BEFORE THE

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

)
)
Application of
)
) Call Signs: S3069/S2992
SPACE EXPLORATION HOLDINGS, LLC
)
) ICFS File No. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224
For Modification and Amendment of
) and SAT-AMD-20241017-00228
Authorization for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO
)
Satellite System
)
)

CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO PETITIONS AND RESPONSE

TO COMMENTS OF SPACE EXPLORATION HOLDINGS, LLC

Jameson Dempsey
Director of Satellite Policy

SPACE EXPLORATION
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
1 Rocket Road
Hawthorne, CA 90250
310-682-9836 tel
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SpaceX designed its upgraded second-generation (“Gen2”) satellite system to deliver

gigabit-speed, low-latency broadband and ubiquitous mobile connectivity to Americans no matter

where they are and to people around the world. SpaceX’s parallel modification and amendment—

collectively the “Gen2 Upgrade Applications”—reflect years of experience deploying and

operating its satellite systems and the core insight that, as demand for real-time and bandwidth

intensive applications grow, satellite operators must continually seek opportunities to make more

efficient, intensive, and flexible use of shared spectrum. Critically, SpaceX does not seek

exclusive use of any spectrum or orbital resources and has dedicated significant and continuous

engineering to ensure that it remains a responsible steward of shared resources and a positive

example for others.

To achieve its ambitious goals as quickly as possible, SpaceX’s Applications build upon

the regulatory innovations that allowed the United States to win the race to 5G, along with

pioneering recent and ongoing efforts by the Space Bureau to modernize its satellite regulations

for the New Space Age. For example, SpaceX’s Applications request to efficiently share a robust

pipeline of spectrum bands—from co-primary mid-band satellite spectrum that will support robust

direct-to-device connectivity to the next frontier of millimeter-wave spectrum. The applications

also request to waive outdated and overprotective technical limits—such as equivalent power flux-

density (“EPFD”) downlink limits—that the Commission has found unduly restrict the service and

operations of next-generation satellite systems at the expense of consumers, competition, and

innovation. And to further enhance the sustainability of SpaceX’s Gen2 system while more

responsively meeting consumer demand, the Gen2 Applications request to distribute satellites on

i
a more flexible basis and in lower-altitudes shells, leading to significantly lower collision risk

while enabling higher-quality service to end users on the ground.

The record in response to SpaceX’s Applications is clear: American consumers,

enterprises, and local government institutions strongly support SpaceX’s request to upgrade its

Gen2 system, including waiver requests. Rural, remote, and Tribal groups from Alaska to

Appalachia recognize that swiftly granting SpaceX’s applications to advance its Gen2 system will

allow those communities to stay ahead of increasing demand for real-time and bandwidth intensive

applications to support remote education, critical healthcare services, emergency response, access

to justice, and economic development. Oracle explains how gigabit-speed, low-latency satellite

broadband will ensure that businesses and enterprises across the country can take advantage of

rapid advancements in cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and industrial automation. For

maritime users in particular, Carnival notes that granting the Gen2 upgrade would improve service

reliability for customers and crew. Even Amazon urges the Commission to consider SpaceX’s

“well-grounded requests for waivers,” including of outdated EPFD limits and for new spectrum

bands that “will allow SpaceX to better serve customers within the United States” and to more

effectively “compete with [operators] from Europe or China.”

Opposing these benefits are the usual group of SpaceX competitors, including foreign-

licensed and state-backed operators well-known to abuse Commission licensing processes to

stymie fast-innovating competitors and hobble American space competitiveness abroad. But

consistent with their previous attacks against the U.S. space industry, the issues they raise in

opposition either lack support, misinterpret Commission rules, or would needlessly limit

technological innovation that will deliver lower cost and higher quality service to consumers.

ii
 Granting the Gen2 Upgrade Applications will allow SpaceX to rapidly deploy enhanced

broadband service to consumers without causing harmful interference for other NGSO systems.

Under the applicable Teledesic standard, a modification should be granted and retain its processing

round status so long as it does not cause “significant interference problems” for other systems and

is otherwise consistent with Commission policy. To demonstrate that the upgraded Gen2 system

meets this standard, SpaceX applied the Commission’s recently adopted methodology for NGSO

spectrum sharing. That new approach uses clear short-term and long-term interference protection

limits to assess whether a later-round NGSO system will cause harmful interference for earlier-

round systems or otherwise upset the spectrum sharing environment in a processing round.

Applying this standard, SpaceX has demonstrated that its operations will not cause significant

interference problems and will advance fundamental Commission broadband, spectrum, and space

policy.

SES/O3b, Eutelsat/OneWeb, and Viasat strain to find flaws in SpaceX’s analysis, resorting

to arguing that if SpaceX had abandoned the Commission’s approach and adopted each of their

preferred approaches instead, then they could claim that the upgraded Gen2 system would

somehow cause “significant interference problems.” But each of their analyses is deeply flawed

and should be rejected. For instance, Eutelsat/OneWeb and Viasat argue that SpaceX erred in

using the clear interference benchmarks the Commission unanimously adopted in its NGSO

spectrum sharing orders to show non-interference. Rather, they claim SpaceX should have

conducted ad hoc assessment of factors such as the number of in-line events that would result from

deploying SpaceX’s full Gen2 system. But as the Commission found when it previously rejected

that argument from OneWeb, the number of in-line events does not reflect the amount of harmful

interference. Further, the Commission’s NGSO spectrum sharing rules do not require only one

iii
system to bear the entire responsibility for avoiding in-line events, particularly when the other

system chose to deploy an inefficient system designed to be maximally susceptible to interference.

In any event, SpaceX’s analysis is more conservative than an analysis based on same-round sharing

rules, insofar as it demonstrates that SpaceX will cause no more interference than a later-round

system, at levels the Commission has found would preserve the spectrum sharing environment for

systems in an earlier round.

Not content to propose bespoke analyses applied only to SpaceX, Eutelsat/OneWeb and

SES/O3b also needed to game their own system parameters to create the impression that their

systems are weak and vulnerable to interference by, for example, adopting the unrealistic

assumption that the systems operate at their minimum power level at all times. But the

Commission has made clear that next-generation systems are under no obligation to adopt

implausible, worst-case scenarios in their analyses, and correcting these assumptions demonstrates

that SpaceX’s operations will not in fact cause significant interference problems for those systems.

Waiving a processing round for SpaceX’s new spectrum requests will promote rapid

deployment of enhanced broadband services without precluding other spectrum users from

those bands. To rapidly deliver gigabit-speed, low-latency broadband and mobile connectivity

everywhere in the world and connect millions more people to the network, SpaceX has requested

a waiver of the Commission’s processing round rules for new spectrum bands in its Gen2 Upgrade

Amendment. The Commission has found that waiving the processing round is warranted where it

would serve the public interest and not preclude future operators from using the spectrum. Despite

having no credible plans to deploy NGSO satellites, GSO-based in-flight Wi-Fi operators Anuvu

and Viasat speciously argue that granting a waiver of the processing round would somehow

preclude their future, speculative operations. Yet SpaceX's detailed waiver requests, basic physics,

iv
and record support demonstrate that Anuvu and Viasat are wrong. As a general matter, the new

bands in SpaceX’s Gen2 Applications lie adjacent to or near SpaceX’s authorized Gen2

frequencies and exhibit similar propagation characteristics—providing a strong basis for

comparison. Over the last several years, SpaceX has demonstrated through on-orbit experience

that it can share efficiently with both non-federal and federal users and has reached several

coordination agreements accounting for SpaceX’s fully deployed Gen2 system of nearly 30,000

satellites. Moreover, many of these new bands have characteristics that would make a processing

round problematic or inappropriate, including operations on a non-conforming basis and

operations solely outside the United States. Further, in higher frequency bands, narrow, steerable

beams enable even more efficient sharing between operators, avoiding the sort of spectrum scarcity

warranting a processing round in the first place. As Amazon recognizes and has sought for itself,

waiving a processing round, would not preclude future entry on the same basis, and imposing a

processing round would only serve to delay the delivery of beneficial services to consumers with

no offsetting benefit while providing an undue competitive advantage to non-U.S. licensed

systems.

Waiving EPFD downlink rules within the United States will dramatically improve

service quality without causing harmful interference to incumbent GSO systems. Legacy GSO

operators DISH/EchoStar, Viasat, and Eutelsat/OneWeb oppose SpaceX’s request to waive

outdated EPFD downlink limits for its operations in the United States, challenging SpaceX’s

technical analysis and asking the Commission to wait for multi-year international processes to play

out before allowing improved service for consumers here at home. The Commission’s rules

provide that waiver is appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general

rule and such deviation would better serve the public interest. As an initial matter, SpaceX has

v
shown that its request presents exactly the sort of special circumstances that justify a waiver. The

Commission already determined not only that 25-year-old EPFD limits are grossly inefficient and

unduly harm broadband service for consumers but also that incumbent protections must sunset to

promote satellite competition and innovation. Further, waiving the outdated EPFD rules would

advance the public interest without undermining the purpose of the rule, since SpaceX’s robust

and conservative technical analysis demonstrates that it can operate in excess of the current EPFD

downlink limits while still protecting GSO operations in the United States from harmful

interference. In response, legacy GSO operators demand that SpaceX redo its analysis based on

the same flawed assumptions that the Commission is trying to fix at the ITU. And while

DISH/EchoStar faults SpaceX for excluding certain small dishes from its interference analysis,

SpaceX has supplemented its analysis to demonstrate that even these dishes will be protected under

SpaceX’s proposal.

Permitting SpaceX to share co-primary Mobile-Satellite Service (“MSS”) spectrum

bands would expand access to life-saving service and promote American 6G leadership. Over

the last six months, SpaceX has demonstrated how direct-to-cellular connectivity in partnership

with mobile operators can make more productive use of terrestrial mobile spectrum and deliver

life-saving service to consumers and first responders. To further enhance the quality and scope of

direct-to-device services, including Internet-of-Things connectivity, the Gen2 Applications

request to share co-primary MSS spectrum between 1429 – 2690 MHz outside of the United States

and pursuant to international sharing and coordination requirements. These bands will form the

foundation of emerging 6G networks that interweave satellite and terrestrial capabilities.

Several legacy MSS operators including Globalstar, Viasat, Yahsat (via its subsidiary

Thuraya), Iridium, and their trade associations, challenge SpaceX’s reasonable request to share

vi
this spectrum, much of which remains underused and ripe for sharing. Some of these operators

falsely claim that the Commission may not allow next-generation American systems to share these

spectrum bands abroad. But America’s allies and strategic competitors apparently did not get the

memo, since those administrations have found no barrier to authorizing new systems for those

bands in recent years—including Globalstar’s new “C-3” system. Other commenters demand that

the Commission delay SpaceX’s authorization by conducting what amounts to a mini-World Radio

Communication Conference in this docket—forcing SpaceX to conduct extensive studies prior to

receiving approval for international operations. But the ITU has already established rules and

coordination processes under which SpaceX would operate its system, just like any other foreign

operator that would seek to use this spectrum, and imposing heightened domestic procedural

barriers for those operations would only serve to delay deployment of competitive and life-saving

services abroad.

SpaceX’s upgraded Gen2 system will continue to operate with best-in-class collision

avoidance technologies and share orbital resources responsibly. Over years of operations,

SpaceX has proven to be one of the most transparent and responsible operator in space, exceeding

all relevant standards—sometimes by one or more orders of magnitude—coordinating with other

operators and federal agencies, and sharing its experience so that others may learn from it. Among

other innovations, SpaceX has hardened its satellites to operate at increasingly lower altitudes,

dramatically lowering the collision probability of its satellites and ensuring that any failed satellites

could serve as persistent debris in space. SpaceX also urged the Commission to establish a

common set of rules and requirements for all operators that the Commission has adopted for

SpaceX’s Gen2 system, including periodic reporting requirements, coordination obligations, and

performance-based checks to address failed satellites. Yet despite all of SpaceX’s effort and a

vii
multi-year track record of strong performance, less-experienced operators like Amazon and Viasat

who propose significantly higher risk NGSO systems, and less-reliable operators like OneWeb

who operate such high risk systems, continue to raise specious arguments about the sustainability

of SpaceX’s system, while at the same time asking for special treatment for their own systems.

No factual or legal justification exists for continuing to apply bespoke or heightened conditions on

SpaceX’s responsible operations while exempting riskier systems from scrutiny.

***

To meet the growing demand globally for high-quality, fiber-like satellite broadband and

ubiquitous mobile connectivity, the Commission should expeditiously authorize SpaceX’s Gen2

Upgrade Application.

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 3

I. The Upgraded Gen2 System Will Efficiently Share Spectrum with Other Systems .......... 3

A. The Upgraded Gen2 System Will Not Cause “Significant Interference

Problems” in Currently Authorized Frequency Bands Under the Teledesic
Standard and Should Retain Their Processing Round Statuses .............................. 4
B. Waiving Processing Round Procedures Will Accelerate Delivery of
Gigabit Service to All Americans Without Precluding New Entry ...................... 10
II. Waiving Outdated GSO Protections Will Swiftly Deliver Universal Gigabit-
Speed, Low-Latency Connectivity to All Americans While Causing No
Unacceptable Interference for Legacy GSO Networks .................................................... 12

A. SpaceX’s EPFD Waiver Request Meets the Commission’s Waiver

Standard ................................................................................................................ 13
B. Removing the Burdensome and Unnecessary “Nco=1” Condition is
Appropriate ........................................................................................................... 17
C. SpaceX’s Technical Analysis in Support of its Waiver Demonstrates it
Can Protect GSO Operators from Long-term and Short-term Interference
in Ku-band and Ka-band Spectrum Subject to EPFD Rules................................. 18
III. Granting SpaceX’s Request to Share Mobile-Satellite Service Spectrum in 1429-
2690 MHz Internationally Will Promote American Leadership in 6G and Bring
Much Needed Competition to Long-Fallow Mid-Band Spectrum ................................... 24

A. Foreign-Licensed Operators’ Claims to Exclusive Use of the MSS

Spectrum are Incorrect and Unpersuasive—MSS Spectrum is Ripe for
Sharing and Increased Competition ...................................................................... 25
B. SpaceX’s Operations in Mid-Band MSS Spectrum Will Not Cause
Harmful Interfere into Non-MSS Navigation or Aeronautical Mobile
Telemetry Systems ................................................................................................ 30
C. SpaceX Will Efficiently Share Spectrum with Existing Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System Operators to Enhance the Safety of People at
Sea ......................................................................................................................... 32
IV. Granting SpaceX’s Request for Flexible Use of Spectrum in Frequency Bands
That Share FSS and MSS Allocations Will Deliver More Efficient, Intensive Use
of Shared Satellite Spectrum ............................................................................................. 33
V. The Upgraded Gen2 System Will Efficiently and Responsibly Share Orbital
Resources With Other Operators ...................................................................................... 34
 BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

)
)
Application of
)
) Call Signs: S3069/S2992
SPACE EXPLORATION HOLDINGS, LLC
)
) ICFS File No. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224
For Modification and Amendment of
) and SAT-AMD-20241017-00228
Authorization for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO
)
Satellite System
)
)

CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO PETITIONS AND RESPONSE TO

COMMENTS OF SPACE EXPLORATION HOLDINGS, LLC

INTRODUCTION

Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Space Exploration

Technologies Corp. (collectively, “SpaceX”), hereby responds to the petitions and comments filed

in response to the above-referenced modification and amendment to upgrade SpaceX’s second-

generation non-geostationary orbit (“NGSO”) satellite system (the “Gen2 system”). The record in

this proceeding demonstrates strong support from American consumers, enterprises, and local

government institutions—including in rural, remote, and Tribal areas—for the gigabit-speed, low-

latency broadband and 6G mobile connectivity that the upgraded Gen2 System will deliver. 1

1
See Letter from Richard J. Peterson to Marlene H. Dortch, ICFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 and SAT-
AMD-20241017-00228 (Mar. 10, 2025) (“Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes Letter in Support”); Letter from Colby
Hall to Marlene H. Dortch, ICFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 and SAT-AMD-20241017-00228 (Mar.
10, 2025) (“SOAR Letter in Support”); Letter from Dezarah J. Hall to Marlene H. Dortch (Mar. 4, 2025) (“Wise
Country Circuit Court Clerk’s Office Letter in Support”); Letter from Donald Purdie to Marlene H. Dortch, ICFS
File Nos. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 and SAT-AMD-20241017-00228 (Mar. 7, 2025) (“Appalachian
Broadband Innovators Letter in Support”); Letter from Jon McKeown to Marlene H. Dortch, ICFS File Nos. SAT-
MOD-20241011-00224 and SAT-AMD-20241017-00228 (Mar. 10, 2025) (“Carnival Letter in Support”); Letter

1
 Unfortunately, a handful of SpaceX’s competitors have asked the Commission to deny or

limit these benefits based on unfounded and deeply flawed bases. As explained further herein,

SpaceX opposes these requests, including the Petitions to Dismiss or Deny filed by Globalstar,

Inc. (“Globalstar”); Iridium Constellation LLC (in part); Viasat, Inc. (“Viasat”); and EchoStar

Corporation (“DISH/EchoStar”). SpaceX also responds to the comments of several organizations

that do not oppose SpaceX’s application but seek to slow deployment of the upgraded Gen2 system

to consumers or tip the competitive balance in their favor through heightened procedural barriers

or bespoke conditions that would not apply to any other competitor. 2

By swiftly granting SpaceX’s Gen2 Upgrade Applications, the Commission can ensure that

spectrum resources are put to efficient, productive, and shared use to maximize the benefits of

next-generation satellite services for millions of Americans and people around the world.

from Dr. Teresa Tyson to Marlene H. Dortch, ICFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 and SAT-AMD-
20241017-00228 (Mar. 9, 2025) (“Health Wagon Letter in Support”); Letter from Peter Lord to Marlene H.
Dortch, ICFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 and SAT-AMD-20241017-00228 (Mar. 10, 2025) (“Oracle
Letter in Support”).
2
See Comments of GPS Innovation Alliance, ICFS File Nos. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228, SAT-MOD-
20241011-00224 (filed March 10, 2025) (“GPSIA Comments”); Letter from Michele Lawrie-Munro, MSSA
Executive Director, Mobile Satellite Services Association to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission Re: Application of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, ICFS File No. SAT-
AMD-20241017-00228 (filed March 10, 2025) (“MSSA Letter”); Comments of Eutelsat S.A. and WorldVu
Satellites Limited, ICFS File Nos. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228, SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 (Mar. 10, 2025)
(“Eutelsat/OneWeb Comments); Letter from Steven Doiron, VP Spectrum and Regulatory Affairs, Thuraya
Telecommunications Company to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission Re:
Applications of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, ICFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 and SAT-
AMD-20241017-00228 (filed March 10, 2025) (“Thuraya Letter”); Comments of Aviation Spectrum
Resources, Inc., and International Air Transport Association, ICFS File Nos. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228 and
SAT-MOD-20241011-00224, Call Sign S3069, GN Docket No. 23-135 (filed March 10, 2025) (“ASRI and
IATA Comments”); Letter from Veronique Blanc, Director of Partner Management, SITA Switzerland Sàrl, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission Re: Applications of Space Exploration
Holdings, LLC, ICFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 and SAT-AMD-20241017-0022 (filed March 10,
2025) (“SITA Letter”); Letter from Laurent Parente, Director General, International Mobile Satellite
Organization to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission Re: Consideration of L-
Band Spectrum and Maritime Safety Services, ICFS File No. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228 (filed March 10,
2025) (“IMSO comments”); Comments of Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council, Inc., ICFS
File Nos. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228, SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 (filed March 10, 2025) (“AFRTCC
Comments”); Anuvu Licensing Holdings, LLC Opposition, ICFS File Nos. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228 (filed
March 10, 2025) (“Anuvu Opposition”).

2
 DISCUSSION

I. THE UPGRADED GEN2 SYSTEM WILL EFFICIENTLY SHARE SPECTRUM WITH OTHER
SYSTEMS

SpaceX has designed its upgraded Gen2 system to deliver a step-change in broadband

service quality for consumers—delivering gigabit-speed, low-latency broadband with more

symmetrical uplink, along with ubiquitous mobile connectivity to ensure that no consumer is left

unconnected during an emergency. As the Gen2 Upgrade Applications show, SpaceX can achieve

all of these benefits for Americans while efficiently sharing spectrum with other current and future

spectrum users, including non-geostationary satellite orbit (“NGSO”) systems who have sought

U.S. licenses or market access in the United States. Despite SpaceX’s robust showings, a small

handful of largely foreign-licensed operators—including SES/O3b, Eutelsat/OneWeb,

DISH/EchoStar, and Viasat—ask the Commission to impose heightened or unnecessary

procedural barriers on SpaceX’s operations to impede the delivery of enhanced services to

consumers while anti-competitively providing their own legacy systems with Commission-

sponsored super-protection. These commenters rely on outdated rules, rejected arguments,

revisionist history, and factual errors to assert that SpaceX’s Gen2 upgrade would cause them

significant interference problems or preclude future entry in those bands. But even a cursory

review of these opposing comments and petitions reveal that their arguments are meritless and

must be rejected.

3
 A. The Upgraded Gen2 System Will Not Cause “Significant Interference
Problems” in Currently Authorized Frequency Bands Under the Teledesic
Standard and Should Retain Their Processing Round Statuses

SpaceX’s Gen2 Upgrade Applications contain robust technical showings demonstrating

that under the applicable Teledesic standard, 3 its upgraded Gen2 system will not cause harmful

interference to other NGSO systems in its currently authorized frequency bands and therefore

should retain its current processing round statuses. Under that standard, a modification application

may retain its processing round status if it “does not present any significant interference problems

and is otherwise consistent with Commission policies.” 4 The full Commission has interpreted the

Teledesic standard to permit a modified system to retain its processing round status if it does not

“materially change the interference environment” 5 based on “the modification’s effect on the

overall interference environment.” 6 Historically, Commission staff has engaged in an ad hoc

balancing analysis to assess compliance with Teledesic, and the Commission has never adopted a

binding rule to guide staff reviews. Since then, however, the Commission unanimously updated

its rules for NGSO spectrum sharing by adopting clear interference limits that protect other NGSO

systems from harmful interference in the absence of coordination, thereby providing “regulatory

certainty” and “ensur[ing] a stable environment for continued service and investment” for systems

in an earlier processing round. 7 Applying this standard to a system modification, as SpaceX did

3
See Teledesic LLC, 14 FCC Rcd 2261 (IB 1999) (“Teledesic”).
4
Teledesic ¶ 5.
5
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, 36 FCC Rcd 7995, ¶ 3 (2021) (“SpaceX 2021 Modification”).
6
Id. ¶ 18 (finding that an application that increased the potential for interference and in-line events with other
systems nevertheless did not cause “significant interference problems” based on a balance of factors).
7
Revising Spectrum Sharing Rules for Non-Geostationary Orbit, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems, Second Report
and Order and Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 24-117,
¶¶ 6, 9 (rel. Nov. 15, 2024) (“Second NGSO Sharing Order”); see also Revising Spectrum Sharing Rules for Non-
Geostationary Orbit, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems, 38 FCC Rcd. 3699, ¶ 14 (2023) (“First NGSO Sharing
Order”).

4
with its Gen2 Upgrade Modification, not only ensures that other same-round and subsequent-round

systems incur no harmful interference and no impact on the spectrum sharing environment

consistent with Teledesic standard, it goes beyond the historic Teledesic standard by demonstrating

that the modification would protect all systems as if it were a new system in an entirely new

processing round. SES/O3b, Eutelsat/OneWeb, and Viasat each challenge SpaceX’s

methodology, but none offers a compelling reason to depart from SpaceX’s clear showing based

on a unanimous Commission decision.

SpaceX appropriately adopted the Commission’s clear NGSO spectrum sharing

benchmarks to demonstrate compliance with Teledesic. SES/O3b, Viasat, and Eutelsat/OneWeb

falsely claim that SpaceX failed to conduct an appropriate technical analysis to demonstrate that

the Gen2 Upgrade Applications would not cause “significant interference problems” for other

satellite systems and that SpaceX should lose its processing round status for its authorized

frequencies. 8 SES/O3b claims that SpaceX should have completed a “before/after” analysis

assessing the change in interference-to-noise (“I/N”) ratio rather than a degraded throughput

analysis. Viasat and Eutelsat/OneWeb demand that SpaceX assess compliance with the Teledesic

on the basis of the Commission’s default band-splitting rules, with OneWeb arguing that SpaceX’s

modified system would result in in-line events to its inefficient system 100% of the time.

While Commission staff have historically evaluated the Teledesic standard using a range

of factors, this ad hoc approach has been more art than science and was never codified as a binding

8
Comments of SES Americom, Inc. and O3b Limited, ICFS File Nos. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228, SAT-MOD-
20241011-00224, at 10-17 (Mar. 10, 2025) (“SES/O3b Comments”); Petition to Deny of Viasat, Inc., ICFS File
Nos. SAT-LOA-20200526-00055, SAT-AMD-20210818-00105, SAT-AMD-20221216-00175, SAT-MOD-
20241011-00224, SAT-AMD-20241017-00228, at 20-23 (Mar. 10, 2025) (“Viasat Petition”); Comments of
Eutelst S.A. and WorldVu Satellites Limited, ICFS File Nos. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228, SAT-MOD-
20241011-00224, at 4-5 (Mar. 10, 2025) (“Eutelsat/OneWeb Comments).

5
rule. With the recent formal rule change governing NGSO-NGSO spectrum sharing, however, the

full Commission has now established a technical standard that provides clear parameters and

thresholds against which a modification application can be evaluated to assess whether that

application would cause harmful interference or meaningfully upset the spectrum sharing

environment in a processing round. While modification applicants should have the flexibility to

continue relying on a balance of factors to demonstrate compliance with Teledesic, the

Commission’s NGSO-NGSO sharing benchmarks provide a sufficient, but not strictly necessary,

means for assessing interference concerns in modification proceedings.

Applying the Commission’s formalized NGSO spectrum sharing criteria to the Gen2

Upgrade Applications, SpaceX analyzed interference into major NGSO systems authorized by the

Commission in its 2016 and 2020 Ku/Ka-band Processing Rounds or currently pending before the

Commission in its 2020 Ku/Ka-band Processing Round. 9 This analysis demonstrates compliance

with the Commission’s adopted 3% time-weighted average throughput degradation long-term

interference protection criterion and 0.4% absolute increase in link unavailability short-term

interference protection criterion in the Ku- and Ka-bands. As such, granting SpaceX’s Gen2

Upgrade Applications would not cause significant interference problems to the overall interference

environment for other NGSO systems in SpaceX’s currently authorized Ku- and Ka-bands.

SpaceX’s upgraded Gen2 operations would not cause significant interference problems

for Eutelsat/OneWeb. Eutelsat/OneWeb resurrects an argument that OneWeb, prior to being

acquired by Eutelsat, made—and later withdrew—in the underlying Gen2 application proceeding.

Specifically, Eutelsat/OneWeb argues that authorizing SpaceX’s full Gen2 constellation would

9
See Gen2 Upgrade Applications, Annex A.

6
“create geometric in-line events for all of the satellites of another co-frequency NGSO Fixed-

Satellite Service (“FSS”) system 100% of the time.” 10 But that argument is moot, since the parties

have reached a coordination agreement under which their full systems—including SpaceX’s Gen2

system with 29,988 satellites—can coexist and protect each other from harmful interference. As

such, the default spectrum-splitting rules that the Commission has analyzed in the past in the

context of modification requests do not apply to those systems, and do not form an appropriate

basis to assess the effect of SpaceX’s Gen2 Upgrade Applications on Eutelsat/OneWeb’s

systems. 11

Even if those spectrum-splitting rules did apply, any increase in in-line events would not

cause significant interference problems, even if they occurred 100% of the time. Specifically, for

NGSO systems like SpaceX’s Gen2 system that employ narrow, steerable beams, geometric in-

line events rarely translate into actual interference unless both satellites are pointing beams towards

the same location on the ground at the same time and in the same frequency. To the extent that a

system does not employ steerable beams, the Commission has found that those legacy technologies

do not form a reasonable basis for punishing a more advanced system that is more capable of

efficiently sharing spectrum. 12

Perhaps recognizing this fundamental flaw in its argument, Eutelsat/OneWeb manipulates

its analysis to overstate the risk of harmful interference, leveraging several metrics and values that

the Commission previously rejected when OneWeb asserted them in the NGSO spectrum sharing

10
Eutelsat/OneWeb Comments at 2.
11
See Letter from David Goldman and Kimberly M. Baum to Marlene H. Dortch, ICFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-
20200526-00055, et al (June 13, 2022) (confirming coordination agreement that is “intended to supersede any
default rules and make further conditions on these authorizations unnecessary”).
12
See, e.g., Second NGSO Sharing Order ¶ 41 (agreeing with SpaceX that “an inefficient incumbent system design
should not unreasonably hamper future entry”).

7
proceeding. For example, Eutelsat/OneWeb attempts to show harmful interference based on an

I/N analysis, 13 even though the Commission has determined that such an analysis fails to take into

account Adaptive Coding and Modulation (“ACM”) and other methods used by modern NGSO

systems to tolerate certain levels of interference while continuing to provide reliable service. 14

Additionally, Eutelsat/OneWeb demands that SpaceX unrealistically and baselessly conduct its

interference analysis on a victim antenna’s minimum power flux-density (“PFD”)—making its

system more susceptible to interference than it actually is. 15

But even assuming for argument’s sake that OneWeb actually designed its system to be

maximally susceptible to interference by permanently operating at its minimum PFD, SpaceX has

confirmed through simulations that when assuming a 10 dB lower PFD for OneWeb’s Gen1

system gateways, SpaceX’s Gen2 system still meets the throughput degradation requirement with

significant margin at 2.48% and the absolute unavailability requirement at 0.08%. 16 For

interference to OneWeb Gen2 system gateways, SpaceX’s simulation in Annex A of its

Application already assumed a PFD level of -194.8 dBW/m2/Hz, which is more than 10 dB lower

than the maximum PFD value of -184.6 dBW/m2/Hz that Eutelsat/OneWeb included in its Gen2

filing. In doing so, SpaceX demonstrated its upgraded Gen2 system will comply with the NGSO-

NGSO interference thresholds the Commission has found to sufficiently protect other NGSO

operators, including Eutelsat/OneWeb, from harmful interference.

SpaceX’s upgraded Gen2 operations would not cause significant interference problems

13
See Eutelsat/OneWeb Comments at 2 n.4 (citing Petition to Deny or Hold in Abeyance of Viasat Inc., ICFS File
Nos. SAT-LOA-20200526-00055 & SAT-AMD-20210818-00105, at 6-9 (Feb. 8, 2022)).
14
See First NGSO Sharing Order ¶ 18.
15
See Eutelsat/OneWeb Comments at 4-5.
16
These simulations ran consistent with the assumptions used in the NGSO-NGSO spectrum sharing proceeding
regarding different latitudes and atmospheric losses within the continental United States.

8
for SES/O3b. Like Eutelsat/OneWeb, SES/O3b attempts to relitigate the technical parameters that

the Commission unanimously found sufficient to protect other NGSO systems and maintain a

stable processing round environment, and even then, takes unjustified liberties in its own flawed

analysis. SES/O3b claims that SpaceX’s upgraded Gen2 system will cause harmful interference

“[r]egardless of the methodology,” 17 including the degraded throughput methodology that the

Commission adopted, and SpaceX relied upon in its analysis. Specifically, SES/O3b claims that

the Gen2 Upgrade Modification has the potential to “cause some of its links an increase in

unavailability of up to 0.96%,” 18 which would exceed the 0.4% threshold established by the

Commission. 19 To arrive at that conclusion, however, SES/O3b assumes that downlink

transmissions from SES/O3b’s space station will not be operating at the maximum power levels

provided in its Commission filings, but instead will operate at lower levels more susceptible to

interference. 20 Yet SpaceX has demonstrated that the upgraded Gen2 system will protect

SES/O3b’s systems according to the parameters that SES/O3b submitted to the Commission, and

will do so to the level that the Commission has found will not cause harmful interference or upset

the spectrum sharing environment in the processing round. Accordingly, the Commission should

reject SES/O3b’s attempt to artificially increase the susceptibility of its antenna links to

interference to falsely claim harmful interference.

17
SES/O3b Comments at 10.
18
Id. at 15.
19
Second NGSO Sharing Order ¶ 1.
20
See SES/O3b Comments at Annex 3, Table 5 (assuming downlink PFD of -161 or -162 dBW/m2/Hz for user
terminals in simulation) and Table 7 (purported 0.96% increase in unavailability); O3b Limited Amendment to
Application to Modify U.S. Market Access Grant for the O3b NGSO Satellite System, ICFS File No. SAT-AMD-
20241122-00267, Schedule S Technical Report, Transmitting Beams 9 and 15 Table (showing maximum
downlink PFD of -171.6 dBW/m2/Hz). (Note: the downlink PFD of -161 or -162 dBW/m2/Hz also exceeds ITU
Radio Regulations Table 21-4 limits on PFD from space stations in Ka-band.)

9
 B. Waiving Processing Round Procedures Will Accelerate Delivery of Gigabit
Service to All Americans Without Precluding New Entry

Over the past five years, SpaceX has raced to build, deploy, and continually improve its

next-generation satellite systems to more efficiently use and share spectrum while delivering

competitive, high-speed, low-latency broadband to as many people as possible, and in so doing to

close—once and for all—the digital divide for millions of American consumers and for people

around the world. To ensure that all Americans have access to gigabit-speed service with more

symmetrical capacity as quickly as possible—and ensuring that America continues to lead the way

in providing competitive satellite service abroad—SpaceX has requested to waive the

Commission’s processing round procedures in certain new bands. As SpaceX explained in its

application and supplemental submission, a waiver of the processing round is warranted in each

of the new bands within which SpaceX proposes to operate.

The Commission has stated that its primary purpose in using processing rounds is to

prevent one applicant from unreasonably precluding additional entry by other satellite operators

in the requested frequency band. 21 But the Commission has on occasion waived the processing

round requirement where doing so will serve the public interest and will not preclude future market

entry. 22 SpaceX has demonstrated that its proposed operations will serve the public interest by

delivering fiber-like broadband and ubiquitous mobile connectivity to all Americans, and many

21
See Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites, 33 FCC Rcd. 4152, ¶ 41 (2018) (“The Commission
adopted this [processing round] approach for NGSO-like satellite systems because of the possibility of otherwise
unreasonably limiting additional market entry if licenses were granted on a first-come, first-served basis.”); see
also Amendment of the Commission’s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, 18 FCC Rcd. 10760, ¶ 25
(2003); Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related
Matters, 32 FCC Rcd. 7829, ¶ 61 (2017).
22
See, e.g., Iridium Constellation LLC, 31 FCC Rcd. 8675, ¶ 41 (IB & OET 2016); O3b Limited, 30 FCC Rcd. 6115
(IB 2015); Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corporation, 24 FCC Rcd. 2330, ¶¶ 23-34 (IB 2009);
Space Imaging, LLC, 20 FCC Rcd. 11964, ¶ 10 (IB 2005) (same); Lockheed Martin Corporation, 20 FCC Rcd.
11023, ¶ 15 (IB 2005) (same).

10
commenters have demonstrated just how important the Gen2 upgrade will be for their communities

and businesses. 23 Granting access to the additional frequency bands will also support more

intensive sharing of spectrum between federal and non-federal users, achieving economies of scale

through dual-use hardware in the United States, and ensure that U.S.-licensed satellite systems

have an opportunity to compete, using that spectrum internationally. As Amazon rightly explained,

denying U.S. operators like SpaceX a waiver to access these new bands “would put American

licensees at a distinct disadvantage to satellite constellations licensed outside of the United States,

hampering the ability of American companies to compete with those from Europe or China.” 24

Contrary to the claims of commenters Anuvu and Viasat, SpaceX can achieve all of these

public benefits while efficiently sharing spectrum with other users, including current and future

satellite applicants who seek to share this spectrum on a similar basis. SpaceX designed its Gen2

system with spectrum sharing at the forefront and has demonstrated its ability to share Ku-, Ka-,

and V-band spectrum through years of coexisting alongside other NGSO and GSO satellite

systems. Moreover, SpaceX’s requests to operate in many of these new bands could not preclude

future entry because SpaceX’s operations would occur on a non-interference, unprotected basis or

only subject to federal coordination, raising questions about whether the processing round rule

should even apply. In higher-frequency bands that SpaceX requests, holding a processing round

is not necessary to prevent preclusion because like in E-band, where the Commission has waived

a processing round, transmissions in those bands feature high-gain, narrow beams that make them

extremely efficient and amenable to sharing.

23
See generally, e.g., Oracle Letter in Support, Health Wagon Letter in Support, Carnival Letter in Support, Tlingit
& Haida Tribes Letter in Support.
24
See Comments of Kuiper Systems LLC, ICFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20200526-00055, SAT-AMD-20210818-
00105, SAT-AMD-20241017-00228, SAT-MOD-20241011-00224, at 2 (Mar. 10, 2025) (“Amazon Comments”).

11
 Finally, Viasat is wrong when it argues that the Commission must conduct a processing

round for requests to operate solely outside the United States. In these situations, SpaceX’s

operations would not preclude future applicants from market entry within the United States and

sharing that spectrum on the basis of the Commission’s default rules or within a future processing

round. For operations outside the United States, SpaceX’s operations would be subject to the same

general coordination and sharing obligations under the International Telecommunication Union

(“ITU”) Radio Regulations as any other system, including foreign operators like Viasat who have

sought foreign authorizations to avoid U.S. oversight. Other administrations have permitted

satellite licenses approval for licensing in requested bands as evidenced by ITU filings. Because

the ITU does not preclude foreign administrations from authorizing new systems in those bands to

operate pursuant to international sharing coordination obligations, the Commission should not

deny U.S.-licensed systems the same opportunity, particularly in an increasingly competitive

global satellite industry.

Accordingly, the Commission should reject Anuvu and Viasat’s arguments and waive the

requirement to hold a processing round for the new frequency bands in which SpaceX seeks to

operate its upgraded Gen2 system.

II. WAIVING OUTDATED GSO PROTECTIONS WILL SWIFTLY DELIVER UNIVERSAL

GIGABIT-SPEED, LOW-LATENCY CONNECTIVITY TO ALL AMERICANS WHILE CAUSING
NO UNACCEPTABLE INTERFERENCE FOR LEGACY GSO NETWORKS

The Commission recently made two critical findings that will form the foundation of its

efforts to modernize its satellite rules for the new Space Age. First, outdated protections for legacy

satellite systems must sunset to promote new entry, innovation, and more efficient use of

12
spectrum. 25 Second, the decades-old GSO protections ossified in EPFD rules overprotect GSO

systems, harm consumers of next-generation satellite systems, and unduly restrict spectrum

sharing among NGSO systems through artificial spectrum scarcity. 26 With these findings in mind,

SpaceX filed its request to waive the Commission’s EPFD downlink rules to ensure that Americans

do not have to wait for a multi-year ITU process before enjoying the benefits of gigabit-speed,

low-latency broadband here at home. And as SpaceX demonstrated through robust technical

analysis in its Applications, SpaceX’s proposed operations under an EPFD waiver will continue

to protect GSO systems from unacceptable interference. 27

Unfortunately, foreign-licensed GSO operators such as Viasat, EchoStar,

Eutelsat/OneWeb, and SES/O3b oppose SpaceX’s request, seeking to maintain these inefficient

rules and hamstring American satellite operators despite the Commission’s clear findings that they

no longer serve American consumers. 28 But as SpaceX demonstrates below, each of these

operator’s arguments lack merit and should be rejected.

A. SpaceX’s EPFD Waiver Request Meets the Commission’s Waiver Standard

The Commission’s rules provide that waiver is appropriate if special circumstances warrant

a deviation from the general rule and such deviation would better serve the public interest. 29

SpaceX’s waiver request meets both prongs. SpaceX’s waiver request presents special

25
See First NGSO Sharing Order ¶ 29 (adopting a sunset provision for NGSO protection regime because “earlier-
round advantages should not continue indefinitely”).
26
United States of America, Working Document Towards a Preliminary Draft New Report [Article 22 EPFD Limit
Studies], Document 4A/84-E, at 4 (Apr. 19, 2024) (“US WP4A Submission”).
27
See Gen2 Upgrade Applications at Annex B.
28
Viasat Petition at 11; Eutelsat/OneWeb Comments at 3-4; SES/O3b Comments at 4; DISH/Echostar Comments
at 13.
29
47 C.F.R. § 1.301.

13
circumstances warranting a waiver because the Commission has already determined that the EPFD

rules are overprotective and harmful and is leading a multi-year, multi-national effort at the ITU

to fix those rules. Applying legacy EPFD limits to SpaceX’s upgraded Gen2 system would place

the Commission in the untenable position of perpetuating a harmful, outdated rule framework that

it has found does not serve the public interest, at a time when American consumers increasingly

depend on next-generation satellite systems for the broadband needs. Moreover, no regulatory

barrier prevents the Commission from departing from international EPFD requirements; indeed,

the ITU Radio Regulations explicitly recognize the sovereignty of a national administration to

depart from EPFD restrictions over its territory, as SpaceX requests the Commission do here.30

Finally, because SpaceX requests a waiver that would allow it to use Ku- and Ka-band spectrum

more efficiently and intensively without causing harmful interference to GSO systems, SpaceX’s

operations would preserve the purpose of the underlying rule—protection from interference, not

protectionism—while advancing the far more important goal of ensuring that the Commission

maximizes the efficient use of spectrum to benefit American consumers and lead in the New Space

Age.

SpaceX’s Applications and comments in this record from actual users of next-generation

satellite services also demonstrate that deviating from outdated EPFD rules in the United States

would better serve the public interest than continuing to apply those outdated rules. 31 In their

comments, rural, remote, and Tribal communities urge the Commission to grant SpaceX’s

requested waivers to support “remote education, telehealth services, and economic development

30
See ITU Rad. Regs. § 22.5CA.
31
See, e.g., Tlingit & Haida Tribes Letter in Support at 1-2.

14
opportunities.” 32 American cloud service provider Oracle explains that granting the Gen2 Upgrade

Applications will “open the entire country to the newest services in the digital economy” 33 and

supercharge American industry. Amazon, which has requested a similar EPFD waiver for its

operations, agrees that granting a limited waiver would serve the public interest, including by

allowing SpaceX to “demonstrate that revising those [EPFD] rules would not in fact endanger the

operations of GSO satellites, and provide empirical data supporting updates to these limits at the

ITU.” 34 Combined with SpaceX’s technical analyses demonstrating no harmful interference, then,

the record clearly demonstrates that waiving the EPFD rules that the Commission has already

deemed unnecessary would serve the public interest.

Viasat incorrectly argues without technical support that granting SpaceX’s waiver request

would undermine the purpose of the EPFD rules and Article 22 of the ITU Radio Regulations.35

Viasat ignores both that the ITU rules explicitly allow countries to waive EPFD limits domestically

and that the United States has already concluded that the current EPFD regime is unnecessarily

restrictive. Using this flawed basis, Viasat argues that any relaxation of those limits—even a

waiver that results in more efficient use of spectrum and no harmful interference to GSO systems—

would “create substantial uncertainty” and “chill investment” in GSO networks. 36 Yet the

Commission already rejected these arguments as being anticompetitive when it decided to sunset

protections for NGSO systems in its First NGSO Sharing Order, despite NGSO operators having

had significantly less time to recoup their investment than legacy GSOs. Thus, Viasat fails to

32
SOAR Letter in Support at 1.
33
Oracle Letter in Support at 1.
34
Amazon Comments at 3.
35
See Viasat Petition at 7.
36
Id. at 8.

15
explain why GSO operators should receive special treatment not afforded to next-generation

NGSO operators, or unwarranted overprotection that harms those next-generation systems.

EchoStar and Eutelsat/OneWeb argue that the Commission should defer or deny SpaceX’s

waiver request until the ITU completes its multi-year process to update international EPFD

limits. 37 But when rejecting similar calls to delay action on life-saving supplemental coverage

from space, the Commission found that “an approach that waits for international consensus before

acting would leave American innovation at the mercy of ‘lengthy and cumbersome international

harmonization effort[s],’ could harm American companies, and would ‘delay global development

of development of [new technologies], potentially for decades.” 38 Similarly, the Commission has

found waivers of unduly restrictive technical limits appropriate even in the face of pending

petitions to update the rules, as it did earlier this month when rejecting DISH/EchoStar’s demand

to retain arbitrarily restrictive aggregate out-of-band emissions limits on SpaceX’s direct-to-

cellular operations. 39

Accordingly, granting a waiver of the Commission’s EPFD rules would recognize the

special circumstances of the Commission’s finding that those rules are outdated and harmful to

consumers, and would better serve the public interest by delivering enhanced services to

Americans as soon as possible, even before international or domestic rulemaking processes have

reached completion.

37
DISH/EchoStar Petition at 17-18; Eutelsat/OneWeb Comments at 1-2.
38
Single Network Future: Supplemental Coverage from Space, 39 FCC Rcd. 2622, ¶ 24 (2024) (rejecting calls to
wait for international consensus on Supplemental Coverage from Space because “it would serve the public interest
to address any domestic impediments, enable innovations and investments in efficient and effective use of the
spectrum, and foster U.S. leadership in spectrum-based services” and because “developing a successful domestic
framework without delay is an important opportunity to spur innovation and offer our domestic experience and
leadership to the international community as the marketplace for SCS continues to evolve.”).
39
See Space Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seek Comment on Filings of SpaceX and T-Mobile
Requesting to Establish Supplemental Coverage from Space, DA 25-197, ¶ 11 (SB Mar. 7, 2025).

16
 B. Removing the Burdensome and Unnecessary “Nco=1” Condition is
Appropriate

Perennial obstructionists DISH/EchoStar and Viasat go even further in their attempt to

limit the benefits of SpaceX’s upgraded Gen2 system for consumers, demanding that the

Commission retain arbitrary restrictions on its Gen2 system that have no basis in the Commission’s

rules and apply to no other operator. For example, DISH/EchoStar and Viasat ask the Commission

to retain an unnecessary and harmful limit on the number of co-frequency beams (“Nco”) that the

Gen2 system may use at a single point on the ground, falsely claiming that such restrictions are

necessary to protect their operations and avoid preclusion, and that retaining the limit would not

impose hardship or inequity on SpaceX. 40 They are wrong.

While an Nco=1 condition may be “sufficient” to protect GSO systems insofar as it is

grossly overprotective of those systems, both the Commission and SpaceX have shown that it is

not necessary to impose such a restriction. Indeed, SpaceX is the only NGSO operator to have

such an arbitrary and capricious condition applied to its license. Moreover, contrary to

DISH/EchoStar’s claims, continuing to impose EPFD limits that arbitrarily restrict next-generation

satellite services—and do so to the undue competitive advantage of legacy GSO systems—

presents both hardship and inequity. As the Commission has found, outdated EPFD limits

significantly limit service quality for consumers of NGSO systems, make coordination between

NGSO systems more difficult, and needlessly inject artificial spectrum scarcity that increases

design and deployment costs for no legitimate technical reason. 41 Moreover, while

DISH/EchoStar is correct that American consumers and enterprises have found significant value

40
See DISH/EchoStar Petition at 4-5.
41
See US WP4A Submission at 4.

17
in SpaceX’s next-generation satellite services, demand for ever faster and lower-latency broadband

continues to grow, and these outdated EPFD restrictions place an undue cap on the quality of that

service and the number of Americans who can enjoy it. As Amazon correctly points out, SpaceX

is already required to protect GSO systems from harmful interference in EPFD bands; therefore,

this unnecessary Nco limit “functions only as a burdensome and unnecessary restriction on how

SpaceX protects such operations.” 42

SpaceX has amply supported its request to waive outdated EPFD limits and remove

unnecessary restrictions on its operations, and the Commission should swiftly grant that waiver.

As it does, the Commission should also clarify that it will no longer accede to anti-competitive

demands to impose heightened, one-off conditions on competitors that have no basis in rule,

particularly when those demands come from those foreign-licensed systems, like DISH/EchoStar,

that have exhibited a myopic fixation on harming U.S.-licensed systems at the expense of

American consumers.

C. SpaceX’s Technical Analysis in Support of its Waiver Demonstrates it Can

Protect GSO Operators from Long-term and Short-term Interference in Ku-
band and Ka-band Spectrum Subject to EPFD Rules

In its petition, DISH/EchoStar offers a deeply flawed technical analysis that purports to

show that SpaceX’s proposed waiver of outdated EPFD limits will harm its operations.

DISH/EchoStar’s technical arguments are unfounded. As an initial matter, DISH/EchoStar’s

analysis seeks to hold SpaceX to 25-year-old EPFD limits that the Commission has already

determined are outdated, overprotective, and harmful to American consumers and national

42
Amazon Comments at 4.

18
interests. 43 Any “exceedance” of those outdated limits not resulting in harmful interference to

GSO systems merely demonstrates how overprotective those existing limits are. DISH/EchoStar

also challenges SpaceX’s conservative down-selection of GSO reference links collected during the

1997-2000 period, claiming that SpaceX’s analysis failed to include DISH/EchoStar’s “pizza-

sized” dishes. 44 Yet as SpaceX shows below, supplementing the analysis to incorporate such

dishes still demonstrates that SpaceX’s proposed waiver would not cause harmful interference to

GSO systems. In any event, as with any waiver request and with SpaceX’s proposed waiver in

particular, SpaceX’s operations would still be required to protect GSO systems from harmful

interference unless and until the Commission were to adopt rules to the contrary.

SpaceX’s NGSO-GSO interference analysis is based on conservative estimations of GSO

reference links that demonstrate SpaceX’s proposed operations will not cause harmful interference

to GSO systems, including DBS services. Precisely due to a lack of modern agreed GSO reference

links for these smaller “pizza-sized” antennas, SpaceX endeavored to select appropriate links from

among the GSO reference links in the 1990s, recognizing that these links and their legacy

technologies still present a conservative case on which to base an interference analysis. To

supplement its analysis and address DISH/EchoStar’s concerns, SpaceX has conducted a

supplemental technical analysis considering smaller, Ku-band antenna sizes (i.e., 40 and 55 cm

diameters) and using the same representative/example parameters that SpaceX included in the

technical demonstration in its application. 45 As Figures 1 to 3 below demonstrate, SpaceX’s

43
See US WP4A Submission at 4.
44
See EchoStar Petition at 7.
45
The 40 cm antenna is the smallest Ku-band antenna size listed in the ITU database, even though it was not
submitted as a link operating in the U.S. when the ITU first studied EPFD rules. As per SpaceX’s methodology

19
proposed operations will meet the long-term protection criterion of -10.5 dB I/N for 80% of the

time for a 40 cm and 55 cm antenna, and therefore will not create any harmful interference for

those GSO operations. As outlined in Annex B of its Gen2 Applications, SpaceX will continue

to protect GSO operations from short-term harmful interference.

Figure 1. Complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of worst-case I/N (dB) from SpaceX
satellites in the Gen2 system operating in Ku-band over the considered ITU GSO reference links with
0.4 m and 0.55 m terminals in Miami, FL.

outlined in Annex B of its Gen2 Upgrade Applications, antenna sizes that are not listed in Article 22 and
Resolution 76 were not included in the final list of links analyzed. This is the reason why the 55cm antenna—the
only link in the 45-60 cm range operating over the U.S.—was not initially analyzed.

20
Figure 2. Complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of worst-case I/N (dB) from SpaceX
satellites in the Gen2 system operating in Ku-band over the considered ITU GSO reference links with
0.4 m and 0.55 m terminals in Washington, D.C.

Figure 3. Complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of worst-case I/N (dB) from SpaceX
satellites in the Gen2 system operating in Ku-band over the considered ITU GSO reference links with
0.4 m and 0.55 m terminals in Las Vegas, NV.

DISH/EchoStar raises similar baseless concerns that SpaceX cherry picked GSO reference

links in its Ka-Band analysis. 46 Similar to its approach in Ku-band, SpaceX used the Ka-band

links included in the ITU database CR/116 for its analyses. Additionally, SpaceX identified two

46
See EchoStar Petition at 6.

21
ITU filings from two representative GSO systems, including one from DISH/EchoStar, to model

additional antenna sizes to ranging from 45 cm to 5 m diameter (45 cm: ODYSSEY-91W, 70 cm:

USASAT-76E, 5 m: ODYSSEY-91W(45 cm: ODYSSEY-91W, 70 cm: USASAT-76E, 5 m:

ODYSSEY-91W). 47 For the CR/116 analysis, SpaceX considered a minimum antenna size of 70

cm to remain consistent with the minimum size used in Article 22 and Resolution 76 Ka-Band

EPFD downlink limits. To bolster that analysis, SpaceX analyzed antenna sizes down to 45 cm

based on new links identified in the ITU filings. Those filings correspond to GSO satellite

locations over the continental U.S. and are owned by operators who are providing service within

the United States. SpaceX therefore based its Ka-band analysis on appropriate GSO reference

links.

SES/O3b does not challenge SpaceX’s selection of reference links but claims that SpaceX

should have relied on outdated and incomplete technical recommendations, including ITU-R

Recommendation S.1323, to make its case. 48 With respect to short-term interference, SES/O3b

proposes that SpaceX should have assessed short-term unavailability on a relative basis, 49 rather

than an absolute basis. But as the Commission found when rejecting the use of a relative short-

term interference metric, assessing unavailability on a relative basis is inappropriate because doing

so can produce deceptively volatile results, particularly for systems with high baseline availability

where even small changes in absolute unavailability can appear as large changes in relative

unavailability. 50

47
Annex-B of Gen 2 Upgrade application (Section 2.1, Table 1) as Link 1, Link 2, Link 3.
48
See SES/O3b Comments at 6.
49
Id. at 5; see also id. at Annexes 2 and 3.
50
Second NGSO Sharing Order ¶¶ 20-21.

22
 With respect to long-term interference, SES/O3B asserts that SpaceX should have adopted

a single-entry, long-term interference protection criterion based on an unduly restrictive I/N value

of -17.6 dB I/N. 51 To reach this number, SES/O3b again cites the outdated S.1323 and its

suggestion to meet a -12.2 dB I/N aggregate interference 10% of the time and combines it with 25-

year-old assumptions about NGSO systems. 52 Yet the Commission has concluded that the

appropriate metric to model long-term interference into systems using ACM—as modern NGSO

systems do—is a degraded throughput methodology. 53 By ignoring the Commission’s

determination, SES/O3b effectively demands over four times more protection than GSO systems

have determined is sufficient to protect each other from harmful interference without the need for

further coordination, the same limit that SpaceX used to support its EPFD waiver request. 54

SES/O3b provides no sound technical basis for this level of overprotection.

DISH/EchoStar also challenges SpaceX’s long-term protection criteria, falsely claiming

that those criteria inappropriately adopted a limit designed for a static sharing situation involving

non-moving interference sources and victims. 55 Although DISH/EchoStar is correct that ITU-R

Recommendation S.1432 is intended for static interference sources, static interference can be

assimilated to long-term interference when NGSO systems are involved. As a consequence, while

S.1432 adopts a -6 dB I/N value for long-term interference, SpaceX appropriately adopted a limit

51
See SES/O3b Comments at 5-6.
52
Id.
53
See, e.g., First NGSO Sharing Order ¶ 17 (“we believe that pursuing a degraded throughput approach to quantify
the level of protection for earlier-round systems from later-round systems is the most technically promising option
as it would account for the realities of modern NGSO systems and be based on a key design consideration for
such systems.”).
54
In accordance with the Radio Regulations, GSO systems that are six and a half degrees away from one another
do not need to coordinate their operations as the ITU has found that 6.5 degrees of angular separation is sufficient
to protect GSO systems without further coordination.
55
See EchoStar Petition at 7-8.

23
4.5 dB more restrictive, or -10.5 dB I/N. Notably, Amazon has requested waivers of the

Commission’s EPFD downlink limits using the exact same short- and long-term protection

criteria. 56

III. GRANTING SPACEX’S REQUEST TO SHARE MOBILE-SATELLITE SERVICE SPECTRUM IN

1429-2690 MHZ INTERNATIONALLY WILL PROMOTE AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN 6G
AND BRING MUCH NEEDED COMPETITION TO LONG-FALLOW MID-BAND SPECTRUM

SpaceX is designing its Gen2 system to deliver ubiquitous mobile connectivity to

consumers, enterprises, and first responders everywhere in the world, supporting emerging 6G

networks that interweave satellite and terrestrial networks into a seamless end-user experience.

SpaceX took a first step toward achieving that goal when it launched its commercial “direct-to-

cellular” system in partnership with T-Mobile in the United States and with other mobile operators

in markets around the world. 57 That early network has already proven critical to those in need

during and after emergencies and natural disasters. SpaceX continues to deploy its direct-to-

cellular system enabling its mobile partners and national administrations to make more intensive

and productive use of terrestrial mobile spectrum. But still more must be done to improve these

life-saving services using critical technologies including 6G, satellites, and space exploration.

To that end, SpaceX’s request to share co-primary MSS spectrum outside of the United

States is consistent with SpaceX’s ITU filings to complement its direct-to-cellular service. For

decades these co-primary MSS bands have been significantly underused, used inefficiently, or

56
See Kuiper Systems LLC, Application to Amend Pending Application for Authority to Launch and Operate a
Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit System in V-band, Ku-band, Ka-band, and 17 GHz Band Frequencies, ICFS
File No. SAT-AMD-20250311-00068, Gen-2 Technical Attachment at 12-14 (Mar. 11, 2025).
57
“First SpaceX Satellites Launch for Breakthrough Direct to Cell Service with T‑Mobile,” T-MOBILE (Jan. 3,
2024), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/first-spacex-satellites-launch-for-breakthrough-direct-to-cell-
service-with-t-mobile. See also, “T-Mobile Starlink Beta Takes Off” T-MOBILE (Feb. 9, 2025), https://www.t-
mobile.com/news/network/t-mobile-starlink-beta-open-for-all-carriers.

24
simply warehoused and thus provided no commercial service at all. As such, these bands remain

ripe for new entry and sharing among next-generation systems. By granting SpaceX’s request to

share these frequencies outside of the United States, the Commission can ensure that next-

generation U.S.-licensed satellite systems are capably deployed and readily available to compete

with foreign-licensed systems while efficiently sharing spectrum resources to deliver competitive

and beneficial services to consumers.

A. Foreign-Licensed Operators’ Claims to Exclusive Use of the MSS Spectrum

are Incorrect and Unpersuasive—MSS Spectrum is Ripe for Sharing and
Increased Competition

In opposing SpaceX’s request to operate in MSS spectrum, Globalstar, other foreign-

licensed MSS operators, and their proxies continue their multi-year campaign to block U.S.-

licensed satellite systems from productively sharing these bands while, as explained below, other

countries have not so limited their own systems. These operators raise unfounded claims of

interference and exclusivity as pretense to block new competitors that can more rapidly and

reliably deploy superior services while sharing these co-primary bands as the Commission and

ITU intended. 58

To block new entry and inhibit more efficient sharing of MSS spectrum, foreign-licensed

operators Globalstar, Iridium Constellation LLC (“Iridium”), and Viasat—individually and

through a redundant Mobile Satellite Services Association (“MSSA”) “trade association”—falsely

claim that the Commission cannot authorize SpaceX to use co-primary MSS bands outside the

United States because the Space Bureau under the previous administration concluded that use of

58
In contrast to foreign-licensed MSS operators, other commenters still “support[] the further expansion of the type
of space-based communications that SpaceX has pioneered and appreciates SpaceX’s desire to identify spectrum
that can be used to support those efforts.” See Comments of GPS Innovation Alliance, ICFS File Nos. SAT-
AMD-20241017-00228, SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 (filed March 10, 2025) at 3 (“GPSIA Comments”).

25
those bands inside the United States must wait for a rulemaking. 59 But while the previous

administration hit pause on making more productive use of this valuable spectrum, foreign

administrations are not waiting for the Commission to conduct a rulemaking before authorizing

new systems in those co-primary MSS bands. Indeed, petitioner Globalstar just sought and

received a license from France for a brand-new third NGSO system in the 1.6/2.4 GHz band. And

in contradiction of the previous Space Bureau’s decision to freeze new systems in the band,

Globalstar recently requested U.S. market access for that system. 60 More broadly, other

administrations have submitted ITU satellite filings frequently over the last five years that include

instances of NGSO satellites targeting all or part of the co-primary MSS bands in 1429-2690

MHz 61 including 30 separate Chinese filings to deploy systems using these MSS bands.

Considering foreign administrations—including the United States’ strategic competitors—see no

legal impediment to authorizing new entrants to share co-primary MSS bands between 1429-2690

MHz under ITU rules and procedures, the Commission must not restrict U.S.-licensed satellite

59
See Petition to Deny by Globalstar, Inc., ICFS File No. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228, Call Signs S3069/S2992
(filed March 10, 2025) at 3-5 (“Globalstar Petition”); Petition of Iridium Constellation LLC to Dismiss or Deny
in Part, ICFS File Nos. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228 and SAT-MOD- 20241011-00224, Call Sign S3069 (filed
March 10, 2025) at 3-5 (“Iridium Petition”); Petition to Deny of Viasat, Inc., ICFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-
20200526-00055, SAT-AMD-20210818-00105, SAT-AMD-20221216-00175, SAT-MOD-20241011-00224,
SAT-AMD-20241017-00228, Call Signs S2992/3069 (filed March 10, 2025) at 3 (“Viasat Petition”); Letter from
Michele Lawrie-Munro, MSSA Executive Director, Mobile Satellite Services Association to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission Re: Application of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, ICFS
File No. SAT-AMD-20241017-00228 (filed March 10, 2025) at 1 (“MSSA Letter”); see also Space Exploration
Holdings, LLC Application for Modification of Authorization for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO Satellite System to Add
a Mobile-Satellite Service System, Order, 39 FCC Rcd 3007, ¶¶ 8, 12 (Mar. 26, 2024). Tellingly, in asserting its
claimed standing to file its opposition, EchoStar Corporation does not mention operations in the 2 GHz band,
since it has none. See Petition of EchoStar Corporation to Dismiss or Deny, ICFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20241011-
00224 and SAT-AMD-20241017-00228 (filed March 10, 2025) at n.1 (“EchoStar Petition”).
60
See Globalstar Licensee LLC, Petition for Declaratory Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the
Globalstar C-3 MSS System, ICFS File No. SAT-PPL-20250214-00047 (filed Feb. 14, 2025).
61
There are over one-hundred instances of ITU filings with frequency emissions within the MSS bands at issue
here, the majority of which are from China (30). See https://www.itu.int/itu-
r/space/apps/public/spaceexplorer/networks-explorer/space-stations (ITU Space Explorer) filings since March
15, 2020, including frequency ranges within one or more of 1518-1559 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz, 1626.5-1660
MHz, 1980-2010 MHz, 2170-2200 MHz, or 2483.5-2500 MHz.

26
systems from doing the same, particularly at the behest of obstructionists such as Viasat,

DISH/EchoStar, and Globalstar.

Viasat along with commenters SITA of Switzerland and Thuraya of the United Arab

Emirates also falsely suggest that these co-primary MSS bands cannot technically support new

entrants or more efficient sharing between systems, 62 or that SpaceX has not sufficiently

demonstrated that it can do so. 63 Such concerns ignore the reality that the Commission originally

intended for multiple operators to share these bands and, incorrectly presume that these bands are

intensively used in the first place. Yet, these bands remain largely unused, a fact that can be

observed not only through measurement but through the acts of U.S. license holders. For example,

Globalstar admitted that in 2022, decades after first obtaining an MSS license, its global 1.6/2.4

GHz system used only 0.3% of its spectrum rights. 64 Twice-bankrupt MSS spectrum speculator

Ligado recently leased its warehoused L-band spectrum to AST SpaceMobile for 80 years, 65 even

though AST’s system does not support those frequencies. And DISH/EchoStar has entirely written

down the value of its 2 GHz MSS GSO satellite, which provides virtually no commercial MSS

62
Letter from Veronique Blanc, Director of Partner Management, SITA Switzerland Sàrl, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission Re: Applications of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, ICFS
File Nos. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 and SAT-AMD-20241017-0022 (filed March 10, 2025) at 1 (“SITA
Letter”); Letter from Steven Doiron, VP Spectrum and Regulatory Affairs, Thuraya Telecommunications
Company to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission Re: Applications of Space
Exploration Holdings, LLC, ICFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20241011-00224 and SAT-AMD-20241017-00228
(filed March 10, 2025) at 1 (“Thuraya Letter”); Viasat Petition at 9.
63
Iridium Petition at 5; MSSA Letter at 1.
64
In a Form 8-K filing at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Globalstar describes a partnership agreement
with Apple, Inc., that binds it to retain only “15% of network capacity to support its existing and future Duplex,
SPOT and IoT subscribers. See GLOBALSTAR, INC., Quarterly Report (Form 8-K), at Item 7.01 (Sept. 7,
2022), available at https://investors.globalstar.com/node/14431/html. “This [remaining 15%] capacity can
support an approximately fifty-fold increase in its own subscriber base following recent and planned investments
in the Company’s space and ground segments.” Id.
65
Jason Rainbow, “AST SpaceMobile strikes spectrum deal amid Ligado Networks bankruptcy,” SPACENEWS (Jan.
6, 2025), https://spacenews.com/ast-spacemobile-strikes-spectrum-deal-amid-ligado-networks-bankruptcy/.

27
service anywhere in the world. 66 In view of this unused or under-utilized MSS spectrum, SpaceX

has sought improvements to domestic usage of the MSS spectrum for consumers through its

requests for rulemakings to modernize its sharing and coordination frameworks, 67 and here

similarly seeks authorization to enable U.S-licensed operators to efficiently share this co-primary

spectrum and deliver competitive satellite-based mobile connectivity globally.

Moreover, not only has the Commission found that these bands are capable of sharing with

new entrants, 68 multiple foreign administrations, including China, have authorized new systems in

these bands in recent years. Foreclosing U.S.-licensed satellite systems from expeditiously and

effectively competing in this critical market would provide an undue first-mover advantage to the

United States’ strategic competitors and conflict with Chairman Carr’s priorities. Therefore, the

Commission must block attempts to foreclose new U.S. satellite systems from sharing L- and S-

band spectrum must be dismissed. 69

Yahsat, under the guise of its Thuraya Telecommunications Company subsidiary, similarly

asks the Commission to block SpaceX’s U.S.-licensed satellite system from sharing MSS spectrum

abroad. Yahsat claims that its operations in the 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz bands

are “governed by a multilateral memorandum of understanding between the responsible

66
See DISH Annual Report, Year Ending December 31, 2022, at F-32–33 (2023), available at https://dish.gcs-
web.com/static-files/4ff2bad5-e765-420f-a33a-824f64c0785a.
67
Request for Comment on Petition for Rulemaking by Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Regarding Revision of
the Commission’s 1.6/2.4 GHz “Big Leo” NGSO MSS Sharing Plan, Public Notice, DA 24-298, RM-11975 (rel.
Mar. 26, 2024); Request for Comment on Petition for Rulemaking by Space Exploration Holdings, LLC,
Regarding Revision of the Commission’s 2 GHz MSS Sharing Plan, Public Notice, DA 24-299, RM-11976 (rel.
Mar. 26, 2024).
68
See, e.g., Spectrum and Service Rules for Ancillary Terrestrial Components in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Big Leo
Bands/Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service
Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Second Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 19733 (2007) at ¶ 4 (contemplating multiple operators sharing a band).
69
See generally, SITA Letter; Globalstar Petition; Iridium Petition; Viasat Petition.

28
administrations,” ostensibly to “prevent spectrum warehousing and ensure[] efficient usage of

these critical bands.” 70 But that agreement remains confidential to the parties and there is no

evidence that the spectrum is in fact being used efficiently rather than warehoused. Indeed, to the

extent that the spectrum is used solely by GSO operators based on a decades-old agreement, a high

likelihood exists that the spectrum could be used more efficiently to deliver better service to end

users. In any event, Yahsat offers no reason why the Commission should not allow next-generation

satellite systems such as SpaceX to share that spectrum on a more efficient basis.

If authorized to operate in these MSS bands outside of the United States, SpaceX will

comply with international rules and the rules of individual markets to efficiently share this mid-

band MSS spectrum with other systems. Indeed, the ITU Radio Regulations require all NGSO

systems—incumbents and new entrants—to coordinate efficiently and in good faith to share

spectrum, just as SpaceX has done in all frequency bands in which it operates. To the extent that

an incumbent operator refuses to coordinate in good faith, the Commission has made clear that

legacy systems do not enjoy a perpetual right to block new entry or to unduly force the coordination

burden onto newer, more efficient systems. 71 To do otherwise would not only delay the

deployment of next-generation, life-saving satellite services, it would allow legacy systems to

maintain a global stranglehold on mid-band spectrum that the Commission has identified as key

to promote American leadership in next-generation mobile satellite technologies.

Giving credence to these foreign operators’ false claims of exclusivity would also freeze

technological advancement in a decades-old state, disincentivize innovation and the development

of more efficient and effective technology in the bands and run counter to the Commission’s

70
Thuraya Letter at 1.
71
See, e.g., Second NGSO Sharing Order ¶ 45.

29
longstanding policy of fostering competition, new entry, and American leadership on the global

stage. SpaceX encourages the Commission to reaffirm its view that satellite spectrum is a shared

resource, and all operators have an obligation to coordinate in good faith to reach efficient sharing

outcomes. Further, as Amazon notes in its comments, incumbents’ view would put domestically

licensed companies at a relative disadvantage in the competition in the development of 6G,

satellite, and space technologies. As a matter of policy, the Commission must enable U.S.-licensed

next-generation satellite systems to compete globally on a level playing field with systems that

other administrations have been approving at a rapid clip.

B. SpaceX’s Operations in Mid-Band MSS Spectrum Will Not Cause Harmful

Interfere into Non-MSS Navigation or Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry
Systems

SpaceX appreciates Aviation Spectrum Resources, Inc.’s (“ASRI”), and the International

Air Transport Association’s (“IATA”) interest in promoting satellite communications and

radionavigation service to support safe air travel. To that end, SpaceX is proud to have partnered

with several major airlines to deliver a step-change in broadband service quality for customers and

crew aboard aircraft. These next-generation broadband services aboard aircraft can provide fiber-

like high-speed, low-latency “broadband connectivity during all phases of flight and at airports,”

to meet “increasing aircraft data requirements.” 72 But ASRI and IATA’s comments confuse two

distinct services—secondary supplemental coverage from space (“SCS”) and primary MSS—to

demand that SpaceX operate primary MSS services as if they were secondary SCS services.73

ASRI and IATA’s opposition reflects a flawed understanding of SpaceX’s request for

72
ASRI and IATA Comments at 6.
73
See generally, ASRI and IATA Comments.

30
authorization to operate in accordance with co-primary spectrum allocations, applicable rules, and

the Commission’s satellite policy goals, and therefore should be rejected.

The ITU has defined coordination procedures and technical rules to enable coexistence

between MSS and other in-band and adjacent band users, including in the co-primary MSS bands

SpaceX requests to use between 1429 MHz and 2690 MHz. SpaceX will operate pursuant to those

international rules and any domestic market access obligations, just as foreign operator Inmarsat

does with respect to its aviation services. But ASRI and IATA’s demand for a heightened set of

interference demonstrations by SpaceX that do not apply to any other similarly situated foreign

MSS system would only hamstring the United States’ leadership in 6G connectivity, particularly

when most of the frequencies that ASRI and IATA are concerned with—“the 1429-1660.5 MHz,

1680 MHz, and 2360-2395 MHz (and adjacent spectrum) bands” 74—are not subject to MSS

allocations. 75 Further, both Commission and ITU rules provide that all co-primary satellite

services—even legacy systems—have an obligation to coordinate in good faith to share

spectrum. 76

In support of its arguments, ASRI and IATA oddly claim that LightSquared/Ligado’s

waiver to operate an ancillary terrestrial component in L-band warrants heightened scrutiny for

SpaceX’s MSS operations. 77 But the ongoing Ligado saga makes the opposite point: by allowing

Ligado to warehouse co-primary satellite spectrum while pursuing a speculative terrestrial 5G

network, the Commission foreclosed efficient sharing of mid-band spectrum under MSS rules that

74
Id. at 8.
75
The 1610-1660.5 band is co-primary MSS, but as stated above, existing rules require coexistence and non-
interference.
76
See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 2.106(b) (incorporating international footnotes subjecting various MSS bands to
coordination under ITU R.R. Article 9.11A).
77
ASRI and IATA Comments at n.6.

31
do protect aviation safety in service of a secondary terrestrial service that aviation interests claim

cannot do so. The Ligado example is therefore entirely inapposite to SpaceX’s request here to

efficiently share co-primary MSS spectrum pursuant to long-standing good faith coordination rules

that protect aviation safety services.

Finally, in response to concerns raised by the GPS Innovation Alliance and others

regarding the impact of SpaceX’s MSS requests on the integrity of the Global Navigation Satellite

System (“GNSS”), 78 including the Global Positioning System (“GPS”), and the concerns of the

Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council Inc. (“AFTRCC”) regarding flight testing

bands, 79 SpaceX clarifies that it only seeks authority to use co-primary MSS allocations under the

ITU Radio Regulations in the 1429-2690 MHz frequency range outside of the United States, and

that it will operate with consistent with international coordination and sharing rules with both

adjacent and co-primary band users.

C. SpaceX Will Efficiently Share Spectrum with Existing Global Maritime

Distress and Safety System Operators to Enhance the Safety of People at Sea

SpaceX proposes to share Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (“GMDSS”)-

allocated spectrum in a manner that delivers competitive and reliable service to end users

consistent with ITU rules, including those related to GMDSS frequencies. While Inmarsat and

Iridium are two of the operators providing the GMDSS service today, nothing in the rules

forecloses more efficient sharing and increased competition to deliver these beneficial services.

Further, the Commission has affirmatively decided that the sorts of incumbent protections Inmarsat

78
See GPSIA Comments at 4 (expressing concern about the potential for interference in the 1559-1610 MHz band);
ASRI and IATA Comments at 8 (expressing concern about the potential for interference in the 1429-1660.5 MHz,
1680 MHz, and 2360-2395 MHz bands).
79
See AFTRCC Comments at 2 (expressing concern about the potential for interference in the 1435-1525 MHz and
the 2360-2395 MHz bands).

32
and Iridium claim must not continue forever, since perceptions of perpetual rights ultimately harm

innovation, competition, and quality of service for consumers, including those who rely on satellite

service for maritime distress.

IV. GRANTING SPACEX’S REQUEST FOR FLEXIBLE USE OF SPECTRUM IN FREQUENCY

BANDS THAT SHARE FSS AND MSS ALLOCATIONS WILL DELIVER MORE EFFICIENT,
INTENSIVE USE OF SHARED SATELLITE SPECTRUM

Consistent with past Commission licensing decisions 80 and broader policy objectives

supporting flexible use of spectrum, SpaceX requested to add MSS allocations to its currently

authorized FSS bands where the band share both allocations, and to make more productive use of

MSS “feeder link” allocations by using those bands to backhaul FSS traffic and to leverage excess

capacity to support its general FSS operations.

Eutelsat/OneWeb and DISH/EchoStar oppose SpaceX’s request for flexible use of these

frequencies, demanding that the Commission impose EPFD restrictions on SpaceX’s MSS

operations in those bands, even though the Commission has found that those EPFD restrictions are

harmful and even though those MSS operations have never faced such restrictions. 81

DISH/EchoStar claims that authorizing SpaceX to use MSS alongside FSS in bands that share both

allocations would allow SpaceX to avoid following FSS EPFD rules since MSS operations in those

bands must simply coordinate with FSS GSOs.82 But SpaceX has committed not to cause harmful

80
See, e.g., Kuiper Systems LLC, 35 FCC Rcd. 8324, ¶ 21 (2020) (“We find that it is in the public interest to grant
Kuiper’s request to provide MSS, in addition to FSS, in the 19.7-20.2 GHz and 29.5-30.0 GHz bands”); O3b
Limited, 33 FCC Rcd. 5508, ¶ 21 (2018) (“we find that it is in the public interest to grant O3b market access to
provide MSS, in addition to FSS, in the 19.7-20.2 GHz and 29.5-30.0 GHz frequency bands”).
81
Eutelsat/OneWeb Comments at 5-6; EchoStar Petition at 21-22.
82
EchoStar Petition at 21. EchoStar does not attempt to argue that the 14-14.5, 19.7-20.2, and 29.5-30 GHz bands
are not allocated for MSS operations, or that SpaceX cannot seek authorization to operate consistent with rules
for those bands. Nor does EchoStar acknowledge that the Commission has already authorized systems to conduct
the same MSS operations that SpaceX seeks here.

33
interference to GSO systems when operating in FSS, and like any other operator, should have the

ability to apply and operate under either service to the extent they meet the Commission’s

definitions and comply with the same rules. And while the Commission has previously applied

EPFD restrictions to MSS operations when it authorized Amazon Kuiper and O3b to operate on a

flexible basis in bands with both MSS and FSS allocations, those authorizations significantly

preceded the Commission’s finding that EPFD restrictions are outdated and harmful to consumers,

competition, and innovation.

Iridium separately challenges SpaceX’s request to make more productive use of FSS

frequencies that have been unduly and inefficiently limited to MSS feeder links. In its application,

SpaceX requests to use co-primary FSS spectrum identified for MSS feeder links both for its

authorized direct-to-cellular and requested MSS operations, but also to use any excess capacity to

support its FSS operations. SpaceX’s request to make more intensive and productive use of this

spectrum—which historically has been underused—will not only serve the primary intended

purpose of the band by supporting next-generation MSS services but also will ensure that any

excess capacity can be put to work more efficiently for more Americans. In this way, SpaceX’s

request aligns with the Space Bureau’s public policy goal to ensure that scarce, shared satellite

spectrum is used more intensively and efficiently to benefit consumers, and the Commission

should reject Iridium’s request to further restrict operations in the band.

V. THE UPGRADED GEN2 SYSTEM WILL EFFICIENTLY AND RESPONSIBLY SHARE ORBITAL
RESOURCES WITH OTHER OPERATORS

SpaceX has invested considerable engineering resources to design and operate robust,

resilient satellites that deliver the highest-quality satellite broadband for consumers and

responsibly sharing orbital resources with other operators. Among other innovations, SpaceX has

designed its satellites so they can operate at low, self-cleaning altitudes that enable extremely low

34
collision probabilities and rapid deorbit timeframes so that, in the rare case that a satellite fails in

space, that satellite will not persist as a source of debris. SpaceX pairs this resilient hardware

design with industry-leading collision avoidance practices, including automated collision

avoidance software, low maneuver thresholds, and a commitment to publicly sharing ephemerides,

reasonable covariance data, and periodic satellite health reports. And due to their low altitudes,

SpaceX has been able to rapidly learn and iterate to further improve the sustainability of its

systems, including by proactively retiring first-generation satellites and updating its systems to

better weather solar storms. And in addition to hardware and software, SpaceX engineers regularly

coordinate and collaborate with other NGSO satellites systems and federal agencies including

NASA and NSF to promote efficient, sustainable use of orbital resources now and into the future—

publicly sharing best practices along the way.

The results speak for themselves: across a combined 16,000 years of operations in space,

SpaceX has exhibited a 100% success for disposal within five years and no SpaceX satellite has

suffered from an accidental explosion or small debris collision resulting in a failed deorbit. Today,

with over 3,300 Gen2 satellites in space, the Gen2 system contributes no persistent debris. The

Gen2 upgrade will only improve the overall sustainability of the Gen2 system, and SpaceX has

shown in its application that its upgraded operations will continue to fall within the envelope of

the orbital debris mitigation plan that the Commission unanimously approved in the Gen2 Order

and subsequently reaffirmed through subsequent modification grants. By lowering its 500 km

altitudes into 400 km shells above the ISS, SpaceX’s operations will further improve upon the

already high reliability and sustainability of the Gen2 system.

35
 With SpaceX’s strong record of sustainable, transparent, and collaborative on-orbit

performance as a matter of public record, the continued attacks of high-risk foreign-authorized

systems like OneWeb and Viasat have revealed themselves as not merely false, but farce.

Viasat repeats the same baseless claims about “monopolization” of low-Earth orbits as it

makes to foreign administrations when it urges them to block the U.S. from licensing any NGSO

systems. But despite Viasat’s anti-competitive claims, the U.S. continues to have the most

stringent orbital debris rules in the world and SpaceX continues to be transparent, accommodating,

and forward-looking in its operations. 83 Just like the 100,000 vans in Amazon’s global delivery

fleet will not preclude other vehicles from the road, SpaceX’s proposed Gen2 system will not

preclude other satellite systems from the much vaster expanse of low-Earth orbit. In claiming

otherwise, Viasat demonstrates its precisely zero experience operating non-geostationary orbit

satellites.

Viasat also blatantly mischaracterizes SpaceX’s request for flexibility to deploy its

satellites such that SpaceX can keep pace with evolving consumer demand without the need to file

an endless stream of orbital configuration modifications that unnecessarily delay delivery of next-

generation satellite services to consumers. Again demonstrating a willful—or at least troublingly

ignorant—disregard for physics, Viasat falsely claims that SpaceX’s upgraded Gen2 system would

preclude other operators from using altitudes between 240 km and 714 km. 84 As an initial matter,

the Commission previously authorized SpaceX to operate two systems of satellites across a

significantly wider altitude range than what Viasat challenges here, from a V-band constellation

operating in part below the ISS up to a Ku/Ka-band Gen1 system operating in shells at 1,325

83
See Viasat Petition at 24.
84
See id.

36
kilometers (where Viasat proposes to operate). Since then, and contrary to Viasat’s baseless

suggestion here, SpaceX has continually sought to compress its orbital shells to use less space

more efficiently while providing better broadband to more consumers. SpaceX’s Applications

take this process even further by proposing to lower SpaceX’s Gen2 shells between 525 km and

535 km by 50 km to between 475 km and 485 km, significantly increasing the sustainability of

those shells while at the same time further reducing the orbital range of SpaceX’s Gen2 system

operations.

Viasat also faults SpaceX for requesting to operate within orbital tolerances that the ITU

has adopted as a matter of international law. But as SpaceX has shown and the Commission has

agreed, this flexibility is essential for space sustainability, and it would not serve the public interest

to constrain SpaceX’s on-orbit flexibility—or indeed any U.S.-licensed system—more than its

international competitors like Viasat. Further, as a practical matter, the vast majority of SpaceX’s

operational shells vary in apogee by only 1-2 km and perigee by only 1-2 km, and those operational

shells remain available on Space-Track.org to facilitate efficient coexistence between systems.

Moreover, SpaceX employs frozen orbits to allow shells to be layered close together and enforces

very tight station-keeping tolerances to minimize the distances between shells—as Viasat would

know if it had the capability to operate its own NGSO.

For its part, Amazon continues to argue that its system is still incapable of safely co-

existing with other operators in shared orbital shells, even though it was granted rights to share

orbits with other systems including thousands of Chinese satellites. 85 At this stage, the

Commission must finally decide whether it agrees that Amazon is building a system that is

85
See Comment of Kuiper Systems LLC, ICFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20200526-00055, SAT-AMD-20210818-
00105, SAT-AMD-20241017-00228, SAT-MOD-20241011-00224, Call Signs S3069/S2992 at 4 (“Amazon
Comments”).

37
incapable of sharing and restrict Amazon’s operations, or whether it believes Amazon can share

orbits and remove restrictions from SpaceX. Amazon cannot continue to have it both ways.

In any event, Amazon’s substantive arguments are easily proven wrong. For instance,

Amazon claims that the Commission must “preserve[] orbital separation” to avoid increasing “the

likelihood of conjunction and collision,” echoing Viasat’s similarly baseless demand for the

Commission to impose “lanes in space.” 86 Yet systems that employ collision avoidance, operate

transparently, and coordinate physical operations—as Amazon and SpaceX do—can minimize any

such risk. Indeed, the Commission has found that satellites with maneuverability—as Amazon’s

and SpaceX’s satellites are—can be assumed to have a collision probability of zero. Further

reducing the risk, SpaceX has always assumed primary responsibility for conducting conjunction

risk mitigation maneuvers and uses one of the most conservative maneuver thresholds of any other

operator globally. This low-risk approach makes operating in and through SpaceX’s shells

extremely safe and sustainable.

SpaceX has demonstrated its capabilities to operate efficiently and sustainably alongside

other NGSO operators and space objects within the altitudes covered by SpaceX’s existing and

proposed system. 87 Today, 850 objects other than debris or rocket bodies transit in and through

SpaceX’s shells above 500 km, and close to 600 of those objects launched after 2019. In addition,

SpaceX has also explained in its public satellite health reports how it has been able to quickly and

sustainably respond to debris events, including the 2021 Russian anti-satellite demonstration. By

contrast, over the last five years, Amazon has only launched two demonstration satellites, was not

able to orbit-raise either of them to their planned operational altitude, and then quickly deorbited

86
Id.
87
Gen2 Consolidated Opposition at 40.

38
them with little public explanation or transparency. Thus, while Amazon argues that its system

cannot operate in the same orbital altitudes as SpaceX above 580 km, SpaceX reiterates that it is

Amazon—not SpaceX—that has failed to demonstrate the ability to operate reliably on orbit, and

it is Amazon—not SpaceX—that seeks exclusive rights to operate in these shells. And if the reason

for Amazon’s request lies in its own insecurities about the reliability of its prospective system,

then the burden should fall on Amazon to update its satellites and demonstrate a track record of

reliability and sustainability before operating alongside thousands of planned Chinese satellites.

While Viasat and Amazon lack the experience or expertise to make credible claims about

space sustainability in low-Earth orbit, Eutelsat/OneWeb does operate NGSO satellites and should

have self-reflected before raising bad-faith concerns about SpaceX’s “spacecraft health and

disposal reliability.” 88 Notably, even though SpaceX has launched over 12 times as many satellites

as OneWeb, SpaceX has fewer dead or passively decaying satellites in space today than OneWeb,

whose failed satellites will remain a dangerous risk in orbit for thousands of combined years.

SpaceX’s Gen1 and Gen2 satellites also demonstrate better reliability, resilience to small debris

collisions, and prevention of accidental explosions than the metrics OneWeb has previously

requested the Commission apply to SpaceX’s Gen2 application, 89 metrics that OneWeb itself has

been unable to meet. And unlike Eutelsat/OneWeb, Viasat, and DISH/EchoStar, SpaceX does not

hide its orbital debris mitigation plans behind foreign licenses while seeking to impose heightened

burdens on American systems. Instead, SpaceX has repeatedly received Commission approval

and expert agency support for its space sustainability practices and has publicly reported to the

88
See Eutelsat/OneWeb Comments at 2.
89
See Comments of OneWeb, ICFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20200526-00055 and SAT-AMD-20210818-00105 at
(Feb. 8, 2022) at 12-16.

39
Commission on the efficacy of its collision avoidance system and space sustainability practices,

steps to continually improve them, and recommendations for others to improve their own practices.

SpaceX will continue to set the highest space sustainability standards for its operations,

often exceeding industry practice and Commission requirements. SpaceX will build upon these

practices with the upgraded Gen2 system by further compressing the altitude range within which

the system operates, employing ever-more-reliable hardware and software, and coordinating in

good faith with other systems to ensure long-term space sustainability for satellite systems and the

consumers they serve. SpaceX urges its competitors to direct their energy away from anti-

competitive attacks on responsible U.S. systems and toward improving the sustainability of their

own unreliable or unproven systems, including coordinating their operations with sufficient time

before launch.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, SpaceX requests that the Commission find that authorizing

SpaceX to update its Gen2 satellite system would serve the public interest and grant the Gen2

Upgrade Applications expeditiously.

40
 Respectfully submitted,

SPACE EXPLORATION HOLDINGS, LLC

By: _/s/ Jameson Dempsey

Jameson Dempsey
Director of Satellite Policy

SPACE EXPLORATION
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

1 Rocket Road
March 25, 2025 Hawthorne, CA 90250
310-682-9836 tel

41
 ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that I am the technically qualified person responsible for preparation of the

engineering information contained in this filing, that I am familiar with Part 25 of the

Commission’s rules, that I have either prepared or reviewed the engineering information submitted

in this filing, and that it is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

/s/ Zahid Islam

Zahid Islam, PhD
Principal RF Engineer
SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

March 25, 2025

Date
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on this 25th day of March, 2025, a copy of the foregoing pleading

was served via First Class mail upon:

Kimberly M. Baum Michael John Carlson

WorldVu Satellites Limited Kuiper Systems LLC
1785 Greensboro Station Place, Tower 3 525 14th Street S
McLean, VA 22102 Arlington, VA 22202

L. Barbee Ponder IV Stephen J. Berman

Globalstar, Inc. Lerman Senter PLLC
1351 Holiday Square Blvd. 2001 L Street, N.W., Suite 400
Covington, LA 70433 Washington, DC 20036

Suzanne Malloy Kara Leibin Azocar

Daniel C.H. Mah Iridium Constellation LLC
SES Americom, Inc./O3b Limited 1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1400
1129 20th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 McLean, VA 22102
Washington, DC 20036

Jarrett Taubman Fabirce Barbedette

Viasat, Inc. Eutelsat S.A.
901 K Street, N.W., Suite 400 32 Boulevard Gallieni
Washington, DC 20001 92130 Issy les Moulineaux
France
Jeffrey Blum Pantelis Michalopoulos
Alison Minea Andrew M. Golodny
Hadass Kogan Colleen McCroskey
EchoStar Corporation Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1110 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 450 1330 Connecticut Ave, N.W.
Washington DC 20005 Washington, D.C. 20036
David S. Keir Stephen Doiron
Lerman Senter PLLC Thuraya Telecommunications Company PJSC
2001 L Street, N.W., Suite 400 P.O. Box Dubai 283333
Washington, DC 20036

/s/ Ethan Kim

Ethan Kim