Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Kuiper Systems LLC ) RM-11861 ) Modernization of Section 25.117 of the ) Commission’s Rules for Modifications of ) NGSO FSS Systems ) COMMENTS OF O3B LIMITED O3b Limited (“O3b”) hereby comments on the above-captioned petition for rulemaking filed by Kuiper Systems LLC (“Amazon”) for changes to provisions of Section 25.117 that govern applications for modification of non-geostationary orbit (“NGSO”) fixed-satellite service (“FSS”) systems.1 As discussed below, O3b strongly agrees that the Commission should initiate a proceeding to update the standards in Section 25.117 regarding whether requested changes to an NGSO FSS authorization are sufficiently substantial to require that the system be considered newly filed for processing round purposes. While O3b views some of the rule changes proposed by Amazon as unduly limiting, O3b supports approaches that focus on whether a modification would increase inline events or cause added interference. In addition, O3b concurs that if an applicant has sought multiple changes to its authorization, the Commission must consider the cumulative impact of those changes in deciding how to process the requests. I. BACKGROUND O3b has a strong interest in the issues raised in the Amazon Petition involving the need to revise Section 25.117 to provide clearer guidance to applicants seeking to modify their NGSO 1 Kuiper Systems LLC, Petition for Rulemaking, Modernization of Section 25.117 of the Commission’s Rules for Modifications of NGSO FSS Systems in the New Space Age, RM- 11861, filed July 9, 2020 (“Amazon Petition”). SES Company Use FSS systems and to protect the investments and expectations of established NGSO FSS operators. O3b has been offering service in the U.S. and around the globe using its Ka-band NGSO medium-Earth orbit (“MEO”) system since September of 2014 and participated in the processing round that closed in November 2016, obtaining authority to supplement its constellation with added frequencies and to deploy the next-generation mPOWER system of high-throughput, low-latency satellites.2 O3b also submitted a modification application as part of the second Ku/Ka-band NGSO processing round to further expand its system by adding satellites and capabilities.3 O3b has already invested $2 billion to design, deploy and operate its network, and certainty regarding the interference environment in which its system will operate is essential to ensure continuity of service to O3b customers, preserve the value of O3b’s existing investment, and support additional expenditures. To foster that certainty, O3b agrees that the Commission should clarify the factors that will determine whether an application seeking to modify an NGSO FSS authorization should be considered in a subsequent processing round. Specifically, O3b supports adding provisions to Section 25.117 that require deferral to a later round if a modification would increase inline events with a previously authorized system or cause greater interference to such a system. In making such determinations, the Commission should assess the combined effects of all modifications submitted by an applicant. O3b does not, however, support setting the numerical limits Amazon has proposed on changes in altitude or inclination, as such changes may not necessarily adversely affect the interference environment in all cases. 2 See O3b Limited, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 33 FCC Rcd 5508 (2018) (the “Market Access Grant”). 3 O3b Limited, Call Sign S2935, File No. SAT-MOD-20200526-00058. 2 II. UPDATING SECTION 25.117 WILL PROMOTE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMISSION’S PROCESSING ROUND FRAMEWORK As the Amazon Petition emphasizes, the Commission’s processing round approach to NGSO applications is intended to “protect existing expectations and investments and provide for additional entry.”4 Regulatory provisions governing NGSO modification applications must be designed to further these aims by ensuring that authorized systems are able to rely on a stable operating environment while allowing some latitude for changes in constellation parameters. O3b agrees with Amazon that the public interest standard set forth in the 1999 Teledesic decision5 is too vague to adequately address today’s dynamic NGSO industry and the accompanying spectrum sharing issues.6 The Commission should accordingly initiate a rulemaking to determine how to align the provisions of Section 25.117 with the larger NGSO regulatory framework and current competitive landscape. The Amazon Petition suggests four factors that it argues should trigger consideration of a modification as part of a later processing round and proposes a provision that would require the Commission to take into account the total effect of a series of modification applications.7 O3b addresses each of these provisions below. Increase in Number or Duration of Inline Events: O3b agrees with Amazon that a modification that would “materially increase the number or duration” of inline events involving 4 Amazon Petition at 5 & n. 14, quoting 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, 7829, ¶ 61 (2017). 5 Teledesic LLC, 14 FCC Rcd 2261 (IB 1999) (“Teledesic”). 6 Amazon Petition at 2-3. 7 Id. at 10 & Annex at 2. 3 an authorized NGSO system should be deferred to a subsequent processing round.8 Because spectrum splitting is required during inline events absent a coordination agreement between the parties, a modification that leads to more or longer inline events would significantly affect the operational environment for other NGSO networks. As a result, treating such applications as part of a later processing round is necessary to protect other co-round applicants’ investments and expectations. Increase in Interference: O3b also supports inclusion of an interference metric as a determining factor in whether a modification should be considered in a later round, although O3b suggests an alternative to the Amazon proposal, which is based on the victim system’s received interference power density. Specifically, O3b proposes that a modification applicant would need to include an analysis of the cumulative distribution function (“CDF”) of the interference-to- noise (“I/N”) ratio over an appropriate time period with respect to each authorized co-frequency system. If this CDF shows that the modification would result in any increase in the I/N ratio for an authorized system, the modification should be considered in a subsequent processing round. As with inline events, an increase in the I/N ratio indicates that a modification will adversely affect the interference environment, justifying pushing the modification to a later round. Altitude Change of 10 km or More: In contrast, O3b does not believe that seeking to alter the altitude parameters by 10 km or more should necessarily dictate that a modification must be treated as newly filed. While altitude changes can lead to significant interference effects,9 a hard 8 Id. 9 For example, O3b has demonstrated that the proposal by Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (“SpaceX”) to deploy satellites that were originally authorized to operate between 1,150 and 1,330 km to altitudes between 540 and 570 km would result in substantial changes to the interference environment and warrants treating the system as newly filed. See Petition to Deny or Defer of SES Americom, Inc. and O3b Limited, Call Signs S2983 and S3018, File No. SAT- 4 cap of 10 km on such changes is not warranted. The interference implications of an altitude change will depend on the starting altitude – for example, going from 510 km to 500 km will have a larger impact than going from 10,010 km to 10,000 km. Consequently, O3b does not support Amazon’s proposal for a bright-line limit of 10 km on altitude changes that can be implemented while retaining a system’s existing processing round status. Inclination Change of 2 Degrees or More: Similarly, O3b disagrees with Amazon’s suggestion that any change in inclination of 2 degrees or more should automatically trigger deferral of a modification to a later processing round. As with altitude changes, inclination changes can have significant interference implications, but these will depend on multiple factors. As a result, specifying that a 2-degree shift in inclination will always require consideration of a modification in a subsequent processing round is not justified. Considering Cumulative Effects of Multiple Modifications: O3b strongly supports Amazon’s proposal for a new provision in Section 25.117 that requires the Commission to evaluate the overall impact of multiple modifications in determining whether a system should be treated as newly filed. As Amazon observes, the SpaceX series of modifications illustrates the potential for abuses if each application is considered in isolation, as “[e]xtensive, iterative changes can result in a system that is fundamentally different than that described in the initial application.”10 Revising the rules to require consideration of the cumulative results of multiple modifications will discourage parties from attempting to game the rules by stringing together a daisy chain of filings that each may appear minor when viewed individually but which taken together represent a major shift in operating parameters and interference potential. MOD-20200417-00037, filed July 13, 2020, and Reply of SES Americom, Inc. and O3b Limited, Call Signs