ViaSat Opposition to Petition to Deny OPPOSITION by ViaSat, Inc. SES-LIC-20111027-01267 ViaSat Opposition.PD

ViaSat Opposition.PD

OPPOSITION submitted by ViaSat, Inc.

ViaSat Opposition to Petition to Deny

2012-01-19

This document pretains to SES-LIC-20111027-01267 for License on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLIC2011102701267_935823

$Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Application of ViaSat, Inc. ) IBFS File No. SES-LIC-20111027-01267 ) To Operate an Earth Station in Duluth, ) Call Sign: E110157 Georgia in the 2085-2086.5 MHz Band ) OPPOSITION OF VIASAT, INC. ViaSat, Inc. (“ViaSat”) opposes the petition to deny filed by Georgia Television Company and Meredith Corporation (collectively, “Petitioners”) on January 6, 2012 (the “Petition”) in response to the above-referenced application. ViaSat’s application seeks authority to conduct limited telemetry, tracking, and control (“TTAC”) operations using an earth station located in Duluth, Georgia. More specifically, ViaSat’s earth station would be used to transmit telecommand instructions to nongeostationary orbit (“NGSO”) spacecraft licensed to DigitalGlobe, Inc. and operating in the earth-exploration satellite service (“EESS”).1 As the Commission already has recognized, DigitalGlobe’s EESS system facilities “the delivery of enhanced next-generation imaging services to government and commercial users,” and “enhance[s] national security, environmental monitoring and forecasting functions.”2 Grant of this application will ensure that those same benefits inure to the benefit of the public. As with all U.S.-licensed EESS systems, the DigitalGlobe system relies on access to a portion of the 2025-2100 MHz band for TTAC purposes. Petitioners fail to establish that grant of ViaSat’s application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, as is their burden under Section 25.154 of the 1 See DigitalGlobe, Inc., DA 05-2640 (rel. Sep. 30, 2005). 2 Id. DC\1599837.2$

$Commission’s rules.3 Petitioners simply allege that ViaSat’s proposed earth station would cause harmful interference into their operations, without demonstrating that such interference is actually likely to occur, and without accounting for the myriad ways in which ViaSat has offered to adjust its operations to mitigate the potential for harmful interference, consistent with ViaSat’s secondary status in the 2025-2100 MHz band. Significantly, addressing those possible operational adjustments is precisely why ViaSat previously had reached out to the affected broadcast licensees, including Meredith Corporation (“Meredith”), who expressly declined ViaSat’s offer to try to address its concerns.4 As detailed below, there is no valid reason to believe that ViaSat’s limited spectrum use cannot successfully co-exist on a secondary basis with the Petitioners’ licensed operations. Accordingly, the Petition should be denied, and the Commission should grant ViaSat’s application expeditiously. Discussion Section 25.154 of the Commission’s rules provides that a party seeking denial of a pending earth station application must demonstrate that grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest.5 Such demonstration must rest on specific allegations of fact that support denial of the application, which must be supported by appropriate affidavits or sworn declarations.6 Petitioners fail to meet this burden. 3 47 C.F.R. § 25.154(a)(4). 4 Although Georgia Television Company was notified by Comsearch of this proposed facility, Georgia Television Company did not express any interference concerns prior to filing the Petition to Deny. 5 47 C.F.R. § 25.154. 6 The Petition should be dismissed as procedurally defective because it contains factual allegations of which official notice may not be taken and that are not supported by any affidavit or declaration made under penalty of perjury. See 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 1.16; 25.154(a)(4). 2 DC\1599837.2$

$The Petition reflects Petitioners’ categorical opposition to EESS operations in the 2025-2100 MHz band, instead of a reasoned analysis of whether grant of ViaSat’s application would serve the public interest. Tellingly, the engineering statement contained in the Petition is signed by Joe Snelson, who observed last year that “it would seem that a[n earth station] license grant in this band would be impossible,” and complained of “opportunistic licensees” seeking to operate on a secondary basis in the band.7 Mr. Snelson’s comments appear to be part of a broad and recent initiative by the Society of Broadcast Engineers to attempt to foreclose the licensing of any additional earth stations in the 2025- 2100 MHz band—even facilities in support of already operating EESS systems.8 Such sentiment clearly runs contrary to the policy determination embodied in footnote US347 to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations—namely, that EESS operations are permitted in the 2025-2100 MHz band wherever possible in order to maximize spectral efficiency and facilitate the benefits derived from EESS imagery. And these types of assertions by the broadcast industry are flatly contradicted by the successful use of the 2025-2100 MHz band to support EESS systems for many years. In light of Petitioners’ clear and a priori bias against ViaSat’s application, and Petitioners’ unwillingness to engage in a constructive coordination dialogue, the Commission should view with skepticism Petitioners’ allegation that ViaSat’s proposed operations would actually cause harmful interference. The technical showing presented in Exhibit A hereto demonstrates that a realistic spectrum sharing environment exists. Indeed, ViaSat’s proposed mitigation measures addressed the concerns of another broadcaster that initially expressed its 7 See Barry Thomas and Joe Snelson, 2GHz Broadcast Auxiliary Service has yet another threat, available at http://www.freelists.org/post/sbe104_toledo/2-GHz-threat (originally published in the SBE newsletter) (emphasis added). 8 Chris Imlay, Band Threats: It’s not paranoia if they really are after you, THE SIGNAL, at 5 (Oct. 2011) (bimonthly publication of the Society of Broadcast Engineers). 3 DC\1599837.2$

$concerns to Comsearch. ViaSat is amending its application to reflect a reduction in power and bandwidth in order to mitigate potential interference. There is no valid reason to believe that ViaSat’s limited spectrum use cannot successfully co-exist on a secondary basis with Petitioners’ licensed operations. For these reasons, the Commission should deny the Petition, and, consistent with the operating parameters described in this Opposition, grant ViaSat’s application expeditiously. A. ViaSat’s Application Acknowledges that All Proposed Operations Would Proceed on a Secondary Basis As an initial matter, ViaSat’s application fully acknowledges that the 2025- 2100 MHz band is allocated to terrestrial fixed and mobile services on a primary basis, and that EESS operations in the band must proceed on a non-harmful-interference basis.9 In other words, ViaSat understands that its proposed earth station may not cause harmful interference into broadcast operations, and must cease transmissions in the event of harmful interference. Based on this acknowledgment alone, the Commission can and should grant ViaSat’s application, with appropriate conditions. Commission precedent makes clear that where an applicant seeks authority to operate only on a non-harmful-interference basis vis-à- vis existing licensees, the resolution of all coordination issues prior to grant is not essential.10 That said, as discussed below, ViaSat has been and remains willing to engage with Petitioners if and when they choose to reciprocate that willingness. B. ViaSat’s TTAC Operations Would Not Cause Harmful Interference into Petitioners’ Operations Petitioners assert that ViaSat’s TTAC operations would cause harmful interference into Petitioners’ TV pickup facilities.11 However, Petitioners do not provide any 9 IBFS File No. SES-LIC-20111027-01267, Description of Application, at 1. See also 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 n.US347. 10 See Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 23210, at ¶ 12 (2000). 11 See Petition at 4-5. 4 DC\1599837.2$

$substantiated data underlying their “evaluation” of ViaSat’s proposed operations.12 Moreover, Petitioners fail to conduct any analysis of the likelihood of actual interference from ViaSat’s proposed earth station. As Commission precedent makes clear, an earth station applicant need not demonstrate that interference is impossible—merely that interference is “unlikely.”13 As an initial matter, at any given time, ViaSat would operate in only a small portion of the 2085-2086.5 MHz band (128 kHz, or about 12 percent of the total).14 Furthermore, Petitioners apparently fail to consider the short duration and the infrequency of the proposed transmissions; ViaSat’s earth station would transmit TTAC instructions for only minutes each day, at around noon and midnight.15 Moreover, Petitioners fail to take into account the reduction in power at which ViaSat has proposed to operate where an in-line interference event might occasionally exist. Simultaneously with the filing of this Opposition, ViaSat is amending its application to reduce the power by 10 dB. As explained in Exhibit A hereto, a proper understanding of ViaSat’s proposed operations reveals that those operations would not be likely to cause harmful interference into broadcast operations, or meaningfully impact the programming that viewers receive. In addition, in the unlikely event of interference, ViaSat would be able to lower power or cease operations quickly in order to eliminate that interference, consistent with ViaSat’s status as a secondary licensee. Toward that end, ViaSat is willing to designate 12 See Petition, Engineering Statement. 13 See, e.g., Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp., 24 FCC Rcd 2330, at ¶ 72 (2009). 14 See Petition, Engineering Statement at 2. ViaSat is filing an amendment to its application to clarify that the emission bandwidth is 128 kHz. 15 These transmissions would be used to instruct DigitalGlobe’s remote sensing satellites to download remote sensing data using X-band spectrum. Once this instruction is sent, the earth station would cease transmitting, and would not need to continue transmitting while the image data is being downloaded. 5 DC\1599837.2$

$a point of contact with 24/7 availability to address any interference concerns that may arise. ViaSat also would be willing to accommodate all reasonable requests, made in advance, to reduce power temporarily in order to mitigate further the potential for interference into TV pickup facilities operating during the noon and midnight timeframes. C. ViaSat Remains Willing To Engage in Meaningful Dialog with Petitioners in Order To Accommodate Their Concerns As discussed above, ViaSat’s proposed operations would not likely cause harmful interference into Petitioners’ TV pickup facilities. In any event, Petitioners generally are expected to act in good faith with respect to coordination requests. The Commission’s coordination procedures provide that “[a]ll applicants and licensees must cooperate fully and make reasonable efforts to resolve technical problems and conflicts that may inhibit the most effective and efficient use of the radio spectrum[.]”16 To date, Petitioners have been unwilling to engage in meaningful discussions with ViaSat. Crossing their arms and saying “no” is flatly inconsistent with their good faith obligations. Petitioners are mistaken in suggesting that they have been precluded from entering into such discussions because they did not have advance notice before ViaSat’s application was filed. As an initial matter, Comsearch—which managed the frequency coordination process for ViaSat—did provide actual advance notice of the proposed ViaSat facilities to representatives of both Petitioners, as identified in the Comsearch database. The frequency coordination report included in ViaSat’s application reflects as much.17 While the initial Comsearch report did not address certain affected sites, Comsearch subsequently 16 See 47 C.F.R. § 101.103; 47 C.F.R. § 25.251 (providing that earth station coordination shall be governed by the administrative provisions set forth in Section 101.103). 17 See IBFS File No. SES-LIC-20111027-01267, Frequency Coordination Report, at 5- 6. Petitioners asserted to Comsearch that the PCNs were addressed to individuals who were no longer employed by the broadcast station. 6 DC\1599837.2$

$corrected that omission.18 Soon afterward, ViaSat attempted to work with the two affected licensees to address those concerns, and has resolved issues initially raised by one of these licensees.19 After reviewing ViaSat’s application, Meredith informed ViaSat that Meredith would oppose the application regardless of what accommodations ViaSat might offer. Meredith also declined to cooperate with ViaSat’s efforts to conduct testing of actual interference potential at Meredith’s receive sites, or to provide detailed technical information about its equipment so that a complete interference analysis could be conducted. Such actions underscore that the Petition reflects Petitioners’ categorical opposition to ViaSat’s application, instead of a reasoned analysis of whether grant of ViaSat’s application would serve the public interest. Tellingly, ViaSat’s application has not been placed on public notice. This fact belies Petitioners’ assertion that filing a petition to deny was “their only option.”20 In truth, Petitioners could have engaged in meaningful discussions with ViaSat without jeopardizing any of their procedural rights. Instead, Petitioners proceeded immediately to the “nuclear” option. ViaSat remains willing to engage in constructive discussions with Petitioners, when and if they choose to reciprocate that willingness. Indeed, ViaSat already has identified four potential mitigation strategies: 18 For the sake of completeness, the additional information that Comsearch provided after its initial coordination report is included as Exhibit B. Although Georgia Television Company was notified by Comsearch of this proposed facility, Georgia Television Company did not notify Comsearch of any interference concerns prior to filing the Petition to Deny. Thus, ViaSat was not aware of Georgia Television Company’s sites at issue, and was unable to reach out as ViaSat did with Meredith. 19 As a result of these discussions, and the availability of ViaSat’s application in IBFS, it is clear that, at a minimum, Meredith has known of the substance of the PCN for months. 20 Petition at 4. 7 DC\1599837.2$

$ First, as noted above, ViaSat is filing an amendment to reduce its transmitting power by 10 dB. This would allow ViaSat to communicate with DigitalGlobe spacecraft while reducing the potential for harmful interference into Petitioners’ operations.  Second, ViaSat would be willing to restrict the elevation and/or azimuth angles at which its proposed earth station would transmit, to order to minimize line-of-sight issues with Petitioners’ TV pickup receive sites.  Third, ViaSat would be willing to reduce the duration of transmissions that occur during each pass of the Digital Globe spacecraft.  Fourth, ViaSat would be willing to cease all transmissions from the earth station upon receipt of notification from nearby broadcasters that they have temporary operations that would likely be adversely affected. Notably, ViaSat has successfully offered to effect such modifications to accommodate concerns raised by other broadcasters in the Duluth area, and believes that it has successfully resolved the concerns of those broadcasters in doing so. ViaSat cannot determine which of these strategies would most effectively protect Petitioners while facilitating spectral efficiency until it has conferred with Petitioners. **** For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should dismiss the Petition, and grant ViaSat’s application expeditiously. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John P. Janka Elizabeth R. Park Jarrett Taubman Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Counsel for ViaSat, Inc. January 19, 2012 8 DC\1599837.2$

$Exhibit A Technical Analysis The following analysis demonstrates the impact of the interference mitigation measures proposed by ViaSat to address the concerns raised by broadcast licensees with respect to ViaSat’s proposed EESS antenna operations. ViaSat’s proposed earth station will provide TT&C support for the WorldView‐1 and WorldView‐2 satellites, which are licensed to DigitalGlobe, Inc. These satellites operate with approximately 90° of inclination, and pass from North to South or South to North over the Duluth area several times twice daily around noon and midnight. The range of time for the earliest pass to the latest pass during each set is approximately 3 ½ hours, with each individual pass ranging from approximately 2.5 to 12 minutes depending upon the visibility above a 5° minimum elevation threshold. The duration of the transmissions will typically not last for the entire pass. To mitigate interference from the ViaSat facility to the television station receivers, a number of possible steps can be taken. These include:  Constraining elevation and azimuth angles where the station may transmit;  Reducing duration of transmissions to minimum necessary to turn on downlink (approximately 90 seconds); and  Inhibiting transmissions for certain passes when requested if an ENG van is nearby. The following analysis uses information taken from various sources, such as ViaSat’s earth station application, the FCC radio station authorization for call sign KC25976, and the Comsearch PCN report as supplemented. As detailed information about the technical characteristics of the receiver at the television sites was not available, a default NF value of 3 dB was used and 0 dB of line loss was assumed. In performing the analysis, the signal transmitted from the ViaSat uplink assumed a nominal operating EIRP of 43 dBW and a bandwidth of 128 kHz. ViaSat is amending its application to reduce the EIRP from 53 dBW to 43 dBW and to change the emission bandwidth to 128 kHz to reflect the actual necessary bandwidth of the uplink. The software program Visualyse Professional version 7.4 by Transfinite Systems was used to determine the desired received signal and noise for the television electronic news gathering (ENG) link as well as the interference level from the ViaSat uplink at each of the identified locations. The effects of terrain height were included in the simulation using the latest available ASTER2 GDEM 30 m resolution terrain data and using ITU‐R Rec. P.452‐14 as the propagation model for the interference path. DC\1600205.1$

$The analysis showed that the worst case location of the identified sites was the Westin Plaza location at 33° 45’ 34” N, 84° 23’ 18” W. Inspection of the path profiles for other sites showed that the terrain near the ViaSat uplink site was in the path and providing 30 to 50 dB of diffraction loss. Five cases were examined. In Case‐1, the ENG van is assumed to be collocated with the ViaSat uplink facility. This places the desired and undesired transmitters at the same location and on the same bearing to the receiving site and thus allows no advantage to the undesired signal from reduced off‐axis gain at the receiving antenna. Of the five cases, this resulted in the worst C/(N+I). In Case‐2, the ENG van is sited East of Atlanta and some off‐axis gain reduction in the direction of the undesired signal is present. Cases 3, 4, and 5 examine locations West, North, and South of Atlanta respectively. In some cases the undesired signal was above the receiver noise floor when the ViaSat uplink was transmitting, but resulting overall C/(N+I) was still usable in each case. DC\1600205.1$

$ViaSat Uplink Antenna Diameter: 7.3 m Gain: 41.52 dBi Beamwidth: 1.4° EIRP: 43 dBW Necessary Bandwidth: 128 kHz Latitude: 33° 57’ 47.5” N Longitude: 84° 05’ 45.5” W Antenna Elevation: 289.87 m AMSL Westin Plaza Gain: 20 dBi Beamwidth: 14.2° Necessary Bandwidth: 12 MHz Latitude: 33° 45’ 34.0” N Longitude: 84° 23’ 18.0” W Antenna Elevation: 629.4 m AMSL ENG Van Gain: 20 dBi Beamwidth: 14.2° EIRP: 31.5 dBW Necessary Bandwidth: 12 MHz Latitude: Varies Longitude: Varies Antenna Elevation: 10 m AGL DC\1600205.1$

$Interference Case – 1 ENG Van Collocated with ViaSat Uplink Site Wanted Link Info EIRP: 31.5 dBW Path Loss: 131.332 dB Receive Antenna Gain: 20 dB C (Signal Strength): ‐79.832 dBW N (Noise): ‐133.037 dBW C/N: 53.205 dB Unwanted Link Info TX Output: 1.5 dBW Gain Toward Victim: ‐10 dBi Path Loss: 129.527 dB Relative Receive Gain: 19.968 dBi I (Interference Strength): ‐119.521 dBW I/N: 13.516 dB C/I: 39.688 dB C/(N+I): 39.599 dB DC\1600205.1$

$Interference Case – 2 ENG Van Located East of Atlanta Wanted Link Info EIRP: 31.5 dBW Path Loss: 134.897 dB Receive Antenna Gain: 20 dB C (Signal Strength): ‐83.397 dBW N (Noise): ‐133.037 dBW C/N: 49.640 dB Unwanted Link Info TX Output: 1.5 dBW Gain Toward Victim: ‐10 dBi Path Loss: 130.099 dB Relative Receive Gain: 5.019 dBi I (Interference Strength): ‐135.042 dBW I/N: ‐2.005 dB C/I: 51.645 dB C/(N+I): 47.518 dB DC\1600205.1$

$Interference Case – 3 ENG Van Located West of Atlanta Wanted Link Info EIRP: 31.5 dBW Path Loss: 132.311 dB Receive Antenna Gain: 20 dB C (Signal Strength): ‐80.827 dBW N (Noise): ‐133.037 dBW C/N: 52.210 dB Unwanted Link Info TX Output: 1.5 dBW Gain Toward Victim: ‐10 dBi Path Loss: 129.527 dB Relative Receive Gain: 3.072 dBi I (Interference Strength): ‐136.417 dBW I/N: ‐3.380 dB C/I: 55.589 dB C/(N+I): 50.568 dB DC\1600205.1$

$Interference Case – 4 ENG Van Located South of Atlanta Wanted Link Info EIRP: 31.5 dBW Path Loss: 132.164 dB Receive Antenna Gain: 20 dB C (Signal Strength): ‐80.664 dBW N (Noise): ‐133.037 dBW C/N: 52.373 dB Unwanted Link Info TX Output: 1.5 dBW Gain Toward Victim: ‐10 dBi Path Loss: 129.527 dB Relative Receive Gain: 3.072 dBi I (Interference Strength): ‐136.417 dBW I/N: ‐3.380 dB C/I: 55.753 dB C/(N+I): 50.732 dB DC\1600205.1$

$Interference Case – 5 ENG Van Located North of Atlanta Wanted Link Info EIRP: 31.5 dBW Path Loss: 132.615 dB Receive Antenna Gain: 20 dB C (Signal Strength): ‐81.129 dBW N (Noise): ‐133.037 dBW C/N: 51.908 dB Unwanted Link Info TX Output: 1.5 dBW Gain Toward Victim: ‐10 dBi Path Loss: 129.527 dB Relative Receive Gain: 3.072 dBi I (Interference Strength): ‐136.417 dBW I/N: ‐3.380 dB C/I: 55.287 dB C/(N+I): 50.266 dB DC\1600205.1$

Exhibit B

Comsearch Additional Information

$Pathloss Calculation Path data for case # 1 DULUTH RICHLANDTWR Latitude 33 57 47.2 33 48 27.0 Longitude 84 5 43.0 84 20 27.0 Antenna Center Agl ..... 12.01 ft. 3.66 m. 1000.05 ft. 304.80 m. Site Elevation Amsl .... 939.05 ft. 286.21 m. 875.04 ft. 266.70 m. Antenna Center Amsl .... 951.06 ft. 289.87 m. 1875.09 ft. 571.50 m. Effective Antenna Ht ... 12.01 ft. 3.66 m. 1000.05 ft. 304.80 m. Horizon Distance ....... 0.06 mi. 0.09 km. 17.38 mi. 27.96 km. Horizon Elevation Amsl . 979.08 ft. 298.41 m. 993.81 ft. 302.90 m. Ray Crossover Angle .... 86.99 mr. Terrain Delta Ht ....... 72.97 ft. 22.24 m. Effective Distance ..... 22.30 mi. 35.88 km. Pathlength ............. 17.73 mi. 28.53 km. Azimuth ................ 232.84 deg. 52.70 deg. Frequency .............. 2050 MHz K Factor ............... 1.33 (K) Radio Climate Phrase ... Continental Temperate Climate Type of Path ........... Rounded Single Object Free Space Path Loss ... 127.7 dB Atmospheric Loss ... 0.173 dB Diff. Loss .... 46.4 dB (174.1 dB) Tropo. Loss ... 91.2 dB (218.9 dB) Terrain data type ...... 1.0 ARC Second Losses L-Fspl Sigma Controlling Propagation Mode ------ ------ ----- ----------- ---------------- 169.1 dB 41.4 dB 3.6 dB 20. % Diffraction 165.5 dB 37.8 dB 3.7 dB 1. % Diffraction 164.5 dB 36.8 dB 3.8 dB 0.1 % Diffraction 163.8 dB 36.1 dB 3.8 dB 0.01 % Diffraction 163.1 dB 35.3 dB 3.9 dB 0.0025% Diffraction The OH loss calculations considered a terrain profile of 205 points. The list below shows the highest point in each fiftieth of the path length. K=Inf. K= 1.33 K=Inf. K= 1.33 Dist. Elev. Obstr. Clrnce. Clrnce. Dist. Elev. Obstr. Clrnce.Clrnce. (km.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (km.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (m.) --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- 0.00 286.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 14.55 323.7 0.0 109.8 97.8 0.09 286.2 11.8 -7.2 -7.4 15.26 322.2 0.0 118.3 106.4 0.43 294.6 0.0 -0.5 -1.2 15.41 321.3 0.0 120.7 108.7 0.57 290.7 12.2 -7.4 -8.3 15.98 314.4 0.0 133.2 121.4 1.19 290.5 12.2 -1.1 -3.0 16.55 301.1 0.0 152.1 140.4 1.71 275.0 0.0 31.8 29.1 17.40 292.8 0.0 168.9 157.4 2.57 292.4 0.0 22.8 18.9 18.12 300.7 0.0 168.0 156.9 3.28 292.4 0.0 29.9 25.0 18.26 300.1 0.0 170.0 159.0 3.71 281.9 0.0 44.6 39.2 19.26 298.2 0.0 181.8 171.2 4.42 275.8 0.0 57.7 51.4 19.69 305.2 0.0 179.0 168.7 4.71 269.3 0.0 67.0 60.4 19.97 299.6 0.0 187.4 177.3 5.56 280.6 0.0 64.2 56.7 20.97 297.6 0.0 199.3 189.9 5.99 291.7 0.0 57.3 49.3 21.40 294.0 0.0 207.1 198.1 6.56 288.0 0.0 66.6 58.1 22.11 282.7 0.0 225.4 217.1 6.85 282.4 0.0 75.1 66.3 22.68 300.7 0.0 213.1 205.2 7.85 289.8 0.0 77.5 67.9 23.11 303.2 0.0 214.8 207.4 8.42 299.6 0.0 73.4 63.4 23.39 300.0 0.0 220.8 213.7 8.70 298.3 0.0 77.5 67.3 24.39 276.1 0.0 254.6 248.6 9.27 308.5 0.0 72.9 62.4 24.82 288.6 0.0 246.3 240.9 9.84 308.9 0.0 78.1 67.3 25.53 292.6 0.0 249.3 244.8 10.70 307.5 0.0 88.0 76.7 25.68 296.8 0.0 246.5 242.2 11.13 300.6 0.0 99.1 87.7 26.68 300.5 0.0 252.7 249.8 11.84 314.9 0.0 91.8 80.2 27.10 301.9 0.0 255.5 253.2 12.13 318.4 0.0 91.2 79.4 27.67 301.0 0.0 262.1 260.7 12.98 312.0 0.0 106.0 94.1 27.96 291.6 0.0 274.3 273.3 13.12 318.0 0.0 101.4 89.5 28.53 266.7 304.8 0.0 0.0 13.69 317.2 0.0 107.9 95.9$

$Pathloss Calculation Path data for case # 1 DULUTH WESTIN PLZ Latitude 33 57 47.2 33 45 34.0 Longitude 84 5 43.0 84 23 18.0 Antenna Center Agl ..... 12.01 ft. 3.66 m. 1000.05 ft. 304.80 m. Site Elevation Amsl .... 939.05 ft. 286.21 m. 1065.01 ft. 324.60 m. Antenna Center Amsl .... 951.06 ft. 289.87 m. 2065.06 ft. 629.40 m. Effective Antenna Ht ... 12.01 ft. 3.66 m. 1100.74 ft. 335.49 m. Horizon Distance ....... 0.06 mi. 0.09 km. 21.58 mi. 34.72 km. Horizon Elevation Amsl . 979.08 ft. 298.41 m. 1007.92 ft. 307.20 m. Ray Crossover Angle .... 87.72 mr. Terrain Delta Ht ....... 65.71 ft. 20.03 m. Effective Distance ..... 26.68 mi. 42.92 km. Pathlength ............. 21.94 mi. 35.29 km. Azimuth ................ 230.29 deg. 50.12 deg. Frequency .............. 2050 MHz K Factor ............... 1.33 (K) Radio Climate Phrase ... Continental Temperate Climate Type of Path ........... Rounded Single Object Free Space Path Loss ... 129.6 dB Atmospheric Loss ... 0.214 dB Diff. Loss .... 46.7 dB (176.3 dB) Tropo. Loss ... 90.6 dB (220.2 dB) Terrain data type ...... 1.0 ARC Second Losses L-Fspl Sigma Controlling Propagation Mode ------ ------ ----- ----------- ---------------- 171.4 dB 41.8 dB 3.6 dB 20. % Diffraction 166.9 dB 37.4 dB 3.7 dB 1. % Diffraction 165.7 dB 36.1 dB 3.9 dB 0.1 % Diffraction 164.8 dB 35.2 dB 4.0 dB 0.01 % Diffraction 163.8 dB 34.2 dB 4.1 dB 0.0025% Diffraction The OH loss calculations considered a terrain profile of 252 points. The list below shows the highest point in each fiftieth of the path length. K=Inf. K= 1.33 K=Inf. K= 1.33 Dist. Elev. Obstr. Clrnce. Clrnce. Dist. Elev. Obstr. Clrnce.Clrnce. (km.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (km.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (m.) --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- 0.00 286.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 17.72 306.6 0.0 153.7 135.4 0.09 286.2 11.8 -7.3 -7.5 18.58 300.1 0.0 168.5 150.2 0.43 295.3 0.0 -1.3 -2.2 19.58 322.6 0.0 155.6 137.4 1.29 290.5 0.0 11.7 9.2 19.86 310.0 0.0 170.9 152.9 1.57 288.1 0.0 16.9 13.8 20.72 309.6 0.0 179.6 161.8 2.57 286.8 0.0 27.8 22.8 21.29 300.4 0.0 194.3 176.7 3.29 289.0 0.0 32.5 26.3 22.58 303.8 0.0 203.3 186.3 3.57 286.9 0.0 37.3 30.7 23.01 311.0 0.0 200.2 183.5 4.57 284.7 0.0 49.2 40.9 23.86 297.4 0.0 222.0 205.9 5.57 289.7 0.0 53.8 44.0 24.15 304.1 0.0 218.1 202.2 6.00 288.2 0.0 59.4 49.0 25.01 310.7 0.0 219.7 204.6 6.43 286.5 0.0 65.2 54.3 25.72 304.5 0.0 232.8 218.3 7.72 287.0 0.0 77.1 64.6 26.29 299.1 0.0 243.7 229.7 8.43 303.7 0.0 67.3 53.9 27.15 288.6 0.0 262.4 249.4 9.15 308.6 0.0 69.2 55.1 28.15 298.5 0.0 262.2 250.3 9.29 301.5 0.0 77.7 63.5 28.29 287.0 0.0 275.0 263.4 10.15 294.8 0.0 92.7 77.6 29.01 286.5 0.0 282.4 271.7 11.29 317.3 0.0 81.2 65.2 30.01 279.4 0.0 299.1 289.8 11.57 317.4 0.0 83.8 67.6 31.01 299.1 0.0 289.1 281.2 12.15 317.6 0.0 89.1 72.5 31.58 297.9 0.0 295.8 288.8 13.29 312.0 0.0 105.7 88.5 32.15 289.4 0.0 309.8 303.8 14.00 318.0 0.0 106.6 89.0 33.15 301.6 0.0 307.2 303.0 14.72 322.5 0.0 109.0 91.1 33.44 304.8 0.0 306.7 303.1 14.86 320.5 0.0 112.3 94.4 34.58 294.4 0.0 328.1 326.7 15.58 303.8 0.0 135.9 117.8 35.15 323.1 0.0 304.9 304.6 16.72 308.9 0.0 141.8 123.5 35.29 324.6 304.8 0.0 0.0 17.58 315.3 0.0 143.6 125.3$

$Pathloss Calculation Path data for case # 4 DULUTH BLACKJACK Latitude 33 57 47.2 33 58 19.2 Longitude 84 5 43.0 84 30 8.3 Antenna Center Agl ..... 12.01 ft. 3.66 m. 250.01 ft. 76.20 m. Site Elevation Amsl .... 939.05 ft. 286.21 m. 1267.12 ft. 386.20 m. Antenna Center Amsl .... 951.06 ft. 289.87 m. 1517.13 ft. 462.40 m. Effective Antenna Ht ... 12.01 ft. 3.66 m. 518.99 ft. 158.18 m. Horizon Distance ....... 1.77 mi. 2.85 km. 20.91 mi. 33.64 km. Horizon Elevation Amsl . 1016.78 ft. 309.90 m. 1042.37 ft. 317.70 m. Ray Crossover Angle .... 5.01 mr. Terrain Delta Ht ....... 81.34 ft. 24.79 m. Effective Distance ..... 36.43 mi. 58.61 km. Pathlength ............. 23.39 mi. 37.63 km. Azimuth ................ 271.62 deg. 91.39 deg. Frequency .............. 2000 MHz K Factor ............... 1.33 (K) Radio Climate Phrase ... Continental Temperate Climate Type of Path ........... Two Single Knife Edges Free Space Path Loss ... 129.9 dB Atmospheric Loss ... 0.227 dB Diff. Loss .... 28.1 dB (158.0 dB) Tropo. Loss ... 54.7 dB (184.7 dB) Terrain data type ...... 1.0 ARC Second Losses L-Fspl Sigma Controlling Propagation Mode ------ ------ ----- ----------- ---------------- 153.4 dB 23.5 dB 3.6 dB 20. % Diffraction 148.6 dB 18.7 dB 3.8 dB 1. % Diffraction 147.2 dB 17.3 dB 3.9 dB 0.1 % Diffraction 146.3 dB 16.4 dB 4.0 dB 0.01 % Diffraction 145.3 dB 15.3 dB 4.1 dB 0.0025% Diffraction The OH loss calculations considered a terrain profile of 265 points. The list below shows the highest point in each fiftieth of the path length. K=Inf. K= 1.33 K=Inf. K= 1.33 Dist. Elev. Obstr. Clrnce. Clrnce. Dist. Elev. Obstr. Clrnce.Clrnce. (km.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (km.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (m.) --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- 0.00 286.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 19.10 326.5 0.0 50.9 30.1 0.14 281.8 0.0 8.7 8.4 20.24 336.0 0.0 46.7 25.9 1.28 292.5 0.0 3.3 0.5 20.38 330.2 0.0 53.1 32.4 1.85 299.4 0.0 -1.0 -4.9 21.81 309.5 0.0 80.4 60.0 2.85 309.9 0.0 -7.0 -12.8 22.52 321.2 0.0 71.9 51.9 3.42 306.7 0.0 -1.1 -8.0 22.81 337.8 0.0 56.6 36.7 3.99 317.7 0.0 -9.5 -17.4 23.66 321.0 0.0 77.4 57.9 4.70 303.0 0.0 8.4 -0.7 24.80 321.0 0.0 82.6 63.8 5.70 306.9 0.0 9.1 -1.6 24.94 314.6 0.0 89.6 71.0 6.56 300.9 0.0 19.0 7.0 26.09 310.1 0.0 99.4 81.6 6.98 306.3 0.0 15.6 3.0 27.08 291.0 0.0 123.0 106.2 8.12 315.9 0.0 11.2 -2.9 27.80 308.1 0.0 109.2 93.1 8.98 326.8 0.0 4.2 -10.9 28.22 319.5 0.0 99.8 84.1 9.27 328.8 0.0 3.5 -11.9 28.65 314.9 0.0 106.3 91.2 10.41 332.2 0.0 5.4 -11.3 29.51 320.7 0.0 104.4 90.3 10.55 325.3 0.0 12.9 -3.9 30.22 304.9 0.0 123.5 110.3 11.40 324.7 0.0 17.5 -0.2 31.36 305.1 0.0 128.5 116.9 12.40 312.1 0.0 34.6 16.2 31.79 308.6 0.0 127.0 116.1 13.11 316.9 0.0 33.1 14.1 32.64 309.5 0.0 130.0 120.4 13.97 297.0 0.0 56.9 37.4 33.78 286.8 0.0 158.0 150.3 14.40 293.0 0.0 62.9 43.1 34.50 302.6 0.0 145.4 139.0 15.11 286.8 0.0 72.3 52.3 35.35 311.8 0.0 140.1 135.4 16.11 287.4 0.0 76.3 55.9 36.06 321.8 0.0 133.4 130.1 17.25 281.1 0.0 87.8 67.1 36.21 330.3 0.0 125.6 122.5 17.82 319.2 0.0 52.4 31.5 37.49 382.8 0.0 78.9 78.6 18.53 329.7 0.0 45.1 24.3 37.63 386.2 76.2 0.0 0.0$

$Pathloss Calculation Path data for case # 1 DULUTH GAINESVILLE Latitude 33 57 47.2 34 7 32.0 Longitude 84 5 43.0 83 51 31.0 Antenna Center Agl ..... 12.01 ft. 3.66 m. 1764.19 ft. 537.70 m. Site Elevation Amsl .... 939.05 ft. 286.21 m. 859.95 ft. 262.10 m. Antenna Center Amsl .... 951.06 ft. 289.87 m. 2624.14 ft. 799.80 m. Effective Antenna Ht ... 30.00 ft. 9.14 m. 1764.19 ft. 537.70 m. Horizon Distance ....... 0.21 mi. 0.34 km. 17.39 mi. 27.98 km. Horizon Elevation Amsl . 987.58 ft. 301.00 m. 987.58 ft. 301.00 m. Ray Crossover Angle .... 16.58 mr. Terrain Delta Ht ....... 127.64 ft. 38.90 m. Effective Distance ..... 17.40 mi. 28.00 km. Pathlength ............. 17.60 mi. 28.32 km. Azimuth ................ 50.43 deg. 230.56 deg. Frequency .............. 2050 MHz K Factor ............... 1.33 (K) Radio Climate Phrase ... Continental Temperate Climate Type of Path ........... Single Knife Edge Free Space Path Loss ... 127.7 dB Atmospheric Loss ... 0.171 dB Diff. Loss .... 14.8 dB (142.5 dB) Tropo. Loss ... 68.9 dB (196.6 dB) Terrain data type ...... 1.0 ARC Second Losses L-Fspl Sigma Controlling Propagation Mode ------ ------ ----- ----------- ---------------- 137.5 dB 9.8 dB 3.6 dB 20. % Diffraction 133.9 dB 6.2 dB 3.7 dB 1. % Diffraction 132.9 dB 5.2 dB 3.8 dB 0.1 % Diffraction 132.2 dB 4.6 dB 3.8 dB 0.01 % Diffraction 131.5 dB 3.8 dB 3.9 dB 0.0025% Diffraction The OH loss calculations considered a terrain profile of 205 points. The list below shows the highest point in each fiftieth of the path length. K=Inf. K= 1.33 K=Inf. K= 1.33 Dist. Elev. Obstr. Clrnce. Clrnce. Dist. Elev. Obstr. Clrnce.Clrnce. (km.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (km.) (m.) (m.) (m.) (m.) --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- 0.00 286.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 14.23 347.8 0.0 198.3 186.5 0.14 282.7 0.0 9.7 9.5 15.09 336.4 0.0 225.1 213.3 0.34 280.0 21.0 -5.0 -5.6 15.37 322.6 0.0 244.0 232.3 1.00 289.6 0.0 18.2 16.6 16.37 330.0 0.0 254.6 243.0 1.57 297.5 0.0 20.6 18.1 16.80 336.0 0.0 256.2 244.8 1.99 305.0 0.0 20.7 17.7 17.51 347.3 0.0 257.8 246.6 2.28 299.0 0.0 31.9 28.4 18.08 347.2 0.0 268.1 257.2 2.99 313.6 0.0 30.1 25.6 18.36 352.2 0.0 268.2 257.4 3.56 317.3 0.0 36.6 31.4 19.21 358.6 0.0 277.2 266.9 4.27 319.0 0.0 47.7 41.7 19.64 360.0 0.0 283.5 273.4 4.98 318.1 0.0 61.5 54.6 20.21 360.0 0.0 293.7 284.1 5.55 312.1 0.0 77.7 70.3 20.64 366.0 0.0 295.4 286.1 5.98 328.0 0.0 69.5 61.6 21.49 359.3 0.0 317.5 308.8 6.55 322.9 0.0 84.8 76.4 21.78 365.3 0.0 316.6 308.2 6.83 316.0 0.0 96.9 88.2 22.20 347.8 0.0 341.8 333.8 7.83 312.6 0.0 118.2 108.7 23.20 326.8 0.0 380.8 373.7 8.40 318.0 0.0 123.1 113.2 23.34 336.5 0.0 373.6 366.8 8.68 322.5 0.0 123.7 113.6 24.05 335.9 0.0 387.0 381.0 9.11 318.7 0.0 135.2 124.8 24.48 324.0 0.0 406.6 401.1 9.96 307.1 0.0 162.1 151.4 25.05 288.6 0.0 452.3 447.4 10.53 315.8 0.0 163.7 152.6 25.90 290.5 0.0 465.7 462.0 10.96 325.9 0.0 161.3 150.1 26.19 287.9 0.0 473.5 470.2 11.53 339.5 0.0 157.9 146.5 26.90 275.3 0.0 498.9 496.6 12.38 337.5 0.0 175.3 163.7 27.47 276.6 0.0 507.8 506.4 12.67 348.0 0.0 169.9 158.2 28.18 258.4 0.0 538.8 538.6 13.52 346.6 0.0 186.7 174.9 28.32 262.1 537.7 0.0 0.0 13.95 348.0 0.0 193.0 181.2$

$CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karen Sprung, hereby certify that on this 19th day of January 2012, I served a copy of the foregoing “Opposition of ViaSat, Inc.” by first class mail upon the following: Michael Basile Dow Lohnes PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Robert J. Folliard, III Dow Lohnes PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 /s/ Karen R. Sprung Communications Analyst DC\1600037.1$

Document Created: 2012-01-19 19:40:55
Document Modified: 2012-01-19 19:40:55