Decision on a Policy, Licensing and Technical Framework for Supplemental Mobile Coverage by Satellite

3. The Minister, under the Department of Industry Act, the Radiocommunication Act and the Radiocommunication Regulations, with due regard to the objectives of the Telecommunications Act, is responsible for spectrum management in Canada. This includes developing national policies for spectrum utilization and ensuring effective management of the radio frequency spectrum resource. Additionally, under the Radiocommunication Act, the Minister has authority to establish and amend conditions of licence.

4. Wireless services play a vital role in lives of Canadians, whether they are used to access multi-media applications, conduct business while on the move, connect with family and friends, manage finances, or access emergency services. Canadians expect these services to be of high quality, available in every region of the country, and affordable. ISED is committed to the objective that all Canadians have access to the latest wireless telecommunications services at affordable prices where they live, work, and travel. A robust wireless telecommunications industry drives the adoption and use of digital technologies and enhances the productivity of the Canadian economy.

5. In developing this Decision, ISED was guided by the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada (SPFC), which states that the spectrum program's objective is to maximize the economic and social benefits that Canadians derive from the use of radio frequency spectrum. In May 2019, the Government of Canada released Canada's Digital Charter: Building a foundation of trust (Digital Charter). The Digital Charter identifies universal access as the first of ten principles that will lay the foundation for a made-in-Canada digital approach, and guide policy thinking and actions towards establishing an innovative, people-centered and inclusive digital and data economy built on trust.

6. In 2019, High-Speed Access for All: Canada's Connectivity Strategy (Connectivity Strategy) was launched, which aims to make universal broadband available to all Canadians; and to improve mobile wireless access where Canadians live and work, as well as along underserved roads and highways. Furthermore, the Connectivity Strategy noted that spectrum regulatory measures are important tools for ensuring improved mobile wireless connectivity across the country. This Decision is the latest in a suite of initiatives the government has underway to help expand access to mobile wireless connectivity in unserved and underserved areas, including rural, remote, and Indigenous communities.

7. Through this Decision, the Minister is also furthering Canada's Telecommunications Reliability Agenda (TRA), released in September 2022. The TRA provides a framework to guide public and private sector efforts to improve the reliability and availability of telecommunications services.

8. SMCS holds promise for helping to close mobile wireless coverage gaps, including along roads and highways. While initial service offerings are expected to be limited to text and voice, ongoing investment and deployment of this emerging technology is expected to increase geographic coverage and level of service across Canada over time.

9. Within this context, ISED's policy objectives for this Decision are to:

• expand mobile services particularly in unserved and underserved areas, including rural, remote, and Indigenous communities
• promote competition in the provision of wireless services so that consumers and businesses benefit from greater choice and competitive prices
• support increased reliability and resiliency of telecommunications services
• foster investment and the evolution of wireless networks by enabling the development of innovative and emerging applications

10. Terrestrial mobile services provide connectivity for Canadians mainly in densely populated and sub-urban areas. In sparsely populated areas, including some portions of major highways, mountains and Canadian waters, coverage is limited by the cost and feasibility of building out additional terrestrial infrastructure.

11. Satellite services have long been used to provide service in remote, underserved and unserved areas. Fixed-satellite services (FSS) provide services such as broadcasting, backhaul and broadband to fixed earth stations or earth stations in motion. Mobile satellite services (MSS) have traditionally been used to support satellite telephony, emergency location and data services (e.g. Internet-of-Things for fleet management) directly to MSS subscriber equipment. These services use spectrum specifically allocated for satellite services.

12. As noted in ISED's Spectrum Outlook 2023 to 2027 (2023 Outlook), there have been several recent developments in the integration of satellite and terrestrial services for "Direct-to- Device" (D2D) connectivity, such as incorporating MSS bands into certain smartphones for emergency communications. In addition, partnerships are emerging between satellite and terrestrial mobile service providers to leverage satellites to extend coverage in bands that are used to provide mobile services, in areas where terrestrial networks are unavailable. In June 2024, ISED published the Consultation proposing a new regulatory framework to support the expansion of mobile coverage via satellite.

13. ISED has made spectrum available for commercial mobile services across several different frequency bands. These bands are generally made available under a flexible use licensing model, that allows licensees to use the spectrum for either mobile or fixed services in accordance with their needs. For the purposes of this document, "flexible use" refers to the spectrum and licences that are used by mobile service providers to provide commercial mobile services. D2D operations using flexible use spectrum, referred to herein as SMCS, is the focus of this Decision. Although it is expected that early service under SMCS may be limited, both in terms of coverage and service capability as commercial satellite constellations roll out, any expansion of mobile coverage to underserved and unserved areas of the country could provide significant benefit to Canadians.

14. Internationally, as noted in the Consultation, studies are currently ongoing in preparation for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference 2027 (WRC-27) under agenda item 1.13 for a possible new MSS allocations in support of satellite direct-to-device connectivity in frequency bands between 694/698 MHz and 2.7 GHz. Several administrations around the world are also considering the regulatory implications or possible measures to facilitate SMCS.

15. Through this Decision, ISED is establishing a framework that will allow Canadians to benefit from SMCS as services are introduced into the market.

16. This section details decisions for the policy framework for SMCS.

5.1 General considerations for identifying bands for SMCS

17. In the Consultation, ISED invited comments on five general considerations to be used for identifying frequency bands for which the SMCS framework would apply: regional and/or international harmonization, level of stakeholder interest, benefit to Canadians, potential for interference concerns, and technological trends and potential limitations.

18. ISED also sought comments on whether it should consider the service area size, and/or the presence of mobile service providers holding the same frequency block, as part of the general considerations for identifying frequency bands for which the proposed SMCS framework. Additionally, ISED requested input on the potential for SMCS satellites to have smaller beam sizes, such that they could serve smaller service areas and potentially reduce protection areas around existing mobile networks.

19. Additionally, ISED sought comments on whether any other considerations should be taken into account when identifying frequency bands for inclusion within the SMCS framework.

Summary of comments

20. Stakeholders broadly supported the use of the proposed general considerations for identifying frequency bands to initially be included in the SMCS framework. Bell, Eastlink, IAU, Kuiper, OSI, Québecor, Rogers and Sateliot highlighted the importance of minimizing potential interference concerns.

21. Kuiper, Lynk and TELUS added that ISED should take a technology-neutral approach by not excluding any commercial mobile bands from the SMCS framework, including those using time-division duplexing (TDD) technology, unless there is a specific technical reason that cannot be addressed through technical standards. TELUS added that including all commercial mobile bands would serve to not limit future SMCS development and would alleviate the need for further consultation to enable SMCS in other flexible use bands. Bell, Cogeco and Rogers agreed that the addition of other bands should not require full public consultation.

22. SSi argued that ISED should establish service in the North as a policy priority within the SMCS framework by encouraging larger network operators to subordinate their spectrum to operators willing to use SMCS to target underserved and unserved areas in the North on a smaller scale. In its reply comments, FMCC supported SSi's proposal and added that remote and Indigenous regions of Canada should be considered a priority for SMCS.

23. Service area and beam size: AST, Bell, Lynk, Québecor and TELUS opposed the inclusion of service area size as part of the general considerations. Lynk and Québecor noted that implementing minimum geographic coverage requirements for SMCS licencing could disadvantage regional and smaller carriers and could potentially be detrimental to competition. Bell, SaskTel and TELUS noted that the SMCS policy should support the service areas covered by the commercial mobile operators' licences. SpaceX recommended that the SMCS framework allow for areas smaller than Tier 1, and other stakeholders supported allowing SMCS licensing in smaller tiers (Tier 3: Cogeco, Terrestar; Tier 4: Rogers; Tier 5: AST and SaskTel). Build Nova Scotia was of the view that service areas must be sized large enough to remain profitable for companies while still being accessible to smaller communities. SSi expressed concern that allowing national operators to aggregate service areas and/or frequencies to provide SMCS would result in unfair market advantages that would make it more difficult for smaller service providers to compete.

24. Rogers, Sateliot and TELUS expressed views that because the operation of commercial mobile services in adjacent bands is expected, technical regulations are required to minimize potential interference.

25. AST, Québecor, RABC, Rogers and TELUS noted that smaller beam sizes could reduce the size of protection areas, depending on the satellite's maximum effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP). However, protection of an adjacent service area and the required geographic separation distance would be dictated by the transmit power into the satellite antenna and the resulting power flux density (PFD). Rogers added that phased array technologies should be able to reduce the potential interference in adjacent areas, but that a decrease in beam size may be accompanied by an increase in peak power. This could affect coexistence with other satellites so further study is required to understand the potential trade-offs.

Discussion

26. Given the broad support from stakeholders, ISED maintains that the proposed set of considerations generally aligns with the policy objectives outlined in section 3, while providing the necessary regulatory flexibility to add other bands to the SMCS framework in the future. Furthermore, ISED remains of the view that the general considerations ensure that the SMCS framework is applied to bands that are the most ready to be used to provide SMCS to Canadians.

27. Stakeholders were generally aligned that ISED should not place a lower limit on the size of the service area for SMCS, with some stakeholders indicating that SMCS could be authorized for flexible use licensees holding licences as small as Tier 4 or Tier 5. ISED recognizes stakeholder concerns regarding the potential for interference from SMCS to existing licensees and the desire to ensure that SMCS does not impede current and future deployment of terrestrial networks by mobile operators holding existing spectrum licences. All flexible use bands initially proposed for SMCS are licensed at the Tier 4 or larger level.

28. ISED views Tier 4 service areas as sufficiently large for interference with adjacent service areas to be manageable by establishing PFD limits at licence area boundaries. In addition, while SMCS beam sizes may range from 50-150 km² today, the rapid evolution of the technology may permit further reductions in beam sizes that would enable better management of co-channel interference for smaller areas, such as Tier 5. As such, ISED does not consider it necessary to establish a minimum service area size requirement.

Decisions

5.2 Initial frequency bands for SMCS

29. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to initially apply the SMCS framework to the following frequency bands:

• 600 MHz (617-652 MHz/663-698 MHz)
• 700 MHz (698-756 MHz and 777-787 MHz)
• 800 MHz cellular (824-849 MHz/869-894 MHz)
• Personal Communications Services (PCS) (1850-1915 MHz/1930-1995 MHz)
• Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)-1 (1710-1755 MHz/2110-2155 MHz)
• AWS-3 (1755-1780 MHz/2155-2180 MHz)

30. ISED also sought comments on whether the SMCS framework should be applied to any other flexible use frequency bands.

Summary of comments

31. Stakeholders expressed mixed views regarding the proposed frequency bands. AST, Bell, Kuiper, RABC, Rogers, SaskTel, Sateliot, SpaceX and TELUS were in agreement with the proposed bands. Morning Breeze HealthCare stated that any SMCS framework should, at a minimum, include the 800 MHz cellular band.

32. Some respondents opposed the inclusion of specific frequency bands. Québecor opposed the inclusion of the 800 MHz cellular and PCS bands, noting that these bands are held almost exclusively by national service providers and that this would result in an unfair competitive advantage. Bell and Rogers disagreed, stating that early testing for SMCS has primarily taken place in these two frequency bands and that excluding them would be detrimental to the development of SMCS in Canada. The RCMP raised concerns about possible co-channel and adjacent band interference impacts that SMCS operations in the 800 MHz cellular frequency band may have on public safety spectrum. Bell, Rogers and TELUS recommended that bands designated for shared use, such as bands licensed via the non-competitive local licensing (NCLL) framework, should not be authorized for SMCS. TELUS argued that SMCS is fundamentally incongruent with the shared and localized nature of NCLL.

33. MSSA and Omnispace recommended that ISED approach the introduction of SMCS with caution, emphasizing that potential challenges, such as the impact on MSS operations, have yet to be fully studied or addressed. Omnispace opposed the inclusion of the PCS band, arguing that its proposed use for SMCS downlink and its existing use for MSS uplink would create unavoidable interference with the ITU's globally harmonized MSS allocation in the 1980-2010 MHz frequency range, which extends to 2025 MHz in ITU Region 2. MSSA cited similar reasons as Omnispace in recommending a cautious approach to authorizing SMCS operations in the PCS band. Omnispace also noted that the AWS-3 band overlaps with the global MSS allocation but expressed less concern about this band, as the same directionality for both SMCS and MSS (downlink) would result in avoidable interference concerns. While these comments were supported by Terrestar, Bell did not agree, noting that Canada does not have a primary MSS allocation across the frequency range 1980-2010 MHz and that the PCS band is expected to play a key role in the development of SMCS in Canada.

34. CSA raised concerns about the use of the AWS-3 and AWS-1 bands for SMCS, noting that these frequency bands are adjacent to those used for their space operation services, space research services and Earth-exploration-satellite services, which are extremely sensitive to interference. They further noted that ISED should ensure the protection of these incumbent systems and their future use. NRC raised similar concerns about SMCS operating in frequency bands adjacent to radio astronomy instruments and added that adherence to ITU Recommendations for the protection of radio astronomy will be crucial in preserving these operations.

35. Rogers dismissed the concerns presented in opposition to ISED's initial list of proposed frequency bands, adding that legacy MSS spectrum and services would be protected through technical measures to maximize coexistence and that public safety spectrum already coexists with operations in the Cellular band. They noted that SMCS coexistence could be managed through engineering practices. Additionally, Rogers disagreed with concerns from the OSI and NRC, stating that it is already operating on proposed SMCS frequencies close to the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory (DRAO) site and supporting ongoing work to protect radio astronomy services.

36. Several stakeholders suggested additional commercial mobile bands to which the SMCS framework should be initially applied. AST, Bell and TELUS suggested including the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands, arguing that adjacent band limits could be adopted to protect satellite radio services in the interstitial (2320-2345 MHz) band and aeronautical mobile telemetry services in the 2360-2400 MHz band. AST, Bell, Lynk, RABC, Rogers, SaskTel, SSi and TELUS recommended that a secondary MSS allocation for SMCS should be added to the 700 MHz public safety spectrum (D-block and public safety broadband block). They noted that including this spectrum from the outset would meet all of the proposed general considerations and provide immediate coverage benefits for law enforcement organizations and emergency responders in many rural and remote areas that currently fall outside of public and private terrestrial network coverage.

37. AST, Bell, Cogeco, Kuiper, RABC, Rogers, Sateliot, SpaceX and TELUS recommended including all commercial mobile bands in the SMCS framework unless there is a specific technical reason for excluding a band that cannot be mitigated through technical means and standard operating regulations. Bell and Rogers added that ISED should consider additional bands through a technical consultation with the RABC rather than an ISED-led consultation. Kuiper suggested that waiting to open additional frequency bands through further consultations would delay SMCS innovation. Cogeco expressed concerns that spectrum in the proposed bands may not be easily accessible to new entrants, potentially creating an unfair competitive advantage for national carriers. Both Cogeco and Kuiper suggested prioritizing the proposed bands while allowing SMCS in other bands on a case-by-case basis.

38. Kuiper, Rogers and TELUS proposed including TDD frequency bands for SMCS. Rogers suggested that TDD bands could be carrier aggregated to deliver enhanced mobile services, and that operators could collaborate with vendors to achieve optimal configurations for TDD and FDD bands. TELUS noted that the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz TDD frequency bands could be future candidates for SMCS.

Discussion

39. Stakeholders generally supported the frequency bands initially proposed by ISED for the SMCS framework. ISED recognizes that some stakeholders expressed concerns about potential interference caused by SMCS. However, ISED remains of the view that potential interference could be mitigated through the adoption of appropriate coexistence measures and technical requirements. Furthermore, as SMCS would operate on a secondary allocation and on a no-interference, no-protection basis, SMCS providers must ensure the protection of existing services as discussed in section 5.4.

40. ISED acknowledges opposition to the inclusion of the 800 MHz cellular and PCS bands due to concerns about these bands being primarily held by large national service providers, potentially providing them with an unfair competitive advantage. In addition, there were also concerns about potential interference in these bands. ISED acknowledges that early developmental testing of SMCS technologies has taken place in the 800 MHz cellular and PCS bands and is of the view that removing these bands from the SMCS framework could unnecessarily delay the deployment of SMCS. Applying the SMCS framework to both of these bands would likely lead to greater benefit for Canadians, as both bands have been in use for over a decade and are likely to be available in the largest number of handsets. Additionally, lower/mid-band frequencies like 800 MHz cellular and PCS can cover larger geographic areas, which make them ideal for providing SMCS in rural, remote and Northern areas where building out terrestrial networks is more difficult. ISED believes that interference to adjacent services can be managed through technical rules. As such, the SMCS framework will be applied to both the 800 MHz cellular and PCS bands.

41. ISED acknowledges stakeholder concerns regarding the use of the AWS-1 and AWS-3 bands for SMCS. However, as mentioned above, ISED considers the risk of interference to adjacent services can be managed with appropriate coexistence measures such as those discussed in section 7. Therefore, the SMCS framework will be applied to the AWS-1 and AWS-3 bands.

42. Many stakeholders encouraged ISED to adopt a more flexible, technology-neutral approach by applying the SMCS framework to all spectrum bands used to provide commercial mobile services. ISED is of the view that the other bands suggested by stakeholders currently face policy, technical or operational issues. These issues would benefit from further development and consultation before being subject to the SMCS framework.

43. The additional frequency bands requested by stakeholders do not currently meet the general considerations discussed in section 5.1 and face technically complex interference scenarios which could delay the rapid rollout of SMCS. For example, in the WCS band, coexistence with adjacent band satellite radio systems would require further technical evaluation to examine potential impact of SMCS in the band.

44. As indicated in the 2023 Outlook, the Broadband Radio Service band is under consideration for possible changes to its band plan, thus, it would not appropriate to consider SMCS at this time. Similarly, transition plans in the 3500 MHz and 3800 MHz bands, as well as the operation of radio altimeters in adjacent bands, present potentially complex interference scenarios that prevent the immediate deployment of SMCS. Given that these bands are also newly licensed for flexible use, ISED is of the view that service providers could benefit from more time to establish operations in these bands.

45. The portion of the 700 MHz band that is currently designated for public safety use does not yet have an established licensing framework. The 3900 MHz band is designated for shared use under the NCLL framework. ISED agrees that the localized nature of the NCLL framework would introduce challenges that would be incompatible with the SMCS framework. As such, ISED does not intend to apply the SMCS framework to the 3900 MHz band.

46. While stakeholders expressed concerns about limiting SMCS to specific bands due to the potential burden and delays of future consultation, ISED notes that such consultations would be shorter and more targeted. These consultations would seek feedback on applying the SMCS framework to a specific band or bands, allowing stakeholders to provide input on updated technological environments and addressing any potential issues or challenges that may not be apparent at this time. ISED believes this approach offers a valuable opportunity for stakeholders to contribute their perspectives in a timely and effective manner.

47. Based on the discussion above, ISED is of the view that the 600 MHz, 700 MHz (except the portion of the band designated for public safety broadband use), 800 MHz, PCS, AWS-1 and AWS-3 bands meet the general considerations in section 5.1. As such, ISED will apply the SMCS framework to these initial commercial mobile bands.

Decisions

5.3 Access spectrum licences

48. In the Consultation, ISED noted that the 800 MHz cellular and PCS bands have been made available for access spectrum licensing (ASL), and that SMCS providers would be required to ensure that access spectrum licences issued in accordance with the Decision on New Access Licensing Framework, Changes to Subordinate Licensing and White Space to Support Rural and Remote Deployment (Access Licensing Framework) would be protected.

Summary of comments

49. Bell, Rogers and TELUS recommended that ISED ensure that any spectrum that is ultimately made available for ASL is not currently deployed by primary licensees, nor soon to be deployed via satellites. Rogers further suggested that the deployment of SMCS should be prioritized over the issuance of access spectrum licences, but Québecor disagreed and argued that the Access Licensing Framework needs to be given sufficient time to have an impact on the availability of terrestrial services in those areas.

50. Bell further emphasized the need to consider SMCS as a factor when identifying areas under the Access Licensing Framework, expressing concerns about potentially undermining SMCS coverage due to overlapping protection area around each awarded access licence. Bell viewed that SMCS could, at the very least, be recognized as deployed spectrum when access licences are being issued, thereby preventing unnecessary service gaps. Rogers explicitly stated that SMCS should be protected from the ASL regime. Similarly, TELUS flagged concerns about compatibility and coexistence, proposing that if SMCS deployment is counted toward mobile deployment, the Access Licensing Framework should include a provision ensuring that 800 MHz cellular and PCS licences used for SMCS in a given service area would not be eligible for ASL on a first-come, first-served basis.

51. Some commentors suggested that access licensees should not be allowed to obtain an SMCS licence. As indicated in the Access Licensing Framework, access spectrum licences will be flexible use licences issued for Tier 5 service areas, and some access licensees may use their licences to provide commercial mobile services.

Discussion

52. ISED reiterates that the purpose of SMCS is to use satellites to supplement terrestrial mobile services in unserved and underserved areas, not to displace or replace the continued deployment of terrestrial networks. However, ISED notes that some SMCS business models may involve dedicating specific spectrum blocks to ensure national coverage. Once SMCS becomes available, Canadians may come to rely on it for day-to-day use. As such, SMCS deployment will be considered, on a case-by-case basis, when determining what areas and frequency blocks are available for ASL. In addition, ISED will align the relationship between SMCS and access spectrum licences with those set out for existing licences in the Access Licensing Framework.

53. As stated in the Access Licensing Framework, ISED will only accept applications for access spectrum licences during an application window. Each application window will be open for a predetermined amount of time, during which ISED may issue access spectrum licences and access licensees may begin to deploy services. Deployment of SMCS must not cause interference to, and will not be protected from, an access licensee's operations in the Tier 5 service area and frequency block that has been granted an access spectrum licence. As a result, deploying SMCS during an ASL application window within the same frequency block and Tier 5 service area would be at the risk of the satellite operator and mobile service provider, until such a time as any announced application window closes and access licences are no longer available. Prior to opening a new window or upon the close of the ASL application window, ISED may consider removing the areas and frequency blocks or portions of frequency blocks from the available access spectrum licences in future application windows as a result of a pending SMCS application or deployment in that area and frequency block or portion of frequency block. In the case where an access spectrum licence is granted, the SMCS licensees must not cause interference to, and are not protected from, the access licensee's operations, as long as the access spectrum licence is valid.

54. ISED believes that SMCS authorizations could be beneficial for expanding mobile services in some areas. As such, ISED will evaluate SMCS applications from access spectrum licensees that meet the eligibility requirements of the SMCS framework on a case-by-case basis.

55. In the Access Licensing Framework, ISED indicated that other bands may be made available for ASL at a future date, subject to consultation. In deciding whether to make other bands available for access licensing, ISED may take the level of SMCS deployment and the evolution of SMCS into consideration in determining whether to consult on making a given band available for access spectrum licensing.

Decisions:

5.4 Changes to the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations

56. In the Consultation, ISED noted that SMCS falls within the definition of MSS and that the mobile service should remain a primary allocation in the frequency bands available for the provision of SMCS. ISED therefore proposed to add MSS as a secondary allocation in the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations (CTFA), through a footnote, in the frequency bands where SMCS will be permitted. ISED further proposed that SMCS be permitted only on a no-interference, no-protection basis with respect to all radio services in any bands.

Summary of comments

57. There was general support for adding a secondary MSS allocation to the CTFA in the proposed frequency bands on a no-interference, no-protection basis, through a footnote, for the provision of SMCS. AST, Bell, Kuiper, Québecor, RABC, Rogers, SpaceX, TELUS and Terrestar supported ISED's proposal in general. However, MSSA, Omnispace and Sateliot argued against moving forward with SMCS before technical studies at the ITU are completed.

58. Several stakeholders expressed concerns that the proposed footnote was overly broad regarding the protection of other radiocommunication services and might lead to unfounded claims of interference. AST, RABC, Rogers and TELUS proposed revisions to the footnote so that the no-interference, no-protection condition for SMCS would not apply to future secondary services. This was supported by Bell and Terrestar. Additionally, AST, RABC and TELUS proposed changes to address harmful interference to other existing primary and secondary radiocommunication services, such as requiring further attenuation of SMCS emission if harmful interference occurs. Rogers proposed removing the existing footnote No. 5.317 from the CTFA, which allocates the 806-890 MHz frequency band to MSS on a primary basis, suggesting it could be confusing once the secondary MSS allocation for SMCS is introduced. Bell agreed with Rogers in its reply comments.

Discussion

59. ISED notes the general support for the secondary MSS allocation through a new footnote and for this provision's limitation to operations on a no-interference, no-protection basis in the proposed frequency bands. ISED acknowledges some confusion regarding the reference to interference in the proposed footnote text and is therefore revising the footnote's language to refer to "harmful interference". Regarding concerns about SMCS needing to protect other services, ISED has considered the supplemental nature of SMCS, its early stage of development, the current absence of ITU recognition and provisions, and its potential to change the interference landscape; guided by these considerations, ISED will maintain its proposal to permit the use of SMCS under a secondary allocation, and on a no-interference, no-protection basis with respect to other radiocommunication services at this time. As SMCS evolves, and an international framework is potentially developed, ISED may revisit the regulatory status of SMCS in Canada, accordingly.

60. Regarding interference mitigation measures, ISED is of the view that requiring additional attenuation of transmit power is not the only method to enhance coexistence between SMCS systems and other licensed primary or secondary service systems. Coexistence between SMCS systems and other services is discussed further in section 7.

61. ISED will introduce MSS as a secondary allocation via the following footnote:

62. Regarding Rogers' proposal to remove footnote No. 5.317 from the CTFA, ISED notes that this issue was initially raised during its CTFA consultation following WRC-19. At that time, the RABC and Rogers proposed retaining the footnote, with Rogers further proposing establishing priority to the MS over the MSS in the bands covered by the footnote. ISED agrees with Rogers' comments that, with the introduction of SMCS, this footnote could lead to confusion. Since there was no opposition to deleting this footnote in this consultation, it will be removed from the CTFA as follows:

SUP 5.317;

63. Since there are currently no international provisions for SMCS, the frequencies used by satellite constellations planned for SMCS are being filed under No. 4.4 of the ITU Radio Regulations (RR). This approach is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, pending decisions at WRC-27. In the meantime, regardless of the provisions established within the Canadian SMCS framework, including the removal of the above footnote, satellites operating as part of an SMCS system must meet international obligations associated with filing under ITU RR No. 4.4. ISED will continue monitoring international developments, including the progress of agenda item 1.13 for WRC-27, and may adjust spectrum policies and the SMCS framework, as appropriate.

Decisions

5.5 Terrestrial network priority and continuity of flexible use services

64. This subsection details decisions related to supporting the continuity of terrestrial services that are licensed in bands where the SMCS Framework is applied.

5.5.1 Road coverage

65. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on the roles of SMCS and terrestrial mobile service in providing greater mobile coverage to Canadians, including along roads and highways. ISED also solicited views on any potential limitations with these technologies.

Summary of comments

66. AST, Bell, Kuiper, Québecor, Rogers and TELUS advocated for SMCS to be a complementary approach to bridging mobile coverage gaps, particularly in rural areas and along remote highways.

67. AST emphasized the potential of its current satellite capabilities to address coverage shortcomings in areas such as highways, railroads, and critical infrastructure networks, where extending terrestrial networks presents substantial challenges. Similarly, Québecor referenced mobile coverage deficits outlined in the CRTC's Communications Market Report, suggesting that SMCS could play a transformative role in addressing urgent connectivity and safety requirements for commuters, truck drivers, and first responders. Kuiper emphasized that SMCS provides a flexible and cost-efficient alternative for reaching hard-to-serve areas, advocating for regulatory framework that supports evolving satellite technologies while complementing terrestrial networks.

68. TELUS acknowledged the potential advantages of SMCS but warned that early implementations may struggle to match the performance of Canada's existing terrestrial networks. Both SaskTel and TELUS expressed concerns with the technical limitations of satellite networks, including lower bandwidth and potential concerns around signal reliability, as compared to terrestrial networks.

69. SaskTel noted that southern Saskatchewan's core roadways are already well-served by terrestrial infrastructure. It argued that satellite solutions should focus on addressing connectivity needs in truly underserved areas, rather than duplicating services in regions already effectively covered by terrestrial networks.

70. Economic considerations were raised by several commentors, particularly regarding the financial challenges of expanding terrestrial infrastructure in Canada's remote regions. Rogers provided detailed cost projections, estimating that constructing a single terrestrial base station in remote areas could cost as much as $5 million. Rogers also highlighted logistical hurdles to operate towers, such as power grid access and difficult road conditions, which often necessitate costly alternative power sources within underserved rural and remote areas.

71. Build Nova Scotia highlighted the critical issue of underserved and unserved roads, noting that certain rural highways and communities lack the user density needed to justify costly investments by mobile operators. Build Nova Scotia stated that federal government support is crucial to cover the remaining areas.

72. The FMCC strongly recommended that ISED adopt a "seamless network future" by integrating terrestrial and satellite mobile services, similar to the FCC's (Federal Communications Commission) approach as outlined in its Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) framework. FMCC emphasized the potential benefits for Indigenous and remote communities lacking terrestrial coverage, particularly for healthcare applications. While acknowledging the supplementary role of SMCS, FMCC stressed the importance of robust terrestrial infrastructure, such as cellular towers for essential services like healthcare. FMCC advocated for affordability and compatibility with existing mobile devices to ensure accessibility for all Canadians.

Discussion

73. As stated in the consultation, ISED views SMCS as a supplement to terrestrial networks and agrees with commentors that SMCS is not intended to replace existing terrestrial services. ISED is of the view that terrestrial services will continue to be integral in addressing coverage gaps, especially along roads and highways.

74. ISED acknowledges that SMCS can help provide service in areas where deploying terrestrial networks may not be economically viable or feasible. In particular, expanded access to emergency communications via SMCS offer significant benefits in areas without existing terrestrial service. While initial SMCS offerings may be limited to texting, ISED expects the quality of services offered to improve as technology develops.

5.5.2 Deployment requirements for flexible use services

75. In the Consultation, ISED sought views on its proposal that SMCS would not contribute towards meeting deployment conditions associated with flexible use licences.

Summary of comments

76. Differing viewpoints were received from stakeholders with some supporting ISED's proposal to not have SMCS contribute to meeting deployment conditions associated with flexible use licences and others opposing it.

77. The Government of Quebec, TELUS, Terrestar and Xona, supported the proposal not to count SMCS towards meeting deployment requirements associated with flexible use licences. TELUS maintained that SMCS is a complementary service designed for unserved areas where terrestrial wireless deployment is not economically viable, and that counting SMCS towards deployment obligations would disincentivize further terrestrial network expansion. In TELUS's view, prioritizing robust terrestrial networks is crucial for ensuring widespread, high-quality coverage, and allowing SMCS to fulfill deployment requirements could undermine these efforts by encouraging mobile operators to rely on satellite solutions in lieu of terrestrial investments

78. On the other hand, Bell, Cogeco, Rogers, SaskTel, and Québecor were opposed to the proposal, arguing that the significant investment required by both satellite and terrestrial providers warrants re-evaluating SMCS's contribution to deployment conditions. Bell and Rogers emphasized that SMCS promises to expand connectivity to underserved regions, particularly where traditional terrestrial radiocommunication infrastructure is less economically viable. They argued that allowing SMCS deployments to count will incentivize further investment, speeding up service rollout in those areas.

79. According to Rogers, if SMCS is not taken into account when determining deployment requirements, this might lead to uncertainty in the business case and possibly affect Canadians' access to services, particularly in more remote areas like the Northern Canada. While acknowledging SMCS would enhance service offerings and promote greater investments, SaskTel emphasized that excluding SMCS from deployment requirement calculations could hurt both its development and long-term sustainability.

80. Cogeco was of the view that SMCS investments should contribute to meeting carriers' deployment obligations. They emphasized that expanding mobile coverage via SMCS would further the policy objectives set out in the Telecommunications Act and SPFC given the limitations of terrestrial networks in reaching Canada's vast and challenging terrain.

81. Terrestar cautioned that including SMCS in satisfying deployment requirements could discourage essential terrestrial network expansions. Terrestar argued that terrestrial services are the gold standard for high-speed, reliable connectivity, while SMCS is still developing and not yet capable of replacing terrestrial options in critical regions.

Discussion

82. ISED acknowledges the significant financial investment and technical development required to launch SMCS. However, given the early stage of development of SMCS, as well as uncertainty regarding how it will evolve, the quality of service offered through the SMCS framework cannot be compared to existing terrestrial services at this point in time. Although SMCS may be economically more viable for areas that are difficult to service with terrestrial networks, it is ISED's view that licensees should be prioritizing the deployment of terrestrial services as much as possible. As stated in section 5.5.1, ISED maintains that terrestrial mobile service continues to be the primary driver for providing greater mobile service expansion, including along roads and highways.

83. ISED maintains that the supplemental nature of SMCS, and its limited service offerings in the near term (text, voice and limited data), would not serve as a replacement for terrestrial coverage or service. Consequently, SMCS coverage will not count towards meeting deployment conditions for flexible use licences, nor will such coverage be allowed to trigger the displacement or transition of existing or future licensed operations as set out in the various licensing frameworks for these spectrum licences.

Decision

5.6 Emergency management and network reliability

84. This subsection details considerations on the ability of SMCS to support network reliability and emergency management.

5.6.1 Network reliability

85. To further the TRA mentioned in section 3, major mobile service providers in Canada have supported the development of, and became parties to, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Telecommunications Reliability. Given the MOU has provisions on emergency roaming and that it is expected that mobile service providers could use SMCS to provide emergency roaming, ISED sought views on any considerations or limitations to provide network reliability and resilience, and emergency roaming using SMCS based on the requirements in the MOU on Telecommunications Reliability.

Summary of comments

86. The Canadian NG9-1-1 Coalition, Cogeco, and the Government of Quebec were generally supportive of including SMCS in the MOU on Telecommunications Reliability. They cited the importance of network resilience and emergency roaming to public safety through the use of SMCS to back up terrestrial networks.

87. Cogeco recommended a policy framework that includes emergency access using SMCS to expedite the advancement of solutions. Cogeco urged the department to refrain from considering a policy framework that excludes the obligation of wireless carriers to provide 9-1-1 access, emergency alerts, or emergency roaming over SMCS. The Government of Quebec also raised diversity in SMCS agreements as a critical consideration in providing network reliability and resilience, that providers should enter agreements with more than one satellite provider, and that these agreements ensure emergency communications are available at all times.

88. Terrestar noted that if ISED decided to add SMCS to the MOU on Telecommunication Reliability, this should be done in a manner consistent with the emerging D2D business model. This would mean integrating satellite operators indirectly as suppliers rather than directly as full network participants, to ensure that these satellite operators would not become overwhelmed by traffic that would otherwise be directed to terrestrial providers.

89. Various stakeholders highlighted several technical limitations related to capacity and coverage of SMCS. Bell, Rogers, TELUS and Xona pointed out that SMCS is still in its early stages, with limited capacity focused primarily on texting and limited voice capabilities. Furthermore, its coverage may be insufficient to support emergency roaming during critical outages. TELUS and Rogers stated that SMCS would operate outside of the terrestrial network coverage area, and that there would be limited capacity in the near term.

90. In addition to the technical limitations, many respondents noted that the technology needs more time to mature before resilience or emergency roaming requirements are established. Bell, Kuiper, Rogers, SaskTel, Sateliot, TELUS, Terrestar and Xona all noted that it is too early to determine whether SMCS could provide network reliability and resilience, or emergency roaming. Sateliot highlighted that SMCS systems may lack the robustness needed for critical outages and stressed the importance of defined protocols for resilience and backup before licensing. Bell recommended that telecommunications reliability be addressed through a technical working group, like the RABC, at least three years after SMCS is launched in Canada, with further technological development and testing required before including SMCS in the MOU on Telecommunications Reliability.

Discussion

91. ISED has considered the technical limitations raised by industry respondents on SMCS technology and its ability to provide network reliability and emergency roaming. ISED acknowledges that some respondents expect SMCS deployments to avoid overlapping terrestrial networks initially and therefore would be out of scope of the MOU on Telecommunications Reliability. ISED shares the view that more development and testing is necessary to address potential capacity and interoperability constraints to ensure that SMCS operators can successfully implement network reliability and emergency roaming.

92. While ISED recognizes the importance of ensuring that SMCS coverage is available to Canadians to support public safety related applications, ISED is of the view that further development, testing and verification is necessary to ensure that SMCS deployments can realistically meet the network reliability and emergency roaming requirements of the MOU on Telecommunications Reliability. As such, ISED will continue to monitor the development of this technology.

93. ISED will revisit the applicability of network resilience and reliability requirements to SMCS as the technology matures and determine when the MOU requirements for emergency roaming would be applied to SMCS.

5.6.2 Emergency management

94. While there are mechanisms for terrestrial services to ensure that 9-1-1 communications are transmitted by another provider with coverage when subscribers are outside their service provider's footprint, ISED sought views on the technical possibilities and limitations of using SMCS for 9-1-1 voice calls from any handset, regardless of service provider, in areas where there is SMCS satellite coverage.

95. ISED also sought views on how SMCS deployments would support the distribution of emergency alerts to mobile devices, as emergency alerts via the National Public Alerting System are of particular importance and are normally sent to handset connected to a terrestrial mobile network.

96. In addition, ISED sought views from stakeholders on whether existing mechanisms will support emergency communications in the absence of a roaming agreement between providers, or whether a new obligation would be appropriate regarding this issue for SMCS.

Summary of comments

97. 9-1-1 Access: The Government of Quebec was generally supportive of this initiative. Lynk also broadly supported the initiative and recommended that ISED adopt rules to enable mobile network operators (MNOs) to use SMCS to satisfy ISED's resiliency obligations and emergency response requirements, though they noted further testing is required.

98. However, most respondents agreed that it is too early in the technology development to assess whether such services would operate as expected. Xona noted that provisioning 9-1-1 access to all handsets from all service providers within SMCS satellite coverage will require careful consideration of satellite capacity and throughput limitations. While this may be possible in remote regions with smaller user numbers, capacity constraints may prevent this in areas with higher subscriber density.

99. Bell and Rogers raised a significant issue with geo-targeting, noting that at this time, the receiving satellite would likely not have a narrow enough coverage area to ensure calls are routed to the appropriate emergency response centre or Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Bell also raised the issue of compatibility of handsets within SMCS satellite providers. The RABC noted that available spectrum bandwidth, link budgets and power levels will dictate the quality of service offered over SMCS systems, and in the near term, the group only expects SMCS to offer best effort voice.

100. The Canadian NG9-1-1 Coalition, Bell, FMCC, RABC, Rogers, TELUS and Terrestar all noted that the CRTC has jurisdiction over 9-1-1 services, and any further obligations should remain within CRTC's purview. Specifically, Rogers highlighted the Emergency Services Working Group (ESWG) within the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) is working with the industry regarding 9-1-1 over SMCS. These respondents noted that duplicative regulations must be avoided to prevent confusion or delays.

101. FMCC urged the CRTC to adopt similar interim 9-1-1 call and texting routing requirements, while permanent solutions are developed for SMCS, as implemented by the FCC with their SCS framework. Those requirements include those stipulating that terrestrial providers must route all SCS 9-1-1 calls to PSAPs using either location-based routing or an emergency call centre.

102. Emergency Alerts: Cogeco, the Government of Quebec and Lynk were supportive of such provision of emergency alerts via SMCS. The Government of Quebec specifically noted if granular geo-targeting is not initially available, ISED could deploy an awareness campaign to inform the public of such technical limitations. Similarly, Lynk noted the company's ability to provide cell-broadcast emergency alerts, referring to their recent experiences in the U.S.

103. Respondents raised various technical considerations and limitations to the ability of SMCS deployments to support emergency alerts. Bell, the Government of Quebec, Québecor, RABC, Rogers, TELUS, Terrestar and Xona raised that geo-targeting and contemporary satellite beam technology present significant technical challenges for the ability of SMCS to support the distribution of emergency alerts. The RABC noted that the technical parameters of satellite beams will vary between systems, and as such, target geographic alert accuracy would need to be consistent with the capabilities of a particular satellite system or alternatively broad enough to be met by all systems. This was also raised by Québecor, who noted that the harmonization of protocols between terrestrial and satellite networks is a critical consideration. Further, the RABC noted there is a risk of significant overshoot or undershoot of the geo-target. TELUS specifically stated that this limitation is the reason that mobile satellite service technologies have been excluded from Wireless Public Alerting (WPA) in previous CRTC decisions.

104. However, many respondents recommended that any WPA requirements for SMCS be undertaken by the CRTC. Notably, Bell suggested a technical working group such as the RABC be formed at least three years after the launch of SMCS to address matters on telecommunications reliability.

105. Existing Mechanisms: The Government of Quebec was of the opinion that 9-1-1 voice and full NG9-1-1 services, once operational, should be an obligation in spectrum licences for the operation of Canadian space stations. Xona also recommended that ISED should not presume that existing mechanisms will support emergency communications in the absence of roaming agreements between providers, citing various risks to consider such as varying architectures and implementation models, types of network outages, and the commercial and legal collaboration between satellite and terrestrial operators.

106. Bell, Kuiper, RABC, Rogers, SaskTel, TELUS and Terrestar commented that new obligations relating to emergency communications are premature. These respondents cited that SMCS technology is still in its early stages of development and that existing mobile communications standards such as the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), already ensure that standard mobile handsets can access 9-1-1, regardless of the existence of roaming agreements. While some of these respondents, notably the RABC, Rogers and TELUS, commented that there are no technical limitations to preclude the use of emergency communications over SMCS once voice capabilities have been enabled, further collaboration is necessary before obligations are explored. Bell stated that imposing uninformed obligations could be detrimental for the development of SMCS in Canada.

Discussion

107. 9-1-1 Access: ISED acknowledges the technical limitations of SMCS for the provision of 9-1-1 access to all handsets from all service providers where there is SMCS coverage. Many stakeholders noted that given that SMCS is still nascent, it may not be equipped to address current 9-1-1 terrestrial requirements at launch, notably, that it will not be able to provide reliable voice capabilities. Respondents also raised that further development and testing is required to address various technical limitations before any such requirements are established. ISED agrees with this view and will continue to monitor the development of this technology.

108. ISED recognizes the role and authority of the CRTC on matters related to 9-1-1 access requirements. ISED will follow the work undertaken by the CRTC on SMCS, including reports published by the ESWG. ISED is of the view that at its discretion, the CRTC could undertake a review of SMCS and its ability to support 9-1-1 access to all handsets, and subject to its findings, the Commission could begin the necessary work to review and develop requirements, including interim requirements (if applicable), to ensure that SMCS delivers reliable 9-1-1 services for Canadians.

109. Emergency Alerts: In terms of the ability of SMCS to support the distribution of emergency alerts to mobile devices, most respondents indicated that while SMCS may ultimately support it, further work is necessary to address current technical limitations. The common concern from respondents was with the limited reliability of geo-targeted alerts and network compatibility. ISED acknowledges that these limitations have been the rationale for excluding satellite services from mandatory WPA in previous CRTC decisions. However, the recent use of Starlink satellite services to successfully distribute emergency alerts to T-Mobile customers impacted by Hurricane Milton in the United States demonstrated that these technologies are rapidly developing, and that the aforementioned technical difficulties may quickly be resolved. Therefore, ISED will continue to monitor the development of this technology.

110. ISED agrees that in order to avoid duplication in regulatory processes, that the CRTC could undertake the work necessary to ensure SMCS's ability to support the distribution of emergency alerts.

111. Existing Mechanisms: ISED has noted stakeholder views that imposing any new obligations for SMCS related to emergency communications, namely telecommunications services that could be used by the public in an emergency such as the access and use of 9-1-1 services, would be premature. As for existing mechanisms, or the suite of existing policies and regulations that require carriers to support access to 9-1-1 services for any phone in their coverage area irrespective of their provider, stakeholders also noted that existing mobile communications standards such as 3GPP already ensure that standard mobile handsets can access 9-1-1, regardless of the existence of roaming agreements. ISED is of the view that while new obligations related to emergency communications may not be necessary at this time, they may be required as the technology is developed and deployed across Canada. As such, ISED will continue to monitor the development of this technology.

112. ISED has also considered the viewpoint of many respondents that recommended any new 9-1-1 access requirements be undertaken by the CRTC. ISED is of the view that the CRTC would take into consideration any new obligations that may be required when undertaking work related to SMCS's ability to provide 9-1-1 access and WPA.

113. ISED expects that the CRTC will undertake a review of its existing emergency services framework in a timely manner to consider how SMCS ability can support 9-1-1 access and WPA, ISED will follow this review, which could consider whether interim requirements could help to provide greater access and coverage for SMCS, subject to consultation and decision-making.

114. This section details the decisions applicable to the licensing framework for SMCS.

6.1 Licensing instruments

115. Through the Consultation, ISED sought comments on a number of licensing proposals.

116. Authorizations: ISED proposed to apply the existing licensing framework for MSS to authorizations issued for the provision of SMCS, as defined in CPC 2-6-02, Procedure for the Submission of Applications for Spectrum Licences for Space Stations; CPC-2-6-04, Procedure for the Submission of Applications to Approve the Use of Foreign-Licensed Satellites in Canada; and CPC 2-6-03, Procedure for the Submission of Applications for Generic Earth Station Spectrum Licences, with a few additional requirements. SMCS operation within the Canadian territory was proposed to be permitted only when all of the following components are in place: (1) a space station spectrum licence issued to an eligible Canadian satellite operator, or a foreign satellite approval (FSA) issued to a eligible foreign-licensed satellite operator; (2) a generic earth station spectrum licence issued to an eligible Canadian mobile operator, and; (3) an executed SMCS agreement (SMCS Agreement) between an eligible satellite operator and an eligible Canadian mobile service operator. For the purposes of the SMCS framework, a mobile service provider is a company that is operating a terrestrial network to actively provide commercial mobile wireless services to the general public using its flexible use licence(s) in the frequency bands where the SMCS framework is applied. If a mobile service provider intends to work with a different satellite operator for SMCS in different bands associated with its flexible use licences, ISED proposed that it would be required to obtain a separate generic earth station spectrum licence and have a separate SMCS Agreement with that satellite operator.

117. Eligibility: ISED proposed that in order for a satellite operator to be eligible for authorization to provide SMCS in Canada, it must have an SMCS Agreement in place with an eligible Canadian mobile service provider, unless SMCS would be provided outside of Canada, in which case an agreement would not be required. ISED also proposed that an eligible Canadian mobile service provider be defined as a company that is operating a terrestrial network to actively provide commercial mobile wireless services to the general public using flexible use licence(s) in frequency bands where the SMCS framework is applied.

118. Provisions of SMCS Agreement: ISED proposed that certain provisions of the executed SMCS Agreement be submitted to ISED, as part of the licence application process. Specifically, ISED proposed that the following provisions of the SMCS Agreement be submitted: the associated flexible use spectrum licences; the specific frequency blocks and areas (which must be part of the mobile service provider's spectrum holdings) where SMCS will be offered; a provision stating that the agreement is not exclusive; any provisions addressing responsibilities with respect to interference management, coordination, and compliance with technical rules; measures required to facilitate compliance with the SMCS generic earth station spectrum licence conditions; any other aspects dealing with spectrum management; the signature page; and provisions related to the terms of the agreement.

119. Scope of Authorizations: ISED proposed to issue space station and earth station spectrum licences and FSAs for the provision of SMCS on a Tier 1 basis, but limit SMCS operation to service areas and frequency blocks held by the flexible use licensee. ISED sought views on any potential use cases for SMCS in waters that are outside of flexible use licence areas (e.g. off-shore), and how such use could be coordinated.

Summary of comments

120. Comments and/or reply comments were received from AST, Bell, FMCC, Kuiper, Québecor, Rogers, SaskTel, SSi, TELUS and Terrestar. Respondents generally supported ISED's proposal to use the existing MSS licensing framework for SMCS. Respondents noted the regulatory certainty provided by this approach.

121. Kuiper and Lynk disagreed with the requirement to have an SMCS Agreement in place prior to submitting an SMCS application. Lynk suggested that "decoupling" mobile operators and SMCS providers creates competition, and requiring a preexisting agreement a would hinder competition and the ability of MNOs and satellite operators to seek agreements with multiple partners. Kuiper indicated this requirement would delay the SMCS application process, and that SMCS Agreements should be negotiated in parallel with the application process, with ISED including the requirement to have an SMCS Agreement as a part of the SMCS condition of licence. Rogers saw merit in the suggestion that SMCS agreements be established in parallel with the submission of SMCS licence applications, particularly for small and regional operators. SSi stated this requirement gives national MNOs an advantage over regional MNOs. Terrestar agreed that an SMCS agreement would need to be in place prior to an application being submitted, given the need for interference analysis.

122. Rogers and SpaceX opposed the proposal that SMCS Agreements be non-exclusive. Rogers indicated that non-exclusive SMCS Agreements would hinder the adoption and deployment of SMCS, noting SMCS partnerships are already in place for trialing SMCS. Rogers suggested the rapidly changing satellite industry would benefit from less regulation and that Canada look more closely at other regulatory frameworks addressing SMCS (e.g. Ofcom, FCC), stating that SMCS is already competitive. SpaceX indicated that exclusive agreements would drive competition and investment and provide assurances to mobile operators and satellite operators. Terrestar stated that a requirement for non-exclusive agreements would not be needed as market forces would drive competition in SMCS. Kuiper disagreed with arguments supporting exclusive agreements and noted they may hinder adoption by smaller mobile operators. TELUS supported the proposal for non-exclusive agreements, at least in the short term.

123. Québecor recommended that ISED require mobile service providers who apply for SMCS earth station licences to provide a description of the mobile wireless services they provide and of their distribution network to ensure they are meaningful providers of wireless services. To this effect, Québecor suggested only primary, and not subordinate, flexible use licence holders be eligible to apply for SMCS earth station licences.

124. Québecor opposed SMCS licences being issued on a Tier 1 basis and suggested the proposed scope of such licences be revised to align with the tier associated to the corresponding flexible use licences, i.e. Tier 2 or 3.

125. For deployment of SMCS in waters outside of flexible use areas, the RABC believed that there exists some business case for offshore services within Canadian territorial waters, and that authorization from ISED will not extend beyond territorial waters. Rogers and TELUS suggested ISED consider extending spectrum licences out to the 200 nautical mile limit of Canadian exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Rogers proposed to monitor the relevant regulatory development of other administrations and consider a combination of ITU requirements and Laws of the Sea for addressing coordination issues. Bell supported this proposal in its reply comment. AST indicated that coordination with incumbent services could be done by means of PFD limits or frequency separation or avoidance. Lynk stated it is currently providing offshore service in search-and-rescue missions over open waters in the Pacific Ocean.

Discussion

126. Authorizations and Eligibility: Given the widespread support for the proposals, ISED will apply the existing MSS licensing framework and the eligibility criteria set out in the Consultation for the provision of SMCS. Specifically, ISED will issue space station spectrum licences to Canadian satellite operators, FSAs to foreign-licensed satellite operators, and generic earth station spectrum licences to flexible licensees, including both primary and subordinate licensees. ISED views that the inclusion of subordinate licensees would promote SMCS adoption and deployment.

127. Licence Scope: Furthermore, although issued on a Tier 1 basis, all licences and FSAs for offering SMCS will be limited in scope to only those service areas and frequency blocks held by the flexible use licensee where they plan to offer SMCS, as supported by the SMCS Agreement.

128. For the provision of SMCS in waters that are outside of existing flexible use areas, ISED will continue to monitor relevant developments internationally and at the ITU as mentioned in section 5.4. However, ISED is of the view that extending SMCS to areas beyond flexible use licensed areas will require further consideration. Consequently, ISED will not permit SMCS operation outside of flexible use licensed areas at this time.

129. SMCS Agreements: ISED has considered comments related to the requirement to have an SMCS Agreement in place prior to submitting application for a Canadian space station spectrum licence, a generic earth station spectrum licence, and/or an FSA. Given the spectrum that will be used for SMCS is already licensed to mobile operators in different tiers and block sizes across the country, and that SMCS will be supplemental to terrestrial mobile services, ISED believes the requirement to have a clear SMCS Agreement in place with the satellite operator will provide regulatory certainty to both mobile and satellite operators. Thus for clarity, for FSAs and earth station licences, an executed SMCS Agreement must be in place and specific provisions of the agreement must be submitted to ISED as part of the application process.

130. Given the regional or global nature of space stations, an SMCS Agreement will not be required for Canadian-licensed space stations at the time of application, but Canadian territory would be excluded until such a time that an executed SMCS Agreement is in place and specific provisions of the agreement have been submitted to, and reviewed by, ISED.

131. In response to comments on non-exclusive agreements, ISED is of the view that exclusive agreements could, in fact, hinder adoption and deployment of SMCS. Non-exclusive agreements will facilitate the resale and sharing of services available to other mobile providers on an unrestricted, non-discriminatory basis, which is standard practice in the satellite industry. Therefore, ISED will require SMCS Agreements to be non-exclusive.

132. For clarity, the following provisions of the SMCS Agreement must be submitted to ISED: the associated flexible use spectrum licences; the specific frequency blocks and areas (which must be part of the mobile service provider's spectrum holdings) where SMCS will be offered; a provision stating that the agreement is not exclusive; any provisions related to the term of the agreement; any provisions addressing responsibilities with respect to interference management, coordination, and compliance with technical rules; measures required to facilitate compliance with the SMCS generic earth station spectrum licence conditions; any other aspects dealing with spectrum management; and the signature page.

133. Multiple SMCS Agreements: If a mobile service provider intends to work with a different satellite operator for SMCS in different bands associated with flexible use licences, ISED will require a separate generic earth station spectrum licence and associated SMCS Agreement with that satellite operator. If the mobile operator plans to use the same bands with multiple satellite operators, ISED may consider issuing a single generic earth station licence, but an SMCS Agreement would be required with each satellite operator.

Decisions

6.2 Terms and conditions of SMCS authorizations

134. The following subsections detail the decisions applicable to the terms and conditions of space station spectrum licences, FSAs, and generic earth station spectrum licences for the provision of SMCS.

6.2.1 Licence term

135. In the Consultation, ISED proposed that the term for Canadian space station spectrum licences and FSAs issued for SMCS would align either with the associated flexible use spectrum licence term or with the termination date of the agreement between the flexible use licensee and its partner satellite operator, whichever is earlier. For generic earth station spectrum licences issued for SMCS, ISED proposed to issue annual spectrum licences that expire on March 31 of each year, with a high expectation of renewal if all conditions of licence continue to be met. Licences would be renewed annually until the associated flexible use spectrum licence term ends, or when the associated SMCS Agreement is terminated, whichever is earlier.

Summary of comments

136. Comments and/or reply comments were received from Bell, Kuiper, Lynk, Québecor, Rogers, SaskTel, TELUS and Terrestar. While there was widespread support for ISED's licence term proposal for domestic SMCS space station licences and FSAs for SMCS, many respondents raised concerns with ISED's proposed annual spectrum licence term for SMCS earth stations.

137. Kuiper did not support either of ISED's licence term proposals and requested that SMCS licence terms match the existing terms for Canadian satellite spectrum licences, FSAs, and generic earth station spectrum licences, instead of imposing different terms. Kuiper indicated their suggested approach would reduce the complexity and cost of deploying SMCS.

138. Bell, Lynk, Québecor, Rogers and TELUS opposed ISED's proposal that SMCS earth station licences be renewed annually until the flexible use spectrum licence term ends, or when the associated SMCS Agreement is terminated, whichever is earlier. Lynk, Québecor and Rogers suggested an annual term may cause undesired administrative burden due to the requirement to renew. TELUS raised that compared to the term of the associated flexible use licence, imposing an annual term for SMCS earth station licences may hinder wireless operators' ability to reach commercial arrangements.

139. SaskTel supported ISED's proposal to issue annual SMCS earth station licences and noted the alignment with the existing approach for licensing earth stations, and added the proposed indication of 'a high likelihood of renewal' for annual SMCS earth station licences would be a welcome signal for those considering investing in SMCS infrastructure.

Discussion

140. Noting the general support for ISED's licence term proposal for Canadian space station licences and FSAs, ISED will proceed as proposed with the following clarifications:

141. For Canadian space stations, licences will be issued for the standard 20-year licence term, noting the cost of developing a geostationary satellite or non-geostationary satellite constellation, the regional or global nature of satellites, and the likelihood that an applicant seeking a space station licence would have plans for service outside of Canada.

142. For both Canadian space stations and FSAs, for service within the Canadian territory, operations would be authorized in line with the term of the associated flexible use licence and/or the term of the SMCS Agreement, whichever is earlier. For service in Canada, the licensee must notify ISED if the SMCS Agreement is terminated or substantially modified.

143. In response to comments related to the administrative burden that may be caused by an annual term for generic earth station spectrum licences, ISED notes that its proposal aligns with the existing approach for all earth station licence terms, including those for which significant investment is required on the part of the licensee, and is already implemented in ISED's Spectrum Management System. ISED sees no need to deviate from this approach for SMCS. Thus, for licences in good standing (i.e. all conditions of licence continue to be met), renewal will immediately follow the payment of annual fees until the flexible use spectrum licence term ends or the associated SMCS Agreement is terminated, whichever is earlier.

144. Canadian spectrum licences issued for space stations providing SMCS outside of Canada will have the standard term of 20 years applied. Authorization to provide SMCS within Canadian territory from the authorized satellites will be limited to the term of the associated flexible use licence in Canada.

Decision

6.2.2 Licence conditions

145. ISED proposed to align the conditions of licence for SMCS with existing conditions for Canadian space station spectrum licences, FSAs, and generic earth station spectrum licences, with a few additional conditions. These include that: SMCS is authorized on a no-interference, no-protection basis; that an agreement between a generic earth station licensee and an authorized satellite operator be maintained throughout the term of the licences; and that these agreements may not be exclusive. These conditions are addressed in sections 5.4 and 6.1.

146. ISED also proposed to not allow SMCS licences to be transferred, divided, or subordinated, without restricting changes in ownership and control of licensees authorized to offer SMCS, subject to the review of the Minister. In the event of a change in ownership and control, eligibility requirements and all other conditions of licence or authorizations for SMCS would continue to apply to the licence.

Summary of comments

147. Comments and/or reply comments were received from Bell, Québecor, RCMP, Rogers, SpaceX, TELUS, and Terrestar. Overall, respondents supported ISED's proposed conditions of licence for Canadian satellite spectrum licences, FSAs and generic earth station spectrum licences authorizing SMCS.

148. Several stakeholders proposed general updates to the lawful interception condition of licence, with an emphasis on issues relating to equipment and industry standards.

149. Most stakeholders supported the proposal to not allow the division, transfer or subordination of SMCS licences. However, Terrestar was opposed, citing preference for the FCC's approach to permit subleasing through its SCS framework.

Discussion

150. Given overall support for the proposed conditions of licence for Canadian space station spectrum licences, FSAs and generic earth stations spectrum licences for the provision of SMCS, ISED will proceed with their implementation. It is ISED's view that there is no basis to establish different language for the lawful interception condition of licence than that which is already in place for similar satellite-related licences.

151. With the general support of stakeholders, ISED maintains its position to not allow the division, transfer, or subordination of SMCS licences.

Decision

6.2.2.1 Roaming

152. To ensure that Canadians can benefit from nationwide coverage and competitive choices, flexible use licensees have traditionally been required to respond to any operator(s) that approach them seeking to enter into roaming agreements in accordance with CPC-2-0-17, Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements. While this condition of licence has been applied to terrestrial mobile networks, ISED proposed two options for all SMCS licences with respect to roaming:

• Option 1: Mandatory roaming would apply five years after the publication of this Decision; or
• Option 2: Mandatory roaming would not be applied to SMCS.

Summary of comments

153. Comments differed among stakeholders, split primarily between regional and smaller MNOs who supported imposing a mandatory roaming requirement earlier than was proposed, and national and larger MNOs who supported Option 2, not to apply mandatory roaming to SMCS.

154. Cogeco, Eastlink, the Government of Quebec and Québecor supported the implementation of a mandatory roaming requirement for SMCS, with varying opinions on when it should be implemented. Eastlink, the Government of Quebec and Québecor noted that forgoing a mandatory roaming requirement would place regional wireless service providers at a significant disadvantage. Eastlink and Québecor both insisted that the mandatory roaming framework should take effect immediately following the Decision, whereas the Government of Quebec suggested shortening the delay from 5 to 3 years. Eastlink and Québecor also expressed that the absence of a roaming condition for SMCS would be in direct contradiction to ISED's objectives to expand mobile services to underserved areas, promote competition in the wireless market, and support the reliability of wireless services.

155. In reply comments, SSi agreed with Québecor's statement that mandatory roaming should apply as a condition of licence in accordance with CPC-2-0-17. SSi also voiced concerns over Option 2, citing potential anti-competitive implications that would limit the scope of MNO participation in SMCS arrangements. SSI urged the Department to recognize that Northern, remote, and underserved parts of Canada stand to benefit most from the introduction of SMCS.

156. Cogeco stated that mandatory roaming for SMCS is necessary if SMCS is allowed to contribute to deployment obligations. More specifically, it proposed a conditional mandatory roaming requirement, triggered if SMCS is allowed to fulfill deployment conditions. Cogeco expressed the importance of mandatory roaming in fostering competition and reducing barriers to entry for new carriers, citing the rationale behind the existing mandatory roaming framework. It argued that allowing a single carrier to provide nationwide coverage through SMCS without mandatory roaming obligations could stifle competition and hinder market entry for smaller regional carriers. Cogeco also emphasized the need to address problematic wording in the mandatory roaming COL to ensure equitable access for all carriers. Finally, Cogeco proposed amending CPC-2-0-17, under paragraph 37, to include a clause that states "Notwithstanding the above, SMCS service does not need to be provided by the Roamer's Home Network operator in order to gain access to this service from the Host Network carrier" with Eastlink also agreeing with this proposal.

157. Alternatively, SaskTel supported the implementation of a mandatory roaming requirement without a strict timeline defined. It argued that it is uncertain if and when the SMCS architecture will be mature enough to support certain services, including roaming. However, they emphasized the need for emergency communications (9-1-1) to be available even in the absence of roaming agreements.

158. Bell, Kuiper, Rogers, Sateliot, SpaceX, TELUS and Terrestar all supported Option 2, not to impose a mandatory roaming requirement. They generally all agreed that imposing a mandatory roaming requirement would risk slowing down the development and deployment of SMCS, given the nascent stage of its deployment.

159. Bell proposed that if a mandatory roaming requirement is implemented, there would be the need for symmetrical application to all licensees as well as commercially negotiated rates to avoid market distortion. If these conditions are not applied, then Bell argued it would be counter to the SPFC which states that "market forces should be relied upon to the maximum extent feasible." TELUS agreed with Bell's position and also emphasized the importance of considering the technical capabilities and limitations of different SMCS operators when developing roaming agreements.

160. Rogers reiterated their arguments about market competition, capacity limitations, and potential delays in SMCS deployment that will likely take longer than 5 years. Rogers emphasized its commitment to providing 9-1-1 access to all Canadians via SMCS, regardless of their service provider, as soon as technically feasible and negating the need for mandatory roaming from a public safety perspective.

Discussion

161. ISED recognizes that SMCS is a new and emerging technology and acknowledges comments related to potentially amending CPC-2-0-17 in order to reflect SMCS adoption.

162. ISED agrees with comments that imposing a mandatory roaming requirement immediately or within a short timeline may stifle the development and deployment of SMCS, and that more time is needed before determining whether roaming is technically feasible. Similar considerations for the facilitation of emergency services on any SMCS network can be found in section 5.6. ISED will therefore closely monitor the development of SMCS and the resolution of cited technical challenges following the publication of the Decision.

163. ISED acknowledges suggestions from respondents to impose a condition for a mandatory roaming requirement in the event that SMCS is allowed to fulfill deployment conditions. As decided above, ISED has determined that SMCS will not contribute to meeting deployment conditions associated with flexible use licences, as discussed above.

164. ISED considers that mandatory roaming has been an effective tool to foster more choices and high-quality commercial mobile service to Canadians across the country For the purposes of the SMCS framework, a mobile service provider is a company that is operating a terrestrial network to actively provide commercial mobile wireless services to the general public using its flexible use licence(s) in the frequency bands where the SMCS framework is applied.

165. In the case of SMCS, however, ISED acknowledges that a mandatory roaming requirement may not provide sufficient incentive for companies to realize the benefits of the significant investments required to develop and deploy this service. ISED further acknowledges that time is required for the technical and operational development of SMCS. ISED will pursue neither option as proposed in the consultation at this time. Instead, ISED will monitor the technical feasibility and market suitability of roaming in SMCS and will revisit the issue in the future (e.g. 3-5 years).

166. ISED also notes that, as described in section 6.1, SMCS agreements may not be exclusive. Any eligible mobile service provider can therefore partner with SMCS satellite operators to provide SMCS in Canada.

Decision

6.3 Licence fees

167. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to apply existing satellite fee orders for licences issued for the provision of SMCS. ISED also sought comments on its proposal to apply existing service standards for processing space station spectrum licences and generic earth station spectrum licences for SMCS.

Summary of comments

168. Bell and Québecor did not object to the proposed fees and services standards. However, Québecor indicated that foreign satellite operators should be required to pay space station fees, just as domestic satellite operators do. Meanwhile, Bell suggested ISED to consider imposing a cap on total fees and tie them to cost recovery so as not to have a negative impact on innovation. Rogers supported tying fees to cost recovery but also emphasized that imposing SMCS licence fees on MNOs would duplicate costs they had paid to acquire the mobile spectrum, when SMCS would initially be resource intensive without generating revenue.

169. TELUS suggested that ISED should consider shortening the service standard of 126 calendar days for issuing generic earth station spectrum licences for SMCS.

Discussion

170. ISED remains of the view that the existing space station and earth station fee orders (Notice No. SMSE-001-23, Fee Order for Space Stations, Notice No. SMSE-002-23, Fee Order for Earth Stations) are appropriate for SMCS licences at this time and they effectively permit the introduction of SMCS in a timely manner. These fees were recently implemented for all space services following ISED's Decision on Updates to the Licensing and Fee Framework for Earth Stations and Space Stations in Canada in 2022. This is also consistent with incorporating SMCS into the existing licensing framework for satellite services. Pursuant to the Service Fees Act, these fees will be periodically adjusted based on Statistics Canada's CPI, which is published in May of each year. Finally, as previously noted and as is typical practice, ISED will periodically review the fees to determine whether or not they remain appropriate as SMCS evolves.

171. All licence applications will be subject to service standards and remissions as per ISED's Service Fees Remission Policy and the Spectrum and Telecommunications Sector (STS) Program Annex. ISED sees no foundation for changing the existing service standards that apply to space station and earth station licensing and will apply them for SMCS. Consistent with all space and earth station licence applications, the service standard for processing new space station spectrum licences and generic earth station spectrum licences will be 126 calendar days. The same service standard applies for any amendment to an existing spectrum licence. For these reasons, ISED will also retain the service standards established in the Decision on Updates to the Licensing and Fee Framework for Earth Stations and Space Stations in Canada.

172. With respect to foreign-licensed satellite operators, ISED states there are no fees associated with an FSA, regardless of the type of application or service provided. While no formal service standard applies to FSAs, ISED is committed to provide a response to FSA applicants within 126 calendar days, consistent with service standards for the issuance of Canadian space station spectrum licences. However, ISED notes that foreign-licensed satellite operators must have authority from their own licensing administrations before they can provide services in Canada. As such, these operators are subject to applicable licensing requirements and fees established by their own licensing administrations.

Decision

173. The following sections detail the decisions applicable to technical considerations for SMCS.

7.1 Technical requirements for flexible use user equipment for SMCS

174. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to maintain existing terrestrial technical requirements for user equipment (UEs) associated with SMCS operations, noting its proposal that these UEs would be operating under a generic earth station spectrum licence. Specifically, it was proposed that existing relevant Standard Radio System Plans (SRSP) and Radio Standards Specifications (RSS) would generally apply, based on the frequency band(s) of operation.

Summary of comments

175. All respondents who provided comments on this proposal, namely, AST, Bell, Lynk, Québecor, RABC, Rogers, SaskTel, TELUS, and Terrestar, supported maintaining the existing technical requirements as specified in the SRSP and RSS for each frequency band for user equipment (UE) operating under a generic earth station spectrum licence for the provision of SMCS in Canada. Respondents indicated that no changes would be required for the UEs to communicate with SMCS space stations. In their reply comments, respondents reiterated their support for ISED's proposal.

176. Rogers added that the rules should generally align with those that the US imposes on UEs in order to benefit from economies of scale, and also suggested that ISED monitor any future developments. Lynk and RABC stated that the existing technical requirements for UEs are sufficient to allow operation of SMCS, as SMCS systems are designed to operate with existing UEs. Bell added that the UE will be agnostic to the type of base station it is connected to, whether it is a terrestrial station or a space station.

Discussion

177. It is anticipated that SMCS will leverage existing UEs to rapidly improve mobile wireless connectivity in unserved or underserved areas. Consumers would not need to invest in new devices, and the UEs would not require any changes to their existing certification as no technical modifications would be required for the UE to communicate with the satellites. ISED agrees with respondents that the existing technical requirements for UEs, in the applicable SRSP and RSS, are sufficient to support communication between a UE and an SMCS space station.

178. Given the above, ISED will not impose new or different technical requirements imposed on flexible use UEs to enable SMCS operations. Existing SRSPs and RSSs for the respective frequency band of operation will continue to apply. Any modifications to these standards that may be proposed in the future, resulting from experience with the implementation of SMCS, would be developed in consultation with stakeholders, including the RABC.

Decision

7.2 Technical requirements for SMCS space stations

179. As SMCS is envisioned to supplement commercial mobile services, ISED proposed in the Consultation that the same technical requirements for terrestrial base stations, as applicable in each frequency band, be applied to space stations used for the provision of SMCS. Satellite operators would be required to implement measures to ensure that their operations comply with those existing rules.

180. ISED sought comments on whether the specified general provisions in existing technical standards are sufficient to enable SMCS and to facilitate coexistence with terrestrial operations. ISED also sought comments on whether there may be challenges in complying with the existing coexistence measures prescribed in the applicable technical standards and if so, whether specific technical requirements for SMCS space stations would be needed. Since ISED proposed that SMCS would operate on a no-interference, no-protection basis, ISED also sought comments on the expectation that operators of SMCS earth stations will assume the main role in managing coexistence and preventing interference to licensed in-band and/or adjacent band/block terrestrial operations.

Summary of comments

181. Technical requirements to be applied to SMCS space stations: AST, Bell, RABC, Rogers, Sateliot, TELUS and Terrestar generally supported ISED's proposal of applying existing technical requirements for terrestrial base stations to SMCS space stations. However, AST, Bell, RABC, Rogers, SpaceX and TELUS recommended that an out-of-band PFD limit be used to protect services in adjacent bands. AST, Bell and Lynk supported a single PFD limit across all SMCS bands, while the RABC, Rogers and SpaceX supported band-specific PFD limits.

182. The RABC and TELUS stated that existing technical requirements for unwanted emissions would not be sufficient to protect terrestrial mobile stations in adjacent channels within overlapping geographical areas, particularly when satellite antenna gains exceed the typical maximum gains of terrestrial base stations. Both organizations suggested applying PFD limits derived by assuming a certain I/N value and different UE gains between bands below and above 1 GHz. This approach was supported by Rogers and SpaceX in their reply comments.

183. Conversely, Bell supported a single PFD limit across all proposed SMCS bands, as adopted by the FCC. Bell noted that prospective satellite operators have the technological capability to meet a uniform limit, and that such a limit not only simplifies co-existence rules but is also necessary to adequately protect terrestrial operations from SMCS, which has not undergone extensive development and testing. Bell disagreed with adopting a less stringent PFD limit for the AWS-1, AWS-3 and PCS bands, claiming there is no evidence that a different PFD limit would offer the same protection to terrestrial networks as in the sub 1 GHz range. AST and Lynk also supported aligning with the FCC and adopting a single PFD limit across all SMCS bands. AST further observed that the risk of relaxing the aggregate PFD limit in a given band would be compounded by the aggregation of out-of-band emissions from multiple SMCS satellite systems operating across mobile bands, which would degrade the MNOs' terrestrial network capacity. The RABC also noted that some satellite and terrestrial operators recommended aligning with the FCC, stating that it is no more difficult for SMCS space stations to meet the more stringent limit.

184. Terrestar highlighted the risks associated with approving a service that has not yet been fully studied, particularly in relation to out-of-band PFD limits. To mitigate these risks, Terrestar suggested that ISED put in place a robust process by which SMCS applicants are required to file detailed out-of-band interference analyses with their licence applications, and afford all potentially affected licence holders (space-based and terrestrial) an opportunity to confirm the absence of interference to their systems. In their reply comments, Québecor agreed with Terrestar's proposal, while Kuiper disagreed.

185. Rogers additionally recommended that ISED continue its practice of allowing operators to mutually agree upon alternate thresholds. This approach would provide both cross-boundary protection when needed as well as full flexibility to enable coordinated continuity of service.

186. Lastly, Sateliot suggested that additional technical requirements be considered for the implementation of SMCS, such as stricter limits on spurious emissions and clearer coordination protocols with terrestrial networks. In their reply comments, Rogers recommended that ISED dismiss this proposal.

187. Interference resolution: AST, Bell, CSA, Lynk, MSSA, RABC, Rogers, SaskTel and Terrestar, generally supported ISED's proposal.

188. TELUS disagreed with ISED's earlier proposal that SMCS operate on a no-interference, no-protection basis, but did agree that with SMCS as a secondary service, it is understood that the onus to mitigate harmful interference to licensed in-band and/or adjacent band/block terrestrial operations would be on the SMCS space station operator in conjunction with the flexible use/SMCS generic earth station licensee.

189. Québecor questioned ISED's proposal to put the onus for mitigating interference on the SMCS earth station licensee, arguing that the earth station licensee lacks the ability to control or cease interfering satellite emissions. They suggested that the onus for mitigating interference rests solely on the space station operator. Terrestar disagreed with this assessment, as it believes it is both feasible and imperative that the SMCS earth station licensee include a range of flexible tools in its agreement with the satellite operator to ensure that the no-interference, no-protection status of SMCS is respected at all times.

190. While supporting ISED's proposal, CSA, MSSA and Terrestar recommended the onus for mitigating interference should apply to all services, including licensed satellite services. The CSA noted that the SMCS operators should provide their contact information with incumbents prior to being licensed, so that if interference occurs, the incumbents can act quickly to resolve the issue.

191. Rogers suggested that ISED support coexistence measures based on good engineering practices by SMCS earth station and space station licensees. Further, Rogers also expressed concerns that competing satellite services or flexible use licensees might raise spurious interference concerns to unduly slow competitors from coming to market first with commercial SMCS operations.

Discussion

192. Technical requirements to be applied to SMCS space stations: As there is general support for ISED's proposal, ISED will require SMCS space stations to meet the same technical requirements and coexistence measures, such as maximum field strength or power flux density, and unwanted emission limits, as stipulated in existing applicable SRSPs and RSS for terrestrial base stations in the respective bands of operation. ISED remains of the view that applying the same technical requirements will allow terrestrial operators to have the same level of protection within each of their respective licensed blocks and areas.

193. However, ISED notes the concerns expressed by a majority of commentors, and recognizes that existing unwanted emission limits for terrestrial base stations may not account for the scenario where satellite antenna gains exceed terrestrial base stations' typical maximum gains. Thus, ISED will develop and include related technical requirement(s) for space stations providing SMCS, such as out-of-band PFD limit(s), in appropriate technical standards. These will be developed in consultation with stakeholders through the RABC.

194. Interference resolution: Given the supplemental nature of SMCS, it is expected that the deployment of SMCS will need to be directed by Canadian mobile service providers to facilitate coexistence. Since SMCS will operate on a no-interference, no-protection basis, even if aspace station providing SMCS meets all applicable technical standards and coexistence measures, if harmful interference is caused to licensed operations in the same frequency band or block in adjacent areas, or in the adjacent frequency band or block, the SMCS space station licensee must take steps to eliminate it, as directed by and in consultation with the SMCS earth station licensee. Thus while ISED recognizes that Canadian mobile service providers may not have direct control of the satellites operating as part of SMCS systems, ISED remains of the view that Canadian mobile service providers should assume the main role in managing coexistence and preventing interference.

195. Given most commentors support ISED's proposal, both licensees (earth station and Canadian/foreign space station) will be responsible for the mitigation of any harmful interference that occurs to licensed in-band and/or adjacent band/block terrestrial operations. ISED expects that the generic earth station licensee will assume the main role in directing the resolution of such interference, through its knowledge of the terrestrial networks and its SMCS agreement with the satellite operator.

Decisions

7.3 Coexistence between SMCS space stations in the same frequency bands

196. In the absence of an international framework for SMCS and with SMCS satellite constellations therefore operating under ITU RR No. 4.4, ISED sought comments on its expectation that SMCS satellite operators coordinate their constellations in advance of operation and address any cases of interference between different constellations that may arise while operating.

Summary of comments

197. AST, Lynk, MSSA, RABC, Rogers, SpaceX, TELUS and Terrestar generally supported ISED's proposal. Kuiper did not express a position but made a suggestion to qualify the original proposal.

198. Rogers noted that the proposal aligns with a secondary MSS allocation, and a no-interference, no-protection provision for SMCS, but suggested that ISED ensure that all spectrum users are engaging in good faith coordination negotiations based on sound engineering principles. TELUS similarly agreed the proposal is consistent with expectations already established under the MSS licensing framework.

199. MSSA did not object to the establishment of a coexistence/coordination regime between SMCS space stations, provided it is made explicit that any obligation to participate in this regime does not apply to the protection of non-SMCS space stations. MSSA mentioned the example that ITU RR compliant MSS uplinks have no obligation to negotiate coexistence or otherwise coordinate with SMCS space stations using 1980-1995 MHz for downlink operation.

200. While SpaceX supported ISED's proposal for operator-to-operator coordination, they argued that completed coordination should not be a condition for the issuance of an FSA. Similarly, Kuiper recommended that ISED's expectation that SMCS satellite operators coordinate their constellations in advance not prevent foreign-licensed systems from entering Canada for the provision of SMCS.

201. AST and Lynk added that inter-system coordination would be done in conjunction with the MNO partners.

Discussion

202. Given the broad support from respondents, ISED will expect operators of SMCS space stations to coordinate their constellations and resolve any cases of interference that may arise between different constellations. As mentioned previously, ISED is participating in ITU discussions on agenda item 1.13 and will review the SMCS framework set out in this Decision as appropriate following the conclusion of WRC-27.

Decision

7.4 Coexistence with the radio astronomy service

204. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on its proposal to require satellites providing SMCS to comply with the protection criteria set out in Recommendations ITU-R RA.769-2 and ITU-R RA. 1513-2, using the methodology given in Recommendation ITU-R M.1583-1, for the applicable radioastronomy frequency bands.

Summary of comments

205. NRC, OSI, Rogers and TELUS supported ISED's proposed use of the protection criteria as set out in ITU recommendations. Specifically, in expressing its concerns about SMCS operating in bands adjacent to radio astronomy instruments as mentioned in section 5.2, NRC stated that adherence to ITU-R Recommendations for the protection of radio astronomy will be crucial in preserving these operations. NRC also suggested that the impact to radio astronomy could be mitigated by geographically limiting SMCS in areas around radio astronomy observatories. AST noted that there are very few radio astronomy stations and that these stations could be protected with sufficient geographical separation between any SMCS satellite beam and the RAS observatory.

206. Rogers and Lynk noted that the proposed SMCS bands do not include any allocations for radio astronomy services and that SMCS operators should provide sufficient out-of-band-emission protection to prevent interference. TELUS similarly reasoned that existing technical requirements may already offer sufficient protection to other active and passive satellite services, including radio astronomy.

207. On the other hand, OSI observed that the ITU-R recommendations contain suggestions beyond the specified protection criteria, and urged ISED to address them by requiring meaningful coordination between operators of SMCS and radio astronomy systems. IAU echoed this suggestion for ensuring meaningful coordination, and further suggested protection for optical astronomy. AST and SpaceX indicated they have been coordinating their respective SMCS satellite constellations with the National Science Foundation in the U.S. and that the solutions adopted there could also be used in Canada. Lynk and Rogers expressed that coordination should be encouraged, but not required as part of the SMCS licensing process.

Discussion

208. ISED remains of the view that operators intending to offer SMCS within Canadian territory should ensure all unwanted emissions falling within frequency bands allocated for radio astronomy are reduced based on reasonable criteria specific to the radio astronomy service.

209. Given commentors' broad support for ISED's proposal to apply protection criteria based on ITU recommendations, ISED will adopt them as requirements for space stations operating as part of SMCS systems.

210. ISED notes that many respondents suggested coordination could also be effective. Thus before authorizing provision of SMCS within Tier 2-013 British Columbia, ISED will require applicants of space station spectrum licences and FSAs to complete coordination with DRAO. Specific requirements for this coordination will be included in the appropriate procedural document(s).

211. ISED will continue monitoring international developments and may adjust requirements for the protection of the radio astronomy service as appropriate.

Decisions

7.5 Cross-border coexistence

212. Existing bilateral agreements and arrangements between Canada and other administrations, notably the U.S., are detailed in Terrestrial radiocom agreements and arrangements (TRAA). These existing cross-border agreements and arrangements (collectively referred to as cross-border arrangements), which generally include coordination triggers such as distance and PFD, do not explicitly address the use of SMCS in flexible use frequency bands. However, noting the nature of SMCS, which is meant to supplement flexible use services, ISED proposed to apply existing cross-border rules for coordination between terrestrial flexible use services and SMCS (or SCS in the U.S.) operations near the Canada-U.S. border on an interim basis until relevant cross-border arrangements for SMCS are established. ISED also proposed that SMCS earth station licensees (i.e. the flexible use licensee) would be responsible for mitigating any harmful interference to radiocommunication services operating in other administrations' territories. ISED sought comments on these proposals.

Summary of comments

213. AST, Bell, Lynk, Québecor, RABC, Rogers, SaskTel, TELUS and Terrestar expressed general support for ISED's proposal to apply existing cross-border rules to SMCS on an interim basis, but noted that modifications or new rules may be required.

214. Rogers proposed that terrestrial operators on both sides of the border be permitted to negotiate coordination measures directly, arguing that potential interference issues would largely be resolved through inter-carrier negotiations. It also asserted that any border area PFD limits at ground level should be permitted to be exceeded through agreement between licensees and relevant regulators, subject to normal operating limits in the given band. In its reply comments, TELUS agreed with Rogers' proposal.

215. Lynk noted that in certain frequency bands, the existing cross-border arrangement specifies that coordination of a station is required if it is located within a defined distance from the Canada-US border. Lynk proposed that a similar coordination requirement could be adopted for SMCS, however, the current cross-border coordination distance should be applied to the centre of an SMCS satellite beam.

216. Although AST, Bell, RABC, SaskTel and TELUS generally agreed to applying the existing cross-border arrangements to SMCS, they noted that current cross-border arrangements have some specific rules for terrestrial mobile services that either do not apply, may be applicable if modified, and/or require new rules to be developed to guide SMCS coexistence with international SMCS and mobile services. These respondents recommended that ISED adopt interim cross-border rules that generally align with the US rules for SCS, prior to the establishment of specific cross-border arrangements for SMCS. They noted that the US adopted two in-band field strength limits: one for sub-GHz bands and one for mid-bands. RABC added that ISED should consult with the industry regarding technical rules in any cross-border agreement for SMCS.

Discussion

217. ISED acknowledges Lynk's proposal to adapt existing coordination distance criteria to SMCS. However, ISED believes that applying distance-based coordination criteria, such as those used in existing cross-border rules, may be challenging for SMCS due to the transiting nature of non-geostationary SMCS satellites and their varying beam shapes and sizes. ISED recognizes that certain provisions in existing cross-border rules may require some modifications to apply to SMCS, and will continue to work closely with other administrations to develop cross-border arrangements with appropriate technical rules to facilitate the deployment of the radiocommunications services and operations, including SMCS.

218. In the interim, ISED will apply the existing cross-border rules for terrestrial flexible use systems to SMCS. These interim rules will be detailed in the appropriate SRSP. SMCS operations will be subject to these rules and any future cross-border arrangements that may be established between Canada and other administrations.

219. Some respondents recommended that ISED allow terrestrial operators to negotiate coexistence measures to resolve interference concerns. ISED notes that provisions exist in current cross-border agreements to enable operator-to-operator discussions and expects that operators will continue to collaborate to mitigate interference at the border for both terrestrial operations and SMCS.

Decisions

7.6 Impact on SMCS Coverage

220. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on the extent to which technical factors such as ensuring coexistence, managing interference, etc. could impact SMCS coverage.

Summary of comments

221. Bell and Rogers identified that ISED's proposed no-interference, no-protection provision for SMCS would result in operators needing to add a one-beam protection area at their service boundary as the expected solution for coexistence, with either no service or degraded service within such protection areas. Together with TELUS, they expressed concern about the increase in protection areas that would be required if licences were issued for smaller tiers or areas, such as under the Access Licensing Framework. Terrestar further cautioned that such boundaries could create arbitrary coverage holes that would result in user frustration.

222. Most respondents opposed restrictive coexistence rules, even if minimized protection areas and maximized SMCS coverage. Bell indicated that terrestrial and satellite operators already have expertise in managing interference at service boundaries and could scale down coverage appropriately. Cogeco suggested that rules should not be based solely on today's technology and dismissed Terrestar's concern by noting that a single satellite operator could already cover Canada entirely independent from collaboration between terrestrial operators.

Discussion

223. As discussed in section 5.1, protection areas around existing mobile networks may be reduced over time with advances in SMCS technology. ISED also recognizes that terrestrial operators have been able to manage interference at boundaries of their licence areas and there are benefits to provide flexibility for operators to continue coordinating their operations using the most appropriate means available. ISED will be monitor the evolution of SMCS technology and service as it relates to the reduction of protection areas.

224. In the Consultation, ISED sought comments on any other considerations related to the introduction of SMCS in Canada which may not have been specifically addressed.

Summary of comments

225. Many of the responses reiterated views on topics that have already been discussed in this Decision. Some broached topics such as addressing space debris or increasing Indigenous engagement.

226. Bell and Rogers sought guidance on whether Canadian SMCS traffic should be permitted to pass through foreign gateways. Should this not be permitted, they suggested that operators of existing Canadian gateways should be required to allow hosting of SMCS traffic.

Discussion

227. ISED's satellite licensing regime does not require gateways to be located in Canada for satellites operating in Canada under an FSA, although many satellite operators choose to locate gateways in Canada for capacity and quality of service purposes. The location of a gateway is not a consideration specific to SMCS and as such, changes to gateway siting requirements would be subject to a separate, broader consultation.

228. All relevant policy and procedure documents will be updated prior to implementation of the SMCS framework.

229. Existing SRSPs and RSSs for the respective frequency band of operation will continue to apply, as discussed in section 7. Modifications to these standards, as well as any new relevant technical standards documents will be developed in consultation with stakeholders, prior to the implementation of the SMCS framework.

230. Given the early stages of SMCS development, ISED will monitor domestic and international developments and may update elements of this framework (e.g. additional bands, supporting emergency services, mandatory roaming, etc.) as technologies evolve and pending regulatory advancements around the world, including relevant decisions at WRC-27.

231. All ISED publications related to spectrum management and telecommunications are available on the Spectrum management and telecommunications website.

232. For further information concerning the process outlined in this document or related matters, contact:

Conditions for Canadian space stations for the provision of SMCS are as set out below. Additional conditions may be added for requirements specific to an individual space station spectrum licence.

1. Existing conditions for Canadian space stations from N2 – Space Station Licences that have not been modified for SMCS will apply and are not repeated here.

2. Existing conditions from N2 with the following modifications will apply:

   Licence transferability: This licence is not transferable in whole or in part and cannot be divided or subordinated.

   Satellite Coordination: It is the responsibility of the licensee to participate, on an ongoing basis, in any coordination activities with a view to fulfilling ITU obligations. To this end, the licensee must undertake the following:

   • pay the applicable ITU cost recovery charges for satellite network filings
   • participate, at its own expense, in the coordination of the satellite network with the satellite and terrestrial networks of other countries
   • provide ISED, in a manner acceptable to the ITU, with the satellite coordination, notification and administrative due diligence information required by the ITU
   • ensure that the operation of the satellite complies with any arrangements and agreements undertaken by Canada with respect to the coordination of the satellite

   The licensee must maintain all valid ITU filings associated with the satellite system or network at all times.

3. New conditions that will apply for SMCS:

   Service Area: This licence applies only in the areas as set out in the frequency conditions on the licence. Provision of SMCS is only permitted in frequency bands and service areas listed in the SMCS Agreement and where the party mobile service provider holds valid flexible use licences.

   SMCS Agreement: The licensee must maintain a valid SMCS Agreement, as defined in the Decision on a Policy, Licensing and Technical Framework for Supplemental Mobile Coverage by Satellite, with an earth station licensee that is a mobile service provider.

   Service in Canada: Operation of SMCS will only be permitted in the service areas and frequency blocks listed in the SMCS Agreement. The licensee must maintain the capability to implement interference mitigation techniques at the direction of the mobile service provider that is party the SMCS Agreement.

   No-interference, no-protection: Space stations providing SMCS are authorized on a no-interference, no-protection basis in accordance with No 4.4 of the ITU Radio Regulations and the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations.

   Should the operation of a space station providing SMCS cause harmful interference to any station operating in accordance with the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations and for which its frequency assignments are not filed under No. 4.4 of the ITU Radio Regulations, the licensee must immediately take steps to mitigate the interference, including, if necessary, ceasing the operations of their interfering space station.

   Contact information: The licensee must provide ISED with a contact that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to be used in the event of harmful interference.

   Reporting requirements: The licensee must immediately inform ISED of any changes to the contact information. The licensee must also notify ISED when the SMCS Agreement is terminated or substantially modified.

   Termination: Authorization for service in Canada terminates at the earliest of: the end of licence term; the end of the SMCS Agreement; or if the mobile service operator who is party to the SMCS Agreement in Canada no longer holds a valid generic earth station spectrum licence in the relevant licence areas and/or frequency blocks.

Conditions for foreign satellite approvals (FSAs) for the provision of SMCS are as set out below. Additional conditions may be added for requirements specific to an individual FSA.

1. Existing conditions for FSAs from annex B of Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-6-04, Procedure for the Submission of Applications to Approve the Use of Foreign-Licensed Satellites in Canada that have not been modified for SMCS will apply and are not repeated here.

2. New conditions that will apply for SMCS:

   Transferability: This approval is not transferable in whole or in part and cannot be divided or subordinated.

   SMCS Agreement: The satellite operator must maintain a valid SMCS Agreement, as defined in the Decision on a Policy, Licensing and Technical Framework for Supplemental Mobile Coverage by Satellite, with an earth station licensee that is a mobile service provider.

   Service Area: This approval applies only in the areas as set out in the frequency conditions on the approval. Provision of SMCS is only permitted in frequency bands and service areas listed in the SMCS Agreement and where the party mobile service provider holds valid flexible use licences.

   Service in Canada: The satellite operator must maintain the capability to implement mitigation techniques at the direction of the mobile service provider that is party to the SMCS Agreement.

   No-interference, no-protection: Space stations providing SMCS in Canada are authorized to operate on a no-interference, no-protection basis in accordance with No 4.4 of the ITU Radio Regulations and the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations.

   Should the operation of a space station providing SMCS cause harmful interference to any station operating in accordance with the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations and for which its frequency assignments are not filed under No. 4.4 of the ITU Radio Regulations, the satellite operator must immediately take steps to mitigate the interference, including, if necessary, ceasing the operations of their interfering space station. Where interference issues arise between foreign satellites that have been approved for use in Canada, any resolution of interference is the responsibility of the satellite operators.

   Interference resolution is also the joint responsibility of the satellite operator and the mobile service provider that are parties to the SMCS Agreement. The satellite operator must ensure that it maintains the capability to implement mitigation techniques at the direction of the partner mobile service provider.

   Contact information: The satellite operator must provide ISED with a contact that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to be used in the event of harmful interference.

   Reporting requirements: The satellite operator must immediately inform ISED of any changes to their contact information. The satellite operator must also notify ISED when the SMCS Agreement is terminated or substantially modified.

   Termination: The approval terminates at the earliest of: the end of specified term; the termination of the SMCS Agreement; or if the mobile service operator who is party to the SMCS Agreement in Canada no longer holds a valid generic earth station spectrum licence in the relevant licence areas and/or frequency blocks.

Conditions for generic earth stations for the provision of SMCS are as set out below. Additional conditions may be added for requirements specific to an individual generic earth station spectrum licence.

1. Existing conditions for generic earth stations from N3 – Generic Earth Stations that have not been modified for SMCS will apply and are not repeated here.

2. Existing conditions from N3 with the following modifications will apply:

   Eligibility: The licensee must comply on an ongoing basis with the eligibility criteria, as set out in the Radiocommunication Regulations and must be a flexible use licensee that is considered a mobile service provider and that is in good standing with its existing flexible use licences in the relevant licence areas and/or frequency blocks, as defined in the Decision on a Policy, Licensing, and Technical Framework for Supplemental Mobile Coverage by Satellite.

   Licence transferability: This licence is not transferable in whole or in part and cannot be divided or subordinated.

   No-interference, no-protection: Earth stations for SMCS are authorized to operate on a no-interference, no-protection basis in accordance with the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations.

   Should the operation of an earth station cause harmful interference, the licensee must immediately take steps to mitigate the interference, including, if necessary, ceasing the operations of their interfering earth station.

   The licensee must ensure its partner satellite operator(s) maintains the capability to implement mitigation techniques at the licensee's direction and must include such provisions in the associated SMCS Agreement.

   Contact information: The licensee must provide ISED with a contact that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to be used in the event of harmful interference.

3. New conditions that will apply for SMCS:

   SMCS Agreement: The licensee must maintain a valid SMCS Agreement, as defined in the Decision on a Policy, Licensing, and Technical Framework for Supplemental Mobile Coverage by Satellite.

   Service Area: This licence applies only in the areas as set out in the frequency conditions on the licence. Provision of SMCS is only permitted in frequency bands and service areas listed in the SMCS Agreement and where the licensee holds valid flexible use licences.

   Reporting requirements: The licensee must immediately inform ISED of any changes to their contact information. The licensee must also notify ISED when the SMCS Agreement is terminated or substantially modified.

   System access fees or network and licensing charges: The licensee is not required, nor permitted, to levy charges to their subscribers on behalf of ISED. In particular, charges which appear to be for spectrum management purposes, such as system access fees or network and licensing charges, are not mandated by ISED.

   Termination: This is an annual licence that terminates the earliest of: March 31^st of each year; the termination of the the SMCS Agreement; or if the associated space station authorization (space station spectrum licence or foreign satellite approval) is terminated or revoked.