ViaSat Ex Parte Lett

LETTER submitted by ViaSat, Inc.

ViaSat Ex Parte Letter (July 29, 2009)

2009-07-29

This document pretains to SES-STA-20090709-00854 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2009070900854_727550

                                                                      555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
                                                                      Washington, D.C. 20004—1304
                                                                      Tel: +1.202.637.2200 Fax: +1.202.637.2201
                                                                      www.lw.com

                                                                      FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
LATHAM&eWAT KINS—
                                                                      Abu Dhabi        Munich
                                                                      Barcelona        New Jersey
                                                                      Brussels         New York
                                                                      Chicago          Orange County
                                                                      Doha             Paris
                                                                      Dubai            Rome
   July 29, 2009                                                      Frankfurt       San Diego
                                                                      Hamburg         San Francisco
                                                                      Hong Kong       Shanghai
                                                                      London          Silicon Valley
   Marlene H. Dortch                                                  Los Angeles     Singapore
   Secretary                                                          Madrid          Tokyo
                      .   f          200.                             Milan           Washington, D.C.
   Federal Communications Commission                                  Moscow
   445 12th Street, SW
   Washington, DC 20554

             Re:   Call Sign E0O80100: Applications of Row 44, Inc. for
                   Authority to Operate up to 1,000 Technically—Identical Aeronautical—Mobile
                   Satellite Service Transmit/Receive Earth Stations Aboard Commercial and Private
                   Aircraft, FCC File Nos. SES—LIC—20080508—00570; SES—AMD—20080619—00826;
                   SES—AMD—20080819—01074; SES—AMD—20080829—01117; SES—AMD—
                   200901 15—00041; SES—AMD—20090416—00501 and
                   Special Temporary Authority, FCC File Nos. SES—STA—20080711—00928; SES—
                   STA—20090417—00507; SES—STA—20090709—00854.
                   Ex Parte Presentation

   Dear Ms. Dortch:

                   ViaSat, Inc. ("ViaSat") submits this letter to supplement its prior filings in this
   proceeding, in which Row 44, Inc. ("Row 44") seeks authority to operate in the aeronautical—
   mobile satellite service ("AMSS").

                   ViaSat has identified numerous, unresolved, material questions of fact with
   respect to Row 44‘s proposed system, including with respect to Row 44‘s ability to control
   transmit power and maintain pointing accuracy.‘ Further, ViaSat has presented for the record an
   interference analysis demonstrating that Row 44‘s proposed system would pose an interference
   threat to adjacent operations, and quantifying this threat." That analysis stands unrefuted.



   )        See Letter from John P. Janka to Marlene H. Dortch, at 2—3 and Exh. A (Jun. 23, 2009)
            ("ViaSat June 23 Letter"); Letter from John P. Janka to Marlene H. Dortch, Att. (Jun. 26,
            2009) ("ViaSat June 26 Letter").
            More specifically, ViaSat has demonstrated that: (i) even if Row 44‘s antennas were
            mispointed by only 0.2 degrees, and otherwise operated precisely as Row 44 intends,
            Row 44‘s non—conforming services would cause at least a 10.2 percent AT/T increase into




    DC\1228163.1


     Marlene H. Dortch
     July 29, 2009
     Page 2

LATHAMeWATKINSu

                     In contrast, despite numerous opportunities, Row 44 has failed to produce data
     sufficient to demonstrate that its system would operate in a manner consistent with a two—degree
     operating environment, and without causing harmful interference into adjacent operations. The
     data that Row 44 has produced are either irrelevant or inherently unreliable given the
     methodological deficiencies in Row 44‘s "testing," which ViaSat has documented extensively.*

                     ViaSat therefore has urged the Bureau to refrain from granting Row 44‘s
     application until Row 44 produces data sufficient to validate its technical claims and resolve the
     material questions of fact on the record. Indeed, ViaSat has explained that this is the only course
     of action consistent with the Communications Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and
     judicial precedent." Should the Bureau act notwithstanding the unresolved, material questions of
     fact on the record, ViaSat respectfully requests that the Bureau impose the following conditions
     on Row 44:

                    1. The Bureau should preclude Row 44 from operating with a pointing error in
                       excess of 0.2 degrees.

                      ViaSat has noted that Row 44‘s in—flight testing failed to observe system
     operations with between 0.2 and 0.5 degrees of mispointing." More specifically, Row 44‘s test
     setup forced its system to shut down with only 0.2 degrees of mispointing, even though the Row
     44 system is designed to operate in a "real world" setting with up to 0.5 degrees of mispointing.
     This is a critical flaw because, as ViaSat‘s interference analysis demonstrates, Row 44‘s
     operations could cause significant levels of harmful interference with between 0.2 and 0.5
     degrees of mispointing.

                     While Row 44 asserts that there is no discrepancy because Row 44 has "designed
     its system to cease transmissions at +0.2° peak detected mispoint,"" this assertion simply cannot
     be squared with Row 44‘s current description of its own network. Nevertheless, in order to
     reconcile the discrepancies between the scope of Row 44‘s "testing" and proposed operations,
     the Bureau should affirmatively preclude Row 44 from operating with a pointing error in excess
     of 0.2 degrees.




              VSAT networks on adjacent satellites; and (11) taking into account the more likely
              operating conditions described by ViaSat, those services would cause at least an 89.3
              percent AT/T increase into VSAT networks on adjacent satellites. See Letter from John
              P. Janka to Marlene H. Dortch (Dec. 8, 2008).
     3        See ViaSat June 23 Letter at 8—16; ViaSat June 26 Letter, Att. at 4—11.
     4        See Letter from John P. Janka to Marlene H. Dortch (Jun. 30, 2009).
     5        See ViaSat June 23 Letter at 11—12; ViaSat June 26 Letter, Att. at 9.
     6        See Letter from David S. Keir to Marlene H. Dortch, at 5 (Jul. 10, 2009).




     DC\1228163.1


     Marlene H. Dortch
     July 29, 2009
     Page 3


LATHAMeWATKINSu«

                    2. The Bureau should require Row 44 to log critical data.

                     As noted above, ViaSat has presented record evidence demonstrating that Row
     44‘s proposed system could cause harmful interference into adjacent operations. While Row 44
     disputes this claim, even Row 44 accepts that any authorized operations should be on a non—
     interference basis. As such, should the Bureau authorize Row 44 to operate, the ability to
     accurately identify any interference from Row 44‘s proposed system would be critical.

                     Existing interference location systems are not able to track the locations of mobile
     transmitters. Further, Row 44‘s AMSS terminals would be operated in a transient and
     intermittent fashion, making them particularly difficult to locate. As such, a data logging
     requirement is critical, and would be the most effective way to identify and resolve incidents of
     interference from Row 44‘s proposed system. Data logging is standard industry practice.
     Notably, in the ESV context, the Commission requires Ku—band hub operators to have the
     capability to track and maintain certain data, including terminal locations, for potential review in
     the event interference issues arise."

                     Accordingly, the Bureau should impose a data logging condition on any license
     granted to Row 44, requiring it to log, with respect to each operating terminal, data including: (i)
     location (latitude, longitude, altitude); (ii) aircraft attitude (pitch, yaw, roll); (11i) operating
     frequency; (iv) occupied bandwidth; (v) data rate; (vi) EIRP; and (vii) point of communication.
     Row 44 should be required to record data at least once every 2 minutes, and every 30 seconds
     whenever an aircraft roll angle is greater than 10 degrees.

                    3. The Bureau should require Row 44 to file a report with the Bureau one year
                       after commencing commercial operations.

