Attachment Exhibit B

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20020917-00167 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2002091700167_281851

Exhibit B to Form 312 Requests for Waivers of the Commission‘s Rules SkyBridge hereby requests the following waivers of the Commission‘s Rules:‘ 1. SkyBridge requests a partial waiver of Section 25.146(a)(1)(v), to the extent that this rule requires results for: e EPFDgown for the worst 3 test points in the U.S. e EPFDgown for the worst 3 test points on each continent, except Antarctica, outside of the U.S. e EPFDaown for "as many points as the number of service areas; 1.e., footprints" e EPFDa,wn where "[t]he center of each beam service area should be the test point coordinate." As discussed further in Exhibit C, these rules are: (1) inconsistent with ITU rules upon which they are based, (2) incompatible with the software specification adopted by the ITU and FCC for computing validation EPFDgow, levels; (3) subject to a pending Petition for Reconsideration;" and (4) in the absence of resolution of the issues raised in that Petition, ambiguous in their interpretation and impractical in their application." While These requests are in addition to waivers requested in SkyBridge‘s original application and later amendments. See SkyBridge Application, File No. 48—SAT— P/LA—97, February 28, 1997, at 100—103; SkyBridge Amendment, 89—SAT—AMEND— 97, July 3, 1997, at 7. However, while these earlier waiver requests may still be procedurally relevant, due to the early filing date of the application and relevant amendment, it is believed that they are substantively moot in view of subsequent changes in the Commission‘s Rules to accommodate NGSO FSS systems. See Petition for Reconsideration, SkyBridge L.L.C., ET Docket 98—206, RM—9147, RM—9245, March 19, 2001 (the "SkyBridge Petition for Reconsideration"). See also Ex Parte Presentation of SkyBridge, ET Docket No. 98—206, June 18, 2002 (the "SkyBridge Ex Parte"). In addition to the observations made in Exhibit C regarding the interpretation of these rules, it is unclear what is meant by "service areas, i.e., footprints" in Section 25.146(a)(1)(v) in the context of many types of NGSO satellite constellations. For most NGSO systems, including the SkyBridge system, this would seem to be redundant with the requirement for EPFDaoy, results on each of the continents. It is

SkyBridge attempted to comply with Section 25.146(a)(1)(v) in good faith in Exhibit C, SkyBridge requests this waiver out of an abundance of caution in the event that its demonstration of compliance is deemed insufficient in view of the current Section 146(a)(1)(v) or that section after resolution of the pending SkyBridge Petition for Reconsideration. No party would be prejudiced by grant of the instant waiver. First, the additional results requested by the Commission are not needed to ensure compliance with the EPFDdown "Validation Limits". So long as the EPFD statistics of a system are shown to meet the EPFDaown Validation Limits with computer software in accordance with ITU—R Recommendation BO.1503, it follows by definition that the limits will be met worldwide.* Second, both the software and inputs for assessing compliance with the EPFDaown Validation Limits are being provided by SkyBridge. If an interested party believes that additional results would be useful (which may not be the "worst—case" locations, but rather locations of particular interest to that operator), it will be able to perform the computations itself." As noted in Exhibit C, SkyBridge would be pleased to assist such a party in this regard. 2. SkyBridge requests a partial waiver of Section 25.146(a)(2)(v), to the extent that this rule requires results for: e EPFD,,, for every longitudinal location on the GSO orbit at every two—degree spacing that is visible to the U.S. for domestic service e EPFD,,, for every longitudinal location on the GSO orbit at every three—degree spacing for service outside the U.S. As discussed further in Exhibit C, these rules are: (1) inconsistent with ITU rules upon which they are based, (2) incompatible with the software specification adopted by the ITU and FCC for computing validation EPFD,, levels; (3) subject to the pending similarly unclear how the requirement that "[t]he center of each beam service area should be the test point coordinate" is to be interpreted, since the EPFDgow, at any location on earth is a function of the contribution of numerous beams, most of which will not be serving the location, and the worst—case is not necessarily located at the center of a beam. See SkyBridge Petition for Reconsideration at 30—32. See SkyBridge Petition for Reconsideration at 31; SkyBridge Ex Parte at 18. Moreover, the additional data requested by the Commission provides no useful information to operators of geostationary orbit ("GSO") satellites, because the software does not predict actual interference levels. The software serves only as a tool to ensure that the system will not exceed the Validation Limits anywhere at any time. See SkyBridge Ex Parte at 8, 18. SkyBridge Petition for Reconsideration at 31; SkyBridge Ex Parte at 18.

SkyBridge Petition for Reconsideration; and (4) in the absence of resolution of the issues raised in that Petition, ambiguous in their interpretation and impractical in their application. While SkyBridge attempted to provide the information required by Section 25.146(a)(2)(v) in good faith in Exhibit C, SkyBridge requests this waiver out of an abundance of caution in the event that its demonstration of compliance is deemed insufficient in view of the current Section 146(a)(2)(v) or that section after resolution of the pending SkyBridge Petition for Reconsideration. As in the case of the EPFDgown results, discussed above, no party would be prejudiced by grant of the instant waiver. First, the additional results requested by the Commission are not needed to ensure compliance with the EPFD,,, Validation Limits. So long as the EPFD statistics of a system are shown to meet the EPFD,,, Validation Limits with computer software in accordance with ITU—R Recommendation BO.1503, it follows by definition that the limits will be met worldwide.° Second, both the software and inputs for assessing compliance with the EPFD,,, Validation Limits are being provided by SkyBridge. If an interested party believes that additional results would be useful, it will be able to perform the computations itself.‘ As noted above, SkyBridge would be pleased to assist such a party in this regard. 3. Sections 25.146(a)(1)(ii1) and (a)(2)(iii) of the Commission‘s Rules require disclosure of the source code employed for the demonstration of compliance with the Validation Limits. As noted in Exhibit C, and discussed in detail in a separate letter to the Commission hand—delivered September 16, 2002 in conjunction with this Amendment (a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to this Exhibit B), the source code employed by SkyBridge was developed by an outside contractor, and constitutes highly proprietary information to that contractor. Under the terms of its agreement with the software provider, SkyBridge is not permitted to disclose the source code publicly. SkyBridge has, however, received permission from the software provider to disclose the source code to the Commission under a request for confidential treatment. SkyBridge hereby requests a waiver of the provisions that require disclosure of the source code, in the event that the Commission finds the SkyBridge submission of the source code in any way deficient. No party would be harmed by grant of the requested waiver. SkyBridge‘s disclosure of the executable code will permit interested parties to perform computations and test the software to their satisfaction. SkyBridge has submitted the source code to the Commission, for its inspection, as an indication of good faith. SkyBridge would be pleased to assist other parties with any questions they may have concerning the software, including assistance on use and testing of the executable code, so long as such assistance See SkyBridge Petition for Reconsideration at 31; SkyBridge Ex Parte at 18. Further, as noted above, the additional data requested by the Commission provides no useful information to GSO operators because the software does not predict actual interference levels. See SkyBridge Ex Parte at 8, 18. SkyBridge Petition for Reconsideration at 31; SkyBridge Ex Parte at 18.

does not require disclosure of commercially—sensitive information of SkyBridge‘s contractor.

Appendix 1 to Exhibit B Transmittal Letter for Source Code

PA U L, WEISS, RIFKIND, YHARTON 8 GARRISON 1285 AvENUE OF THE amERICAS NEW YORK, NY 10019—6064 161 5 L STREET, NW w ASHINGTON. DC 2003 6—5 694 TELEPHONE (@212) 373—3000 FACSIMILE (212) 757—3990 TELEPHONE (202) 223—7300 FACSIMILE (202) 223—7420 62. RUE DU FAUBOURG SAINT—HONORE 75008 PARIS, FRANCE TELEPHONE (33 1153 43 14 14 FACSIMILE (33 153 43 00 23 JEFFREY H. OLSON COMMUNICATIONS COunsSEL FUKOKU SEIMEI BUILDING 2—2 UCHISAIWAICHO 2—CHOME TELEPHONE (202) 223—7326 CHIYODA—KU, TOKYO 100—0011, JAPAN TELEPHONE (61:3) 3897—8 101 E—mAIlL:jolson@pautweiss.com FACSIMILE (8 1—3) 3597—8 120 2918 CHINA WORLD TOWER i} NO. 1 JIANGUOMENWAL DAJIE BEIJING, 100004 PEOPLE‘S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TELEPHONE (86—10) eso5—6s22 FACSIMILE (86—10) esos—s830 12TH FLOOR, HONG KONG CLUB BUILDING 3A CHATER ROAD, CENTRAL HONG KONG TELEPHONE (852) 2536—9933 FACSIMILE (852) 2536—9622 September 16, 2002 By Hand Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554 Re: SkyBridge LL.C. —— File Nos. 48—SAT—P/LA—97, 89—SAT— AMEND—97, SAT—AMD—19980630—00056 (130—SAT—AMEND— 98), SAT—AMD—19990108—00004. Transmittal ofSource Code Related to Amendment — Request for Confidential Treatment Dear Madame Secretary: In connection with the amendment being filed today by SkyBridge L.L.C. ("SkyBridge") ofits application for authority to launch and operate a non—geostationary satellite orbit ("NGSO") Fixed—Satellite Service ("FSS") system in the Ku—band (the "Amendment‘‘), we hereby transmit, on behalf of SkyBridge, a CD ROM containing the source code (the "Source Code") for the software (the "Validation Software") required to be submitted to the Commission pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 25.146(a). The CD ROM is labeled "SkyBridge Validation Software Source Code, September 16, 2002." As discussed below, the Validation Software was developed for SkyBridge by an outside contractor (the "Software Provider"),‘ and it is based, in part, on ‘ The Software Provider is the teuchos Group ("teuchos"), which markets and sells products of Analytical Graphics, Inc., including the Satellite Tool Kit software package. Doc#: DC1: 1300191

PAUL, Y EISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON 8 GARRISON Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary 2 a commercial product. Under the terms of SkyBridge‘s nondisclosure agreement with the Software Provider, SkyBridge is not permitted to release the Source Code. However, SkyBridge has received permission to submit the Source Code to the Commission only, in order to demonstrate SkyBridge‘s compliance with 47 C.F.R. § 25.146(a), provided that such submission is accompanied by a request for confidential treatment. Accordingly, SkyBridge requests that the Source Code be withheld from public inspection and not placed in the Commission‘s public files, pursuant to Section 552(b)(4) of the U.S. Code, and Sections 0.457(d) and 0.459 of the Commission‘s Rules. The Source Code, if disclosed, could be of value to competitors and detrimental to the Software Provider. The Software Provider would be placed at a significant disadvantage if the Source Code were revealed to competing service providers who stand to benefit competitively from any such knowledge. If for any reason the Commission should determine that it may not grant the instant request for confidential treatment, SkyBridge hereby requests that the CD ROM be returned to SkyBridge, and that the Commission retain no copies of the information contained thereon." In no event should the CD ROM or information be placed in the Commission‘s files or otherwise released publicly. In support of this request, and pursuant to Section 0.459(b) of the Commission‘s rules, SkyBridge establishes the following: 1. Identification of Specific Information for Which Confidential Treatment is Sought. The specific information for which confidential treatment is sought is contained in the CD ROM enclosed herewith, which consists of the Source Code for the Validation Software required to be provided to the Commission under 47 C.F.R § 25.146(a). As discussed in the SkyBridge Amendment, the software functionality conforms exactly to a publicly—available software specification —— ITU—R Recommendation BO.1503. Moreover, an executable version of the software is being provided publicly as part of the SkyBridge Amendment. Confidential treatment is being sought only for the highly—proprietary Source Code for the software. 2. Description of Circumstances Giving Rise to the Submission. As noted above, the information is being submitted in response the requirement adopted in the Report and Order, in IB Docket No. 01—96," that NGSO FSS applicants amend their applications by September 16, 2002, to come into conformity with new requirements and ‘ 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4); 47 C.FR. § 0.457(d); 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. In it Amendment, SkyBridge has requested a waiver of the rule requiring the provision of the source code for the Validation Software, 47 C.F.R. § 25.146(a), in the event that the Commission finds the instant submission in any way deficient. See FCC 02—123, released April 26, 2002. Doc#: DC1: 1300191

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON 8 CARRISON Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary 3 policies, including a demonstration of compliance with certain power limits contained in 47 CFE.R. § 25.208, using software based on ITU—R Recommendation BO. 1503." 3. Explanation of the Degree to Which the Information is Commercial or Financial, or Contains a Trade Secret or is Privileged. The CD ROM contains extremely sensitive information that would customarily be withheld from competitors, and considered a trade secret by its owner. Source code for a commercial software application is rarely disclosed under any circumstances. The Software Provider would be severely prejudiced in its ability to compete if this information were released to competitors. As noted above, under the terms of its agreement with the Software Provider, SkyBridge is not permitted to release the Source Code without the Software Provider‘s permission. Public disclosure of the Source Code is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the Software Provider. 4. Explanation of the Degree to Which the Information Concerns a Service that is Subject to Competition. The information for which non—disclosure is sought pertains to software for modelling emissions of constellations of NGSO satellites. The Software Provider faces competition from software vendors marketing similar products. Such companies stand to benefit competitively from any knowledge of the details of the computer program. 5. Explanation of How Disclosure of the Information Could Result in Substantial Competitive Harm. Release of the information for which non—disclosure is sought could result in substantial harm to the Software Provider by revealing to its competitors, the satellite construction industry, and the public, the source code of a commercial software product. Current or future competitors in the service market could use the information to learn details about that product that are extremely confidential and are not available in any other public forum. 6. Identification of Any Measures Taken to Prevent Unauthorized Disclosure. The Software Provider‘s agreement with SkyBridge requires SkyBridge to keep proprietary information disclosed pursuant to the agreement, including the Source Code. As noted above, SkyBridge has been authorized to release this information to the Commission only in combination with a request for confidential treatment. 7. Identification of Whether the Information is Available to the Public and the Extent of Any Previous Disclosure of the Information to Third Parties. The Source Code for which SkyBridge seeks confidential treatment has never, to SkyBridge‘s knowledge, been previously disclosed to the public. 5 See 47 CF.R. §§ 25.146(a), 25.146(h)(3). Doc#: DC1: 130019 _1

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON 8 CARRLSON Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary 4 8. Justification of Period During Which the Submitting Party Asserts that Material Should Not be Available for Public Disclosure. SkyBridge would request that this information be withheld from disclosure for a period of at least three years. Given the competitive nature of the information and the uncertainty in its useful life, this period of time is reasonable. Please direct any questions regarding this matter to the undersigned. efffey H. Olson Diane C. Gaylor Attorneys for SkyBridge L.L.C. Enclosure ce: Donald Abelson Thomas Tycz Diane Garfield Jennifer Gilsenen Scott Kotler J. Mark Young, Esq. Doc#: DC1: 130019_1


Document Created: 2019-04-13 06:59:07
Document Modified: 2019-04-13 06:59:07
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC