Amazon and Spacex are fighting again. Now Amazon has sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging the federal regulator to grant an extension for its Starlink competitor, Leo.
The 22-page letter sent by Amazon argues that it is only Spacex that opposes Amazon Leo’s proposal. FCC has mandated that Amazon to launch 1,600 satellites by July 30. If the Amazon fails to meet this deadline, it risks losing the authority to launch any new satellites for its planned constellation of 3,200, hurting its broadband coverage. Amazon expects to fall far short of the requirement, so in January it had asked the FCC to grant a 24-month extension or a waiver that Spacex is opposing.
Spacex has called on the FCC to avoid giving any “special treatment” to Amazon. In its filing with FCC, Amazon wrote that Spacex is the “sole commenter disagreeing” with the extension request.
Here are the key excerpts of the letter sent by Amazon with the subject: Response of Amazon Leo in application of Kuiper Systems for extension or waiver of ‘Milestone Deadline’
Well into full-scale deployment, Amazon Leo continues to expand rapidly. It is building more satellites per week than most operators make or buy in a lifetime and launching them with scores of scheduled missions on a $10 billion launch manifest—booked at a rapid cadence of several launches per month.
While Amazon Leo has made significant progress, it is nonetheless falling short of the Federal Communications Commission’s (“Commission”) interim milestone to deploy half of its first-generation system by July 30 of this year.
Reaching this point required Amazon Leo to invest heavily to break through an unprecedented logjam in commercial launch capacity. That effort required not only securing a diversified portfolio of launches—well beyond what is needed to deploy the full Amazon Leo system—but also building a massive, multi-vendor infrastructure that has bolstered the launch industry and will strengthen U.S.
space leadership long after the Amazon Leo system is fully deployed.Against this backdrop, Amazon Leo is seeking the same type of milestone relief that nearly every major satellite operator has at some point requested since the Commission adopted its milestone framework, including Viasat, Hughes, SES, and Telesat, among others. Amazon Leo’s request demonstrates substantial progress and investment, as well as a clear commitment to full deployment.
In fact, Amazon Leo has already demonstrated deployment at a scale that exceeds all prior extension grants combined.No reasonable observer could conclude that Amazon Leo is engaged in spectrum warehousing—the practice of sitting on valuable spectrum resources that the milestone rules are intended to prevent. Rather than promoting deployment and the efficient use of spectrum, strict enforcement of the Commission’s milestone rules would hinder deployment and discourage operators from licensing innovative and ambitious new systems in the United States.
For these and other reasons, a broad group of industry stakeholders all support relief so that Amazon Leo can continue to advance in its mission to deliver high-speed, low-latency broadband services to customers around the world. Commenters supporting Amazon Leo’s requested extension include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Computer & Communications Industry Association (“CCIA”), International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”), Lexington Institute, and ITI Space Enterprise Council.Consistent with decades of Commission precedent, Amazon Leo’s request demonstrates that an extension would yield overriding public interest benefits, that unforeseeable circumstances beyond its control necessitate the extension, and that strict enforcement would undermine the purpose of the milestone rule. Standing alone, each of these factors independently justify Amazon Leo’s requested relief.The sole commenter disagreeing with this conclusion is Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (“SpaceX”), which argues that Amazon Leo’s requested extension amounts to a technical design change that would create “significant interference problems” for other constellations.
Rather than engaging with the Commission’s precedent on extensions or the policy rationale behind milestones, SpaceX instead relies on precedent governing license modifications that involve technical design changes—precedent that does not apply here—as grounds for moving Amazon Leo to a later processing round.
But the Commission’s rules and more than two decades of consistent practice require granting meritorious extension requests without any loss of processing round status, and for good reason. First, Amazon Leo does not request a change to its system design; it seeks more time to deploy the system the Commission has licensed. The Commission’s milestone rules therefore apply—not the Teledesic decision governing technical design changes. Second, even if Teledesic were relevant, a longer deployment period results in fewer deployed satellites capable of causing interference, and therefore less overall interference—not more.
Moreover, a loss of processing round status produces the same practical effect as a denial: it strips the undeployed portion of a constellation of priority and forces it to operate under a new license subordinate to the processing round in which it was originally authorized. Applying Teledesic in the manner SpaceX proposes would effectively eliminate the availability of the Commission’s milestone-extension framework to licensees—an outcome that would chill investment in space innovation and violate fundamental precepts of administrative law.
Amazon Leo therefore respectfully urges the Commission to reject this proposed alternative remedy.
Record overwhelmingly supports a 24-month extension under Section 25.117 (e)
Section 25.117(e) of the Commission’s rules permits the extension of a milestone when “additional time is required due to unforeseeable circumstances beyond the applicant’s control” or “unique and overriding public interest concerns justify an extension.” The record demonstrates that Amazon Leo merits an extension under either prong of this rule.
Alternatively, Waiver is appropriate
In addition to meeting both prongs of Section 25.117(e), Amazon Leo also satisfies the standard for waiver of the interim milestone requirement under Section 1.3.28 Specifically, good cause exists to find that “deviation from the general rule . . . would better serve the public interest than would strict adherence to the general rule,”29 and would result in “more effective implementation of overall policy.”30Here, adherence to the Commission’s milestone rule would thwart, not further, its purpose.
As the record reflects, the Commission adopted its milestone rules to prevent spectrum warehousing,31 not to halt or deter deployment of satellites in an actively growing constellation. Amazon Leo’s active manufacturing and launching of satellites and significant investments in its system infrastructure belie warehousing concerns here.
Amazon Leo is unaware of any example of the Commission denying an extension or waiver request by an operator that had already begun manufacturing, launching, and deploying satellites.
Arguments Against an Extension or for Alternate Relief Lack Merit
The only commenter to object to Amazon Leo’s request, SpaceX, raises several arguments but ultimately stops short of calling for a denial. Instead, it argues that the Commission should treat Amazon Leo’s request as a modification under Teledesic and defer the undeployed portion of the Amazon Leo system to a later processing round.To the extent these arguments are directed at the merits of Amazon Leo’s request, they provide no reason to deny relief under the Commission’s extension standard or precedent.
With respect to SpaceX’s proposal for alternate relief, its reliance on Teledesic is misplaced, contrary to the Commission’s rules, and unsupported by Commission precedent.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Amazon Leo encourages the Commission to grant the instant request for extension or waiver expeditiously and allow Amazon Leo to continue deploying its satellite broadband system and working to connect the unconnected without interruption or a priority downgrade.