                    The Bureau should require Row 44 to file a report with the Bureau one year after
     commencing commercial operations, addressing installed equipment configurations, EIRP
     compliance, pointing accuracy compliance, and compliance with assigned bandwidth/emission
     designators, and including a table of reported interference events. Such a condition would allow
     the Bureau and potentially affected users of the Ku band, such as ViaSat, to verify that Row 44‘s
     network actually complies with the Commission‘s rules when its user terminals are deployed and
     are operating on a widespread commercial basis.

                    The Commission has regularly imposed a reporting condition on AMSS licensees.
     For example, the Commission required Boeing to "submit a report . . . includ{ing] test results and
     a description of any design modifications or operational procedures necessary" to ensure that
     Boeing‘s operations were consistent with a two—degree spacing environment, and addressing,




               See Procedures to Govern the Use ofSatellite Earth Stations on Board Vessels in the
               5925—6425 MHz/3700—4200 MHz Bands and 14.0—14.5 GHz/11.7—12.2 GHz Bands,
               Report and Order, 20 FCC Red 674, at    112 (2005).




     DC\1228163.1


     Martene H. Dortch
     July 29, 2009
     Page 4


LATHAMsWATKINSu

     among other things, antenna pointing issues." The Commission imposed a similar condition on
     ARINC, and specifically found that "[dlJata obtained after ARINC has had an opportunity to
     expand commercial operation pursuant to this authorization . . . would be more useful than data
     on operation to date on the limited basis previously allowed."" The Commission again imposed
     a reporting condition on ViaSat in granting its AMSS license."

                     A similar reporting condition is warranted in Row 44‘s case. Row 44‘s operations
     have the potential to cause harmful interference, and previous operations and "testing" are
     insufficient to ascertain the scope of possible interference resulting from wide deployment in
     commercial operations. Accordingly, the Bureau should require Row 44 to provide the requisite
     operational data by filing, one year after commencing commercial operation, a report on its
     system‘s performance during that time period. Doing so would allow both the Bureau and other
     potentially affected users of the Ku band to evaluate the impact of Row 44‘s system during the
     initial phase of commercial service.

                    4. The Bureau should require Row 44 to maintain a suitable margin to ensure
                       compliance with the Commission‘s off—axis EIRP density mask.

                     ViaSat has explained previously that the link budgets provided by Row 44 simply
     do not support the power levels at which Row 44 proposes to operate (10 watts), and that Row
     44 instead would need to operate at higher power levels (12.5 watts) in order to close its links."‘
     ViaSat also has provided graphs showing that, at these higher power levels, Row 44‘s proposed
     system would not comply with the Commission‘s off—axis EIRP density mask when
     mispointed."" Notably, Row 44‘s power amplifier has sufficient "overhead" to permit operations
     at this higher power level, and it would be natural to use that extra power when an aircraft moves
     through a part of the satellite coverage area with low performance.




               The Boeing Company;: Application for Blanket Authority to Operate Up to Eight Hundred
               Technically Identical Transmit and Receive Mobile Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft in the
               14.0—14.5 GHz and 11.7—12.2 GHz Frequency Bands, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC
               Red 22645, at « 19 (2001).
              ARINC Incorporated, Application for Blanket Authority for Operation of Up to One
              Thousand Technically Identical Ku—Band Transmit/Receive Airborne Mobile Stations
              Aboard Aircraft Operating in the United States and Adjacent Waters, 20 FCC Red 7553,
              at | 56 (2005) ("ARINC Order‘).
               ViaSat, Inc., Application for Blanket Authorityfor Operation of 1,000 Technically
               Identical Ku—Band Aircraft Earth Stations in the United States and Over Territorial
               Waters, Order and Authorization, 22 FCC Red 19964, at     28 (2007).
               iSee ViaSat Reply to Opposition to Supplement to Petition to Deny, Technical Annex at
               1—5 (Nov. 4, 2008).
     12       Id. at 3—5.



     DC\1228163.1


     Marlene H. Dortch
     July 29, 2009
     Page 5


LATHAMeWATKINS@

                     Row 44 has never explained how its proposed system would control uplink power
     within the 10—watt limit so as to maintain off—axis EJRP density within acceptable limits and
     mitigate the threat of harmful interference. Moreover, Row 44 has never conducted testing to
     establish the EIRP stability of its system (F.e., the extent to which the transmit power level of its
     system changes over time as the aircraft moves through the different coverage areas of the
     different spacecraft with which Row 44‘s user terminals communicate). Further, as explained by
     ViaSat in any number of filings, Row 44 has failed to demonstrate its ability to maintain a
     pointing accuracy of 0.2 degrees, in a manner consistent with Section 25.222(a)(6) of the
     Commission‘s rules."

                     In light of the uncertainty surrounding Row 44‘s ability to control its uplink
     power and maintain its antenna pointing accuracy, and in order to ensure compliance with the
     Commission‘s mask even when Row 44‘s system mispoints, the Bureau should require Row 44
     to maintain a 3 dB margin under the Commission‘s off—axis EIRP density mask. Such a
     condition would be consistent with those previously imposed on AMSS licensees,"* and would
     mitigate the interference potential of Row 44‘s system, even if Row 44 is unable to maintain a
     high level of EIRP stability or a sufficient level of pointing accuracy.

                    5. The Bureau should limit Row 44‘s operations to a data rate of 256 kbit/s,
                       with a minimum of 4 chips/bit.

                     ViaSat has raised material issues with respect to Row 44‘s ability to operate
     effectively at 512 kbit/s. For example, ViaSat has noted that Row 44‘s user terminals could
     support, at best, 512 kbit/s operations down to a 0.3 dB/K G/T contour. Given consumer
     demands for continuous service, ViaSat has expressed concern that Row 44 would increase
     transmit power levels as needed to close its links at 512 kbit/s, thereby exacerbating the degree to
     which the Row 44 system would fail to comply with Section 25.134(g)(1) of the Commission‘s
     rules,‘" and the potential for harmful interference into adjacent operations.

                     Conspicuously, Row 44‘s "testing" did not examine, and Row 44 has never
                                              5   6c



     provided full link budgets for, the 512 kbit/s case."" As such, there is simply no way of knowing
     the full extent of any technical issues that could extend from operations at 512 kbit/s. Thus, the
     Bureau has no basis for evaluating Row 44‘s technical claims with respect to the 512 kbit/s case,
     and cannot even evaluate the most basic technical parameters governing Row 44‘s proposed


     M        See 47 CFR. §25.222(a)(6).
     14       See, e.g., ARINC Order at © 58(k). In this case, ViaSat is requesting a margin of 3 dB
              given greater uncertainty regarding the capabilities of Row 44‘s system.
     15       See 47 C.F.R. § 25.134(g)(1).
     16       ViaSat Petition to Deny, Technical Annex at 1—2 (Jun. 27, 2008).
              See, e.g., ViaSat Reply to Opposition to Supplement to Petition to Deny at 23 ("We note
              that there were no 512 kbit/s link budgets supplied with Row 44‘s recent submission, and
              we therefore cannot assess Row 44‘s 512 kbit/s service.").




     DC\1228163.1


     Marlene H. Dortch
     July 29, 2009
     Page 6


LATHAMeWATKINSu

     operations. Accordingly, the Bureau should restrict any licensed Row 44 operations to 256
     kbit/s.

                                          *       *      *      *        *



                         Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions.



                                                      Sincerely yours




                                                      Jarrett S. Taubman

                                                      Counselfor ViaSat, Inc.


    ce:   John Giusti                                 Steve Duall
          Rod Porter                                  William Bell
          Bob Nelson                                  Kathyrn Medley
          Fern Jarmulnek                              Sophie Arrington
          Cassandra Thomas                            Trang Nguyen
          Steve Spaeth                                Frank Peace
          Karl Kensinger                              Jeanette Spriggs

          David S. Keir, Counsel for Row 44, Inc.




     DC\1228163.1



Document Created: 2019-04-20 09:33:22
Document Modified: 2019-04-20 09:33:22

© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC