Submission of

SES Americom, Inc., New Skies Satellites B.V., SES Satellites (Gibraltar) Ltd, and Ciel Satellite L.P. (together “SES”)

Replies in response to SMSE-014-20: Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for Licence-Exempt Use in the 6 GHz Band

February 22, 2021

Introduction

SES Americom, Inc., New Skies Satellites B.V., SES Satellites (Gibraltar) Ltd, and Ciel Satellite L.P. (together “SES”)1 hereby submits these reply comments on the Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for Licence-Exempt Use in the 6 GHz Band (“Consultation”) issued by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s (“ISED”) on November 19, 2020.2

The record in this proceeding supports ensuring the protection of existing licensed services, including the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS), operating in the 5925-7025 MHz band. Unfortunately, the introduction of standard power outdoor unlicensed devices in Canada, when combined with the expected deployment in the United States, will significantly raise the noise floor for FSS space station receivers in the 6 GHz, creating the potential for aggregate interference into FSS uplinks.

ISED should consider additional measures to protect the primary FSS in the band, including limiting licence-exempt RLAN devices in the 6 GHz band to low-power indoor and very-low power outdoor operations. If “standard power” outdoor operations are to be allowed under Canada’s regime for RLANs, SES urges ISED to consider additional protections such as: 1) adopting an EIRP elevation mask in the vertical plane starting at 15-degrees above the horizon, i.e., one that is effective given the latitude at which RLAN will be operating at in Canada; 2) incorporating controls on aggregate interference for the protection of the FSS in the AFC system that would limit the total number of simultaneously transmitting outdoor devices in any one channel within the 5925-7125 MHz band; 3) rejecting proposals to increase the EIRP limit and EIRP density limit for outdoor standard power devices;3 4) adopting the same power levels for indoor devices as adopted by the European Communications Committee; and 5) maintaining the elevation mask for indoor standard power devices to ensure compliance if such devices are moved outdoors.

SES also concurs with the Canadian Satellite and Space Industry Forum (CSSIF) that IMT operations are out of scope of this consultation and that ISED lacks a record on which to base the

1 The SES group of companies is a global provider of satellite and connectivity solutions headquartered in Luxembourg with operations around the world. SES provides services to broadcasters, governments, telecommunications companies, and enterprises in all parts of the world. Through its subsidiaries, SES operates a fleet of over 50 geostationary (“GEO”) satellites in multiple frequency bands, including in the 5925-7125 MHz band with coverage of Canada. SES is also the operator of the innovative O3b constellation of 20 high-throughput, low- latency satellites in Medium Earth Orbit (“MEO”). In 2021, SES will be launching its fourth GEO High Throughput Satellite (HTS), SES-17, as well as its next-generation of MEO satellites called mPOWER, which will provide even more throughput and flexibility. Together, SES’s satellites cover 99% of the world’s population. Through its affiliate Ciel Satellite L.P., SES also operates the Canadian-authorized Ciel-2 satellite in the Ku-band Broadcasting Satellite Service frequencies at 129° W. 2 ISED, SME-14-20, Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for Licence-Exempt Use in the 6 GHz Band, available at https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf11643.html. 3 WiFi Alliance Comments at 6 (seeking higher power standard power transmissions; opposing antenna pointing limitations); Intel Comments at 7 (seeking higher total and PSD power levesl for low-power indoor-only RLANs than those proposed by ISED); Telus Comments Communications Inc. at 17 (urging ISED to consider a maximum EIRP of 42 dBm). 2

introduction of IMT in the 5925-7125 MHz range. SES agrees that should the Department wish to consider the introduction of IMT into the band, it would require a separate consultation, consideration of different technical and policy issues, and the establishment of a separate record. Moreover, SES notes that the WRC-23 agenda item studying the identification of frequencies above 6425 MHz in the 5925-7125 MHz range for IMT is limited to ITU Region 1. It is premature for countries in Region 2, such as Canada, to consider the identification of IMT in any part of the 5925-7125 MHz range during the current ITU study cycle.

Reply Responses to Questions

Q1 ISED is seeking comments on the timelines for the availability of: a. low-power equipment ecosystems, both Wi-Fi 6E and 5G NR-U b. standard-power equipment ecosystems, both Wi-Fi 6E and 5G NR-U, under the control of an AFC c. AFC

No comment.

Q2 ISED is seeking comments on its proposals to allow licence-exempt RLAN use in the 5925- 7125 MHz band.

The record supports ensuring the protection of existing licensed services, including the FSS, operating in the 5925-7025 MHz band. Numerous commenters agree with this fundamental principle, including many of the proponents of introducing unlicensed operations in the 6 GHz band.4 However, ISED’s initial proposal and several suggested changes do not seem to fully address the concerns FSS operators have raised in this and other proceedings. Specifically, the introduction of standard power outdoor unlicensed devices in Canada, when combined with the expected deployment in the United States, will significantly raise the noise floor for FSS space station receivers in the 6 GHz, creating the potential for aggregate interference into FSS uplinks. These uplink receivers are critical for providing a broad range of essential satellite services, including government and public safety services, broadcast distribution across Canada and broadband connectivity to Canada’s rural areas and the North.

Accordingly, ISED should consider additional measures to protect the primary FSS in the band. As SES has submitted, ISED may want to consider limiting licence-exempt RLAN devices in the 6 GHz band to low-power indoor and very-low power outdoor operations, as Europe and Korea have done.5 If, as ISED is proposing, “standard power” outdoor operations like those allowed by the U.S. FCC are to be allowed, SES would urge ISED to consider additional protections such as: 1) adopting an EIRP elevation mask in the vertical plane starting at 15- degrees above the horizon, i.e., one that is effective given the latitude at which RLAN will be

4 Inamarsat Comments at 2-3; BCE Inc. at 3 (“It is important that these systems, including FS, FSS, television auxiliary systems and radio astronomy are protected and any interference risks are mitigated or resolved in a timely manner.”); GVF Comments at 1-2. 5 SES Comments at 4-5. 3

operating at in Canada; 2) incorporating controls on aggregate interference for the protection of the FSS in the AFC system that would limit the total number of simultaneously transmitting outdoor devices in any one channel within the 5925-7125 MHz band; 3) rejecting proposals to increase the EIRP limit and EIRP density limit for outdoor standard power devices; and 4) ensure indoor devices operate under the same power levels for indoor devices as adopted by the European Communications Committee.

Q3 ISED is seeking comments on the proposed footnote Cxx and the changes to the CTFA as shown in table 2.

No additional comments.

Q4 ISED is seeking comments on the proposed rules for standard-power RLANs: a. indoor and outdoor operation would be permitted b. RLAN access points would only be permitted to operate under the control of an AFC system in the 5925-6875 MHz frequency range c. maximum permitted e.i.r.p. would be 36 dBm d. maximum permitted power spectral density would be limited to 23 dBm/MHz e. use of a vertical elevation mask, with a maximum e.i.r.p. of 125 mW at elevation angles above 30 degrees over the horizon, would be required

While commenters generally acknowledge the need to protect FSS operations,6 SES continues to be concerned that the measures proposed by RLAN proponents and ISED fall short in protecting FSS uplink receivers from aggregate interference. Even more troubling, some commenters propose that ISED do away with its proposed outdoor elevation mask altogether and/or increase the EIRP and EIRP density limits at which outdoor standard power unlicenced devices can transmit. Such proposals, if adopted, would eliminate or significantly weaken the few measures that have been proposed to protect FSS space stations from aggregate interference from unlicensed devices.

As SES explained in its comments, studies offered by RLAN proponents indicate that, by 2025, U.S. RLAN devices alone would consume nearly the entire aggregate interference budget specified by the ITU for non-primary services into FSS uplinks.7 Because the uplink beams of C- band satellites serving Canada typically also cover the continental United States, allowing “standard-power” outdoor RLANs in Canada in 5925-6875 MHz would lead to the ITU aggregate interference thresholds being exceeded in due course.8 Similarly, studies by the

6 Id. 7 SES Comments at 3 (“even if a higher aggregate interference threshold is used, at high enough levels of RLAN deployments, especially outdoors, even an I/N or -13.5 dB or -10.5 dB could be exceeded by 2025.”). 8 The European Communications Committee (“ECC”) conducted its own detailed, parametric RLAN/FSS compatibility studies in this band, using agreed assumptions, and found (unsurprisingly) that levels of aggregate interference into FSS uplinks were quite sensitive to the levels of outdoor RLAN deployment.8 In particular, the ECC found that if the proportion of outdoor deployments in Europe was 5% instead of 2%, then the aggregate I/N of -13.5 dB or -10.5 dB would be approached or exceeded for some FSS satellites serving Europe. See ECC Report

4

European Communications Committee, using agreed technical parameters, indicate that even the higher aggregate interference budget specified by the ITU for FSS uplinks that can be expected from co-primary sources could be approached or exceeded at sufficiently high levels of outdoor licence-exempt RLAN deployment. This prompted the ECC to preclude “standard-power” outdoor devices altogether for the longer-term protection of FSS uplinks.9

Despite the serious threat of aggregate interference, Intel recommends to increase the authorised EIRP and EIRP density proposed by ISED from 33 dBm (instead of 30 dBm) EiRP and 8 dBm/MHz (instead of 5 dBm/MHz).10 While Intel references a study previously submitted by CableLabs, that study only addressed protection of primary FS users (not the FSS) and did not persuade the FCC to adopt higher power levels.11 Accordingly, the proposals for higher power levels should be rejected. Meanwhile, WiFi Alliance requests ISED not adopt any elevation mask to protect FSS receivers.12 However, WiFi Alliance does not offer a technical analysis or justification for why an elevation mask is no longer needed beside a conclusory statement about the altitude of geostationary satellites.13 Moreover, WiFi Alliance incorrectly attempts to distinguish RLAN devices from Fixed Service links by suggesting that an elevation mask is only required for Fixed Service transmitters because they operate at higher power than RLAN. This analysis misses the mark. While its true that RLAN operate at significantly lower power than Fixed Service transmitters, the sheer number of RLAN transmitters proposed for this band threaten to increase the aggregate interference to FSS. In other words, the concern is not just the power of individual antennas. Moreover, RLAN transmissions will be cumulative to those of Fixed Service, which is a long-established co-primary service with FSS. ISED should therefore reject WiFi Alliance’s request to abandon the proposed elevation mask protections.

CSSIF, Inmarsat and GVF echo SES’s concern that standard power unlicenced outdoor devices pose a significant threat of aggregate interference to FSS space station receivers. As CSIF explains:

Since the proposed power levels for each individual licence‐exempt device are quite low, the risk is not for single‐entry interference. Rather, it is aggregate interference that is the concern. Because of the wavelengths in the 6 GHz band, satellite antenna coverage is broad, typically covering all of Canada or even all of North America. This means that all licence‐exempt devices simultaneously operating co‐frequency within the satellite antenna coverage will contribute to the aggregate interference. The impact of the aggregate interference is to raise the noise floor at the satellite receiver. Standard Power devices operating outdoors will be the largest contributors. Once the noise floor at the

302, Sharing and compatibility studies related to Wireless Access Systems including Radio Local Area Networks (WAS/RLAN) in the frequency band 5925-6425 MHz, at 4, 106-107, Annex A6.1 (2019), available at https://docdb.cept.org/download/cc03c766-35f8/ECC%20Report%20302.pdf. 9 See ECC Decision (20)01 (Nov. 2020), available at https://docdb.cept.org/document/16737. 10 Intel Comments at 6. 11 Id (citing Ex parte filed by CableLabs, March 30, 2020, https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1033043576413/20200330_%20Power%20Impact%20Ex%20Parte_final.pdf). 12 WiFi Alliance Comment at 4-5. 13 Id. 5

satellite receiver reaches an unacceptable level, satellite services will be impaired or even precluded.14

GVF echoes these concerns and adds that “[i]t is important to consider that the potential impact on the FSS satellite receivers is the result of interference produced by stations (licensed or not) not only in Canada, but also from all stations located in the coverage beam of a space station,” and that “the aggregation of millions or potentially billions of [unlincesed] devices within a given uplink beam would lead to degradation of the satellite throughout achievable and eventually harmful interference.”15 Inmarsat further explains: “RLANs that operate outdoors, or at high-power, will disrupt satellite operations in the 5925-7125 MHz band. The long-term impact of deployment of high-power devices will depend on factors that are difficult to predict or mitigate, both in Canada and in other jurisdictions within the region, as Inmarsat’s satellites will receive signals from any country or region within their uplink beams.”16 SES also concurs with Inmarsat and GVF who urge ISED to “limit licence-exempt RLANs in this band to indoor only applications at power levels no greater than those adopted by the European Union (EU)/CEPT in the 5925-7125 MHz frequency range.” Inmarsat is correct to note that the “proposed power maximum of 36 dBm is higher than the level adopted in the EU ECC Decision (20)01 allows indoor-only devices with an e.i.r.p. of no more than 23 dBm and a maximum e.i.r.p. density of 10 dBm/MHz.17Additionally, SES opposes commenters asking ISED not to adopt an EIRP elevation mask for standard power indoor deployments.18 While in theory indoor standard power transmissions would be mitigated by building materials, Inmarsat correctly points out that there is “no means to ensure that consumers will operate the devices only indoors, as intended.”19 GVF further explains that an elevation angle for indoor standard power devices is necessary because “it would be possible for consumer to take these in-door devices outside for example to their patios of their homes.”20 It is not hard to imagine that indoor standard power equipment could be used for larger deployments to avoid having to be restricted to the elevation mask.

The FCC considered an EIRP elevation mask to be a prudent measure to address the FSS concerns about aggregate interference into FSS uplinks from standard power outdoor RLAN devices. However, SES is concerned that the FCC’s EIRP elevation mask may not be adequate and may only delay the onset of aggregate interference. The FCC’s EIRP elevation mask starting at 30 degrees above the horizon is not appropriate for the higher latitudes of Canada as it would still expose large sections of the geostationary arc to “standard-power” emissions of up to 36 dBm and 23 dBm/MHz allowed for outdoor access points. Indeed, many FSS earth stations in Canada are today pointed at lower elevation angles than 30 degrees. Moreover, such a vertical elevation mask would apply only to access point devices, with client devices allowed to operate at up to 30 dBm EIRP at any angle above the horizon in the vertical plane. In the case of aggregate interference, both access point and client devices contribute to the overall noise floor.

14 CSIF Comments at 1-2. 15 GVF Comments at 3-4. 16 Inmarsat comments at 3. 17 Id. at 2; see also GVF Comments at 3. 18 See, e.g., Joint Filers Comments at 28. 19 Inmarsat comments at 3. 20 GVF Comments at 4. 6

If ISED allows outdoor “standard-power” RLAN devices at all, then SES continues to urge ISED to, at a minimum, adopt a modified vertical elevation EIRP limit for access points starting at 15 degrees above the horizon instead of 30 degrees. Such a modified mask would ensure that fewer geostationary satellite receivers visible from Canadian latitudes are exposed to potentially the full EIRP and EIRP density allowed for outdoor standard-power RLAN access points. SES understands that such a measure is easily achievable with proper installation, which must has been acknowledged as a feasible component of the AFC system.21 Moreover, because standard power access points would generally need to point towards the ground to serve client devices, such an operating condition would not substantially impact service. Of course, this still leaves the client devices emitting up to 30 dBm upwards towards these access points, and potentially the geostationary arc.

Q5 ISED is seeking comments on allowing access to the additional 100 MHz of spectrum in the 6425-6525 MHz sub-band for standard-power operation.

No additional comments.

Q6 ISED is seeking comments on the equipment availability of standard-power RLANs in the 6425- 6525 MHz band and the impact on the development of AFC systems for Canada due to a potential lack of international harmonization for that sub-band.

No comments.

Q7 ISED is seeking comments on the proposed rules for low-power indoor-only RLANs: a. operation would be permitted indoor only across the 5925-7125 MHz band b. the use of a contention-based protocol (e.g. listen-before-talk) would be required c. maximum permitted e.i.r.p. would be 30 dBm d. maximum permitted power spectral density would be limited to 5 dBm/MHz

In providing comments, respondents are requested to include supporting arguments and rationale and take the Canadian context into consideration in their response.

No additional comments.

Q8 ISED is seeking comments on the proposed rules to allow very low-power RLAN devices:

21 Federated Wireless Comments at 4. 7

a. operation would be permitted indoors and outdoors across the frequency range 5925- 7125 MHz band b. the use of a contention-based protocol (e.g. listen-before-talk) would be required c. maximum permitted e.i.r.p. would be 14 dBm d. maximum permitted power spectral density would be limited to -8 dBm/MHz

SES concurs with Inmarsat that “[i]f very low power outdoor devices are allowed, ISED’s proposed maximum EIRP and EIRP density will be necessary to protect [ ] FSS uplinks.22 Q9 ISED is seeking comments on potential business models for AFC administrators to operate their AFC systems in Canada.

SES notes that there were commenters that suggested they would be seeking to act as an AFC developer and/or administrator.23 This suggests that there will be robust competition for AFC services, facilitating the development of an AFC system that includes programming to protect FSS against aggregate interference from unlicensed devices. Moreover, as Federated Wireless notes, it “supports ISED’s proposal to allow AFC administrators to offer services for certain geographic locations or frequencies. However, in order to effectively protect incumbent services, it may be necessary for AFC systems to compute calculations for incumbent services on a nationwide basis.”24 Thus, these AFC operators would necessarily need to integrate their databases to a degree in order to account for the transmissions of unlicensed devices across all of the AFC databases.

Q10 ISED is seeking comments on its proposal to permit the approval of multiple, third party AFC systems, taking into account the potential for the development of a sustainable market for AFC systems in Canada.

See response to Q9.

Q11 ISED is seeking comments on potential exit strategies if the AFC administrator decides to cease operation in Canada.

SES supports commenters that propose ISED include provisions for a transfer of AFC data and responsibilities in the event an AFC administrator decides to cease operations in Canada.25

Q12

22 Inmarsat Comments at 3. 23 See generally, e.g., Federated Wireless Comments. 24 Federated Wireless Comments at 7. 25 See, e.g, Joint Filers’ Comments at 44-45. 8

ISED is seeking comments on adopting an AFC system model that is harmonized to the maximum extent possible with the AFC system model being implemented in the U.S. and other international markets.

In providing comments, respondents are requested to include supporting arguments and rationale and take the Canadian context into consideration in their response.

As explained in the response to Q4 above, ISED should consider requiring the AFC for Canada to be capable of controlling aggregate interference by, for example, being able to cap the maximum number of simultaneous transmissions in each channel nation-wide. While the FCC did not require this for the AFC in the U.S., it would be prudent to make this a requirement for the Canadian AFC to ensure that FSS operators have redress if, due to mass deployment of outdoor RLAN devices in this band, FSS operations experience harmful interference. As explained above, the maximum number of simultaneous transmitters is a number that need not be calculated in real-time by the AFC but can be set by ISED based on offline simulations. Importantly, the maximum number can be fine-tuned and adjusted over time in response to actual observed aggregate interference. Without such capability in the AFC, there would be no ability to control for aggregate interference should it occur in the future.

Q13 ISED is seeking comments on the implementation considerations for the operation of an AFC system, specifically: a. information required from licensed users b. interference protection criteria for computation of exclusion zones c. c. information required from standard-power Aps d. frequency of AFC update of licensee information e. security and privacy requirements

ISED should require an aggregate emission cap in its proposed AFC system to ensure the protection of FSS. While the FCC rejected a similar proposal, it did so with only a cursory dismissal of the capability of an AFC system to calculate the interference from all outdoor RLAN devices in the direction of the geostationary arc in real-time would be too complicated.26. The record confirms SES’s assertion that this AFC function is feasible. As SES explained, the only capability that the AFC system needs is the ability to limit the number of simultaneous transmissions in a given frequency channel for all devices within its control.27 This maximum number of simultaneous transmissions can be set by ISED based on offline simulations, without the need for real-time computation.

Importantly, this maximum number can be fine-tuned over time based on actual real-world observations of aggregate interference into FSS uplinks. Thus, if ISED believes that aggregate interference will not be an issue in the near term, the maximum number could be set initially at a very high number. But if the FSS operators are later able to demonstrate that RLAN deployments are causing aggregate interference problems into their uplinks, then there will at least be mechanism to control for aggregate interference at such time.

26 Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 3852, 3886 (2020). 27 SES Comments at 5. 9

Federated Wireless, an entity that “intends to submit a proposal describing how our system complies with the FCC’s AFC rules,” explains the capabilities of an AFC system to prevent interference to existing primary users of the 6 GHz band: By design, the AFC computes and resolves interference potential of unlicensed devices using information provided to it, including transmit power. Should interference occur to an incumbent, the closed loop nature of the AFC permits resolution via adjustment of operating parameters and interference protection requirements. Consideration of RLAN antenna directivity by the AFC in computing protections for incumbents. Federated Wireless notes that the AFC can readily account for antenna directivity in its calculations. The use of directional antennas, however, may necessitate the use of professional installation in order to ensure that the information provided to the AFC is accurate.”28 As described above by Federated Wireless and contrary to the FCC’s determination, an AFC system is fully capable of limiting the interference potential of unlicensed devices using the device transmit power. Likewise, the AFC can consider antenna directivity in its calculations. Federated Wireless goes on to explain that “in order to effectively protect incumbent services, it may be necessary for AFC systems to compute calculations for incumbent services on a nationwide basis.”29 If this can be done to protect primary FS users, it should not be too difficult to implement a similar capability to protect primary FSS uplinks from aggregate interference. Q14 ISED is seeking comments on any additional considerations, limits or general concerns that should be taken into account in setting detailed standards and procedures for AFC operation.

In providing comments, respondents are requested to include supporting arguments and rationale and take the Canadian context into consideration in their response.

No comment.

Q15 ISED is seeking comments on its proposal to require AFC systems to protect the following types of licensed stations from standard-power APs: a. fixed microwave stations b. fixed point-to-point television auxiliary stations c. radio astronomy stations

In providing comments, respondents are requested to include supporting arguments and rationale.

No comment.

28 Federated Wireless Comments at 4. 29 Id. 10

Q16 ISED is seeking comments on the sample agreement related to the designation and operation of an AFC system in Canada.

No additional comments.

Q17 ISED is seeking comments on the proposed approach to incremental implementation of an AFC system in Canada.

No additional comments.

Q18 ISED is seeking comments on the objective to maximize the potential for synergies, where possible, in defining the technical and administrative requirements for the respective databases addressing different bands under different technical regimes.

No additional comments.

11