Closing Bell - Manifest Space: One Year of Space Bureau with FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel 4/25/24

Episode Date: April 25, 2024

As mega-constellations proliferate, satellite communications is skyrocketing-- and so is the need to regulate them. In response, the FCC launched its Space Bureau one year ago this month. Since the reorganization, it's taken on space junk, emergency satellite cell service, issuing licenses for lunar landers, and more. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel joins Morgan Brennan to discuss the agency's operations and how she views its role in the new space economy.

50,000. That's the number of satellite applications awaiting approval at the Federal Communications Commission, the agency tasked with overseeing satellite communications. That skyrocketing demand for regulatory review led the FCC and its chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel, to reorganize the agency's operations and establish a new division, the Space Bureau. This month marks its first year. We have so many more satellites, so many more applications pending before this agency, and so many new technologies that incorporate space-based communications, that I decided to reorganize the agency and set up a Space Bureau to help accommodate all of that demand and also make sure that our processes are really built for this new space age.

So during the last year, we have done loads to try to address that with a streamlined process for applications, with new spectrum for commercial space launches and new policies to prevent things like orbital debris. The FCC's role keeps expanding too. It has its hand in regulating everything from space junk to emergency satellite cell service, in-space activities like on-orbit refueling, and it even issues the licenses for lunar landers to carry out their missions.

On this episode, the chairwoman discusses the FCC's role in this new space economy and how it's thinking about access to spectrum, the invisible radio frequencies, and ever more demand in an ever more connected world. I'm Morgan Brennan, and this is Manifest Space. Joining me now, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. It's so great to have you on Manifest Space and on CNBC. And you're joining me because we're marking the one year anniversary of the Space Bureau launch. Walk me through what's happened in a year and specifically what we're talking about when we do talk about this specifically focused Space Bureau. Well, thank you for having me. The space economy is growing in a really big and dramatic way. When I took over at the Federal Communications

Commission, one thing became clear to me, that communications in our skies matters more than ever before. We have so many more satellites, so many more applications pending before this agency, and so many new technologies that incorporate space-based communications. But I decided to reorganize the agency and set up a space bureau to help accommodate all of that demand and also make sure that our processes are really built for this new space age. So during the last year, we have done loads to try to address that with a streamlined process for applications with new spectrum for commercial space launches and new policies to prevent things like orbital debris.

So a year in with this new reorganizational effort actually launched and up and running, lessons learned? And have you been able to measure, engage the level of productivity tied to it? Well, I think one of the things that's been really striking is we've had a lot of new applicants before the FCC. It was some weeks ago we had the first lunar lander in 50 years, and that was an FCC licensee. We have had lots of new entities come before us with new ideas about space technologies for communications. And what's become really exciting is that they're engaging with us early. And I think setting up the Space Bureau has really helped facilitate that. So let's talk a little bit more about some of those different areas

that you are regulating and you are reviewing applications for. First, just to step back, I've had so many conversations with so many executives from satellite communications companies to launch providers and rocket makers. And it's my sense that we have tens of thousands

of satellites worth of applications that are out there. I mean, is that right? Is that the number? Right. You're absolutely right. I think it's important to acknowledge that we have about 10,000 satellites in our skies today. But currently at the FCC, we've got applications pending for about 50,000 new satellites. Now, not all of those are ready for launch or ready for prime time, but that's five times the number of satellites we have in our skies right now. And it just gives you a sense of the energy and activity. I mean, it's such a huge number. It raises the question, are you going to have to think about as you review these applications, things that you didn't have to

think about in the past? Oh, absolutely. You know, you put more things in our skies. You have to think about sustainability like never before, because, you know, if we leave some junk up orbiting the Earth and have orbital debris, that debris can move at extraordinary speed and damage existing satellites and existing communications. So our policies for space sustainability are more important than ever before. We also have to work with all of the actors in the space economy because they're frequently using some of the same spectrum. And we've got to make sure that they don't engage in harmful interference with one another. And then on top of that, we've got to work with our international colleagues because orbiting the globe is something that incorporates the policies of the International Telecommunication Union. So it's a lot of work behind the scenes. But again, that's why we set up the Bureau, to really focus on it and devote energies for it.

I want to get to the spectrum piece of this. But first, as you mentioned, orbital debris mitigation. This is part of the regulatory process that you're reviewing and implementing some changes around to potentially close some loopholes here. I wonder how that process is going and why there was a loophole there to begin with. Well, you know, I think so much of this is that our policies date back to a different era in space. When, you know, space was the province of governments, it was really expensive to send something into our skies. And when you sent something up, well, it stayed there for decades

and decades. And in fact, when I took over at the FCC, our practice was based on a NASA principle that if you sent a satellite into space, you could leave it up in orbit for 25 years after its useful life. 25 years. That seems irrationally long. And so we cut that time down to five years. And more than that, we, for the first time last year, penalized a company who said they were going to take some junk out of orbit and fail to

actually comply with what they had committed to. So we're demonstrating not just to the U.S. space market, but to our international colleagues that space sustainability matters. The more we send into our skies, the more thoughtful we have to be about cleaning up what is not in use. And of course, that company was Dish. And I think part of the reason that they didn't actually dispose of that satellite as originally intended was because they ran out of fuel. It raises the question about in-space activity, whether it is refueling, whether it's repairing of satellites, whether it's building of commercial space stations, as we see low Earth orbit become more commercialized here in the coming years.

You're governing all of that. Yeah. And I love that you brought up what we call ISAM here, which is in-station assembly and manufacturing, because increasingly we're not just talking about satellites in our skies, we're talking about sending other satellites up that can rendezvous between two different activities in orbit and help refuel, repair, and even relocate some of our existing satellites. That is some of the most exciting new space technology we have. And I'm really proud of the FCC. We set up a whole new framework to encourage applicants for that ISAM activity, because developing the ability to help repair what is already in our skies is really part of taking care of our skies. How quickly is that type of in-space and on-orbit activity materializing?

And I ask it as I've had so many conversations with so many entrepreneurs and so many executives of both big and small companies saying that this is really the next chapter. I absolutely think it's the next chapter. I think they're all correct. So for our part, we are just trying to clear the way so that those innovators know what the process looks like and that we get rid of any old rules that don't apply for ISAM activities. We've already done that in a proposal here, and I'm looking forward to putting those rules in place. Just a really basic question on that. Given the fact that we haven't seen much of that type of activity yet, how do you craft the rules and regulations for it? And I guess,

where are you gleaning the insights to do it? So I think you've got a really good point there. We have to evolve them over time as we understand how this new economy for these in-service assembly and manufacturing devices grows. But at the same time, we can look at some of our rules that were, for instance, designed for big constellations that have policies or bond requirements that don't really apply in these circumstances and make clear that we're not going to hold fast to those rules with this new technology. You mentioned lunar landers, intuitive machines making history a couple weeks ago with its first successful landing on the moon. We've got more expected to happen before the year is out even. How does that process continue to materialize as well as we do start to see this build out of a lunar economy and infrastructure on the moon. Yeah, the lunar economy is really very exciting. And the lander you mentioned was an FCC licensee and a first time licensee at the agency using our new streamlined processes. So I think the United States is working very hard to lead in the new lunar economy,

which is very exciting. What I see on the horizon, though, is that these issues are going to be the subject of a lot more international conversation. A lot of the work the FCC does on spectrum for satellite and lunar communications is part of a broader international dialogue from the International Telecommunication Union. And that's a group that meets every four years. And I know that for their next conference, an enormous proportion of the proposed agenda involves satellite issues and lunar communications.

So I think we're going to be moving from just talking about this as a domestic matter to talking about it as the global one. It's interesting to hear you say that, especially as we see it feels like every week another country signs on to Artemis, which is, of course, the U.S.-led program to bring humans back to the moon. Is four years too long? Do you have to be meeting sooner? I guess, how do you think about it? Well, I'm impatient, and I would very much like to get the international community to move

sooner. But I know that what I have control over is what's in my jurisdiction, and I want the United States to send a really good example to the rest of the world. And I think we're doing that with the Space Bureau we sat here, with the support we have for rocket launches in this country, and with the policies on space sustainability we've been developing at the FCC. I want to go back to the spectrum piece of this. Maybe this is a really basic question, but do we have enough of it? And do commercial companies, whether they're terrestrial-based or they're space-focused, have enough access to it? Well, that's a really, really big question.

