Consolidated Reply of Row 44, Inc. REPLY by Row 44 Inc. SES-LIC-20100805-00992 Reply_to_Panasonic_A

Reply_to_Panasonic_A

REPLY submitted by Row 44 Inc.

Consolidated Reply of Row 44, Inc.

2010-12-01

This document pretains to SES-LIC-20100805-00992 for License on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLIC2010080500992_854403

- 10 -

antennas originally mounted on Lufthansa aircraft have been non-operational since the

termination of Boeing’s Connexion service four years ago, at the end of 2006. It appears that

only a small number of these antennas have been reactivated by Panasonic Avionics under its

experimental license. Given the passage of time, absent field testing and measurement, it cannot

be certain that any of these antennas, and specifically all those being reactivated for use, are still

able to operate within their original specifications. Aging and/or corrosion of bearings, gears,

aperture, and/or hollow conductors is very likely to occur during a time period of four years for

an operating aircraft. If any of these antenna components has changed its properties there is a

potential that key characteristics of the antenna systems are affected. Accordingly, even more so

than in the case of newly-installed equipment, the current application requires the submission of

antenna patterns that demonstrate actual antenna performance.

C. Panasonic Avionics’ Has Not Provided Antenna Gain Information Relative to
Maximum Geographic Skew Conditions.

In response to Row 44’s Petition, Panasonic Avionics has submitted additional antenna

gain patterns pursuant to Section 25.220(b) of the FCC’s Rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 25.220(b); PAC

Response/PAC Amendment at Attachment A. While these patterns provide additional important

data, the PAC Amendment is still not complete.

As noted above, the MELCO antenna is a non-circular Cassegrain dish with an aspect

ratio of approximately 3:1, such that the antenna pattern varies significantly with the skew angle

of the antenna. In particular, the main beam and the first side lobes broaden significantly as the

skew angle increases. For finite skew angles, such equipment configurations pose a special

problem in that the secondary Cassegrain reflector has its own mechanical holders. There are

certain skew angles at which portions of the transmitted signal are reflected by these holders, in

turn affecting the overall antenna pattern.

- 11 -

Because the patterns for horizontal and vertical polarization for zero degrees skew differ

significantly, as shown in Attachment A to the PAC Response, there is a potential for parasitic

sidelobes to occur, especially considering the different antenna gains of the two polarizations.

Further, because the antenna is non-circular, the two dimensional antenna pattern does also not

possess a rotational symmetry. Therefore the antenna pattern for a defined skew angle along the

tangent to the orbital arc at the position of the target satellite might look very different from the

patterns for zero degree skew. Accordingly, Panasonic Avionics should be asked to provide

complete antenna gain patterns for all skew angles up to the maximum 34 degree skew in order

to demonstrate that there are no skew angles for which parasitic sidelobes occur in the angular

range of approximately seven degrees to 85 degrees azimuth.9

D. Panasonic Avionics’ Application Contains Insufficient Information Concerning the
Manner in Which It Maintains Pointing Accuracy to Avoid Interference to Adjacent
Satellites.

1. Because Panasonic Avionics States That It Will Not Comply with the 0.2°
Antenna Pointing Accuracy Requirement, It Must Demonstrate That It
Will Not Exceed the Applicable Off-Axis EIRP Limits.

As noted above, although there are no rules specifically applicable to AMSS applicants,

prior blanket license applicants have been required to provide the information and certifications

that are equivalent to those provided by previous applicants for MMSS (ESV) and LMSS

(VMES) Earth station networks. Panasonic Avionics itself has at least provided lip service to

meeting these requirements in its initial Application and in the PAC Response. See Application

9
Because parasitic sidelobes can have significant power, Panasonic Avionics may need to
consider the potential impact of such potentially interfering patterns on adjacent satellite
operators outside the ±6° coordination zone specified under § 25.220.

- 12 -

at Regulatory Compliance Index and p. 14.10 Nonetheless, the proffered showings fall well short

of satisfying the requirements.

Sections 25.222 and 25.226 both include a requirement that applicants, in addition to

providing the EIRP spectral density compliance showing discussed under Section II.B., above,

shall identify the “maximum antenna pointing error” for the subject antenna and “demonstrate

that the maximum antenna pointing error can be achieved without exceeding the off-axis EIRP

spectral-density limits” when the applicant is unable to maintain pointing accuracy to within

0.2°. 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.222(b)(1)(iv)(A) and 25.226(b)(1)(iv)(A). With respect to this

requirement, Panasonic Avionics asserts that it “identifies the pointing accuracy of the MELCO

antenna as 0.25° 1-sigma.” PAC Response at 19. But as the Applicant’s subsequent explanation

implies, albeit in less than accurate fashion, 0.25° 1-sigma does not identify a maximum antenna

pointing error, but is instead a statistical measure of confidence that the actual value will not

deviate from the mean by more than the stated value (i.e., one standard deviation from the

10
Although the Applicant cited both Sections 25.222 and 25.226, which govern ESV and VMES
applicants, it principally referred to essentially the same EIRP spectral density provisions that
appear in 25.218 of the FCC’s Rules. See Application at 15-16. Nonetheless, in its October 18,
2010 Letter, the Applicant disclaimed reliance on any of these rules, but asserted that it cited
these regulations “in the context of providing additional technical information not required by
Section 25.220 to further demonstrate that Panasonic’s proposed AMSS operations are compliant
with the Commission’s two-degree spacing policies and will not cause harmful interference …”
See Letter from Carlos M. Nalda and Joshua T. Guyan, Counsel to Panasonic Avionics, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 2 (dated October 18, 2010). It would appear that the
Applicant is under the mistaken impression that it can cite to these provisions if they are believed
to be somehow helpful to its cause, but otherwise to ignore them as irrelevant. Because it would
make no sense as a matter of both policy and procedure to hold AMSS applicants to a lesser
standard than ESV and VMES applicants, which have almost identical rules, these regulations
must be considered relevant to Panasonic Avionics’ Application.

- 13 -

mean).11 Specifically, Panasonic Avionics states that “pointing error exceeds 0.25° for a small

percentage of the time based on statistical characterization of the error.” PAC Response at 19.

This characterization that pointing error will only exceed 0.25° “a small percentage of the time”

is highly misleading.

Assuming a normal distribution, a 1-sigma pointing error of 0.25 degrees is a statement

that the antenna will be accurately pointed within ±0.25 degrees approximately 68% of the

time.12 This indicates that almost one-third of the time, the pointing error will be greater than

0.25 degrees. This is not a “small percentage of the time” by any reasonable definition of that

term. Moreover, one can predict based on the information the Applicant provides that

approximately five percent of the time (1 in 20 pointing actions), the pointing error will be

greater than 0.5 degrees, the point at which automatic shutdown would be required under one

provision of the ESV/VMES Rules. Based on standard statistical distributions, a 1-sigma error

of 0.25 degrees indicates that the actual maximum antenna pointing error would be

11
At any rate, since the stated mispoint of 0.25° exceeds the 0.2° pointing accuracy standard,
Panasonic makes plain that it cannot satisfy the standards of Sections 25.222(a)(1)(ii)(A) or
25.226(a)(1)(ii)(A) of the Commission’s Rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.222(a)(1)(ii)(A) and
25.226(a)(1)(ii)(A). Thus, Panasonic is required to identify its maximum antenna pointing error
and demonstrate how it will maintain EIRP spectral density within the stated limits when this
maximum pointing error occurs. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.222(a)(1)(ii)(B) and 25.226(a)(1)(ii)(B).
12
In order to have a 99.7% confidence level of events being within the stated value, the value
must be 3-sigma.

- 14 -

approximately 0.75 degrees. Panasonic Avionics has not provided data regarding off-axis EIRP

levels with this maximal degree of mispoint, as is required.13

2. The Applicant Must Describe How It Will Control Off-Axis EIRP To
Prevent Harmful Interference When Antenna Mispoint Exceeds 0.2° Or
When Harmful Interference Would Otherwise By Caused.

The applicable rules also require that the Applicant demonstrate that the transmitter “can

detect if the transmitter exceeds the declared maximum antenna pointing error and can cease

transmission within 100 milliseconds” if the maximum error at which the system can maintain

compliance is exceeded, and further demonstrate that transmissions will remain inhibited until

the mispointing condition is rectified and pointing accuracy is restored to a value “less than or

equal to the declared maximum antenna pointing error.” 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.222(b)(1)(iv)(B) and

25.226(b)(1)(iv)(B). Panasonic Avionics does not even acknowledge this requirement, let alone

provide an explanation of how it can be met.

Indeed, the Applicant is not entirely consistent in identifying which compliance approach

its system will employ, stating in its initial application that “[p]ointing error will be monitored

and emissions will be inhibited if the pointing error ever exceeds 0.5 deg” (Application at 4), but

stating in the PAC Response that “[w]hen operating in horizontal polarization,” it would “reduce

its maximum EIRP spectral density when necessary to remain compliant with the mask.” PAC

Response at 14. If Panasonic claims that it will be able to reduce its maximum EIRP spectral

density when necessary to remain compliant with the mask, instead of simply ceasing

13
See, e.g., Letter from Scott A. Kotler, Chief, Systems Analysis Branch, FCC, to David S.
Keir, Counsel to Row 44, Inc., FCC File No. SES-LIC-20080508-00570, at 2 (dated August 7,
2008)(requiring submission of EIRP spectral density graphs depicting “when the antenna is
maximally misoriented in azimuth, elevation, and polarization … under two potential situations
(1) the antenna has zero mispointing with the target satellite and (2) the antenna is maximally
mispointed from the target satellite before the antenna receives a cessation of emission
command”).

- 15 -

transmission, then it must demonstrate definitively how it will determine when the mask is

exceeded, and how it will ensure that the EIRP spectral density is reduced in these instances.

Alternatively, it must show that it can cease transmission within 100 milliseconds, as required

when the EIRP spectral density limits would be exceeded due to mispointing.14 Given the

significant role of the Boeing modem in achieving compliance with these requirements15,

Panasonic Avionics should explain whether and how its iDirect modem is used to achieve

compliance and whether its performance in this regard differs from the modem used by Boeing.

E. It Remains Unclear Precisely What the Occupied Transmit Bandwidth Will Be for
Panasonic Avionics’ Operating System.

Despite Panasonic Avionics’ submission of a corrected link budget, there remain

inconsistencies between the service parameters specified in its Form 312 and those for which

supporting documentation is provided in the associated exhibits, including the link budget. For

example, the revised link budget continues to specify a “Noise bandwidth” of 1.67 MHz for the

return link. See PAC Response at Attachment C. However, the Form 312 does not include an

emission designator for this bandwidth, instead specifying 160 kHz, 2.56 MHz and 9 MHz. See

Application, Form 312, Schedule B at Line E47. The Application does not even include the

transmit emission designator 1M67G7D, which would appear to be the value equivalent to the

bandwidth specified in both the original and the revised link budgets. Accordingly, it is not clear

whether the “Noise bandwidth” set forth in the link budget is the occupied bandwidth, the

14
From the receive patterns Panasonic Avionics has now submitted, it can be inferred that a
pointing error of 0.5 degrees would reduce the received signal strength by a very small amount
of about 0.1 dB. Taking into account the typical signal fluctuation from the satellite, the
atmosphere, and aircraft vibrations of about 0.5 dB, a reduction in the received signal strength of
this magnitude attributable to mispointing would not be significant enough to permit detection of
the level of mispointing that would ordinarily require cessation of emissions.
15
See page 6 & footnote 4, above.

- 16 -

necessary bandwidth, or the effective signal bandwidth. Based on the link budget calculation,

however, it appears to state the necessary bandwidth. See also Application, Technical Appendix

at 11 (“… the terminal is operating with a 1.66 MHz carrier bandwidth”).16

The Commission’s Rules provide that the emission designator defines the "necessary

bandwidth" for the identified transmission. See 47 C.F.R. 2.201(a). Using the bandwidth value

and the maximum EIRP spectral density from the necessary bandwidth, the maximum total EIRP

per carrier can be calculated. If the maximum EIRP per carrier is reduced, as Panasonic

Avionics has done in its Amendment, and the emission designator remains the same, the EIRP

spectral density is reduced by the same amount that the total EIRP is reduced. Thus the 8.6

dBW/4kHz, the 41.3 dBW EIRP, and the 9 MHz emission designator provided in Form 312 are

inconsistent both with each other and with the parameters in the link budget. In particular, the

0.8 dB reduction in EIRP from 42.1dB to 41.3 dB that is shown in Form 312, Schedule B is not

reflected in the link budget and would actually reduce the 8.6 dBW/4kHz EIRP spectral density

originally implied, and still specified in Form, 312.17

If the emission designator cannot be calculated according to Sections 2.202(c)(1), (2), or

(3), then § 2.202(c)(4) applies. See 47 C.F.R. 2.202(c). That is, if "the transmit power is not

uniform across the emission designator bandwidth, but rolls off at the edges of the bandwidth"

(see PAC Response at 10), Panasonic must then provide actual measurements to verify the

transmit signal bandwidth. See 47 C.F.R. § 2.202(c)(4). From these measurements the effective

signal bandwidth can be determined by taking into account the provisions of Section 25.202(f)(1)

16
The PAC Response indicates that the effective signal bandwidth is 0.8 dB smaller than the
necessary bandwidth, which would appear to reduce its link margin from 1 dB to 0.2 dB.
17
In addition, the 0.8 dB reduction in EIRP should change the value for Maximum EIRP density
toward the horizon reflected at Line E60 of Form 312, Schedule B.

- 17 -

of the Rules. See 47 C.F.R. 2.202(f)(1). Together with the maximum EIRP spectral density, the

maximum EIRP per carrier can then be calculated. This is the type of information that the

Commission has previously requested from applicants in order to clarify the nature of proposed

operations.18

F. Panasonic Avionics Continues to Refuse to Provide Required Information
Concerning Geographic Coverage of its Service.

In its Petition, Row 44 noted that Panasonic Avionics had failed to provide a complete

description of its geographic coverage area (e.g., a service area coverage map) illustrating the

expected extent of its network’s coverage capability. See Petition at 11. In response, Panasonic

Avionics simply asserted that Row 44’ observation was “erroneous” and “without foundation.”

PAC Response at 11. This response, however, ignores two separate sections of the FCC’s Rules

that squarely contradict this contention. Generally, Section 25.220 of the Commission’s Rules,

upon which Panasonic Avionics explicitly relies, provides that all Earth station applicants must

include a “[d]etailed description of the service to be provided.” 47 C.F.R. § 25.220(g)(1). More

specifically, both the ESV and VMES rules require Ku-band MSS applicants to include a

specific exhibit “describing the geographic area(s) in which the [service] will operate.”

47 C.F.R. § 25.222(b)(3) and 47 C.F.R. § 25.226(b)(4). Panasonic Avionics must provide this

information detailing the geographic scope of its service.

III. In Light of the Omissions Outlined Above, The Commission Should Request
Additional Information from Panasonic Avionics.

To summarize the more detailed points made in the foregoing section, Row 44 provides a

list below of the discrete questions that remain unanswered in or key items of information that

18
See, e.g., Letter from Scott A. Kotler, Chief, Systems Analysis Branch, FCC, to David S.
Keir, Counsel to Row 44, Inc., FCC File No. SES-LIC-20080508-00570, at 3 (dated August 25,
2008) (requesting a spectrum analyzer plot of a typical transmitted signal).

- 18 -

remain missing from Panasonic Avionics’ amended Application, and which should be answered

or provided, as applicable, prior to further processing of the Application.

A. Cross-References to Boeing Application
1. What specific elements of the 2003 Boeing application does PA seek to
incorporate by reference, cited by Exhibit and/or page number, as applicable,
as required by FCC Rules?
B. Off-Axis EIRP Spectral Density
1. Do the Off-Axis EIRP Spectral Density Patterns reflect actual measured
values?
2. What impact does inclusion of misorientation and mispointing data have on
compliance with the FCC EIRP spectral density mask?
3. What are the measured EIRP spectral density patterns for both vertical and
horizontal polarization and for all skew angles from minimum to maximum
along the orbital arc at the bottom, middle and top of the transmit frequency
band as compared to the EIRP spectral density mask?
4. How will PA know when it must reduce EIRP spectral density in order to
remain in compliance with the FCC mask?
5. Alternatively, what means will the Applicant employ to ensure that
transmissions are ceased in the event that the EIRP spectral density mask
would be exceeded?
C. Skew Angle
1. Provide antenna gain patterns showing the degree to which 25.209 mask is
exceeded at the maximum skew angle.
2. Are there skew angles for which parasitic sidelobes occur and exceed the FCC
mask in the angular range of approximately 7° to 85° azimuth?
D. Pointing Accuracy
1. What is the maximum antenna pointing error for the MELCO antenna, as
employed in Panasonic Avionics’ proposed operating system?
2. How does the iDirect modem help maintain pointing accuracy and/or monitor
EIRP spectral density compliance?
3. Does the pointing accuracy performance of the iDirect modem differ from the
performance of the Boeing modem?
E. Occupied Transmit Bandwidth
1. What portion of the bandwidth is actually occupied by the system transmit
signal?
2. What are the spectral characteristics of the Applicant’s transmitted waveform?

- 19 -

F. Geographic Coverage
1. Provide an exhibit describing the geographic areas in which the service will
operate.
2. Provide a correct link budget that matches the corrected data in Form 312,
Schedule B.
IV. Panasonic Avionics Procedural Arguments Are Misplaced and Fundamentally
Inaccurate.

Following the filing of the PAC Response and the PAC Amendment on November 15,

2010, Row 44 filed a letter noting the different reply/comment deadlines applicable to these

filings under the FCC’s Rules, and stating that it planned to file a consolidated reply today,

December 1, 2010, which it calculated as the later of the two applicable deadlines.19 In response

to the November 19th Letter, Panasonic Avionics filed responsive correspondence arguing, (1)

that it was questionable whether Row 44 had a right to respond to either filing, and (2) that if

such rights applied in the case of both the PAC Response and the PAC Amendment, the response

deadline would be the same in each case – November 26, 2010, the day after Thanksgiving.20

The first contention is frivolous, and the second is inaccurate.

Panasonic cannot legitimately contend that Row 44 is not a party to this application

proceeding. Row 44 established such status on October 15, 2010, when it filed its Petition. See

47 C.F.R. §1.1202(d)(1). Under separate provisions of the FCC’s Rules, Row 44 has a right to

respond when Panasonic Avionics initiates a filing with the Commission, or a right of reply

when Panasonic Avionics files any opposition or response to a Row 44 filing. See 47 C.F.R. §

19
See Letter from David S. Keir, Counsel to Row 44, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
(dated November 19, 2010) (“November 19th Letter”).
20
See Letter from Carlos M. Nalda, Counsel to Panasonic Avionics, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC (dated November 22, 2010) (“November 22nd Letter”).

- 20 -

1.45(b) & (c).21 The issue addressed in Row 44’s November 19th Letter was that because

Panasonic Avionics filed both a response to Row 44’s Petition and submitted a new amendment

to the original application, there were different deadlines applicable to two almost identical

filings.

While Row 44 and Panasonic Avionic agree on the reply deadline with respect to the

PAC Response (November 26, 2010), notwithstanding the dispute over whether such filing is

permitted, they disagree on the deadline for responding to the PAC Amendment.22 Panasonic

Avionics erroneously maintains that it was not required to serve this filing on Row 44, and that

therefore, the filing deadline would have been ten days from the November 15th filing date –

defaulting to November 26th due to the Thanksgiving holiday. See November 22nd Letter at 2.

This is not correct. As outlined above, Row 44 is a party to the Application, and therefore any

communication regarding the application, which necessarily includes an amendment, should

have been served on Row 44 under the Commission’s Rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(b)(1) and

1.1208.23 The Applicant states quite plainly in its November 22nd Letter that it failed to comply

21
See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(a)(4) (“Applications for earth station authorizations must be filed
in accordance with the pleading limitations, periods and other applicable provisions of §§1.41
through 1.52 of this chapter”).
22
While Panasonic Avionics asserts that Row 44 offered no “rationale or any public interest
basis whatsoever” for its alternative request for a brief extension of time, if required, it goes
without saying that a filing due on the day after Thanksgiving would impose on the filer a
hardship unmatched by virtually any other date. Filings of a technical nature involving complex
Earth station networks require coordination with multiple parties, including counsel, engineering
and business personnel, consultants and others. To require such coordination among all these
individuals in the midst of the busiest travel day of the year (Wed.), a secular day of family
gathering celebrated by all Americans regardless of faith (Thurs.), and the ensuing holiday
weekend would be too much even for the most churlish misanthrope to ask.
23
The application is a restricted proceeding to which Row 44 has become a party. Any
communication from the applicant to the FCC that is not served upon Row 44 is therefore a
prohibited ex parte presentation under Section 1.1202(b)(1). Accordingly, service is required to
avoid violation of the FCC’s Rules.

- 21 -

with this requirement. See November 22nd Letter at 2 (“Panasonic did not serve the application

upon Row 44 or any other party”). Technically, service upon Row still has not been properly

effected, and thus this response is not yet due, even today.24 Nonetheless, Row 44 was aware of

the PAC Amendment at the time it filed its November 19th Letter, and it committed therein to

filing its consolidated response today, December 1st.

24
Row 44’s counsel received a copy of the PAC Amendment by email on November 17, 2010.
However, the FCC’s Rules provide that “Documents that are required to be served must be
served in paper form, even if documents are filed in electronic form with the Commission….” 47
C.F.R. § 1.47(d). Even if email delivery constituted proper service, the application of the ten-
day response period plus the three-day addition for mail service would yield a filing deadline of
today, December 1, 2010. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.45(b) and 1.4(h).

Document Created: 2010-12-01 21:01:31
Document Modified: 2010-12-01 21:01:31

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