Letter from SpaceX to FCC: Dell Firm Agrees with SpaceX, OneWeb, and DirecTV on 12 Ghz

The firm paid by Michael Dell’s private trust fund to reach the opposite result, states: “Starlink terminals within the 5G coverage area typically suffered an exceedance”. Attached is a response filed today with the FCC by SpaceX on how—despite its unrealistic and misleading assumptions—the firm paid by Michael Dell’s private trust fund to reach the opposite result, agrees with the three separate studies by SpaceX, OneWeb, and DirecTV filed with the FCC each showing that existing users of the 12 GHz spectrum band will be detrimentally impacted and experience extensive harmful interference if Dish Network’s petition to hoard the 12 GHz spectrum band is granted, and the approximately 100,000 Americans from all 50 states across the country who have submitted letters to the FCC asking them to take action.

July 26, 2022
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission 45 L Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20554

Re: WT Docket No. 20-443; GN Docket No. 17-183 Dear Ms. Dortch:

The technical record in this proceeding is now unanimous—high-powered terrestrial operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band would effectively eliminate service for Americans that depend on satellite services using the band. This technical conclusion is not even in dispute. Moreover, given the MVDDS licensees’ frequent refrain that they plan to operate in a footprint that overlaps with satellite services and compete for the same customers,1 it seems the harm MVDDS licensees would cause to consumers of satellite services is not a bug in the rule changes they are demanding, but an anticompetitive feature.

“Starlink terminals within the 5G coverage area typically suffered an exceedance.”
The definitive conclusion above does not come from SpaceX or from the dozens of diverse organizations that have opposed MVDDS licensees’ attempt to change the rules to give themselves a windfall. Nor does it come from the nearly one hundred thousand Americans that pleaded with the Commission to protect their broadband service. Rather, that technical conclusion comes from RKF Engineering Solutions, LLC (“RKF”),2 the consultants paid by Michael Dell’s private trust fund to reach the opposite result. Despite its recent hand waving, even RKF admits that wherever terrestrial service overlaps with SpaceX’s terminals, interference levels will exceed RKF’s own harmful interference threshold. RKF’s model shows that for terrestrial base stations and satellite receivers operating in proximity to one another, exceedances can be 50 dB or more.3

But while RKF’s clients paid it to mislead the Commission and the public about the harm they intend to cause SpaceX’s customers, the 12 GHz Band is in reality heavily used by many services in addition to SpaceX. In fact, separate studies by OneWeb and DIRECTV show definitively that changing the rules on behalf of Dell’s trust fund and DISH would not just harm

1 See, e.g., Comments of MVDDS Licensees, WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket No. 17-183, at 20 (May 7, 2021) (“MVDDS Licensees Comments”) (“The introduction of mobile, two-way terrestrial services via the 12 GHz Band will allow MVDDS incumbents to compete with the likes of SpaceX in service of consumers.”)

2 Letter from V. Noah Campbell to Marlene H. Dortch, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attachment at 11 (June 1, 2022).

3 See RKF Engineering Solutions, LLC, The Effect of 5G Deployment on NGSO FSS Downlink Operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, at 27 (Figure 3-3) (“Revised RKF Report), as attached to Letter from V. Noah Campbell to Marlene H. Dortch, WT Docket No. 20-443 (May 19, 2022).

Americans using SpaceX’s services, but would also harm millions of Americans who depend on the 12 GHz Band for competing broadband services and direct-to-consumer satellite television.4 These technical showings have not been disputed.

In rejecting DISH’s initial petition to deny satellite customers services that use the 12 GHz Band, the Commission explicitly stated that it would add new rights to the band only if it could do so “without causing harmful interference to incumbent licensees.”5 Having concluded that a 12 GHz terrestrial system will interfere with satellite services operating in the same area, RKF attempts to pivot to a new question that is at odds with the Commission’s threshold for action— RKF claims that the service areas for the new terrestrial service will somehow be geographically distinct from the already ubiquitous satellite operations.

But this, too, is an easy issue to resolve in favor of existing users of the band. Terrestrial proponents uniformly envision on the record a ubiquitous terrestrial deployment,6 specifically extending to rural areas and other underserved portions of the country where RKF would relegate satellite operators.7 SpaceX is already providing service to hundreds of thousands American customers located in urban, suburban, and rural areas. And DIRECTV has millions of subscribers spread across all areas of the United States. Accordingly, based on this proceeding’s record, the Commission can conclude only that a new terrestrial service and existing satellite services in the 12 GHz band will have substantial overlap, and therefore new terrestrial transmitters will cause harmful interference to receivers used by existing and future satellite customers.

In an effort to escape this inescapable conclusion, RKF has undertaken an extended exercise in evasion, misdirection, and obfuscation, creating an untethered model based on unrealistic and misleading assumptions, including (but not limited to) the following:

• RKF makes the extraordinary assumption that people do not put their satellite dishes on their roofs where they get better reception. RKF assumes that nearly half (45%) of all NGSO antennas will be deployed at ground level,8 where “clutter” will attenuate the terrestrial signal and thus reduce interference, but the data that SpaceX has collected on its subscribers show that they overwhelmingly deploy their antennas on rooftops to enhance unobstructed access to satellites, just as DISH’s and DIRECTV’s customers do.

4 Letter from Stacy Fuller to Marlene H. Dortch, WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket No. 17-183 (July 18, 2022) (attaching and discussing DIRECTV study); Letter from Kimberly M. Baum to Marlene H. Dortch, WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket No. 17-183 (July 11, 2022) (attaching and discussing OneWeb study).

5 Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band, 36 FCC Rcd. 606, ¶ 2 (2021).

6 See, e.g., The Brattle Group, Valuing the 12 GHz Spectrum Band with Flexible Use Rights, at 15 (May 7, 2021) (analysis “assume[s] the terrestrial mobile operations in the 12 GHz band will be available ubiquitously”), as attached to Comments of RS Access, LLC, WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket No. 17-183, at Appendix B (May 7, 2021).

7 See, e.g., MVDDS Licensees Comments at 20 (with a mobile allocation, “all MVDDS license holders, including the MVDDS Licensees, DISH and RS Access, will be able to provide new 5G broadband services, particularly in rural areas”).

8 See Revised RKF Report at 4.

• RKF assumes that the currently-unspecified terrestrial network would cover only ten percent of the population,9 even though the Commission, by rule, typically requires coverage of seventy percent or more.10
• RKF assumes the terrestrial network will operate almost exclusively in densely populated areas,11 even though the terrestrial coalition that hired RKF envisions ubiquitous coverage and specifically targets service in rural areas.12
• RKF assumes that NGSO subscribers will be located almost exclusively outside of densely populated areas,13 but NGSO operators are licensed to deploy ubiquitously.14 Starlink, in particular, has customers in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the country.
• RKF understates terrestrial base station power, which causes interference, by assuming that terrestrial base stations would operate at a maximum power level that is one-tenth of the power that the Commission allows for similar systems under its rules.15

But as has been the case throughout this proceeding, RKF and its backers are willing to contradict themselves whenever convenient. Instead of the geographically separate services that RKF assumes in its model, the MVDDS licensees specifically intend to compete with the satellite services to which they would knowingly cause interference. For example, they claim:

[A]ll MVDDS license holders, including the MVDDS Licensees, DISH and RS Access, will be able to provide new 5G broadband services, particularly in rural areas. The introduction of mobile, two-way terrestrial services via the 12 GHz

9 See id. at 2.

10 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(h), (p)-(w) (establishing coverage requirements for WCS (75%), 2.3 GHz (75%), AWS-4 (70%), AWS-H Block (75%), AWS-3 (75%), 600 MHz (75%), EBS (80%), C-band (80%), and 3.45 GHz (80%)).

11 See, e.g., RKF Engineering Solutions, LLC, Assessment of Feasibility of Coexistence between NGSO FSS Earth Stations and 5G Operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, at 31-32 (May 2021) (“Original RKF Report”) (model places base stations in urban areas first and will reduce spacing in urban (but not rural) areas if necessary to accommodate all base stations), as attached to Comments of RS Access, LLC, WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket No. 17-183, Appendix A (May 7, 2021); Revised RKF Report at 8 (stating that terrestrial deployment assumptions carry over from original report).

12 See, e.g., Reply Comments of 5G for 12 GHz Coalition, WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket No. 17-183, at 11 (July 7, 2021) (“And according to MVDDS Licensees, ‘[m]any of the markets served by the MVDDS Licensees are in rural areas; updating the rules to permit 5G services in these areas would enable the MVDDS Licensees to help the U.S. lessen the digital divide.’” (citation omitted)).

13 See Original RKF Report at 21 (assuming that only 1.07% of SpaceX user terminals would operate in metropolitan areas); Revised RKF Report at 24 & n.63 (using same NGSO terminal quantity and distribution model from Original RKF Report at 21).

14 See, e.g., SpaceX Services, Inc., Radio Station Authorization, Call Sign E210127, IBFS File No. SES-LIC- 20210708-01019 (issued Nov. 10, 2021); WorldVu Satellites Limited, Radio Station Authorization, Call Sign E190727, IBFS File No. SES-LIC-20190930-01217 (issued Mar. 29, 2021).

15 Compare Revised RKF Report at 7 (assuming 65 dBm maximum power) with Original RKF Report at 34 & n.63 (assuming 75 dBm maximum power, citing 47 C.F.R. § 30.202(a)).

Band will allow MVDDS incumbents to compete with the likes of SpaceX in service of consumers.16

They later elaborated that “[a]dopting the MVDDS Rule Changes will give MVDDS incumbents the ability to compete with NGSOs—allowing consumers, particularly in rural areas, additional access to needed competition.”17

In other words, the MVDSS licensees fully intend to provide service in the same geographic footprint as satellite services, knowing full well that doing so would result in interference that would essentially eliminate their competition.
This sort of misleading, anti-competitive, anti-consumer ploy cannot be allowed to stand. The Commission should listen to the nearly one hundred thousand consumers demanding their service be protected, remove the MVDDS encumbrances from the 12 GHz Band, and close this proceeding.

Sincerely,

/s/ David Goldman
David Goldman
Senior Director, Satellite Policy
SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 1155 F Street, NW
Suite 475
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: 202-649-2691
Email: David.Goldman@spacex.com

16 MVDDS Licensees Comments at 20; see also id. at 14 (“[T]he adoption of the MVDDS Rule Changes would have the positive effect of increasing broadband competition – particularly in rural areas.”).

17 Joint Reply Comments of the MVDDS Licensees and the Supporting Companies, WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket No. 17-183, at 5-6 (July 7, 2021).