Opposition and Response OPPOSITION by WorldVu Satellites Limited SAT-LOI-20160428-00041 Opposition and Respo

Opposition and Respo

OPPOSITION submitted by WorldVu Satellites Limited

Opposition and Response

2016-08-25

This document pretains to SAT-LOI-20160428-00041 for Letter of Intent on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOI2016042800041_1147589

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of )
)
WorldVu Satellites Limited ) Call Sign: S2963
)
Petition for a Declaratory Ruling ) File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041
Granting Access to the U.S. Market )
For the OneWeb System )

OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE OF WORLDVU SATELLITES LIMITED

Kalpak S. Gude
Vice President of Legal-Regulatory
WorldVu Satellites Limited
1400 Key Boulevard, Suite A1
Arlington, VA 22209

Jennifer D. Hindin
Colleen King
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 719-7000

Counsel to WorldVu Satellites Limited

August 25, 2016

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of )
)
WorldVu Satellites Limited ) Call Sign: S2963
)
Petition for a Declaratory Ruling ) File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041
Granting Access to the U.S. Market )
For the OneWeb System )

OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE OF WORLDVU SATELLITES LIMITED

WorldVu Satellites Limited, d/b/a OneWeb (“OneWeb”), pursuant to Section 25.154(c)

of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC” or “Commission”),1 hereby

submits this Opposition and Response to the Petitions to Deny and Comments filed in the above-

captioned proceeding.2

1
47 C.F.R. § 25.154(c).
2
Petition to Deny of The MVDDS 5G Coalition, File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041
(filed Aug. 15, 2016) (“MVDDS Petition”); Petition to Deny of Telesat Canada (“Telesat”), File
No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041 (filed Aug. 15, 2016) (“Telesat Petition”); Comments of The
Boeing Company (“Boeing”), File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041 (filed Aug. 15, 2016)
(“Boeing Comments”); Comments of The National Radio Astronomy Observatory (“NRAO”),
File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041 (filed July 24, 2016) (“NRAO Comments”); Comments of
SES S.A. and O3b Limited (“SES” and “O3b” respectively), File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-
00041 (filed Aug. 15, 2016) (“SES and O3b Comments”); Comments of Space Exploration
Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”), File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041 (filed Aug. 15, 2016)
(“SpaceX Comments”); Comments of the State of Alaska, File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041
(filed Aug. 9, 2016) (“Alaska Comments”); and Comments of ViaSat, Inc. (“ViaSat”), File No.
SAT-LOI-20160428-00041 (filed Aug. 15, 2016) (“ViaSat Comments”).

1

I. COMMENTERS AGREE THAT ONEWEB’S PROPOSED CONSTELLATION
WILL BENEFIT THE PUBLIC WITH AFFORDABLE, HIGH-SPEED
BROADBAND CONNECTIVITY AND JOBS IN THE UNITED STATES

OneWeb’s mission is to make affordable, low latency, broadband internet available

everywhere. Digital connectivity is out of reach for nearly 4.2 billion people worldwide,

including millions of people right here in the United States.3 The comments filed by Alaskan

Governor Bill Walker underscore the public interest benefits of approving U.S. market access for

the OneWeb system. The Governor explained, “broadband infrastructure and high speed

capacity are essential to [Alaska’s] successful delivery of educational, medical, and emergency

response services throughout [the] state.”4 He further acknowledged that OneWeb’s system

“would be a game changer in Alaska’s ability to participate in the federally mandated FirstNet

program.”5 OneWeb’s efficient, highly directive satellite antennas operate with low sidelobes

and can provide very high speed bandwidth to small terminals anywhere in the world without

having to construct expensive, terrestrial middle-mile connections.6 As such, the OneWeb

system will be particularly beneficial for states like Alaska with rural communities. From the

3
See ITU/UNESCO BROADBAND COMMISSION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, THE
STATE OF BROADBAND 2015: BROADBAND AS A FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
AT 8 (2015), available at http://broadbandcommission.org/Documents/reports/bb-
annualreport2015.pdf; Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All American in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to
Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as
Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act—2016 Broadband Progress Report, 31 FCC
Rcd 699, 701 (¶ 4) (2016).
4
Alaska Comments at 1.
5
Id.
6
See id. (“This is an ideal low-cost solution where the geographic isolation and
environmental protection challenges make rural Alaska’s middle mile infrastructure cost
prohibitive.”).

2

Kansas plains to small towns in Texas to the Maine woods, people living in rural communities in

America will greatly benefit from expanded broadband access promised by the OneWeb system.

OneWeb was founded by legendary communications entrepreneur Greg Wyler and is

designed first and foremost to be a technological and commercial success. In a field where many

others have struggled to bring their grand ideas to fruition, Mr. Wyler has unparalleled success in

conceiving, designing, funding, implementing, and commercially deploying NGSO FSS systems

that break boundaries and create new services and competition. For example, as the founder of

O3b, Mr. Wyler achieved the impressive feat of bringing together such stellar investors as

Google, Liberty Global, SES, HSBC and others and then raising the billions of dollars necessary

to turn his vision for O3b into reality in a remarkably short time. Like O3b, OneWeb starts with

an impressive group of strategic partners and shareholders that support Mr. Wyler’s vision,

including Airbus Group, Bharti Enterprises, Hughes Network Systems, Intelsat, MacDonald,

Dettwiler and Associates, Qualcomm Incorporated, the Coca-Cola Company, the Virgin Group,

and Totalplay. With financing well underway, OneWeb is now poised to deliver global,

satellite-based broadband connectivity under Mr. Wyler’s experienced leadership. Mr. Wyler

does not just dream big dreams; he makes them reality.

