There was a fierce fight between SpaceX and Amazon over a petition to the FCC. The petition, submitted by Amazon, asks the FCC to amend the rules governing the application of existing non geostationary fixed satellite service (NGSO FSS) Internet service providers. < / P > < p > Amazon has developed a set of parameters for FCC’s consideration regarding the application of rule 25.117, which it believes has stifled industry competition and allowed service providers to upgrade their systems at the expense of competitors who intend to introduce such systems in the future. < / P > < p > today, SpaceX and Amazon both submitted new responses to the FCC’s note on the matter (rm-11861). The arguments provided by the two companies are again in focus. The responses quoted comments from other entities in the NGSO FSS field, which were used by representatives of both companies to support their arguments. < p > < p > the FCC’s current method of evaluating NGSO FSS system modification applications follows the standards set by teledesic LLC in 1999 when it approved the modification of its NGSO FSS system. Teledesic was authorized to launch 840 Ka band satellites for Internet service. After selecting Boeing as its main satellite supplier, teledesic revised its application to reflect the parameters of Boeing products. The FCC said in its decision that the amendment should be approved as it would not cause interference to other satellite operators (the primary geostationary operator) and was considered to be in the public interest. < / P > < p > in a recent review, Amazon claims that these two factors are outdated and do not apply to the current maturity of NGSO FSS. The company also cited comments from O3b, oneweb and telesat in rm-11861. < / P > < p > in their comments, the three companies not only felt that the current rules were too broad in nature, but also that they could significantly upgrade their systems by submitting a series of individual, seemingly small, but significant changes to the whole, to the detriment of competitors who want to introduce such upgrades in subsequent applications. < p > < p > for example, O3b said that “the decision of teledesic in 1999 was too vague to fully cope with the dynamic NGSO FSS industry and the subsequent spectrum sharing problems”, and telesat believed that the current standard was too general;. In response to Amazon’s initial rulemaking application, SpaceX made a proposal to the FCC, asking the committee to specify in the rules that all modifications should be approved unless they cause significant interference, while modifications that substantially increase the number of satellites in the constellation are considered as major interference. Amazon’s comments today are directed at SpaceX. < / P > < p > Amazon claims that the SpaceX proposal is not properly evaluated on the basis of the criteria for significant interference, and more importantly, it provides an incentive for applicants to submit speculative applications that cause the most interference, and the number of satellites applied exceeds the standard. < / P > < p > in a new comment, SpaceX continues to point out that Amazon’s proposed rules will impede innovation in the NGSO FSS division. Building on previous arguments, the company noted that few commentators supported the proposed rule, while among those who expressed support, they relied on vague arguments. < / P > < p > it cites comments from telesat, viasat, and oneweb as evidence that reviewers lack support for Amazon’s recommendations. In a comment released last month, telesat pointed out that Amazon’s proposal did not take into account the complexity of interference analysis, and viasat rejected the company’s claim. Chinese version of K-car: reading a10e design drawing exposure