And you are pointing to something that is really important in the new digital economy, which is that so much of our infrastructure are the wireless airwaves all around us that are essentially invisible to our eyes. And we have to figure out how to have the right mix for terrestrial services and satellite services. And in the U.S., I think we're working to do that all the time. There's certainly going to be some competition between the two. But at the same time, I think there's also coordination between the two. Because I think we're headed to a future that I like to think of as the single network future, where we combine terrestrial-based technologies with space-based technologies. And we have receivers in our phones that can manage both. And if we do that,

we can connect anytime we're in disaster. If there's a wildfire that takes down our terrestrial networks, we'll have a backup in the skies. So I think the collaboration between terrestrial and satellite spectrum activities is really important and really essential for that single network future. And we're already starting to see some of that, right, with some of the newer models of Apple. You could argue that that's what Elon Musk has been saying and SpaceX has been saying for years in terms of this idea of Starlink being a complement, not a direct competitor to the cellular networks as well. How does this continue to evolve and what is the FCC role in shepherding that forward? Absolutely. I think the vision of them as being complements, it's straight, it's exactly what we're going to see in the future. So in the last month, the FCC adopted what it

calls supplemental coverage from space. We are the first regulator in the world to adopt a framework that would involve the combination of satellite services with terrestrial wireless services. We're trying to develop a regulatory way forward so that we have receivers that can receive both ground-based services and space-based services and pretty much the smartphones that all of us regularly have in our palms and our pockets and purses. By setting up this framework, again, we are sending signals to our domestic providers, but also to our global allies, that it is possible to have communications both from the ground and the skies in our smartphones.

And if we're successful at doing this, we could end mobile dead zones, not just here in the United States, but globally. So that's why the framework we developed is so important. And many companies, both wireless companies and satellite companies, are really enthused about it. And they're looking at developing partnerships to see if they can participate in this, what I think is going to be a next and very important phase in communications. How does this dovetail back to, if it does, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, where I know FCC denied SpaceX getting some of those subsidies, SpaceX countered, the motion was still denied, but it does speak to this need for ever-increasing connectivity in rural areas. Absolutely.

To be clear, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund was an initiative by the last administration, but I inherited it. And I had the task of going through all of the applicants to make sure that they complied with all the rules, you know, dotting I's and crossing T's. And we found about a dozen of them that did not comply with the rules. Some were very small companies, some were big companies. And, you know, you're gonna have to comply with the rules in order for us to provide funds. And we did find some deficiencies with the satellite operator you mentioned

with respect to the speeds that they were capable of offering under all circumstances. And also they were seeking funding for some areas that already had service, like the Chicago Loop and Newark International Airport, places where I don't think the public should be spending money for new satellite services when there is already capable terrestrial service. As we do see this ever-growing need for connectivity and just no interruptions to that connectivity, whether it's connected machines and self-driving cars, which at some point we know may be coming in a much bigger way, or the industrial internet of things, or even just consumers looking to

have constant access to data, to spectrum, to whatever it is they need off of their smartphones or elsewhere. How does this communications landscape more broadly continue to evolve? Yeah, I think in the end, that single network future is really important where we combine wired facilities like from fiber on the ground with traditional terrestrial wireless, new unlicensed technologies like Wi-Fi and satellites in our skies. The goal is for it all to be seamless to the user, whether that user is a piece of industrial equipment with a sensor on it or URI with a handset. We want all of those networks combining to offer seamless connectivity. That to me strikes me as the goal for the future. But what is most

striking about it is that satellites might be in our skies, but they're an anchor tenant in making this single network future happen. All right, Chairwoman Rosen-Wurzel, thank you so much for joining me. It's great to have you here. Thanks for having me. That does it for this episode of Manifest Space. Make sure you never miss a launch by following us wherever you get your podcasts and by watching our coverage on Closing Bell Overtime. I'm Morgan Brennan.