Opposition to Amendment (June 07, 1995)

4682-EX-PL-1995 Text Documents

FINAL ANALYSIS, INC.

2000-04-12ELS_34935

RECEIVED SHaAw, PiTTMmaAN, PoTtTs & TRoOWBRIDGE JUN — 71995 A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS m mmm OF SECRETARY 2300 N STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037—1128 (202) ees—8000 FACSIMILE (202) 663—8007 900 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022—4722 (212) s3a6—4200 JILL ABESHOUSE STERAN FACSIMILE (202) 663—8380 (212) 836—4201 June 7, 1995 Mr. William F. Caton Secretary Federal Communications Commission c 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 222 Washington, DC 20554 Re: Final Analysis, Inc. Experimental Applications 1 —EX—PL— —EX—PL— —EX—PL— Dear Mr. Caton: On behalf of CTA Commercial Systems, Inc., I am transmitting herewith an original and four copies of its Opposition to Amendment with respect to the above— referenced matter. Should there be any questions concerning this matter, kindly communicate with the undersigned. Sincerely, i Ctze. ill Abeshouse Stern Attachments 59258

RECEIVED JUN — 7 1995 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION mm&mm%mm Washington, DC 20554 SEChET In the Matter of FINAL ANALYSIS, INC. File Nos. 4682—EX—PL—95 4680—EX—PL—95 Applications For Authority to Establish a 4683—EX—PL—95 Low—Earth Orbit Satellite, to Modify a Fixed Ground Station, and to Establish 9,240 Remote Terminals in the Experi— mental Radio Service OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL CTA Commercial Systems, Inc. ("CTA"), by its attorneys, hereby opposes the May 25, 1995 amendment of Final Analysis, Inc. ("FAI") to its above—captioned applications for licens— ing of a new experimental satellite, modification of a master ground station at Logan, Utah, and authorization of new remote mobile terminals at various locations throughout the United States. Following the opposition of CTA and other parties to grant of its experimental applica— tions, FAI has amended those applications to change the proposed operating frequencies and to reduce the number of mobile terminals from 9,240 to 1,848. These changes do not assuage the concerns expressed in CTA‘s April 27, 1995 Opposition. In its Opposition, CTA made clear that FAI‘S experimental license applications have no relation to the joint efforts underway by the Lit— tle LEO applicants to identify suitable frequencies for allocation at WRC—95. To the contrary,

FAI has proceeded independently, without consulting the other applicants, to use the joint techni— cal work of the Little LEO parties for its own commercial benefit. Although FAI purports to ad— dress CTA‘s concerns in its May 25, 1995 amendment, it fails to do so. Indeed, the amendment further confirms FAl‘s true intentions of introducing a commercial business under the guise of an experimental license. 1. Number of Terminals. In its initial applications, FAI requested 9,240 mobile terminals. CTA pointed out, in its April 27 opposition, that this excessive number of terminals cannot be justified on the basis of the proposed experimental program. In fact, if FAl‘s true objective were to assess the level of us— age in various bands, only a receiver, not a transmitter, would be required. At most, only a few hundred terminals can be justified to confirm the ability to operate in selected bands. Although FAI has now reduced the number of requested terminals, from 9, 240 to 1,848, there is still no justification for this large number of terminals. FAl‘s attempt to correlate the number of termi— nals to the population in each region to be tested is unavailing. There is no correlation whatso— ever between the population of various regions and the number of terminals needed for spectrum analysis. 2. Frequencies. In its amendment, FAI has also revised the proposed frequencies for which experimental licensing is sought. FAI claims to have changed the frequencies to conform to the spectrum pro— posals developed by the Little LEO applicants in the Joint Supplemental Reply Comments filed with the Commission on May 18, 1995 in IC Docket No. 94—31. Although FAJI has identified —3

several of the bands identified in the Joint Supplemental Reply Comments, it must again be em— phasized that this should not be construed as support by the other applicants for FAl‘s applications. It bears emphasis that the proposed frequencies in the May 18 filing were initial proposals that have not yet been endorsed by the Commission. The Commission is not expected to adopt an Order in IC Docket No. 94—3 1 until later in June. In the meantime, several of the frequencies identified by FAI have been rejected by NTIA, in discussions with the applicants, as unsuitable for sharing and discussions with respect to the use of government spectrum are still ongoing. This underscores the premature nature of FAl‘s proposal. Nor has FAI addressed the legitimate concerns expressed by other applicants that FAl‘s proposed launch schedule is too late to be useful in the WRC—95 effort. As noted, spectrum pro— posals are being finalized this month and will be the subject of multi—lateral and bi—lateral discus— sions over the summer. FAlI‘s satellite will be launched and operational after this process has taken place, too late to provide useful information. For these reasons, the Commission should defer processing of FAlI‘s application, at a minimum, until it becomes clear which bands are supported by the United States and ultimately allocated at WRC—95. At that point, it will be possible to assess the specific frequencies avail— able for the Little LEOs. In short, FAl‘s May 25, 1995 amendment fails to cure the deficiencies in its experimental applications previously noted by CTA and other Little LEO applicants. Given the deficiencies in o3 —

FAT‘s applications, which the amendment fails to address, the Commission must deny those ap— plications or, at a minimum, defer action on the applications pending the outcome of WRC—95 and clarification of the Little LEO spectrum issues. Respectfully submitted, CTA COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS, INC. By@ me/(ww»‘l 346/»_ iH Abeshouse Stern Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663—8380 Its Attorneys June 7, 1995

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,%&rg g%ég/,‘ do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by hand or by first—class mail, postage prepaid on this day of June, 1995, on the following persons: * Scott Blake Harris Chief, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 830 Washington, D.C. 20554 * Kristi Kendall, Esq. Satellite Policy Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 830 Washington, D.C. 20554 * H. Franklin Wright Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 230 Washington, D.C. 20554 * John Morgan Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N. W., Room 230 Washington, D.C. 20554 Albert J. Catalano Ronald J. Jarvis Catalano & Jarvis, P.C. 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007 (Counsel for Final Analysis, Inc.) Robert A. Mazer, Esquire Rosenman & Colin 1300 19th Street, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 (Counsel for Leo One USA)

Raul R. Rodriguez Stephen D. Baruch Leventhal, Senter & Lerman 2000 K Street, N. W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 (Counsel for STARSYS) *Served by hand 178552—01 / DOCSDC1

RECEIVED ‘JUN — 71995 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION orSecaeTart Washington, DC 20554 In re Application of ) ) Final Analysis, Inc. ) File Nos. 4682—EX—PL—95 ) 4680—EX—PL—95 For Authority to Establish a Low—Earth ) 4683—EX—PL—95 qC Orbit Satellite, to Modify a Fixed Ground ) a_0¥ Station, and to Establish 9,240 Remote ) c ~ 2" Mobile Terminals in the Experimental ) | L* Radio Services ) To: Chief Engineer: COMMENTS On April 17, 1995 Leo One USA Corporation ("Leo One USA") filed with the Commission a Petition to Deny the above—captioned application submitted by Final Analysis, Inc. ("FAI"). In this Petition, Leo One USA questioned the purpose of the proposed FAI experimental program. Specifically, Leo One USA demonstrated that it was not necessary to launch a satellite or operate 9,240 transceivers to obtain information on terrestrial interference into the Non—Voice, Non Geostationary Mobile Satellite Service ("NVNG MSS") downlink transmissions. Additionally, even if this information were valuable, given the timeframe to construct, launch and analyze the data, it is totally unrealistic to believe that it could aide in the discussions at the upcoming World Radiocommunications Conference ("WRC") to be held in Geneva beginning on October 22, 1995. Finally, Leo One USA observed that the frequencies proposed to be analyzed by FAI differed from those considered by the Industry Advisory

—2 _ Committee ("IAC"). Given these relevant facts, Leo One USA fairly presumed that the FAI proposal while cloaked in experimental clothing actually had a commercial purpose. In response to the filings of Leo One USA, CTA Commercial Systems, Inc. ("CTA") and STARYSYS Global Positioning, Inc. ("STARSYS"), FAI on May 25, 1995 amended its experimental ‘application to eliminate some of its more egregious components. Specifically, FAI has lowered the number of transceivers requested from 9,240 to 1,848 and changed the frequencies to be analyzed from 153—162 MHz to the 450—460 MHz band. It also added a 30 kHz channel in the 137 MHz band. Even with these changes, Leo One USA continues to oppose the FAI experimental application. Leo One USA fully supports the use of experimental satellite programs to determine the impact of terrestrial interference into the uplink receiver. It further believes that this information could be extremely valuable to discussions regarding frequency allocations. Nevertheless, Leo One USA remains unconvinced that the purpose of the proposed FAI experimental satellite is to obtain technical analysis to be used at WRC—95. This is for several reasons. First, it is impossible to see how the information could be gathered and analyzed in a meaningful way to be useful in discussions preceding WRC—95. Presuming that FAI has not engaged in premature construction, it is impossible to build a satellite, prepare the satellite for launch, transport the satellite to a launch site, test the satellite in—orbit, bring it into operational use and conduct meaningful data collection in a statistically significant manner in less than five months. This fact alone demonstrates that FAI is not being completely honest in describing the purpose of its experimental program. 4103747.01

_3 _ Second, it remains a mystery why FAlI needs 1,848 remote terminals. As Leo One USA stated in its Petition to Deny, in order to evaluate the potential for interference into the NVNG MSS downlink receivers "it is not necessary to launch a sétellite or operate a single transceiver." This is because the level of terrestrial interference into a NVNG MSS downlink is more accurat;ely measured terrestrially. ‘ Leo One USA does believe that it would be helpful to determine the level of interference into the uplink receiver at the satellite. It would be quite useful to determine the noise level at the satellite and the number of open terrestrial channels within a satellite footprint. Leo One USA fails to understand how the use of 1,848 remote terminals will assist in this endeavor. A frequency analyzer on the satellite will provide all the relevant information needed to determine the level terrestrial interference into the uplink receiver and the number available channels. Although, Leo One USA continues to oppose the FAI experimental application, it does believe that the NVNGA MSS proponents should work together to develop meaningful data on the interference environment. Given the limited time available, it does not seem possible to develop an in—space experimental program before the WRC. Nevertheless, Leo One USA is prepared to work with FAI and other proponents to develop relevant information to support U.S. interests at WRC—95. ‘ Leo One USA Petition to Deny at 7. This is precisely the analysis that Leo One USA has undertaken and submitted to the Commission with its reply comments to the Second Notice of Inquiry in the FCC WRC proceeding. Leo One USA is continuing to collect and analyze information on the interference environment in bands below 500 MHz and will submit a follow—on report of its finding to the Commission shortly. 4103747.01

—4— CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Leo One USA continues to oppose the experimental application of FALI. zctfully submitted, Robert A. Mazer Rosenman & Colin 1300 19th Street, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 463—4645 June 7, 1995 Attorney for Leo One USA Corporation 4103747.01

CERTIEFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert A. Mazer, to hereby certify that the foregoing "Comments" of Leo One USA Corporation was served by hand or first—class mail, postage prepaid, on this 7th day of June, 1995, on the following persons: Scott Blake Harris, Chief* Albert Halprin, Esq. International Bureau Halprin, Temple & Goodman Federal Communications Commission Suite 650 East Tower 2000 M Street, N.W.,Room 800 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20005 (Counsel for ORBCOMM) Thomas S. Tycz, Chief* Satellite & Radiocommunication Division Raul R. Rodriguez, Esq. International Bureau Leventhal, Senter & Lerman Federal Communications Commission 2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600 2000 M Street, N.W. Room 520 Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20554 (Counsel for STARSYS) Cecily C. Holiday, Deputy Chief* Henry Goldberg, Esq. Satellite & Radiocommunication Division Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright International Bureau 1229 19th Street, N.W. Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20036 2000 M Street, N.W. Room 520 (Counsel for VITA) Washington, DC 20554 Julie T. Barton, Esq. Fern J. Jarmulnek, Chief* Hogan & Hartson Satellite Policy Branch 555 Thirteenth St., N.W. Satellite & Radiocommunication Division Washington, D.C. 20004 International Bureau (Counsel for GE Americom) Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., Fifth Floor Leslie A. Taylor, Esq. Washington, DC 20554 Leslie Taylor Associates 6800 Carlynn Court Bethesda, MD 20817—4301 Ms. Kristi Kendall* (Counsel for E—Sat, Inc.) Satellite Policy Branch Satellite & Radiocommunication Division Albert J. Catalano, Esq. International Bureau Ronald J. Jarvis, Esq. Federal Communications Commission Catalano & Jarvis, P.C. 2000 M Street, N.W., Fifth Floor 1101 30th Street, N.W.,Ste. 300 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20007 (Counsel for Final Analysis) * Hand Delivery

Jill Abeshouse Stern, Esq. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 (Counsel for CTA) MMMim Robert A. Mazer


Document Created: 2001-07-30 18:57:19
Document Modified: 2001-07-30 18:57:19
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC