Spectrum Financial Partners, SpaceX claimed EchoStar inflated its terrestrial coverage showings by conflating its 600 MHz and 2 GHz coverage areas and using a link budget based on sub-4G performance rather than the promised 5G service. SpaceX dismissed EchoStar's O-RAN and SCS arguments as irrelevant to its failure to meet license obligations.

EchoStar Replies, Defending Buildout and Exclusivity

In its reply, EchoStar argued the record overwhelmingly supports its position and characterized opposing filings from SpaceX and VTel as attempts to relitigate previously decided matters with recycled, false allegations.²⁹ EchoStar asserted that considering its opponents' technical analyses would violate its due process rights and unlawfully modify its licenses. It pointed to broad support from over 60 entities, including its vendors, contractors, trade groups, and former FCC Commissioners Michael O'Rielly and Harold Furchtgott-Roth.

EchoStar directly rebutted the technical analysis from Spectrum Financial Partners (SFP), arguing the criticism of its network configuration and link budgets was irrelevant because the Bureau had repeatedly reviewed and approved its plans. The company stated its use of 600 MHz spectrum for the uplink was necessary, disclosed, and approved, and that SFP's measurements were taken in rural areas where EchoStar had not yet deployed. It countered SFP's claims by highlighting its third-party verified drive tests, which confirmed it exceeded its 35 Mbps download speed metric. On the core issue of sharing, EchoStar submitted a new technical study by Marc Dupuis, which concluded that separate AWS-4 and MSS systems cannot co-exist in the band without causing harmful interference.

Legally, EchoStar dismissed SpaceX’s claims that its MSS authorizations have expired, arguing market access grants for its operational, fee-paying foreign satellites do not expire. The company also contended that the Bureau had clear delegated authority to grant its buildout extensions due to "unanticipated circumstances" like the COVID-19 pandemic, and that reversing them after it had invested to meet the accelerated conditions would be unlawful. EchoStar also argued that without a quorum of three Commissioners, the Bureau likely lacks authority to issue an adverse order of "binding force" (obviously, this claim didn’t age well). The company urged the Commission to deny VTel’s petition for reconsideration, confirm its buildout compliance, and reaffirm its exclusive rights in the 2 GHz band.

EchoStar pressed its case in a meeting with Chairman Carr’s office, providing an update on its 5G O-RAN network, which it said covers over 80% of the U.S. population from over 24,000 sites. The company stressed the need for regulatory certainty and argued that reconsidering its deadline extensions or changing the band's sharing rules would be “unlawfully retroactive, arbitrary, and capricious.” EchoStar stated the “dark cloud of uncertainty” from the proceedings is hindering its decision-making, particularly with its pending debt service obligations.³⁰

Comments on Process and Other Conditions

The Mobile Satellite Services Association (MSSA) filed comments focused on process, urging that if the Commission opens the band, it should establish a formal filing window to ensure fair consideration of competing applications.³¹ In reply comments, Orbits IQ argued against a focus on administrative processes like filing windows, instead advocating for a technological approach to sharing that would be available to all potential MSS providers, not just large incumbents, to encourage innovation.³² One Ministries, Inc. argued that any regulatory relief for EchoStar should be conditioned on its vMVPD service, Sling TV, agreeing to carry independent and religious full-power television stations.³³

Skyway Towers, LLC, and Industrial Tower West, LLC, also submitted comments, with Skyway stating, “EchoStar has deployed its 5G Open RAN cloud-native network at more than 24,000 cell sites, covering more than 268 million Americans.”³⁴

Detailed summaries of filings can be found at Docket-Rocket.io, where you can track proceedings, receive email updates, and query the ECFS database using Docket Rocket’s powerful Boolean search capabilities. Create an account for free; no credit card is required. Follow filers or dockets to receive email alerts (real-time or end of day). Sign up Today!

The FCC’s Developer APIs made this article possible, but the FCC has not endorsed or certified this work in any way.

1. [Public Notice, Space Bureau, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-405A1.pdf]

2. [Motion For Extension Of Time, INCOMPAS, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10516805924644/1]

3. [Motion For Extension Of Time, Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10520148808541/1]

4. [Letter, Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10522233747806/1]

5. [Order, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-440A1.pdf]

6. [Comment, Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1052841943789/1]

7. [Comment, Iridium Communications Inc., Kara Azocar, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105270239503552/1]

8. [Comment, Satelio IoT Services USA, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10527133142450/1]

9. [Comment, Skylo Technologies, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1052863946173/1].

10. [Comment, Omnispace, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1052750368230/1]

11. [Comment, EchoStar Corporation, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105280597605377/1]

12. [Comment, EchoStar Corporation, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1052957860629]

13. [Letter, Dr. Richard J. Barnett, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10607119713433/1]

14. [Comment, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10522202682691/1], [Comment, INCOMPAS, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105270655711648/1]

15. [Comment, Public Knowledge, Open Technology Institute at New America, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105280939408847/1]

16. [Comment, Competitive Carriers Association, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10527858827784/1]

17. [Reply To Comments, The Free State Foundation, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060658425016/1]

18. [Comment, Terrestar Solutions Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1052746273294/1]

19. [Letter, Mavenir Systems, Inc., et al., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10528007629222/1], [Comment, Open RAN Policy Coalition, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105280203016067/1]

20. [Letter, Wind River Systems, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/106031241004291/1]

21. [Letter, VIAVI Solutions, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060435790622/1]

22. [Letter, Infovista Corporation, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10604192458648/1]

23. [Letter, Keysight Technologies, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10528044185067/1], [Letter, A&A Infrastructure Corp., et al., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10527286802993/1]

24. [Comment, Harmoni Towers, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10528147552222/1]

25. [Reply To Comments, Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060672085821/1]

26. [Reply To Comments, Kepler Communications Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10606084263530/1]

27. [Reply To Comments, Omnispace, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060606869291/1]

28. [Reply To Comments, Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060737291560/1]

29. [Reply To Comments, EchoStar Corporation, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10607392405127/1]

30. [Notice Of Exparte, EchoStar Corporation, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1061302930336/1]

31. [Letter, Mobile Satellite Services Association, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10527971213199/1]

32. [Reply To Comments, Orbits IQ, Anne Cortez, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060689213018/1]

33. [Comment, One Ministries, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10514786606381/1]

34. [Comment, Skyway Towers, LLC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105270368217256/1], [Letter, Industrial Tower West, LLC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105272936424652/1]