OneWeb is expecting to offer service as early as 2019—while also creating new jobs in

the United States. A major step, for instance, is the planned opening in 2017 of the Airbus/

OneWeb joint venture, $85 million advanced aerospace manufacturing facility. This facility will

create 250 high-tech manufacturing and engineering jobs. It will be the world’s first and only

purpose-built, high volume satellite production facility located near the Kennedy Space Center at

3

Exploration Park, Florida.7 The facility will construct hundreds of low-cost, high-performance

satellites initially weighing only 150 kg and ready for deployment starting in 2018.

Today, OneWeb is focused and preparing for launch. The first version of satellites has

been designed and the major space hardware components have been prototype tested. The

communications chip sets (designed by industry leader Qualcomm), with their state of the art

14nm process are already on the bench and have exceeded performance expectations in terms of

throughput and power consumption—enabling a new level of low cost, easy to install solar

powered terminals for the world’s unconnected. OneWeb’s launch campaign is on the manifest

and the unique venetian blind shaped communications antennas have been built and tested. When

utilized with OneWeb’s operational techniques, this antenna will allow the OneWeb system to

meet all EPFD and other regulatory requirements. Beyond the first satellite version, OneWeb’s

roadmap brings new satellites with exponential increases in bandwidth and reductions in cost per

bit. This is the reason OneWeb has its own factory—so it can continuously implement new

technologies as they prove ready for space.

II. ONEWEB DESIGNED A STATE OF THE ART SYSTEM THAT CAN
COORDINATE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY WITH OTHERS

OneWeb wholeheartedly agrees with Boeing that “technology has developed sufficiently

to enable the launch and operation of global NGSO FSS systems to make broadband

communications services ubiquitously available to all locations on Earth.”8 The OneWeb system

7
Peter B. de Selding, OneWeb Basking in Florida’s Warm Embrace, SPACENEWS
MAGAZINE (Apr. 25, 2016), available at https://www.spacenewsmag.com/feature/oneweb-
basking-in-floridas-warm-embrace/.
8
Boeing Comments at 1.

4

uses such advanced technology, and any claim to the contrary is simply unfounded.9 OneWeb’s

advanced system utilizes state of the art technologies including novel waveforms, all-electric

propulsion, and novel beam patterns to achieve major benefits. OneWeb and its partners have

pushed the boundaries of technologies in many fields. OneWeb has miniaturized at least seven

different major satellite subcomponents, for instance moving from traveling wave tube amplifiers

(“TWTAs”) to purpose built state of the art semi-conductors to create an extremely compact

satellite with 20 times the performance of its nearest competitor at 100 times lower production

cost. OneWeb’s waveform is custom-designed to enable high performance and resist interference

from other systems. The scheduling systems enable handover of hundreds of thousands of

connections per second without any customers losing packets.

A. Comments Support Spectrum Efficient Sharing Rather than Band
Segmentation

There was no opposition to OneWeb’s request for waiver of the default band

segmentation rule set forth in Section 25.157(e).10 Rather, the commenters recognize that the

Commission should permit access to all available spectrum subject to good faith negotiations to

avoid interference among NGSO systems. For example, Telesat stated “[b]and-splitting will

provide too little spectrum to each of the applicants, resulting in no systems being launched.”11

9
SpaceX Comments at 8.
10
47 C.F.R. § 25.157(e) (band segmentation is to be applied “[i]n the event that there is
insufficient spectrum in the frequency band available to accommodate all qualified applicants in
a processing round”).
11
Telesat Petition at 3. See also Boeing Comments at 2; SES and O3b Comments at 9
(requesting spectrum sharing condition 12 instead of band segmentation); SpaceX Comments at
15. Even ViaSat’s request that the FCC defer action on OneWeb’s band segmentation waiver
pending “consideration of all the other NGSO applications that may be filed in this processing
round” is likely to be fulfilled as a practical matter, because those applications will soon be filed
this November. ViaSat Comments at 4.

5

 Alternate polarization.13

These techniques and others can provide sharing opportunities between NGSO systems,

including with OneWeb.

C. OneWeb Efficiently Uses Very Narrow Ka-band Gateways From Only a
Limited Number of Sites to Enable Coordination with Others

In the Ka-band, OneWeb employs high-gain antennas on the satellite with excellent

sidelobe rejection so it can make use of satellite selection strategies and earth station diversity.14

In fact, these are some of the methods employed by OneWeb to protect geostationary satellite

orbit (“GSO”) networks and other NGSO systems like O3b’s system. Such techniques ensure

the link between the OneWeb satellite and its gateway earth station always avoids the GSO by an

angle sufficient to ensure that FCC and ITU EPFD limits are met and similarly can avoid the

O3b orbits. These avoidance angles are minimized through the use of advanced gateway earth

stations designed with low sidelobes and extremely narrow beamwidths, as well as by using very

narrow satellite beams.

With regard to OneWeb’s Ka-band usage, SpaceX makes the general claim that OneWeb

does not enable “efficient spectrum sharing,”15 and further points to OneWeb’s filtering,

claiming it leaves valuable spectrum underutilized.16 However, OneWeb’s system in fact uses

very few, extremely narrow Ka-beams, leaving ample room for other NGSO systems, including

13
See International Telecommunication Union, Recommendation ITU-R S.1431 at 3-4
(2000).
14
See SpaceX Comments at 13.
15
Id. at 8.
16
Id. at 14.

7

SpaceX claims OneWeb is not advanced because its satellites steer the beams by rotating

the satellite itself.18 Actually, just the opposite is true. The progressive pitch, invented by

OneWeb, is novel, economically efficient, and elegant. It is also much more spectrally efficient

than a phased array and enables higher throughput at reduced transmit powers. A phased array

antenna, which points its beam off boresight, does so at an oblique angle, resulting in a wider

beam, higher sidelobe transmissions and higher transmit power requirements for both the

satellite in its downlink and the terminal on its uplink. Thus, the progressive pitch solution is

more efficient than other alternatives.

SpaceX further seems to be suggesting the Commission should mandate the maximum

beam sizes for NGSO satellites.19 OneWeb disagrees for several reasons. First, this would

require detailed technical studies on the part of the Commission to choose very specific

technology and limit future innovation. Second, forcing smaller beams would also dictate larger

antenna apertures, and thus bigger spacecraft and higher launch costs.

As for the apparent suggestion that NGSO FSS systems should use ground-based cellular

patterns,20 this choice should be up to the satellite system designer, rather than imposed via

Commission mandate, as Space X suggests. SpaceX appears to be choosing to dynamically form

beams, which they claim will allow them to better coordinate with others including OneWeb. At

such a time that SpaceX locks its system design and presents it for coordination, OneWeb will,

of course, work diligently to cooperate with SpaceX engineers. However, at this point, its

18
Space X Comments at 13 and 14
19
See id. at 8-11.
20
See id. at 8-9.

9

comments are full of various untested and unproven technologies, the effects of which cannot be

evaluated without reviewing a comprehensive and detailed system design.

Finally, OneWeb seeks to correct some of SpaceX’s misunderstandings regarding the

OneWeb system.

 Footprint: SpaceX erroneously compares OneWeb’s Ku-band beam footprint to those of
certain GSO Ka-band satellite networks, ignoring the frequency difference between Ku-
band and Ka-band, and the impact this has on achievable beam sizes.21 When correctly
comparing Ka-band to Ka-band, the OneWeb footprint is 30 times smaller than even the
smallest GSO beam satellite variant such as Viasat-2. At Ku-band, OneWeb’s footprint
is significantly smaller than GSO Ku-band footprints, some of which are extremely
large.22

 System Capacity: SpaceX erroneously states that the beam can only sustain 422 active
users in an area the size of South Carolina.23 SpaceX compares this number of users to
the state’s total population lacking access to adequate broadband.24 These assertions are
incorrect for the following reasons:

o the link budget is performed only for users at the edge of beam and for a given
small aperture terminal type which will not be used by all users. Other users will
have terminals with larger apertures and therefore higher bits per hertz and data
rates;

o given that not all users would concurrently be accessing the RF channel 100% of
the time, and in the same way that a cellular system or cable system can
accommodate very high data rates for many users, the OneWeb system will be
able to serve many more users than such simplistic static analysis would show;

o all telecommunications systems use statistical multiplexing and the ability to do
statistical multiplexing for satellites is even greater because of the diversity of use

21
Id. at 10 (comparing the beam footprint of the OneWeb NGSO system Ku-band beams to
GSO Ka-band satellites operated by ViaSat and EchoStar).
22
Most satellites operating in the U.S. use full CONUS beams (over 7 million km2). Some
use smaller areas such as half- or quarter CONUS, but even the smallest spot beams encircle the
Hawaiian islands and surrounding sea (approximately 100,000 km2).
23
SpaceX Comments at 10.
24
Id. at 10-11.

10

cases and peak times (home users in the evening and business users during the
day, etc.); and

o SpaceX ignores the fact that beams for satellites in adjacent planes do overlap,
and thus the area served by a given beam is in many cases half the size of its
footprint, so the throughput per geographic area is significantly higher.

 Number of Satellites. SpaceX claims the OneWeb system cannot be expanded by
adding satellites.25 Although the current constellation is designed with 720 satellites to
provide global coverage, it can be increased by adding satellites within a plane to
improve coverage (more overlap between beams in the North-South direction), as
required.26 OneWeb’s Petition corresponds only to the first generation satellites,
providing a viable commercial undertaking that will serve millions of users worldwide.
As demand for capacity grows, OneWeb will launch second generation spacecraft with
more capacity by using smaller beams, which will be entirely backwards compatible with
the first generation system, thereby offering continuous capacity increase and service
improvement.
E. OneWeb Will Coordinate in Good Faith With the Radio Astronomy Service

The NRAO filed a letter in this proceeding noting the need for the OneWeb Ku-band

satellite downlink transmissions to protect the Radio Astronomy and Passive Services in the

adjacent 10.6-10.7 GHz band.27 The letter points out that footnote US131 to the U.S. table of

frequency allocations requires OneWeb to coordinate with the NRAO in order to provide

interference protection of the radio astronomy observatories listed in that footnote.28 The NRAO

25
Id. at ii and 16.
26
OneWeb Petition, Attachment A at 1, n.1 (“The OneWeb satellite system has been
designed such that more satellites beyond 720 can be added to the constellation at a future
time…”).
27
NRAO Comments at 1.
28
Id.; 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, US 131 (“In the band 10.7-11.7 GHz, non-geostationary satellite
orbit licenses in the fixed-satellite service (space-to-Earth), prior to commencing operations,
shall coordinate with the following radio astronomy observatories to achieve a mutually
acceptable agreement regarding the protection of the radio telescope facilities operating in the
band 10.6-10.7 GHz.”).

11

also makes reference to the passive service band 10.68-10.7 GHz which is protected

domestically by footnote US246 and internationally by RR No. 5.340.29

OneWeb’s Petition also acknowledged the footnotes to the U.S Table of Frequency

Allocations that address the protection of the RAS in the 10.6-10.7 GHz band, including footnote

US131, and stated its intention to coordinate accordingly with the NRAO.30 OneWeb first

contacted the U.S. National Science Foundation (“NSF”) to discuss the protection of the Radio

Astronomy Service (“RAS”) as early as July 2015. After some e-mail dialog, a meeting was

held in May 2016 between OneWeb representatives and the NSF, and this included a

representative of the NRAO. At that meeting OneWeb described in some detail the RAS

interference analysis work it had been doing to that point using time domain simulations and the

EPFD approach given in the relevant ITU-R Recommendations. At that meeting the NRAO

provided useful advice on certain aspects of this analysis method. Since that time, OneWeb has

been refining its interference analysis based on the NRAO’s advice and using it to optimize

certain aspects of the design and specification of the detailed equipment and subsystems of the

OneWeb satellites, as well as the development of any necessary operational procedures, so as to

fully protect the RAS. OneWeb will continue with this activity in order to ensure that the RAS is

protected to the level required by the FCC rules and the ITU Radio Regulations.

F. OneWeb Will Protect Co-Frequency GSOs

In its Comments, SES requests that the FCC ask OneWeb a series of additional questions

to clarify that the OneWeb system design has the ability to protect GSOs from harmful

29
NRAO Comments at 1.
30
OneWeb Petition, Attachment A at 43.

12

interference.31 OneWeb recognizes that the Commission may seek additional information related

to its Petition and has already responded to one such Commission inquiry. 32 OneWeb would be

pleased to answer any additional questions posed by the Commission.33 Moreover, in the interest

of facilitating prompt Commission review of and authorization for the OneWeb system to

provide broadband internet connectivity in the United States, OneWeb voluntarily answers SES

and O3b’s questions in Appendix A.

G. The Commission Should Reject the Flawed Analysis Presented By the
MVDDS 5G Coalition Seeking to Rewrite Long Established Spectrum
Sharing Rules

The MVDDS 5G Coalition (“Coalition”) has petitioned the FCC to deny OneWeb’s

Petition based essentially on its dislike of the current FCC rules that allow sharing between

NGSO FSS and the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (“MVDDS”). The

existing MVDDS rules are, as the Coalition rightly points out, the result of exhaustive analyses

and dialog between the FCC and the interested industry parties, over a four-year period from

1998 to 2002.34 They represent what was agreed as being a fair compromise to enable the two

31
Comments of SES and O3b at 6-7.
32
Letter from Jose P. Albuquerque, Federal Communications Commission, to Kalpak S.
Gude, WorldVu Satellites Limited, IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041 (Jun. 10, 2016);
Letter from Kalpak S. Gude, WorldVu Satellites Limited, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, File No.
SAT-LOI-20160428-00041 at 5 (Jun. 24, 2016).
33
47 C.F.R. § 25.111(a) (“The Commission may request from any party at any time
additional information concerning any application, or any other submission or pleading regarding
an application, filed under this part.”).
34
See MVDDS Petition, Exhibit 1.

13

FCC’s MVDDS rules, to a two-way 5G system, and then to ask OneWeb and other NGSOs to

give up a major chunk of available spectrum is inconsistent with the FCC’s rules and the public

interest.

III. ROUTINE FCC CONDITIONS AND ITU COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS
FULLY ADDRESS THE NON-SPECTRUM SHARING ISSUES RAISED BY
COMMENTERS

A. OneWeb Will Comply with Future FCC Rules With Or Without An Express
Condition To Do So

SpaceX asks the FCC to impose a condition on grant of OneWeb’s Petition that will

“explicitly incorporate the outcome of the [anticipated NGSO system] rulemaking.”47 OneWeb,

just like any other U.S. space station licensee or recipient of U.S. market access, is required to

conform to any future NGSO system rules or, upon demonstration of good cause, seek approval

for waiver from the Commission.48 As a practical matter, the FCC has not yet opened any

proceeding to develop new technical or service rules for NGSO systems. It is therefore

unnecessary to condition the grant of OneWeb’s Petition on compliance with future rules

adopted in a not-yet-pending rulemaking proceeding. 49

47
SpaceX Comments at 2-3.
48
See 47 C.F.R. § 25.160 (“A forfeiture may be imposed for failure to operate in
conformance with . . . any of the Commission’s rules and regulations.”); 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 (“The
provisions of this chapter may be suspended, revoked, amended, or waived for good cause
shown, in whole or in part, at any time by the Commission, subject to the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act and the provisions of this chapter.”).
49
In contrast, the precedent cited by SpaceX for conditioning licenses on compliance with
future rules all involved rulemakings pending at the time of Commission licensing. See SpaceX
Comments at 2-3, n.7.

17

Activity Licenses required for launch and space operations will be issued only after review and

affirmative approval by the United Kingdom regulator of OneWeb’s orbital debris mitigation

plan. Following issuance, OneWeb will submit the Space Activity Licenses to the FCC.

C. OneWeb Will Work in Good Faith to Ensure Safe Operation of Its 1,200 km
Orbital Constellation with Boeing’s Proposed Constellation

OneWeb will engage in good faith discussions with Boeing and other proposed NGSO

systems to determine the degree of separation required between large NGSO constellations to

operate safely. OneWeb takes seriously its responsibility to ensure space safety and minimize

any impact of the OneWeb constellation on the LEO environment. In fact, OneWeb has and

continues to both participate and present at key space debris conferences including the annual

Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance (“AMOS”) Technologies Conference and the

International Astronautical Congress (“IAC”). OneWeb also actively participates within the UN

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (“COPUOS”) to promote safe space activities.

OneWeb has presented its constellation and avoidance measures to its peers in the scientific

community to further collaborate on new ideas as well as communicate the many techniques and

capabilities embedded in the system design and architecture to ensure a limited need for

avoidance activity, while validating active avoidance and de-orbit capabilities.

OneWeb is certainly concerned by the many, much larger constellation designs and their

potential impact on the future availability of space. Space sustainability is critically important to

the commercial satellite industry, and operating as safely as possible ensures limited and

precious resources remain available for present and future satellite operators. With safety in

mind, OneWeb designed its system to operate at the less-populated 1,200 km altitude, thus

minimizing the likelihood of collision with uncontrolled debris. OneWeb’s altitude design

decisions were made years before many other constellations were announced or filed.
19

Just recently Boeing filed an FCC application54 to use the same altitude as OneWeb

openly acknowledging OneWeb’s altitudinal presence. OneWeb would be pleased to enter into

coordination discussions with Boeing to ensure collision-free operations of Boeing’s proposed

system with OneWeb’s 1,200 km LEO constellation.

Boeing stated in its application it is “confident that OneWeb and Boeing can operate in

their respective constellations at or near 1,200 kilometers by making slight adjustments upwards

or downwards in their planned constellation altitudes.”55 OneWeb notes that its system orbital

design has been locked for years, with tooling already underway for production of the satellites

based on this design. Altitude changes at this juncture would have significant repercussions for

deployment of OneWeb’s system. Nevertheless, OneWeb remains committed to working with

Boeing.

D. The Commission’s Routine Condition On Adherence to ITU Coordination
Agreements Fully Addresses Telesat’s Concern

OneWeb welcomes the opportunity to work with Telesat to make sure its constellation,

should it decide to build one, and OneWeb’s constellation can operate without interference

concerns. Telesat asks the FCC to deny OneWeb’s petition for U.S. market access because, in

relation to the Ka-band, “the ITU filings associated with Telesat’s NGSO constellation have

lower priority than the ITU filings associated with Telesat’s NGSO constellation.”56

Alternatively, Telesat asks the Commission to adopt new domestic rules that “require that

54
See The Boeing Company, Application, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20160622-00058 (June
22, 2016); Boeing Comments at 4.
55
Boeing Comments at 4.
56
Telesat Petition at 2.

20

systems with lower date priority coordinate their operations (and insure they do not interfere)

with systems with higher date priority.”57

On the topic of ITU priority, the Commission recently issued an order clarifying “the

interrelationship between its domestic licensing framework and the international coordination

framework set forth in the Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union

(ITU).”58 The FCC explained that “it will license satellites at orbital locations at which another

Administration has ITU priority”59 and impose a condition requiring compliance with

international coordination. If coordination is not obtained and operation of both systems creates

risk of harmful interference to the system with ITU priority, “a U.S.-licensed satellite making use

of an ITU filing with a later protection date would be required to cease service to the U.S. market

immediately upon launch and operation of a non-U.S.- licensed satellite with an earlier

protection date. . . .”60 Moreover, the FCC has stated that it “is not responsible for the outcome

of any particular satellite coordination and does not guarantee the success or failure of the

required international coordination.”61 This is particularly true where, as here, the relevant ITU

filings involve Canada and the United Kingdom—not the United States.

A condition requiring satellite communications with U.S. earth stations to adhere to the

ITU coordination process will fully protect Telesat’s interests, while not making the United

57
Id. at 4.
58
Amendment of the Commission’s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, Second
Order on Reconsideration, IB Docket No. 02-34, FCC 16-108, ¶ 31 (rel. Aug. 16, 2016).
59
Id., ¶ 32.
60
Id.
61
Amendment of the Commission’s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report
and Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 10760, ¶ 96 (2003).

21

States the arbiter of coordination between two other administrations. OneWeb notes that after

detailed analysis, it will be straight-forward to coordinate OneWeb’s few pencil thin Ka-beams

with either and/or both of the Telesat constellations, comprised of 72 satellites in one

constellation and 44 in the other. Thus, the fact that OneWeb has some lower priority ITU

filings than Telesat can be addressed through coordination. In practice, the FCC routinely

imposes such a condition. For example, the FCC recently granted SES Satellites Limited’s

petition for U.S. market access on the condition that “[c]ommunications between U.S.-licensed

earth stations and the SES-15 space station [] comply with all existing and future space station

coordination agreements reached between the United Kingdom and other administrations.”62

This is not the first time Telesat has attempted to have the ITU process supplant the

FCC’s domestic licensing process. In the 17/24 GHz proceeding, Telesat asked the Commission

to include a condition that “would make the grant subject to the licensee coordinating with

satellite operators having International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”) date priority.”63 The

FCC nevertheless determined to apply its domestic licensing process and to allow ITU

coordination to proceed independently.64 The same approach is warranted here.65

62
SES Satellite (Gibraltar) Limited, Stamp Grant, IBFS File No. SAT-PPL-20160126-
00007, at 2-3, n.2 (July 12, 2016).
63
Letter from Paul D. Bush, Telesat, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, IB Docket No. 06-123, at 2 (September 12, 2007).
64
Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the
17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and
at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to
the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for the Satellite Services Operating Bi-Directionally in
the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band, Second Order on Reconsideration, 25 FCC Rcd 15718, ¶ 11
(2010) (“In light of our existing ITU coordination rule and our prior statements on this issue, we
find Telesat's contention that there ‘may be confusion’ regarding ITU coordination obligations to
be unsupported. Thus, we find that any further condition requiring ITU coordination, as
proposed by Telesat, is redundant and is otherwise unnecessary as a general matter.”).

22

Notwithstanding the specific rules above, and in line with OneWeb’s goal to work

positively and constructively with other systems, OneWeb has reviewed Telesat’s filings and

believes there will be no coordination concern between Telesat and OneWeb. OneWeb remains

committed and ready to have these coordination discussions.

E. The Software Source Code is Not Necessary to Ensure EPFD Compliance

ViaSat claims that it is necessary for OneWeb to provide the FCC with the source code

for the software it used to demonstrate compliance with the single-entry EPFD validation limits,

citing §25.146(a).66 However, the source code disclosure requirement is only applicable to

software not approved by the ITU. As explained in the OneWeb Petition,67 the software

OneWeb provided to the FCC and used to demonstrate EPFD compliance is the software that has

been under development by the ITU for several years for this very purpose. It is a vigorously

tested, executable that is available in advanced beta form on the ITU’s website and soon will be

released in final form. 68 The source code for this ITU software is, and will remain, proprietary

to the software authors and cannot be made available to any other party, including the FCC.

The algorithm to determine whether NGSO FSS systems meet the EPFD limits in Article

22 of the Radio Regulations is defined in Recommendation ITU-R S.1503-2. These limits

65
Indeed, Telesat has not yet sought U.S. market access in the 17/24 GHz band and thus the
Commission’s adoption of Telesat’s proposed condition could have resulted in spectrum lying
fallow for years.
66
ViaSat Comments at 6-8 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 25.146(a)(1)(iii) and (a)(2)(iii)).
67
OneWeb Petition at 21-23.
68
On 3 June 2016 the ITU-BR issued Circular Letter CR/405 which announced to
administrations further details of the development of the EPFD validation software, and the
availability of an advanced beta version of this software on the ITU’s website. It also informed
administrations that the BR plans formally to issue the final version of this software in October
2016 and to use it to then start using it to evaluate EPFD compliance for already-filed NGSO
systems subject to EPFD limits.

23

provide the agreed level of protection for GSO networks. The algorithm is complex, and the best

way—and possibly the only effective way—to test software that implements it is against another

independently developed implementation. This was the approach taken by the ITU, which

invested in two separate and independently developed versions from Transfinite Systems Ltd in

the United Kingdom and Agenium in France.

The ITU work included an extremely vigorous test regime that involved:

 Module testing, such as orbit prediction algorithms;
 Component testing, such as the worst case geometry; and
 Test case runs, with a set of NGSO FSS systems that stretched the software by
testing difficult routes through the algorithm.

The detailed testing was a success with agreement between the two tools to very high precision.

The results of this testing were presented in April 2016 at the NGSO Workshop organized by the

ITU-BR. Both software tools were then delivered and accepted by the ITU with no

inconsistencies identified. The software was supplied in the form of executables, with no source

code supplied.

OneWeb, just like any other NGSO system, is obligated to meet the EPFD limits in

Article 22 of the Radio Regulations, and it is the ITU that will check these limits using the two

tools mentioned above. The FCC rules contain the very same EPFD limits, and require the use

of the same ITU-R Recommendation (S.1503-2) to calculate compliance. It is thus logical for

the Commission to use the same software tool to verify compliance. Any other concerned party,

including GSO satellite operators, can use this software provided by the ITU to test whether a

NGSO FSS system meets the EPFD limits in Article 22 of the Radio Regulation—just as

OneWeb did.

24

ViaSat also has made comments concerning the software necessary to calculate the

aggregate EPFD from multiple NGSO FSS systems.69 ViaSat seems to be suggesting that the

single-entry EPFD compliance demonstration for OneWeb cannot adequately be made without

knowing how the aggregate EPFD of multiple systems will be calculated. The two EPFD

demonstrations are, however, separate exercises. Indeed, the methodology to calculate this

aggregate EPFD from multiple systems has not been defined either in the ITU or by the FCC.

This will not stop the ITU from determining whether a single NGSO system has met its

obligations to comply with the EPFD limits, and neither should it prevent the FCC from doing

the same. Therefore, the FCC should reject ViaSat’s suggestion that the FCC delay its

determination of OneWeb’s EPFD compliance until the end of the processing round.

F. OneWeb Is Amenable to the FCC Imposing All Applicable O3b Conditions

The Comments of SES and O3b suggest that the “O3b Market Access Grant can be used

as a template with respect to OneWeb’s planned NGSO operations in Ka-band spectrum.”70

OneWeb does not object to the Commission including relevant conditions from the O3b Market

Access Grant in the grant of OneWeb’s request for market access. Indeed, doing so is an

efficient way to ensure prompt grant of OneWeb’s petition and the initiation of broadband

internet access to underserved and unserved communities in the United States.

With respect to proposed condition 3—which calls for ephemeris data for each satellite—

OneWeb is committed to making high-accuracy ephemeris information for all of its satellites

available to those with a need to know. Specifically, OneWeb will make information, which will

be frequently updated, to other satellite operators, government entities (e.g., the Joint Space

69
ViaSat Comments at 7.
70
SES and O3b Comments at 7.

25

APPENDIX A

1. When a OneWeb satellite approaches the equator, is the satellite as a whole turned off,
or are only certain beams turned off?

In the context of this question, OneWeb interprets the phrase “satellite as a whole” to mean
“all Ku-band user beams.” To be clear, OneWeb satellites will not be intentionally turned off
at any time during nominal operations. Individual beams, or all beams, may be turned off
depending on the satellite latitude. In order to meet EPFD limits, as the satellite approaches
the equator the downlink EIRP density of certain Ku-band user beams on the satellite will be
reduced and eventually those beams will be turned off. In addition, all Ku-band user beams
on the satellite will be turned off briefly as the satellite passes over the equator.

2. If only certain beams are turned off, how does the system determine which beams to
turn off and which beams can remain active?

The system determines which beams to turn off based on results from detailed simulations
which quantify the amount of EPFD that could be caused by OneWeb satellites to GSO earth
stations. In general, the beams that are powered down and turned off first are the “anti-
equatorial” beams, i.e., those pointed furthest away from the equator. These would be the
trailing beams of the array as the satellite approaches the equator and the leading beams as
the satellite moves away from the equator. These are the ones that are in closest alignment
with the GSO as viewed from the surface of the Earth.

3. At what latitude do OneWeb satellites begin turning off beams, and how was that
latitude determined?

OneWeb satellites vary individual Ku-band user beam powers over all latitudes of operation.
The power variation is done primarily for EPFD mitigation, but this also assists with onboard
power management of the satellites. Detailed simulations allow OneWeb to quantify the
amount of potential EPFD from the OneWeb system. The results of these simulations allow
OneWeb to define the latitudes at which beams are turned off during operation such that
EPFD limits are never exceeded. The control of satellite beam power is reflected in
OneWeb’s satellite PFD mask file submitted by the company with its Petition.

4. Are there any redundancy mechanisms in place to prevent EPFD limits from being
exceeded if a system error prevents a beam from turning off when the satellite
approaches the equator?

The OneWeb system enables frequent commanding opportunities to each satellite, so the
satellites will be controlled in a near-continuous manner. If a failure or otherwise erratic
behavior that could cause unacceptable EPFD levels is detected by the network or spacecraft
control center, OneWeb has the ability to power down the violating beam(s). Furthermore, a
satellite user beam does not transmit unless it has an active uplink from a gateway station on
the corresponding Ka-band channel, so that even if the beam cannot be turned off, the

A-1

Network Operation Center will prevent any gateway uplink transmissions in the
corresponding channel.

5. What would be the effect on protection of GSO networks if one or more beams do not
turn off as planned?

It is extremely unlikely that a user beam would be stuck “on.” However, even if OneWeb
cannot turn off the SSPA for a given beam, as mentioned, a user beam that does not turn off
will have no signals to transmit without a gateway transmission on the corresponding Ka-
band channel which feeds that user beam. Avoiding such transmissions will prevent any
signals from being transmitted from the bent-pipe satellite.

6. How do the OneWeb system’s EPFD values vary based on:
• satellite latitude,
• satellite pitch value,
• powering off beams, and
• GSO exclusion angles?

Can OneWeb supply plots demonstrating these relationships?

PFD masks have been provided as part of the OneWeb application, and these masks fully
capture the variation of satellite pitching, power control, and beam turn-off as they depend on
sub-satellite latitude. Each parameter is used and carefully controlled in conjunction with
one another to ensure EPFD compliance for the OneWeb system as a whole. EPFD is
defined for the entire constellation, as per the methodology described in Recommendation
ITU-R S.1503-2, and includes all of the above effects for each satellite. The OneWeb system
is designed such that it will comply with EPFD limits for all geometries and all GSO ES
antenna types, and OneWeb has demonstrated this in its FCC application by presenting
EPFD results for the worst case geometries, as defined by the ITU-R S.1503-2 algorithms.
This can be verified by the FCC, ITU, or any interested party, running the software that the
ITU has recently made available to determine compliance with EPFD limits.

7. What criteria will OneWeb use in selecting gateway earth station locations in order to
effectuate its GSO arc avoidance approach?

One Web will select a limited number of sites for its Ka-band gateways. These gateways
will be located well outside of urban cores and at locations that facilitate GSO arc avoidance.
Typically, the OneWeb Global Network Operation Center will select the best gateway site to
provide connection to the satellites, except when that link could result in a violation of the
minimum GSO orbit avoidance. OneWeb satellites will travel in well understood and
predictable orbits that can be accurately modeled. With this knowledge, applying specific
geometric constraints (e.g., maintaining a defined GSO avoidance angle) to gateway
selections becomes a trivial task. The OneWeb system is indeed designed with such
constraints in mind.

A-2

Certificate of Service

I, Kim Riddick, hereby certify that on this 25th day of August 2016, a copy of the foregoing
Opposition and Response is being sent via first class, U.S. Mail, postage paid, to the following:

The Honorable Bill Walker Audrey L. Allison
Governor of Alaska Senior Director, Frequency Management
550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 1700 Services
Anchorage, AK 99501 The Boeing Company
929 Long Bridge Drive
Arlington, VA 22202

Bruce A. Olcott Gerald E. Oberst
Preston N. Thomas Senior Vice President, Global Regulatory and
Jones Day Governmental Strategy, SES S.A.
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Petra A. Vorwig
Washington, D.C. 20001 Regulatory Counsel, SES Americom, Inc.
Counsel to The Boeing Company 1129 20th Street N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036

Suzanne H. Malloy Karis A. Hastings
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, O3b SatCom Law LLC
Limited 1317 F Street, N.W., Suite 400
900 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004
Washington, D.C. 20006 Counsel to SES S.A. and O3b Limited

Christopher Murphy John P. Janka
Associate General Counsel, Regulatory Affairs Elizabeth R. Park
VIASAT, INC. Jarrett S. Taubman
6155 El Camino Real LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Carlsbad, CA 92009 555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004
Counsel for ViaSat, Inc.

Elisabeth Neasmith Harvey S. Liszt
Director, Spectrum Management and National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Development 520 Edgemont Road
1601 Telesat Court Charlottesville, VA 22903
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1B 5P4

Tim Davies A. Wray Fitch III
Braunston Spectrum LLC MVD Number 53 Partners
P.O. Box 783066 6139 Franklin Park Road
Wichita, KS 67278 McLean, VA 22101
MVDDS 5G Coalition MVDDS 5G Coalition

Chad Winters David R. Charles
Cass Cable TV, Inc. Satellite Receivers, Ltd.
100 Redbud Road 1740 Cofrin Drive
Virginia, IL 62691 Green Bay, WI 54302
MVDDS 5G Coalition MVDDS 5G Coalition

Alison Minea Alison Minea
DISH Network L.L.C. SOUTH.COM LLC
9601 S. Meridian Boulevard 9601 S. Meridian Boulevard
Englewood, CO 80112 Englewood, CO 80112
MVDDS 5G Coalition MVDDS 5G Coalition

Bruce Fox Bobby Story
GO LONG WIRELESS, LTD. Story Communications, LLC
4832 Givens Court P.O. Box 130
Sarasota, FL 34242 Durant, OK 74702
MVDDS 5G Coalition MVDDS 5G Coalition

Kirk Kirkpatrick Patrick McGuinn
MDS Operations, Inc. Vision Broadband, LLC
729 South Federal Highway, Suite 212 145 East 49th Street
Stuart, FL 34994 Hialeah, FL Street
MVDDS 5G Coalition MVDDS 5G Coalition

Larry Saunders Tim Hughes
WCS Communications, Inc. Senior Vice President and General Counsel
3562 Knickerbocker Road Patricia Cooper
San Angelo, TX 76904 Vice President, Satellite Government Affairs
MVDDS 5G Coalition Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 220E
Washington, D.C. 20005

William M. Wiltshire
Paul Caritj
Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
Counsel to Space Exploration Technologies
Corp.

/s/ Kim Riddick
______________________________
Kim Riddick

Document Created: 2016-08-25 18:27:11
Document Modified: 2016-08-25 18:27:11

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC