Petition to deny Application (March 24, 1999)

0100-EX-RR-1999 Text Documents

Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc.

1999-11-10ELS_23133

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 In re N N Ne Ne N No N Nulr Application of FCC File No. 0100—EX—RR—1999 Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. For Renewal of Experimental Authorization, Call Sign K12XEE PETITION TO DENY APPLICATION The Association of American Railroads ("AAR"), and Consortium Digital Microwave System {"CDMS"), by their attorneys, hereby jointly petition the Commission | to deny the ;bove-captioned application of 'I\;Iavritime Telecommunications Nétwork, Inc. ("MTN") filed on January 22, 1999.4 in support of this petition, AAR and CDMS hereby state as follows: 1. AAR and CDMS, through their members, operate point—to—point microwave éommuniéation systems in the Fixed Service in the same frequency bands in which MTN seeks renewal for its experimental authorization, i.e., 5924—6425 MHz, in the vicinity of the port and coast areas where MTN‘s customers operate ships equipped with MTN‘s shipboard earth stations ("SESs"). In this regard, AAR and CDMS both 3 As part of its application for renewal of its experimental authorization, MTN reiterated a request that the Commission act favorably on its pending "Petition for Partial Reconsideration" of the Commission‘s denial on November 21, 1997, of MTN‘s request for authority to expand the number of Shipboard Earth Stations (SESs) from 45 to 250. in a separate filing, AAR and CDMS are opposing MTN‘s "Petition for Partial Reconsideration."

—2 filed petitions to deny MTN‘s 32 applications for permanent authority for "Fixed" SES operation at dockside tlocations in 17 port cities in the U.S.* AAR and CDMS hereby incorporate by reference their petitions to deny the MTN applications for permanent | authority. 2. MTN‘s SES facilities currently operate pursuant to the experimental and special temporary authorizations issued pursuant to delegated authority by the Commission‘s staff to MTN‘s predecessor, Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc. (see Order released April 29, 1996, 11 FCC Red 10944 (OET, IB 1996), hereafter »“Qgeicgm”). In allowing MTN‘s predecessor to conduct experimental operations in this band, the Commission specifically noted that "private operational fixed and commercial microwave services" operate in this band, and that these services "carry myriad public and private business communications, and cannot tolerate harmful interference from MSS earth stations." Crescomm, supra at 10948. The staff also noted specifically that "the mobile nature of MSS stations makes it extremely difficult to prevent harmful interference and to identify the interference source," noting in particular "the pc;tential for harmful interferencé from the shipboard uplink transmissions to fixed stations ofi land." Id. at 10949. To ensure that the MTN operations protect existing users in the band, the Commission imposed a requirement "that the MSS applicants cooperate in eétablishing interference assessment and prevention procedures." Importantly, the grant was conditioned upon those requirements. [d. at 10949. ¥ AAR and CDMS Petitions to Deny, filed on December 18, 1998 and March 5, 1999 (File Nos. SES—LIC—19980911—01272, et al. seq.) Copies of the March 5 Petitions are attached hereto as Attachments A and B.

—3_ 3. Experimental authorizations are, of course, secondary in nature, which means that they may not cause interference to primary stationsin the band. In order for that prohibition to be meaningful, it is necessary that interference from the MTN ESV operations be identifiable. Given the moving nature of the ship—based transmitters, this is not easily achieved, as has been recognized by the Commission previously. In its applications for permanent authority and in its "Petition for Partial Reconsideration," MTN claims that there have been. "no reports of harmful interference" due to MTN‘s operations." However, this is a hollow claim because it is virtually impossible to detect whether or not SES operations are responsible for interference events unless the FS system operators know in advance where the ships will bé and when they Will be there. When a moving ESV transmitter causes interference to a Fixed Service link, the FS operator has no recourse unless it can be detected or identified as the source of the harmful interference.* The ESV transmitter moves on, never to be identified as the source of the harmful interference. .4. FS interference events have occurred to licensees in the 5924—6425 MHz and at several coastal and port locations during the previous experimental license term. When reported to equipment vendors, these events have been found not to be due to internal causes such as equipment failure, mis—instaliation, or emissions from ¥ See, e.g., MTN Petition for Partial Reconsideration in File No. 5633—EX— PL—97, filed December 19, 1997, at 3. 4 This is because the FS operator would have to shut down his transmitter in order to "listen" with the receiver to ascertain the source of the interfering signal. Obviously, railroad, public safety and other critical operations cannot be shut down for those purposes.

—4— collocated facilities or nearby fixed sources. However, for reasons explained below, it was not possible to identify the actual sources of the interference. 5. Recent events have come to light indicating that MTN has not abided by the requirements and conditions imposed in the initial grant to its predecessor, Crescomm and that it has no intention of doing so in the future. Efforts by the railroad industry to obtain information deemed critical for purposes of identifying ESV operations as the source of interference events have not succeed. See exchange of correspondence between counsel for AAR and counsel for MTN, dated February 8, 1999, March 4, 1999 _ and March 5, 1999 (attached to AAR‘s March 5 Petition to Deny; see Attachment A hereto). In ordc_ar to appreciate the importance of the inférmation sought by AAR, it is necessary to understénd the nature of Fixed Service operations and ;thebmar;ner in which a particular interference source is identified. Typically, when a point—to—point microwave link ceases to operate properly, the first procedure is to check all equipment to ensure that the outage is not caused by an equipment failure. Often this will involve contact with the equipment vendor (or vendors). If all of the equipment checks out as satisfactory, then the microwave operator undertakes a search for an external interference source. Of course, this involves shutting down FS operations so that the FS operator can "listen" for the interference source with a spectrum analyzer. During this time, routine operational transmission on the link must cease which, in the case of the railroads, translates directly into train stoppages and train delays, and, in the case of off—shore petroleum and pipeline operations, translates directly into compromised operational safety. Only after a period of such monitoring can identification of an

— 5. external interference source occur, following which the microwave operator will either contact the frequency coordinating organization or the FCC to address and resolve the interference problem. 6. The challenge of the foregoing procedure is exacerbated greatly if the source of the interference is mobile in nature. Because of the mobility of the SES terminals, a shipboard transmitter in the 6 GHz band coming into a port under very low speed may be the cause of a nearby microwave link outage today, only to be completely undetectable tomorrow because the vessel would have moved to another location. Under these circumstances, it is absolutely vital for the FS community to be khowledgeable of the schedules and routes of all SES—equipped vessels in advance so that they can better correlate link outages with the presence of SES—equipped vessels in the vicinity. in the absence of such information, any such correlation is impossible, and, therefore, any claim by MTN that it has not caused any interference to existing FS operations is utterly meaningless. | 7. MTN has essentially denied AAR‘s request for such information, claiming that assembling it would be "time consuming, burdensome and not productive."*" MTN‘s proposed solution is for the FS operators to provide information to MTN if they are experiencing unidentified sources of interference, whereupon MTN claims that it will be "willing to investigate to see if any of the SES‘s have caused such interference."*" Of § MTN Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny, filed March 18, 1999, at 29. & Id.

—6— course, MTN has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to admit that its operations were the cause of interference, and its proposed solution is tantamount to appointing the fox as the guardian of the chicken coop. in this regard, MTN appears to be unaware that, in its capacity as an experimental licensee, its operations are secondary and that it bears the burden of cooperation with primary status licensees and the burden of proof with respect to its experiment, i.e., that it can conduct its operations without causing harmful interference to existing users. For MTN to complain that these requirements are "unreasonably burdensome" and "onerous" constitutes clear and convincing evidence that MTN is not entitled to hold an experimental license issued by this agency. Accgrdi_ngly, ‘its renewal applicafion should be _denired. 20— cew 8. A final reason why the 'MTN experiméntal license shouldnot be reneWed is | that the 100 km restriction established in paragraph 11 of the Crescomm decision is inadequate for protecting Fix_ed Service receivers. As demonstrated in the Engineering Statement attached hereto as Attachment C, there is insufficient technical support to — rely on a 100 km distance to ensure the interference protection for Fixed Service stations pursuant to Section 101.105 of the Commission‘s rules. In short, the "blanket restriction" adopted in 1996 which prohibits MTN‘s SES transmitters from operating without prior coordination when they are within 100 km of land is insufficient for purposes of preventing the risk of harmful interference to FS stations. .

9. In conclusion, because MTN has not provided the FS community with the information necessary to enable detection and prevention of interference from its SES operations, and because of the inadequacy of the 100 km offshore restriction imposed as part of MTN‘s original experimental license, MTN‘s renewal application should be denied. Respectfully submitted, CONSORTIUM DIGITAL MICROWAVE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN SYSTEM %«—‘/ RAILROADS lian L. Shepard( /y Thomas J. Keller Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, Chartered and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, NW. 901 15th Street, NW. Suite 700 Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005—2301 Washington, D.C. 20005—2301 Its Attorneys Its Attorneys March 24, 1999 Attachments (3)

ATTACHMENT A BEFORE THE btg O&[/ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION A_ 62) WASHINGTON, DC 20554 \ @ as J 0@% In the Matter of File Nos. 10 O# Applications of SES—LIC—19980911—01272; Maritime Telecommunications SES—LIC—19980911—01275 to 01286; Network, Inc. For Authority SES—LLIC—19980911—01289; to Operate Shipboard Satellite SES—LIC—19980911—01291 to 01297; Earth Stations SES—LIC—19980911—01299 to 01306; SES—LIC—19981019—01468 PETITION TO DENY The Association of American Railroads ("AAR"), by its undersigned counsel, hereby petitions the Commission to deny the above—captioned applications of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. ("MTN"), announced by Public Notice, Report No. Report No. SES—00049, released February 3, 1999. in further support of this petition, AAR refers to the petition in this matter filed today on behalf of the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition ("FWCC"), of which AAR is a member; AAR incorporates herein by reference the FWCC petition. I. ©INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The MTN applications should be denied for three reasons. First, they propose to use the Fixed Satellite Service and Fixed Service ("FS") frequencies for mobile operations, a use that is inconsistent with the Commission‘s regulations. Second, MTN has not demonstrated that its use of the frequencies in the manner proposed will protect FS receivers from interference. And third, MTN‘s proposal will have the serious adverse

—2 _ effect of precluding migration of 2 GHz incumbent FS operators into the 5925—6425 MHz band. The MTN applications propose to operate C—band fixed shipboard earth stations at dockside locations in numerous U.S. coastal ports and to provide mobile and fixed services * by means of these shipboard satellite earth stations. Each shipboard earth station ("SES") will operate in the earth—to—space direction in the band 5925—6425 MHz. According to its applications MTN is requesting permanent authority to operate SES facilities on board ships at the 31 sites in the following 17 U.S. coastal po;ts: Miami, FL; Fort Lauderdale, FL; Tampa, FL; Key West, FL; Everett, WA; Bremerton, WA; Ketchikan, AK; Juneau, AK, Skagway, AK; Los Angeles, CA; New Orleans, LA; Sén Juan, P.R.; St. Thomas, U.S. V.1.; Norfolk, VA; San Diego, CA; Maypdrt, FL; and Port Canaveral, FL.* AAR and its member railroads have a direct and vital interest in this matter because of their use of the 5925—6425 MHz band for Fixed Service point—to—point microwave communications links which support railroad operations. For example. the Union Pacific Railroad is the licensee of fixed microwave facilities near Tacoma, Washington, which operates at 5945.2 MHz in the vicinity of two of the SES facilities prbposed by MTN (Bremerton and Everett, Washington). In addition, AAR‘s member railroads operate FS links in the 2 GHz band, which are subject to relocation for PCS and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operation in that band. For example, Union Pacific u/ Public Notice, Report No. SES—00049, released February 3, 1999; see also MTN‘s Application, "Summary of Nature of Services to be Provided." ¥ MTN Application, Summary of Nature of Services to be Provided, at p. 1.

— 3_ Railroad operates FS links at 2199.5 MHz, 2134.8 MHz, 2141.5 MHz and 2149.5 MHz near Los Angeles, another port city targeted by MTN.* in this regard, when the Commission first set out to consider the microwave relocation rules in ET Docket 92—9 (PCS relocation and MSS relocation), the Commission‘s Office of Engineering and Technology identified the 5925—6425 MHz band as one of the relocation bands for the displaced 2 GHz incumbents.* in fact, in its Second Report and Order in the "Emerging Technologies" proceeding (ET Docket No. 92—9), the Commission identified the 6 GHz band as "the primary relocation band for 2 GHz licensees . . ."> Al. THE APPLICATIONS ARE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE COMMISSION‘S RULES. MTN attempts to characterize the nature of its service as "fixed satellite" ahd the class of station as a "fixed earth station,"* and is not requesting any waivers or exemptions from any of the Commission‘s rules with respect to the meaning of a "fixed" station."‘ Although the MTN applications purport to rely on the Commission‘s definition of a fixed satellite earth station in Section 25.201 of the rules, (i.e., "an earth station to be used at a specified fixed point"), it is clear that the proposed use is not a "fixed 3 See "Certification" appended hereto as "Attachment 1." 4 "Creating New Technology Bands for Emerging Technology," Office of Engineering and Technology, OET/TS 92—1, January, 1992. § Second Report and Order in ET Docket No. 92—9, 8 FCC Red 6495, 6506 (1993) (emphasis added). & FCC Form 312, items 20 and 25. J The only waiver requested by MTN is with respect to the Commission‘s antenna profile rules relating to the 2° spacing requirement for geostationary satellites.

—4— satellite service." By their own terms, MTN‘s applications contemplate the provision of "mobile" services in support of "continuous global coverage for ships moving from one ocean region to another,"* including "in—motion operations" for which MTN claims to have used a "critical contour point" method of coordination." Accordingly, the proposed service is, by MTN‘s own admission, a maritime mobile satellite service, not a fixed satellite service. it is an undeniable fact that MTN‘s service is provided by means of terminals mounted on oceangoing ships. To claim that these terminals provide a — "mobile" service while the ship is moving but a "fixed" service while the ship is docked is absurd —— tantamount to saying that a cellphone subscriber is using a "fixed" service when he makes a call—while standing still at a tréffic light, which then becomes a "mobile" servicewhen he contffiuéé the same call as ‘hé travels acfoss the intersection. No matter how hard MTN may strain to characterize it otherwise, its service is fundamentaily "mobile" in nature. MTN‘s characterization also is directly contrary to the manner in which the Commission defined identical services just a few years ago. In an order released April 29, 1996,** the Commission treated an application by MTN‘s predecessor, Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc. ("Crescomm") as a Maritime Mobile Satellite Service (MSS), and specifically noted that MSS does not appear in the Table of Frequency & MTN Application, Summary of Nature of Service at fn. 1. 29 Id. at Certification of EK Wireless, dated August 10, 1998, included as Exhibit 1 to the applications. 19 Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc., 11 FCC RCD 10944 (iB and OET, 1996).

— 5 . Allocations for the 4/6 GHz and 12/14 GHz bands"*" In that Order, the Commission granted a waiver to Crescomm to permit limited, experimental MSS use of the 4/6 GHz band for the same kind of service for which MTN seeks permanent authority here. AAR is aware of no intervening change in either the facts or relevant regulations that somehow could transform what previously was deemed by the Commission to be a mobile service into what MTN now claims to be a fixed service. In summary, the MTN applications contravene the Commission‘s rules by proposing a mobile use that is not permitted in the frequency bands reserved for FS and FSS use. Accordingly, the applications should be denied. III. MTN HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED COMPATIBILITY WITH THE FIXED SERVICE In its applications, MTN makes the conclusory statement that it "hias | 4demonstrated that its service can co—exist with terrestrial fixed microwave service, and MTN has continued to document its record of non—interference."* There is, however, no demonstration of successful co—existence, nor is there any documentation of MTN‘s alleged "record of non—interference." This is not surprising because, as the Commission recognized in Crescomm. supra, the "mobile nature of [MTN‘s] MSS stations makes it extremely difficult to prevent harmful interference and to identify the interference source."* The mere fact that MTN has not received any reports of harmful interference Crescomm at paragraph 9. MTN application, "Summary of Nature of Services to be Provided", at p. 2. Crescomm, supra, at paragraph 11.

—6 — does not mean that such interference has not been caused to FS stations by the MTN terminals. Given the transient nature of MTN‘s customer traffic, a moving ship may cause interference sufficient to disrupt vital FS communications, only to move on and never be traceable as the source of the interference. AAR has undertaken to obtain from MTN the information necessary to help ascertain whether MTN mobile terminals are the cause of communications disruptions, but thus far has not received the necessary information."* , in summary, contrary to the representation in its applications, MTN has not demonstrated that its service can co—exist with the terrestrial fixed microwave service. Accordingly, the applications should be denied. IV. GRANT OF THESE APPLICATIONS WILL THWART THE COMMISSION‘S RELOCATION POLICIES FOR THE 2 GHz BAND. Use of the 6 GHz band for MSS service in shipping lanes to and from port cities and along U.S. coasts will have a major preclusive effect on future use of the 6 GHz band by42 GHz incumbents who are being forced to relocate to other frequencies as a result of PCS and MSS use of the 2 GHz band. As more railroad FS operations are moved out of the 2 GHz band pursuant to the Commission‘s mandate in ET Docket 92—9 14 See copies of correspondence between AAR‘s counsel and MTN‘s counsel, dated February 8, March 4 and March 5, 1999, appended hereto as Attachments 2, 3 and 4.

—7— and ET Docket 95—18 to make way for new technologies,* there will be an ever—growing need to utilize the higher FS bands specified in Part 101 of the Commission‘s rules, particularly the 6 GHz band. Indeed, the Commission commenced a rule making to realtlocate and rechannelize both the upper and lower 6 GHz band for the express purpose of accommodating FS operators being relocated from the 2 GHz band.‘If the Commission grants co—primary status to the MTN operations, vast geographic areas in and near port cities will henceforth be "off limits" to new FS licensees in the 6 GHz band, thereby defeating the policy objectives of the 2 GHz relocation proceeding. The Commission should be true to its promise to protect and preserve existing and future | _ use of the entire 6 GHz band by the‘FS, user community by denying the MTN applicétions.. O — etn In summary, even if MTN were able to coordinate its proposed operations with existing FS licensees in and around port cities, MTN‘s operations will nevertheless have a serious adverse effect on FS use of the band by precluding significant future use of those frequencies by FS licensees in coastal areas and near the port cities targeted by MTN. 1¥ See, Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Red 6886, 6890 (1992), Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Red 6495 (1993); Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Red 6589 (1993). 18 Id. Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Red 6495, 6501—6502.

V. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the MTN applications should be denied because (a) they propose to use the Fixed Satellite Service frequencies for mobile operations, a use that is inconsistent with the Commission‘s regulations; (b) MTN has not demonstrated that its use of the frequencies in the mavnner proposed will, in fact, protect FS receiver;s from interference; and (c) MTN‘s proposal will have the serious adverse effect of preciuding migration of 2 GHz incumbent FS operators into the 5925—6425 MHz band. Respectfully submitted, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS By: %4’”/1/ M%fl// Thomas J. Kellef/ ° John Kneuer Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005—2301 Its Attorneys Attachments: (4) March 5, 1999

ATTACHMENT 1 CERTIFICATION The undersigned hereby certifies that he has read the foregoing "Petition to Deny" concerning the applications of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc., and that the factual statements set forth therein concerning the operations and facilities of Union Pacific Railroad are true and correct, to the best of his information, knowledge and beliet. /] Rog&é L. Sullivan Principal Engineer Union Pacific Railroad Date: ' 9. _/ P

ATTACHMENT 2 VERNER: LUPFERT BERNHARD McPHERSON s HAND 901 — 15 STrget, NW. Wasmgton, D.C. 20005—2301 (202) 371—6000 Fax: (202) 371—6279 Thomas J. Keller (202) 37 1—6060 February 8, 1999 Eliot J. Greenwald, Esq. Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP 3000 K Street, NW., Suite 300 . Washington, D.C. 20007 Re: Applications of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. (FCC File Nos. SES—LIC—19980911—01272 et seq.) Dear Mr. Greenwald: I am hereby requesting on behalf of the Association of American Railroads {AAR), that your client, Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. (MTN), provide certain information to AAR to assist in identifying potential interference events involving MTN‘s operation of satellite earth stations aboard vessels (ESVs) in the 5925—6425 MHz band. By way of background, AAR recently filed a petition to deny MTN‘s applications for permanent authorization of this service by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on grounds of potential harmful interference to the co—frequency Fixed Service (FS) point—to—point microwave communications facilities operated by AAR‘s members in coastal areas of the United States and near many port cities identified in MTN‘s applications. In its petition, AAR challenged MTN‘s conclusion that its ESV operations to date have not caused interference to FS licensees; AAR noted that the transient nature of MTN‘s customer traffic and the fact that operation of transmitters aboard moving ships "makes it extremely difficult to prevent harmful interference and to identify the interference source."*" AAR also pointed out that the mere fact that MTN has not received any reports of harmful interference does not mean that such interference has not been caused to FS stations, because a moving ship may cause sufficient 1/ AAR Petition to Deny filed December 18, 1998, quoting from FCC decision in Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc., 11 FCC Red 10944 (1996). a WasHNGTonN, DC a HoustoN s AUsTN s HonoLuLyu « Las VEgoas a MCLEBAN s MIaM

Eliot J. Greenwald, Esq. February 8, 1999 Page 2 interference to disrupt vital FS communications only to move on and not be traceable as the source of the interference. it would be preferable for the FS licensees to have more information with which to evaluate possible interference incidents that may be caused by ESV operators. In this regard, it is our understanding that MTN is the successor to Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc., which was the original entity to which the FCC first granted experimental authorizations to provide this service in its 1996 decision in Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc., 11 FCC Red 10944. in that decision, the Commission relied upon the pledge of Crescomm "to cooperate in establishing interference assessment and prevention procedures," citing the reply comments filed by Crescomm in that proceeding, in which Crescomm had promised to cooperate in "implementing procedures for detecting, identifying and promptly halting harmful interference."* To assist AAR‘s members in identifying MTN‘s ESV transmissions as possible causes of communications disruptions on their Fixed Service links in the 5925—6425 MHz band, we are asking MTN to provide the following information: 1. The name or other appropriate vessel identification for all ships equipped with ESV transmitters in this band; 2. Timetables, routes, schedules and itineraries for each such ship that is operating within 400 km of the coastline of the United States; 3. Details of any route or schedule variations, including temporary stops; 4. The exact frequencies on which the ESV of each ship is transmitting and the dates and times of transmission using such frequencies; 5. For each ship, a description of the FCC authorization (STA, Experimental License, etc., including FCC file number), pursuant to which the ESV is operating; and 2/ Crescomm Reply Comments in RM—7912, filed April 24, 1992, at 5.

Eliot J. Greenwald, Esq. February 8, 1999 Page 3 6. For each such ship, a description of the horizontal antenna gain, transmit power, and the name and orbital location of the satellite with which the ESV is communicating. 1 suggest that the above—described information be supplied on a regular basis (e.g.. monthly or weekly), sufficiently far in advance of the scheduled travel of the ships so as to enable the FS operators to effectively utilize the information in identifying possible interference sources. You may send the information to me, and I shall then forward it to AAR‘s members that are operating FS facilities in locations near coastlines and port cities. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in complying with this request. Sincerely, Times Un/ Thomas J. Kelier=~ CCo: FCC Commissioners Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief, International Bureau Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology . Office of FCC Secretary

ATTACHMENT 3 iR—04—99 11:26 FROM:SWIDLER BERLIN SHERE FR ID: 2024247645 SWIDLER BERLIN SHEREFF FRIEDMAN, LLr 3000 K STREET, NW, SUurTE 300 WaSHINCTON, DC 20007—5116 TELEPHONE (207) 424—7500 esns NEewYork Orfice Euot ) Grearwaco F W;figfi&“’ 919 TruRD AveNut Dirget Diai (202) 424—7809 * * NEw YoOrr, NY 10022—9998 EcrampeaAn@swouw.com (212) 758—9500 Fax (Z12) 758—9526 March 4, 1999 YIA FACSIMILE Thomas J. Keller Vemner Liipfert Bemhard McPherson and Hand 901 — 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005—2301 Re: Applications of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. FCC File Nos. SES—LI[C—19980911—01272 et seq. Dear Tom: On behalf of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. ("MTN‘), we provide this response to your letter of February 8, 1999, requesting from MTN certain information that you believe would be helpful to members of the Association of American Railroads ("AAR") in identifying potential interference in the 5925—6425 MHz band from the facilities that are the subject of the above—referenced applications for stationary operations. 1. Prior Frequency Coordination — tior to commencing operations of its shipboard earth stations pursuant to the experimental authority and special temporary authonity ("STA") issued by the Federal Communications‘ Commission ("RFCC"), MTN coordinared its proposed operations as required by Section 25.303(c) of the Commission‘s rules. MTN coordinated the operation of cach portside location for the shipboard earth stations in the same manner as fixed earth stations are coordinated, because the ships, and hence the shipboard earth stations, rsturn to the same locations for the stationary fixed satellite service operations while the ships are docked at port. All objections from the frequency coordinators concerning potential interference were resolved, and the coordination was renewed as necessary, before the applications were filed with the FCC . It is these fixed portside operations that are the subject of the pending applications, and the respective in—port locations of the earth stations «re specified in the applications. Given this pnor frequency coordination, it would be extremely unlikely that the perceived interference is attmbutable to the fixed portside earth station operations.

R—~04—99 11:26 FROM:SwWIDLER BERLIN SHERE FR ID : 2024247645 PAGE 37 4 Thomas J. Keller — March 4, 1999 Page 2 2. Cruise Shi erations When a cruise ship docks at port, it generally stays from two to six hours while the passengers disembark, the crew takes shore leave, the ship is resupplied, and the new passengers embark. During that time period, the operations of the shipboard carth stations are docked at the locations specified in the applications. Although the cruise lines do publish schedules of when ships armve and depart, these schedules are often subject to change. The following is a chart showing the number of cruise ship visits to each port during the month of January 1999. Skagway, Juneau and Ketchikan, AK are not included in the chart because they do not receive visits during the winter months. Ships operating from the southern ports will move north for the summer cruises. Name of Port Number of Cruise Ship Visits _ During Jaouary, 1999 Port Canaveral, FL 26 Tampa, FL 11 Miami, FL 62 Fort Lauderdale, FL 43 Key West, FL 27 Los Angeles, CA 18 New Orleans, LA 4 San Juan, PR 32 ’_— c St. Thomas, U.S.VL 63 As shown above, cruise ship activities are sufficigntly frequent, repetitive and continual for analysis as possible sources of identified interference. 3. Continuous Naval Operations On the other hand, the operations of Navyships are not a matter of public record and are not availasle for review by those who co not have the appropriate securnity clearances. Nevertheless, a Navyship is generally in port for long periods of time, and therefore any interference caused bythe Navy ships would be easily identified. The Navy ports include Bremenmon, WA, Evereit, WA, Mayport (Jacksonville), FL, Norfolk, VA, and San Dicgo, CA. Thus, the Navy lacations account for 5 of the 17 ports.

i iR—04—99 11:26.FROM:SWIDLER BERLIN SHERE FR ID: 2024247545 PAGE 4/4 Thomas J. Kelier . March 4, 1999 Page 3 4. Continuous Camer Transmissions Please keep in mind that in order to maintain a "lock" on the satellite, the camer for a shipboard earth station is continuously transmitting whether or not information is put on the carrier. Therefore, if a shipboard earth station were causing interference, the ships would be transmitiing at the dockside location for a sufficient period of time for identification of such interference. The frequencies used by MTN‘s shipboard earth stations are listed in the applications. 5. In—Motion Operations Not the Subject of the Applications The operations of the shipboard earth stations while the ships are leaving and entering ports were also coordinated. These operations are not, however, the subject of the pending applications, and no applications are to be filed for these operations until after the National Spectrum Managers Association ("NSMA") issues its report on coordination standards for in—motion operations to the FCC and the FCC adopts interference objectives. Therefore, operations of the shipboard earth stations while in motion will continue to be conducted pursuant to experimental authority and STA. The FCC has not issued individual authorizations for these operations for each ship. Rather MIN has received blanket authorizations from the FCC. The spectrum coordinators for each of your clients should have received the coordination notices and renewals for the in—rnaotion shipboard earth stations. > | MTN is fully committed to resolving all cases of interference that may be caused by the operations of its shipboard earth stations. However, since the time when MTN coordinated its frequency usage, MTN has not received any reports ofactual interference to date. To the extent that the members of AAR experience unidentified sources of interference, MTN would be pleased to work with them to inrvestigate such reports to determine whether any of MTN‘s shipboard earth stations were engaged in co—channel operations within distances that could potentially cause interference. Therefore, if any AAR members ars experiencing interference from unidentified sources in the 5925—6425 MHz band, please provide me with a report showing the date and time as well as the location and frequency of the path experiencing interference. " Fosty naa~—— Sincerely, Eliot J. Gre€nwald

ATTACHMENT 4 VERNER— LUIPFERT BERNHARD— McPHERSON 3 HAND CHARTERED 901 — 1 5m Street, NW. Wasimicton, D.C. 20005—2301 (202) 371—6000 Fax: (202) 371—6279 Thomas J. Kelier (202) 371—6060 March 5, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE Eliot J. Greenwald, Esq. Swidier Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP 3000 K Street, NNW., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007 Re: Operations of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. (°MTN") Dear Eliot: Thank you for your letter of March 4, 1999. As | mentioned during our phone conversation today, | do not believe your letter was responsive to the request stated in my letter of February 8, 1999. The focus of my February 8 letter was on the transient nature of the vessels on which MTN‘s terminals are mounted, and the fact that (as the FCC has recognized) operation of transmitters aboard moving ships makes it very difficult to prevent harmful interference and identify the interference source. In short, I was seeking information regarding the in— motion aspects of MTN‘s operations, not the dockside operations. Your response attempted to distinguish between MTN‘s dockside "fixed" operations and its mobile operations. Specifically, you stated that the "fixed" operations are the subject of the pending FCC applications for permanent co—primary authority, whereas the mobile operations are authorized under experimental authority and STA. Apparently on the basis of that distinction, you declined to provide the requested information regarding in—motion operations. 1 do not agree with the distinction, for two reasons. First, MTN‘s pending applications for permanent authority for "fixed" operations concede that the dockside operations are part and parcel of an overall integrated service that involves continuous transmissions while ships are under way as well as in port. in other words, the dockside transmissions cannot be isolated, for regulatory purposes, from

Eliot J. Greenwald, Esq. March 5, 1999 Page 2 the inherently mobile nature of the service taken as a whole. Accordingly, it is irrelevant that the pending applications purport merely to seek authority for "fixed" operations. Second, MTN‘s obligation to assist in detecting, identifying and haiting harmful interference resulting from its operations arises separate and apart from anything in the pending applications. It was a condition of the initial authorization to MTN‘s predecessor (see Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc., 11 FCC Red 10944 (1996)), and it is also an obligation arising from the requirements, inter alia, of Sections 5.67(b) and 5.151(a) of the FCC‘s regulations. In view of the foregoing, | hereby reiterate my request that MTN provide the six items of information described at pages 2—3 of my February 8 letter. 1 am confident that we can find a way to resolve this issue, and | thank you in advance for your cooperation and attention to this request. * ~ Sincerely, 2t Thomas J. Keller

ATTACHMENT B BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 In the Matter of File Nos. Applications of SES—LIC—19980911—01272; Maritime Telecommunications SES—LIC—19980911—01275 to 01286; Network, Inc. For Authority SES—LIC—19980911—01289; to Operate Shipboard Satellite SES—LIC—19980911—01291 to 01297; Earth Stations SES—LIC—19980911—01299 to 01306; SES—LIC—19981019—01468 PETITION TO DENY The Consortium Digital Microwave System ("CDMS"),‘ by its undersigned counsel, hereby petitions the Commission to deny the 30 above—referenced applications of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. ("MTN®"), announced by Notice, Report No. SES—00049, released February 3, 1999.. On December 18, 1998, CDMS petioned to deny two other MTN Earth station applications, Nos. SES—LLC—19980911— 01273 and 01274, which appeared in Notice Report No. SES—00024, released November 18, 1998. In support of this petition, the following is shown: I. BACKGROUND The MTN applications as described in the Public Notice are to permit the operation of "a 2.4 meter C—band fixed Shipboard Earth Station ("SES") at dockside in U.S. coastal port{s]. SES will be used to provide private line mobile and fixed services 1 CDMS operates a digital 6 GHZ microwave system that provides voice _ and data communications service for the safe operation of various off—shore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. CDMS serves a number of firms with off—shore facilities including Union Oil Company of California ("Unocal"), Sola Communications, Inc., Pennzoil Exploration and Production Company, Phillips Petroleum Co., and El Paso Energy.

—2 _ including, digital voice, data and video services via ALSAT on a non—common carrier basis" {emphasis added]. * Each SES will operate in the Earth—to—space direction in the band 5925—6425 MHz (the "6 GHz band"). The MTN applications request permanent authority to operate SES facilities on board ships at the following 17 U.S. coastal ports: Jacksonville, FL; Miami, FL; Fort Lauderdale, FL; Tampa, FL; Key West, FL; Everett, WA; Bremerton, WA; Ketchikan, AK; Juneau, AK; Skagway, AK; Los Angeles, CA; New Orleans, LA; San Juan, P.R.; St. Thomas, U.S. V.1.; Norfolk, VA; San Diego, CA; and Port Canaveral, FL. CDMS has a direct and vital interest in this matter as a Iicenseé in the 5925—6425 MHz band for Fixed Service ("FS") point—to—point microwave communications. CDMS | and other users of the CDMS facilities previously operated 2 GHz microwave facilities that were relocated to the 6 GHz band pursuant to the Commiséion's microwave | relocation rules, 47 C.F.R. §101.69 ef seq. The CDMS facilities commenced operations in the 6 GHz band in 1998. When the Commission adopted the microwave relocation rules in ET Docket Nos. 92—9 and 95—18 (regarding the PCS/microwave and MSS/microwave relocations), the Commission identified the 6 GHz band as one of the prime reloca_tion bands for the displaced 2 GHz incumbents." 2 Public Notice, Report No. SES—00049, released February 3, 1999. * "Creating New Technology Bands for Emerging Technology," Office of Engineering and Technology, OET/TS 92—1, January, 1992.

—3— II. THE APPLICATION IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE __________________________ Although the MTN applications purport to rely on the Commission’s definition of a fixed satellite earth station in Section 25.201 of the rules, (Le., "an earth station to be used at a specified fixed point"), it is clear that the proposed operations are not "fixed satellite service." Indeed, the Public Notice of these applications explicitly states that the shipboard earth station contemplated in MTN‘s application would be used for mobile services. Moreover, MTN‘s applications explicitly contemplate "continuous global coverage for ships moving from one ocean region to another, "* as well as "related in— motion operations" for which MTN purports to have used the "critical contour point" method of coordination." Accordingly, the MTN applications propose a service that is really a maritime mobile satellite service, not a fixed satellite service. As noted above, MTN mischaracterizes the nature of its service as "fixed sateilite" and the class of station as a "fixed earth station."" In this regard, MTN states that it is not requesting any waivers or exemptions from any of the Commission‘s rules.‘ This approach is contrary to the manner in which the Commission treated identical services as recently as two years ago. In an order released April 29, 1996,° the 4 MTN Application, attached summary of nature of service at note 1. 5 Id. at "Certification" of EK Wireless, included as Exhibit 1 to the amended applications. 6 MTN‘s response to FCC Form 312, Items 20 and 25. * Id. at Item 35. 8 Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc., 11 FCC RCD 10944 (IB and OET, 1996).

—4— Corfimission treated an application by MTN‘s predecessor, Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc. ("Crescomm") as a Maritime Mobile Satellite Service (MSS), and noted that MSS does not appear in the Table of Frequency Allocations for the 4/6 GHz and 12/14 GHz bands"" In that Order, the Commission granted a conditional waiver to Crescomm to permit limited, experimental MSS use of the 4/6 GHz bands for the same kind of SES for which MTN s.ee'ks permanent authority here. CDMS is aware of no intervening change in either the facts, or the applicable regulations, that somehow could transform what préviously was deemed by the Commission to be a mobile service into what MTN now claims to be a fixed service. In summary, MTN. applications contravene the Commission‘s rules by proposing a mobile use that is not permitted under Fixed Service licensing in the 5925—6425 MHz frequency bénds reserved for FS and FSS use. Accordingly, the applications should be denied. III. MTN HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED COMPATIBILITY WITH THE FIXED SERVICE In its application, MTN makes the conclusory statement that it "has demonstrated that its service can co—exist with terrestrial fixed microwave service, and MTN has continued to document its record of non—interference.""" There is, however, no "demonstration" of successful co—existence in the application, nor is there any documentation of MTN‘salleged "record of non—interference." This is not surprising Crescomm at paragraph 9. 10 MTN application, summary of nature of services to be provided, at p. 2.

— 5 because, as the Commission recognized in Crescomm, supra, the "mobile nature of [MTN‘s] MSS stations makes it extremely difficult to prevent harmful interference and to identify the interference source.""‘ The mere fact that MTN has not received any reports of harmful interference does not mean that such interference has not been caused to FS stations by the MTN SES terminals. Given the transient nature of MTN‘s customer traffic, a moving ship may cause sufficient interference to disrupt vital FS communications, only to move on and not be traceable to MTN‘s maritime customer as the source of the interference. The amendments to the applications filed on December 4, 1998, include a certification that prior frequency coordination was completed. In particular, Exhibit | of the amended MTN application for New Orleans, File No. SES—AMD—19981204—02004, states that a Prior Coordination Notice ("PCN") was distributed to CDMS."" However, the CDMS operational personnel have no record of receiving either PCNs or renewals for the proposed operations described in the amended New Orleans application. Even if CDMS had received such PCNs, a reasonable interpretation of a fixed_semce PCN would assume fixed, not mobile, operations. Therefore, the prior coordination notification process in the case of New Orleans was defective, and, in general, the use of a fixed service prior coordination notice for this type of mobile use is fundamentally flawed. Simply stated, CDMS did not have the information necessary to object to the 11 Crescomm, supra, at paragraph 11. 12 See Certification of Edwards and Kelcey Wireless, L.L.C., dated November 17, 1998.

— 6 — proposed operations during the frequency coordination stage, and was not adequately notified of the potential interference. Apart from the flawed prior coordination, MTN has not been forthcoming with detailed information regarding its operations pursuant to the waiver in response to a request by counsel to the Association of American Railroads (copy attached). The superficial response by MTN‘s counsel, dated March 4, 1999, (copy attached), fails to provide specific dates, times, and routes of travel to permit CDMS and other adversely- affected FS licensees to investigate cases of interference experienced following the commencement of SES operations in the 6 GHz band (5925—6425 MHz). In short, contrary to the representations in MTN‘s applications, MTN has not demonstrated that its service can co—exist with terrestrial fixed microwave service, and has not been responsive to FS licensee inquiries regarding previously authorized operations. Accordingly, MTN‘s applications should be denied. IV. GRANT OF THISAPPLICATION WILL THWART THE ComMISssION‘s RELOCATIONGHz An important policy justification for denial of the MTN applications is the preclusive effect that widespread use of the 6 GHz band for MSS service on shipping lanes to and from port cities will have on future use of that band by 2 GHz incumbents who are being forced to relocate to other frequencies as a result of PCS and MSS use of the 2 GHz band. As more and more FS operations in use by CODMS users are moved out of the 2 GHz band pursuant to the Commission‘s mandate in ET Docket Nos. 92—9 and 95—18 to make way for new technologies,"" there will be an ever— Redevel t of S to E | ion in the U [ 13 See + Telecommunications Technologies, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Red 6886, 6890 (1992), Second

—7— growing need to utilize the higher FS bands specified in Part 101 of the Commission‘s rules, particularly the 6 GHz band. Indeed, the Commission commenced a rule making to reallocate and rechannelize both the upper and lower 6 GHz band for the express purpose of accommodating FS operators being relocated from the 2 GHz band."* If the Commission now restricts access to this band by granting the MTN applications, the policy objectives of the 2 GHz relocation proceeding will be defeated. The Commission‘s should be true to its promise to protect and preserve existing and future use of the entire 6 GHz band by the FS user community by denying the MTN applications. in summary, even if MTN were able to coordinate its proposed operations with exxsimg FS Iicensees in a proper manner in the vicinity of port cities, Mi'rr;i:s operations would nevertheless have a serious adverse effect on FS use of the band by precluding significant future use of those frequencies by FS licensees off—shore and near the port cities targeted by MTN. V. . CONCLUSION In conclusion, the MTN applications should be denied because (a) they propose to use the fixed satellite service frequencies for mobile operations, a use which is inconsistent with the Commission‘s policies and rules; (b) MTN has not demonstrated that its use of the frequencies in the manner proposed will, in fact, protect FS receivers from interference; and (c) MTN‘s proposal will have the serious adverse effect of Report and Order, 8 FCC Red 6495 (1993); Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Red 6589 (1993). 14 Id Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Red 6495, 6501—6502.

—8— precluding migration of 2 GHz incumbent FS operators into the 5925—6425 MHz band. Respectfully submitted, CONSORTIUM DIGITAL MICROWAVE SYSTEM By: Julian L. Shepard Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, NW., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005—2301 Its Attorney Attachment: Certification of Berne Life March 5, 1999

Attachment to CDMS Petition to Deny VERNERLLPFERT *5° BERNHARD —McPHERSON 3 HAND 901 — 1 5m Sreeet, NW. Wasimictoxn, D.C. 20005—2301 (202) . 371—6000 Thomas J. Keller Fax: (202) 371—6279 (202) 371—6060 February 8, 1999 Ms. Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary Federal Communications Commission The Portals 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Applications of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. {iFCC File Nos. SES—LIC—19980911—01272 et seq.) Dear Madam Secretary: Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Thomas J. Keller to Eliot J. G"‘réenwaldvdated February 8, 1999, written on behalif of the Association of American Railroads. Please associate the enclosed letter with the above—referenced applications of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. Respectfull,/ submitted, Keller Thomas J. Enclosure cc {wlencl.y FCC Commissioners Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief, International Bureau Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology s WASHINGTON, DC s HoustoN s AUSTIN a HOonoLULU a Las VEGAs a MCLEAN « MIAM!I

VERNER— LLIPFERT BERNHARD— McPHERSON 3 HAND 901 — 15 Steeet, N.W. Wasimicton, D.C. 20005—2301 (202) 371—6000 rax: (202) 371—6279 Thomas J. Keller (202) 37 1—6060 February 8, 1999 Eliot J. Greenwald, Esq. Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP 3000 K Street, NW., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007 Re: Applications of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. (FCC File Nos. SES—LIC—19980911—01272 et seq.) Dear Mr. Greenwald: 1 am hereby requesting on behalf of the Association of American Railroads (AAR), that your client, Maritime Telecommunications Network, inc. (MTN), provide certain information to AAR to assist in identifying potential interference events involving MTN‘s operation of satellite earth stations aboard vessels (ESVs) in the 5925—6425 MHz band. By way of background, AAR recently filed a petition to deny MTN‘s applications for permanent authorization of this service by the Federal Communications Commission (FECC) on grounds of potential harmfulinterference to the co—frequency Fixed Service (FS) point—to—point microwave communications facilities operated by AAR‘s members in coastal areas of the United States and near many port cities identified in MTN‘s applications. In its petition, AAR challenged MTN‘s conclusion that its ESV operations to date have not caused interference to FS licensees;, AAR noted that the transient nature of MTN‘s customer traffic and the fact that operation of transmitters aboard moving ships "makes it extremely difficult to prevent harmful interference and to identify the interference source."* AAR also pointed out that the mere fact that MTN has not received any reports of harmful interference does not mean that such interference has not been caused to FS stations, because a moving ship may cause sufficient 1/ AAR Petition to Deny filed December 18, 1998, quoting from FCC decision in Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc., 11 FCC Red 10944 (1996). & WasHingToN, DC «@ HoustoN a AUSTIN a@ HOnoLULU a Las VEGAs a MCLEAN # MIaAM

Eliot J. Greenwald, Esq. February 8, 1999 Page 2 interference to disrupt vital FS communications only to move on and not be traceable as the source of the interference. It would be preferable for the FS licensees to have more information with which to evaluate possible interference incidents that may be caused by ESV operators. in this regard, it is our understanding that MTN is the successor to Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc., which was the original entity to which the FCC first granted experimental authorizations to provide this service in its 1996 decision in Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc., 11 FCC Red 10944. In that decision, the Commission relied upon the pledge of Crescomm "to cooperate in establishing interference assessment and prevention procedures," citing the reply commenits filed by Crescomm in that proceeding, in which Crescomm had promised to cooperate in "implementing procedures for detecting, identifying and promptly halting harmful interference."* To assist AAR‘s members in identifying MTN‘s ESV transmissions as possible causes of communications disruptions on their Fixed Service links in the 5925—6425 MHz band, we are asking MTN to provide the following information: 1. The name or other appropriate vessel identification for all ships equipped with ESV transmitters in this band; 2. Timetables, routes, schedules and itineraries for each such ship that is operating within 400 km of the coastline of the United — States; 3. Details of any routé or schedule variations, including temporary stops, 4. The exact frequencies on which the ESV of each ship is transmitting and the dates and times of transmission using such frequencies; 5. For each ship, a description of the FCC authorization (STA, Experimental License, etc., including FCC file number), pursuant to which the ESV is operating; and 2/ Crescomm Reply Comments in RM—7912, filed April 24, 1992, at 5.

Eliot J. Greenwaild, Esq. February 8, 1999 Page 3 6. For each such ship, a description of the horizontal antenna gain, transmit power, and the name and orbital location of the satellite with which the ESV is communicating. — I suggest that the above—described information be supplied on a regular basis (e.g., monthly or weekly), sufficiently far in advance of the scheduled travel of the ships so as to enable the FS operators to effectively utilize the information in identifying . possible interference sources. You may send the information to me, and | shall then forward it to AAR‘s members that are operating FS facilities in locations near coastlines and port cities. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in complying with this request. Sincerely, QWMWThomas J. Keller co: FCC Commissioners Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief, International Bureau Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology Office of FCC Secretary

Attachment to CDMS Petition to L l 3/5/99 iC SWIDLER BERLIN SHEREFF FRIEDMAN, LLr 3000 K STREET, NW, SurTE 300 WaASHINCTON, DC 20007—5116 TELEPHONE (207) 424—7500 NEw Yor O Facsmias (202) 42+—7645 Euor J. Grenrearn 919 THRD AvEN Dmscx!M(ZOZ) 424—7809 wwwSHIDLAFCOM NEW Yorr, NY 10022.9998 HORMINALD@sWIDLAY.CCOA (212) 758—9500 Fax (212) 158.9526 March 4, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE Thomas J. Keller Verner Liipfert Bemhard McPherson and Hand 901 — 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005—2301 Re: Applications of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. ECC File Nos. SES—LIC—199809] 1—01272 et seq. Dear Tom: On behalf of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. ("MTN"‘), we provide this response to your letter of February 8, 1999, requesting from MTN certain information that you believe would be helpful to members of the Association of American Railroads ("AAR") in identifying potential interference in the 5925—6425 MHz band from the facilities that are the subject of the above—referenced applications for stationary operations. 1. Prior F ency Coordination . Prior to commencing operations of its shipboard carthstations pursuant to the experimental autbority and special temporary authority ("STA") issued by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), MTN coordinated its proposed operations as required by Section 25.203(c) of the Commission‘s rules. MTN coordinated the operation of each portside location for the shipboard earth stations in the same manner as fixed earth stations are coordinated, because the ships, and hence the shipboard earth stations, returm to the same locations for the static aary fixed satellite service operauons while the ships urc docked at port. All objections from the tTequency coordinators conceming potentuial interference were resolved, and the coordinaticn was r:newed as necessary, before the applications were filed with the FCC . It is these fixed portside oper=:r:ons that are the subject of the pending applications, and the respective in—port locations ofthe earth stations are specified in the applications. Given this pror frequency coordination, it would be extremely unlikely that the perceived interference is attmbutable to the fixed portside earth station eperations.

Thomas J. Keller _ March 4, 1999 Page 2 2. Crutse Ship Operations When a cruise ship docks at port, it generally stays from two to six hours while the passengers disembark, the crew takes shore leave, the ship is resupplied, and the new passengers embark. During that time period, the operations of the shipboard earth stations are docked at the . locations specified in the applications. Although the cruise lines do publish schedules ofwhen ships arrive and depart, these schedules are often subject to change. The following is a chart showing the number of cruise ship visits to each port during the month of January 1999. Skagway, Juneau and Ketchikan, AK are not included in the chart because they do not receive visits during the winter months. Ships operating from the southem ports will move north for the summer cruises. Name of Port Number of Cruise Ship Visits | During Januvary, 1999 Port Canaveral, FL 26 Tampa, FL 11 Miami, FL 62 Fort Lauderdale, FL 45 Key West, FL 27 © Los Angeles, CA 18 New Orleans, LA 4 San Juan, PR 32 St. Thomas, U.S.V .L. 63 As shown above, cruise ship activities are sufficiently frequent, repetitive and continual for analysis as possible sources of identified interference. 3. Continuous Naval Operations — On the other hand, the operations of Navyships are not a matter ofpublic record and are not available for review by those who co not have the appropriate security clearances. Nevertheless, a Navy ship is generally in port for long periods of time, and therefore any interference caused by the Navy ships would be easily identified. The Navy ports include Bremerton, WA, Everett, WA, Mayport (Jacksonville), FL, Norfolk, VA, and San Diego, CA. Thus, the Navylocations account for S of the 17 ports.

Thomas J. Keller March 4, 1999 Page 3 4. Continuous Camer Transmissions Please keep in mind that in order to maintain a "lock" on the satellite, the camer for a shipboard earth station is continuously transmitting whether or not information is put on the carrier. Therefore, if a shipboard earth station were causing interference, the ships would be transmitting at the dockside focation for a sufficient period of time for identification of such interference. The frequencies used by MTN‘s shipboard earth stations are listed in the applications. 5. In—Motion Operations Not the Subject of the Applicatiops The operations ofthe shipboard earth stations while the ships are leaving and entering ports were also coordinated. These operations are not, however, the subject of the pending applications, and no applications are to be filed for these operations until after the National Spectrum Managers Association ("NSMA") issues its report on coordination standards for in—motion operations to the FCC and the FCC adopts interference objectives. Therefore, operations of the shipboard earth stations while in motion will continue to be conducted pursuant to experimental authority and STA. The FCC has not issued individual authorizations for these operations for each ship. Rather MTN has received blanket authorizations from the FCC. The spectrum coordinators for each of your clients should have received the coordination notices and renewals for the in—motion shipboard earth stations. MTN is fully committed to resolvingall cases of interference that may be caused by the operations of its shipboard earth stations. However, since the time when MTN coordinated its frequency usage, MTN has not received any reports ofactual interference to date. To the extent that the members of AAR experience unidentified sources of interference, MTN would be pleased to work with them. to investigate such reports to determine whether any of MTN‘s shipboard earth stations were engaged in co—channel operations within distances that could potentially cause interference. Therefore, if any AAR members ars experiencing interference from unidentified sources in the 5925—6425 MHz band, please provide me with a report showing the date and time as well as the location and frequency of the path experiencing interference. — Sincerely, FOALL paa—— Eliot J. Gre€nwald 271321.1

CERTIFICATION The undersigned hereby certifies that he has read the foregoing "Petition to Deny" concerning the applications of Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc., and that the factual statements set forth therein concerning the operations and facilities of the Consortium Digital Microwave System are true and correct, to the best of his information, knowledge and belief. ,Q/J% ra Bemne Life 6 Telecommunications Manager Union Oil Company of California the Operations Manager for CDMS March 5, 1999

ATTACHMENT C ENGUINEERING STATEMENT ThisEngineering Statement is prepared in connection with the furegoing Petition to Deny Application (FCC File No. 0}0G—EX—RR—1999) dated March 24, 1999, filed by Consortiuun Dngital Microwave System, a licensee of private operational—fixed microwave facilities operating in the 5,925 to . 6,425 MHz band, and the Association of American Railroads, representing other private operational—freed microwave licersees operating in the 5,924 to 6,425 MHz band. 1, Edwin F. Mortis, being a duly quailified and experienced Communications Engineer doing busuiness at 3318 Kimberly Way, San Matec, California 94403, under penalty of perjury, do hereby state the following: 1. I have reviewed: (a) the foregoing Petition to Deny Applications dated March 24, 1999; (hb) the Order granting waivers ofthe Table ofFrequency Allocations to both Crescomm Transmission Services, Inc. and Qualcomm, Inc., to provide satellite—based communications between ships and fixed or temporary —fixed satellite earth stations in the Fixed Satellite Service, /6 and 12214 GHz bands, 11 FCC Red 10944 (April 29, 1996); (c) the applicable mules of the Federal Conmiumications Commission imncludmg 47 C.F.R. 32 25.251 and 101.10 5; (d) the applicable International Telecommunications Uruon Radio Regulations and certain recommendaftions of the ITU Radiocommunications Sector (ITU—R); and (e) certain other technical documents prepared or circulated by qualified experts and purticipants within relevant working parties, committees, or groups considering the technical feasibility ofproposed satellite earth etation operations im the 5,925 to 6,425 MHz band aboard vessels. The coordination distance of 100 kn applied by the Federal Cormunications Commussion in the ~Cresscomm Order is inconsistent with the coordination distances currently applicable to fixed— service use ofthe 5,924 to 6,425 MHz band, i.e., 400 km around the boresight of a fixed service anternria, and 200 km at all other azinuths. The above—mentioned 400 km and 200 kin fixed—service coordination distances are based on propagation characteristics assuming land—based stations which may afford terrain shielding that is not present in operations over water. The above—mentioned fixed—service coordination distances are based on parameters ofanalog . systems and do not take into accounit enhancements in digital microwave systems such as automatic transamitter power control which are now in use by many fixed—service licensees. Credible engineering studies have indicuted that instances of ducting and fading occur in 6 GHz transmissions over water, which may result in increases in the reception ofundesired signals and decreases in the reception of desired signais. ‘Therefore, there is insufficient technical support to rely on a 100 km coordination distance to ensure the interference protection to be provided to fixed—service stations pursuant to Section 101.105 ofthe FCC‘s tules, 47 CF.R. > 101.105, and there is a sound technical basis upon which to doubt the adequacy of a 100 km coordination distance. Edwin F. Moms Date: Ma”?.»bg\ 2—’41 1(24 QG"

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Deirdre A. Johnson, a secretary for the law firm of Verner,Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson, and Hand, Chartered, hereby certify that | have this 24th day of March, 1999, caused a copy of the foregoing "Petition to Deny" to be sent, via First Class, United States Mail, postage prepaid to each of the following: Nancy Killien Spooner Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP 3000 K Street, NW., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007—5116 Deirdre A. Johnsdn


Document Created: 2001-08-09 19:37:00
Document Modified: 2001-08-09 19:37:00
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC