ESOC & Hughes Ex Par

Ex PARTE PRESENTATION NOTIFICATION LETTER submitted by EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation & Hughes Network Systems, LLC

Ex Parte

2019-04-25

This document pretains to SES-STA-20190410-00514 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.


April 25, 2019



By Electronic Filing

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington DC 20554

Re:     Written Ex Parte Presentation
        Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, IBFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 and SAT-STA-
        20190405-00023
        SpaceX Services, Inc., IBFS File Nos. SES-STA-20190410-00513, SES-STA-20190410-00514, SES-
        STA-20190410-00515, SES-STA-20190410-00516, SES-STA-20190410-00517, SES-STA-20190410-
        00518, SES-STA-20190410-00519

Dear Ms. Dortch:

EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation and Hughes Network Systems, LLC (together with their
affiliates, “EchoStar”), and Intelsat License LLC (“Intelsat”) hereby submit this written ex parte
presentation in response to developments in the above-referenced proceedings concerning the SpaceX
modification application (the “SpaceX Modification”) and related requests for special temporary
authority (“STA Requests”) filed by Space Exploration Holdings, LLC and its sister company, SpaceX
Services (collectively “SpaceX”).1 On March 5, 2019 EchoStar and Intelsat filed a reply2 to SpaceX’s
Further Consolidated Opposition to Petition and Response to Comments.3 EchoStar and Intelsat
hereby incorporate the Reply by reference, reiterate the concerns articulated therein, and urge the
Commission to deny the STA Requests.

Specifically, EchoStar and Intelsat remain concerned about SpaceX’s request for a waiver of Section
25.146(c) of the Federal Communications Commission’s (the “Commission”) rules, which requires non-
geostationary orbit (“NGSO”) constellation operators to receive a “favorable” or “qualified favorable”
finding by the International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”) Radiocommunication Bureau regarding

1
  See, e.g., Space Exploration Holdings, LLC Application for Modification of Authorization for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite
System, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 (filed Nov. 8, 2018); SpaceX Services, Request for Special Temporary
Authority, IBFS File No. SES-STA-20190410-00513 et al. (filed Apr. 5, 2019).
2
  Reply of EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, and Intelsat License LLC, IBFS File No.
SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 (Mar. 5, 2019) (“Reply”).
3
  Further Consolidated Opposition to Petition and Response to Comments of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, IBFS File No.
SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 (Feb. 21, 2019) (“SpaceX Opposition”).


                                                                                                           Marlene H. Dortch
                                                                                                               April 25, 2019
                                                                                                                       Page 2

compliance with applicable ITU equivalent power flux density (“EPFD”) limits.4 In the Commission’s
2017 NGSO Rulemaking, the Commission eliminated the requirement that NGSO applicants provide
demonstration of EPFD compliance as part of their Commission application, instead relying on the
applicant obtaining a “favorable” or “qualified favorable” finding from the ITU prior to commencement
of service.5 SpaceX’s waiver request to avoid meeting this requirement is centered on the alleged
length of the ITU review process and is based on nothing more than SpaceX’s convenience.

When other operators noted their concerns about SpaceX’s ITU EPFD compliance waiver request,
SpaceX asserted they were “fret[ting].”6 However, EchoStar and Intelsat reiterate their very real
concerns about the precedent that would be set if SpaceX’s waiver request were granted. As stated in
the Reply, SpaceX’s attempted circumvention of the ITU EPFD compliance certification would pose a
serious threat to the geostationary orbit (“GSO”) operating environment: “Such a grant would leave
the Commission, and potentially affected operators, without conclusive and verifiable evidence that
the proposed system is compliant with the Commission’s EPFD rules, essentially undermining the rule
itself and the protection it is meant to provide. It would also create a precedent permitting other
NGSO FSS systems to circumvent the ITU Radio Regulation Article 22 assessment requirement, creating
an unpredictable interference risk to the GSO arc in the future.”7 By eliminating its requirement of a
technical demonstration for EPFD compliance in 2017, the Commission left ITU EPFD compliance
certification as the only source of independent, conclusive, and verifiable evidence that proposed
operations would comply with Commission rules. Granting SpaceX its request for waiver of the EPFD
compliance requirement would essentially undermine the Commission’s rule and the protection it
affords to GSO operators.

To date, the concerns on this important issue have been unaddressed. SpaceX’s STA Requests purport
to incorporate the operational characteristics of the SpaceX Modification, yet provide no additional
discussion of the issue of compliance with the ITU’s EPFD limits.8 If grant of the STA Requests results in
SpaceX satellites being deployed and operating in accordance with the SpaceX Modification, the
SpaceX Modification will be, in effect, granted. Such action would not address our very real concerns




4
  47 C.F.R. § 25.146(c).
5
  See Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters, Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 7809, ¶ 41 (2017).
6
  SpaceX Opposition at 17.
7
  Reply at 3-4.
8
  Moreover, EchoStar and Intelsat note the general paucity of information in the SpaceX Requests. For example, SpaceX
  fails to provide such basic information as the number of satellites being launched and their altitude, making it very difficult
  for the Commission and interested parties to evaluate what, if any, technical concerns may exist. See SpaceX Requests.


                                                                                    Marlene H. Dortch
                                                                                        April 25, 2019
                                                                                                Page 3

on this issue. Therefore, EchoStar and Intelsat respectfully request that the Commission deny the STA
Requests and allow the review of the SpaceX Modification to proceed on its own merits.

Respectfully submitted,

                           /s/ Jennifer A. Manner                       /s/ Susan H. Crandall
                                                                           Susan H. Crandall,
                             Jennifer A. Manner,
                                                                   Associate General Counsel
         Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
                                                                             Cynthia J. Grady
               ECHOSTAR SATELLITE OPERATING
                                                                              Senior Counsel
                               CORPORATION
               HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC
                                                                            INTELSAT US LLC



Document Created: 2010-01-01 00:00:00
Document Modified: 2010-01-01 00:00:00

© 2019 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC