Incoming generated [Oct 30, 2003]

0424-EX-ST-2003 Correspondence

Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC

2003-11-12ELS_63840

From: David.Konczal@shawpittman.com
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 1:16 PM
To: John Kennedy
Cc: Dick Evans
Subject: MSV Authorizations

John -- In response to your question to Dick Evans, I am attaching a couple of
MSV's authorizations.

(1) The first is one of MSV's blanket mobile earth station licenses that
authorizes MSV to operate earth stations with its licensed satellite
(AMSC-1) throughout the L-band. This license is available on the Commission's
International Bureau Filing System.

(2) The second is a February 2002 Commission Order modifying MSV's
satellite license for AMSC-1 to authorize MSV to operate the satellite
throughout the entire L-band. (The Order refers to "Motient," which is MSV's
predecessor in interest.)

To clarify, MSV is only requesting to conduct its test on frequencies it has
already coordinated for its satellite system through the international L-band
frequency coordination process.

Please call with any questions.

(See attached file: E990133.pdf)

(See attached file: FCC-02-24A1.doc)

David Konczal
SHAW PITTMAN LLP
2300 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Tel: (202) 663-8432
Fax: (202) 663-8007

This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm Shaw
Pittman LLP that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended
solely for the recipient and use by any other party is not authorized. If you
are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you
have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone (1.202.663.8000, or in the UK, 020 7847 9500)or by
electronic mail at postmaster@shawpittman.com. Thank You.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Establishing Rules and Policies for the use of )
Spectrum for Mobile Satellite Services in the ) IB Docket No. 96-132
Upper and Lower L-band )
)
)
)
)

REPORT AND ORDER

Adopted: January 28, 2002 Released: February 7, 2002

By the Commission:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 2

III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................8
A. Assignment of Spectrum in the L-band........................................................................8
B. Legal Authority .................................................................................................21
C. Priority Access and Preemption..................................................................................30
D. System Design .................................................................................................42
E. Interference .................................................................................................43
F. Inmarsat Use of Lower L-band...................................................................................44

IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................45

V. ORDERING CLAUSES .................................................................................................46

Appendix A: Final Rules
Appendix B: Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

I. INTRODUCTION

1. By this action we establish licensing policies to govern mobile-satellite service (“MSS”)1 in
certain portions of the L-band: the 1545-1559 MHz and 1646.5-1660.5 MHz frequency bands ("upper L-
band") and the 1525-1530 MHz, 1530-1544 MHz, and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz frequency bands ("lower L-
band").2 Specifically, we assign up to 20 megahertz of spectrum across the entire L-band to Motient
Services, Inc. (“Motient”), the only U.S. MSS system currently authorized to operate in the L-band.3 We
will assign the lower L-band frequencies to Motient in lieu of upper L-band frequencies that have been
assigned to Motient, and that the United States has been unable to coordinate internationally for use by a
U.S. licensee. Any coordinated lower L-band spectrum not required to secure Motient an aggregate of 20
megahertz of L-band spectrum will be made available for other MSS applicants that may wish to apply
for assignment of the frequencies. By this action we also adopt and incorporate into Part 25 of the
Commission’s service rules specific operational parameters and technical requirements to ensure that the
integrity of maritime distress and safety communications service will not be compromised by MSS
operation in the lower L-band.

II. BACKGROUND

2. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (the “NPRM”) in this proceeding, the Commission
asked for comment on the possibility of assigning up to a maximum of 28 megahertz of internationally
coordinated upper and lower L-band spectrum to Motient.4 Additionally, the Commission asked for
comment on whether any spectrum coordinated for U.S. use above 28 megahertz should be made
available to future MSS applicants. The Commission also proposed a series of technical and operational
standards designed to prevent new MSS operations from interfering with maritime distress and safety
communications in the lower L-band.

3. To support providing Motient with spectrum in the lower L-band, the Commission explained
that Motient was originally authorized to use 28 megahertz of spectrum in the upper L-band for MSS
service. In the original Licensing Order the Commission required 12 applicants to form a single MSS
operating consortium.5 The Commission based this requirement on the twelve applicants before it and the
Commission’s finding that there was only sufficient spectrum available to support one system.
1
The mobile-satellite service is a radio service between mobile earth stations (located on land, at sea or in the air)
and one or more space stations providing voice, data, and other radiocommunication services.
2
The L-band is generally understood to include frequencies from 1 to 2 GHz. However, as used in this order, the
term is limited to those frequency bands mentioned above.
3
When this proceeding was initiated, Motient was incorporated as AMSC Subsidiary Corporation. Subsequently, it
changed its name to Motient.
4
Establishing Rules and Policies for the Use of Spectrum for Mobile Satellite Service in the Upper and Lower L-
Band, IB Docket No.96-132, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 11675 (1996).
5
Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 4 FCC Rcd 6041 (1989), rev’d and remanded, Aeronautical
Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 928 F. 2d 428 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Final Decision on Remand, 7 FCC Rcd 266 (1992), aff’d sub
nom. Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 983 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

2

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

to protect and maintain the integrity of safety and distress maritime communications, both internationally
and domestically, the Commission proposed to establish and codify priority access and preemption
standards and policies for MSS systems operating in these portions of the lower L-band.14 The
Commission also proposed to allow mobile earth terminal data message transmissions to be half-duplex,
rather than requiring full-duplex, and sought comment as to the maximum amount of time that
transmissions should be permitted.15 The Commission tentatively concluded that adopting a maximum
time limit on data message transmissions and proposed priority access and real-time preemption standards
for distress and safety communication would provide sufficient priority to comply with the requirements
of U.S. Footnote 315 of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations.

7. Nine parties filed initial comments in response to the NPRM.16 Five of these parties also filed
reply comments.17 Nearly all of the comments address the proposals related to the assignment of lower L-
band frequencies to Motient. Only Motient and the U.S. Coast Guard commented on the proposals
concerning maritime safety and distress priority and preemptive access.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Assignment of Spectrum in the L-band

8. One of the concerns giving rise to the NPRM was that international coordination difficulties
precluded securing sufficient spectrum in the upper L-band to support Motient’s authorized system.
Moreover, at the time of the NPRM, based on on-going international coordination meetings, the
Commission believed the likelihood of securing more than 20 megahertz from the entire L-band (both
upper and lower) for U.S. use was remote.18 Two parties, Celsat and LQL have taken issue with this
assumption, contending that subsequent events have altered the L-band assignment process.19 They point
out that shortly after the release of the NPRM the Commission issued a news release announcing that
Inmarsat, Canada, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and the United States, the operators currently

mobile-satellite system stations not participating in the GMDSS shall operate on a secondary basis to distress and
safety communications of stations operating in the GMDSS. Account shall be taken of the priority of safety-related
communications in the mobile-satellite service.” Similar language is contained in International Telecommunication
Union (“ITU”) Radio Regulation S5.353A.
14
These proposals are specified in "Appendix B" of the NPRM at 11691.
15
“Half-duplex” transmissions require that a message be completed before an incoming message can be received.
“Full-duplex” transmissions allow a message to be received and transmitted at the same time.
16
The parties that filed comments are: Motient, Celsat America, Inc. ("Celsat"), Comsat Corporation ("Comsat"),
L/Q Licensee, Inc. ("LQL"), Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Lockheed Martin"), Motorola Satellite
Communications, Inc. and Iridium LLC ("Motorola/lridium"), Rural Telecommunications Group ("RTG"), United
States Coast Guard ("U.S. Coast Guard"), and Radio Satellite Corporation ("RSC").
17
The parties that filed reply comments are Motient, Comsat, Lockheed Martin, Motorola/lridium, and RSC.
18
NPRM at 11680.
19
See Celsat Comments at 3 and LQL Comments at 3.

4

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

coordinating spectrum for a variety of MSS systems in the vicinity of North America, had signed a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") in Mexico City. The news release stated, in part, that the
MOU specified that "[s]pectrum allocations to individual operators will be reviewed annually on the basis
of actual usage and short-term projections of future need.''20 LQL interprets the news release as providing
the United States with what LQL characterizes as a “dynamic allocation” across the upper and lower L-
band as determined by actual traffic.21

9. We believe that the coordination process established in Mexico City has worked well to
ensure equitable sharing of the L-band spectrum. It has not, however, altered the fact that the L-band is in
high demand. All five MSS operators have claimed to need more spectrum than is currently assigned to
them and some seek amounts that exceed availability. Consequently, the international coordination
difficulties remain in negotiating sufficient spectrum to enable Motient to establish and operate a viable
MSS system.

10. In the NPRM, the Commission gave three bases to support its proposal to modify Motient's
license to allow it to operate over frequencies in the lower and upper L-band. First, MSS is well suited to
serve areas that are too remote or sparsely populated to receive service from terrestrial land mobile
systems. Second, since launching its first satellite in 1995, Motient was in the best position to provide
MSS in the U.S. in the shortest amount of time. Third, and most importantly, a license issued by the
Commission must include a reasonable expectation that spectrum will be available to enable the licensee
to implement the system that it has proposed and has been authorized to operate.22 Each of these
justifications has generated comments.

11. No commenter disagreed with the Commission’s assertion that MSS systems are particularly
well suited for providing mobile communication services to areas that are not being adequately served by
terrestrial radio facilities.23 Commenters left undisputed the fact that despite the growth of terrestrial
radio services such as cellular radio and Personal Communications Services (“PCS”), large areas of the
nation remain without basic telecommunications services. Commenters agree that MSS provides the
technical capability to meet the needs of people in remote areas for public safety, business and personal
communications and that MSS operations should be supported in the L-band.

12. In the NPRM, the Commission concluded that Motient was best suited to provide expeditious
service to the public because one of its three authorized satellites is in operation. Our experience has been
that it normally takes licensees three years to construct, launch and begin operations of a geostationary
satellite. Motient concurs with this assessment. Motorola/Iridium disagrees. Motorola/Iridium contends

20
See "FCC Hails Historic Agreement on International Satellite Coordination," Report No. IN 96-16, released June
25, 1996.
21
LQL Comments at 6. See also Celsat Comments at 4-5.
22
See NPRM at 11680-81.
23
See Motient Comments at 5, Motorola/Iridium Comments 9-10, LQL Comments at 7-8, Celsat Comments at 57,
and RTG Comments at 8. Two of the parties, however, Motorola/Iridium and LQL, suggest that the L-band be
made available to systems that are designed to provide global, rather than regional, MSS service. This proposal was
not before the Commission when Motient was licensed and will not be addressed here.

5

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

that Motient is the only operational MSS system because the Commission has refused to accept other
MSS applications.24 Motorola/Iridium submits that this action has been prejudicial to it and to other
potential MSS applicants. What Motorola/Iridium fails to address in its argument, however, is that the
Commission chose not to invite a new processing round because there was not sufficient spectrum to
accommodate the existing licensed systems. Moreover, in this particular coordination process, where
spectrum allocation is based on actual usage and short-term projections of future need, an operating
system is essential. Without such a system, the available spectrum would have been allocated to non-U.S.
systems and none would be available. Thus, under these circumstances, Motorola/Iridium’s argument is
not persuasive.

13. LQL, on the other hand, contends that the Commission has not adequately established a
connection between expediting service and adding frequencies to Motient's system.25 It points out that
Motient has failed to meet the deadlines for launching its other two satellites. LQL therefore argues that
there are no rational grounds for concluding that Motient would use the additional spectrum that we
propose to assign to it before another licensed system could be placed in operation. We disagree. Given
that Motient has proposed an MSS system designed to use 28 megahertz of spectrum, requiring it to fully
construct this system when the spectrum for which it was designed is not available would not advance the
public interest. Moreover, given the lack of available spectrum, there is no indication that the expense of
constructing, launching and operating these satellites would improve the services that Motient is currently
providing. And, as pointed out above, waiting for another system to be placed in operation would have
resulted in no frequencies being available. Thus, LQL’s comments have not altered our conclusion that
Motient is best suited to serve the U.S. MSS market using this portion of the L-band.

14. The Commission’s proposal to allow Motient to have initial access to the lower L-band
spectrum was based on our conclusion that, unless modified for overriding public interest reasons,
licensees should be entitled to a reasonable expectation that adequate spectrum will be made available to
support their authorized systems. Motient supports this determination.26 Other commenters, however,
argue that satellite authorizations are conditioned upon, and subject to, international coordination.27
These commenters argue that there is no basis for providing Motient spectrum outside of what it has been
able to coordinate though the normal coordination process in the upper L-band.

15. We agree that all satellite licenses are granted subject to the uncertainties of international
coordination. However, this does not alter our belief that, when possible, the public interest requires that
a Commission license carry with it a reasonable expectation that adequate spectrum will be available to
the licensee. Certainly the eight initial applicants who joined to form the Motient consortium had this
expectation. Moreover, none of the parties that have taken issue with this proposition have provided a

24
See Motorola/Iridium Comments at 14.
25
See LQL Comments at 7.
26
See Motient Comments at 5.
27
See LQL Comments at 5-6, Motorola/Iridium Comments at 6-7, RTG Comments at 9-10, Lockheed Martin
Comments at 9-10, and RSC Comments at 1-2.

6

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

persuasive reason for holding otherwise. 28

16. The Commission also stated in the NPRM that the Commission can, and shall, take
reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that licensees have a fair opportunity to compete.29 The
commenters all agreed that the Commission is entrusted with this responsibility.30 In order for an MSS
licensee to compete, it must have sufficient spectrum to provide acceptable service at a reasonable price.
Previously, the Commission estimated that a minimum of 20 megahertz of L-band spectrum is necessary
for an economically viable domestic MSS system in this frequency band.31 The NPRM sought comment
on whether this amount is still needed to enable an MSS licensee to establish and operate a competitive
system.32

17. Commenters contend that based on the development of satellite and mobile radio technology,
it is now possible to operate a profitable MSS system using less than 20 megahertz of spectrum.
Commenters state that new MSS systems using state-of-the-art technology are dramatically more efficient
than Motient's system and provide a higher level of satellite services, including service to hand-held

28
The practical effect of the action here neither exceeds nor reduces the licensee’s reasonable expectation. While
Motient originally had the opportunity under its license to coordinate and use up to 28 MHz of upper L-band
spectrum for an optimum system, the Commission had estimated as early as 1985, and reiterated in the 1996 NPRM,
that 20 MHz was probably the minimum amount needed for a viable operation. See para. 18 infra. And, of course,
it is now well known that even coordinating 20 MHz for use has been, and continues to be, problematic. The license
modification retains here, for public interest reasons, the possibility that Motient might be able to coordinate and use
20 MHz of spectrum, but over the entire L-band. This is certainly consistent with whatever reasonable expectations
the licensee may have. The reasonable expectations of Motient were also recently addressed by the court in AMSC
Subsidiary Corporation v. FCC, 216 F. 3d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 2000). There, the court upheld the Commission’s
decision to license mobile earth terminals (METs) to receive MSS service from a foreign-licensed satellite in the
upper L-band. The result of this decision was not to license an additional U.S. system to use L-band spectrum (i.e.,
other than Motient). Rather, the result was simply to permit implementation of the Commission’s DISCO II policy.
See 12 FCC Rcd 24094 (1997). That policy allows foreign satellite systems to provide service in the U.S. provided
certain conditions not relevant here are met. The Commission action effectively allowed a foreign MSS provider
licensed elsewhere entry into the U.S. market. The foreign MSS provider already had access to L-band spectrum
through the same international coordination procedure participated in by Motient. AMSC (Motient) challenged the
action in part on the basis that this entry deprived it of the spectrum it was entitled to under its license. The court
rejected the argument. In doing so, it expressly recognized the Commission’s “goal” of securing 20 MHz of
spectrum for AMSC‘s use. See 216 F. 3d at 1160. It also characterized the Commission’s action as protecting
AMSC’s “existing operations, ” stressing that the foreign entry did not require AMSC to “change its licensed
operating parameters,” “decrease its system capacity” nor incur any “interference problems.” Id. at 1161. Thus,
AMSC’s reasonable expectations were not adversely affected by the Commission’s action.
29
NPRM at 11681.
30
See RSC Comments at 4, RTG Comments at 7, LQL Comments at 3-4, Motorola/lridium Comments at 11,
Comsat Comments at 1, Celsat Comments at 9, and Lockheed Martin Comments at 14.
31
Amendments of Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum for and Establish Rules
Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies in Land Mobile Satellite Service, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 50
Fed. Reg. 8149, 8152 (1985).
32
NPRM at 11680.

7

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

mobile terminals. RSC, for instance, points out that there are three competing geostationary L-band
systems under construction in Asia, and two other systems that are planned for service in the Middle East
and nearby regions.33 In this regard, Lockheed Martin indicates that it is the prime contractor for the Asia
Cellular Satellite ("ACeS") system, which is one of the systems identified by RSC. ACeS is a satellite-
based, hand-held, digital mobile telecommunications system that is designed to provide service to
subscribers in the Asia-Pacific region. Lockheed Martin maintains that use of the latest technological
developments in its design of the ACeS satellite and associated ground equipment for the ACeS system
enables it to achieve new levels of spectral efficiency and circuit capability. In fact, Lockheed Martin
professes that the ACeS system may be up to 20 times more spectrum efficient than Motient's first
generation MSS system because of its extensive reliance on frequency reuse. Accordingly, Lockheed
Martin declares that as little as five megahertz of spectrum can now simultaneously support up to 16,000
MSS simplex circuits and ten megahertz of spectrum can support the same number of full duplex
circuits.34 Both Motorola/Iridium and RSC support Lockheed Martin's assessments.35 Motient concedes
that a multiple-beam satellite, such as the one Lockheed Martin has designed for the ACeS MSS system,
would probably be three times more spectrum efficient than Motient's existing satellite, and that
efficiency gains that the ACeS system achieves through the employment of newer voice coding and
compression algorithms ("vocoders") are likely to result in a 20 percent reduction in Motient's spectrum
usage.36

18. We recognize that technical strides have been made since 1987, when MSS was first
authorized in the L-band. The Commission then determined that there was insufficient spectrum to
support the applications it had on file for this service. With this in mind, the Commission required the
applicants to form a consortium. 37 The consortium was the only licensee in the upper L-band. In the
1996 NPRM, the Commission concluded that Motient would need up to the first 28 megahertz of
available L-band spectrum to operate an optimum MSS system. It also concluded that an economically
viable MSS system designed to the technical specifications on file must have a minimum of 20 megahertz
of spectrum.38 Based on the minimum spectrum estimation and ongoing international coordination
meetings, the Commission concluded that opening the lower L-band for competing applications was
unlikely.39 At the time the NPRM was adopted, the Commission did not believe that there would be

33
See RSC Comments at 5, identifying PT Asia Cellular Satellite System, Afro-Asia Satellite Communications,
Ltd., and Asia Pacific Mobile Telecommunications as L-band MSS systems designed to provide service to Asia, and
SatPhone and Etisalat as those systems which are proposing to serve the Middle East.
34
See Lockheed Martin Comments at 7-10.
35
See Motorola/lridium Reply Comments at 17 and RSC Reply Comments at 2-3.
36
See Motient Reply Comments at 10.
37
See Amendment of Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum for, and Establish Rules
Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies in a Land Mobile Satellite Service for the Provision of Various Common
Carrier Services, Second Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 485 (1987).
38
NPRM at 11680.
39
Id.

8

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

sufficient spectrum to accommodate more than Motient’s system in the entire L-band. Thus, it tentatively
concluded that in the lower L-band Motient should be authorized to use the balance of the available 28
megahertz for which it is authorized.

19. That situation has now changed. Commenters state that technical advances in MSS systems
have reduced the spectral requirements that some MSS operators would need to operate profitably. Based
on these assertions, and on our earlier finding that 20 megahertz would be the minimum required, we
have reassessed our earlier determination regarding the amount of lower L-band spectrum that should be
reserved exclusively for Motient. We recognize that, whether three times more efficient, as Motient
claims, or twenty times more efficient, as others suggest, Motient’s authorization was issued before these
new, more efficient technologies were available. Motient is operating the system it was authorized to
construct and launch and cannot redesign its system while in operation. Nevertheless, we believe that the
public interest requires that we accommodate both the interest in providing service through Motient’s
system and new systems to the extent possible. Although the system Motient has been authorized to
construct and operate is designed to use 28 megahertz, the record indicates that the system is capable of
providing an economically viable MSS service with as little as 20 megahertz of spectrum. In light of this
fact, we find that reserving the first 20 megahertz of internationally coordinated L-band spectrum for
Motient's use in providing MSS service satisfies any reasonable expectations that Motient might have.
Thus, we are modifying Motient’s license and authorizing it to use up to 20 megahertz of spectrum across
the upper and lower L-band. In other words, Motient’s modified authorization will be limited to a total of
20 megahertz of coordinated spectrum in the upper and lower L-band for the reminder of its license
period.40 Furthermore, if sufficient spectrum in the L-band should become available once the
Commission has coordinated the 20 megahertz for which Motient is authorized, or should Motient acquire
access to at least 20 megahertz of L-band spectrum through other means, i.e. its proposed merger with
TMI, we find that the public interest benefit derived from reserving the additional spectrum to enable the
creation of competitive MSS providers outweighs any benefits that might stem from assigning additional
L-band spectrum to Motient.

20. Similarly, in view of the strides made in spectrum-efficient MSS technologies, we believe
that both the availability and the amount of L-band spectrum needed for a viable MSS system is changing
rapidly and that continuing the freeze on accepting applications to use L-band spectrum might needlessly
retard the development of a more competitive MSS environment. Thus, after the L-band international
coordination process is completed for Motient, applicants may apply for L-band spectrum in excess of the
20 megahertz authorized to Motient if they believe that there is sufficient L-band spectrum available to
implement a system.

B. Legal Authority

21. Section 316 of the Act provides the Commission with authority to modify an existing license
when necessary.41 LQL challenges the Commission’s authority to use Section 316 of the Act to modify
Motient's current license to enable it to use lower L-band frequencies due to our unsuccessful attempts to
coordinate sufficient upper L-band spectrum to support the system the Commission authorized Motient to

40
Given the advances in MSS satellite technology, we shall expect second generation systems posed by Motient and
other future applicants to be state-of-the-art satellites capable of operating on less spectrum.
41
See 47 U.S.C. § 316.

9

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

operate. According to LQL, Section 316 does not apply to Motient's situation. LQL claims that the
application of Section 316 is limited to those cases in which the Commission's action has the effect of
modifying an "unconditional right" in a license. According to LQL, that has not been done in the case
before us. LQL argues that Motient's authorization does not encompass an unconditional right to operate
in the lower L-band. LQL concludes that since we are not modifying Motient's existing license, Section
316 is not applicable.42 We disagree. As Motient correctly points out, we are modifying its assignment of
specific frequencies in the upper L-band.43

22. The language of Section 316 is clear and unequivocal: "[A]ny station license . . . may be
modified by the Commission . . . if in the judgment of the Commission such action will promote the
public interest, convenience, and necessity." The original license authorized Motient to use the upper L-
band frequencies. Now, because many of these frequencies are not available because of international
coordination, we intend to modify Motient’s license. If and when the spectrum becomes available, we
will realign frequencies that are unavailable in the upper L-band and include frequencies in the lower L-
band, up to the 20 megahertz that we intend to authorize to Motient. This action allows Motient to
aggregate up to 20 megahertz of L-band spectrum in which to operate its current MSS system and
promotes the public interest, convenience and necessity by providing Motient sufficient spectrum to
provide service to many of the nation’s rual and remote areas.

23. Because we are adopting the NPRM proposal to modify Motient's license pursuant to Section
316 of the Act,44 we will dismiss its 1993 application in which Motient requests authority to use spectrum
in the lower L-band. Accordingly, the concerns regarding the acceptance of Motient’s 1993 application
are now moot. New applications for L-band spectrum, however, may be filed once Motient has acquired
the 20 megahertz that we are now authorizing.

24. RTG contends that the Commission’s reliance on Rainbow Broadcasting Co. v. FCC45 as a
basis for proposing not to open the initially allocated portion of the lower L-band to competing
applications was misplaced. RTG points out that Rainbow Broadcasting involved an exchange of
channels between a commercial broadcast licensee and a non-commercial educational licensee that was
permitted to take place without the involvement of third parties. It further notes that both stations were
concurrently serving the same market, and that each licensee benefited from the exchange. Whereas, says
RTG, our proposal involves open frequencies that belong to no one but the public. RTG asserts that the
holding in Rainbow Broadcasting is not applicable because it concerns an entirely different fact pattern,
to which its applicability is limited. Consequently, RTG insists that all of the lower L-band frequencies
must be open to competing applications.46

25. We are not persuaded by RTG’s arguments. RTG has provided no grounds supporting its

42
See LQL Comments at 14-15; see also Motorola/lridium Reply Comments at 4
43
See Motient Reply Comments at 13
44
See NPRM at 11683.
45
949 F.2d 405 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
46
See RTG Comments at 4-7.

10

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

spectrum to just one company.53

27. At the outset, we disagree that we have relied on the decision cited by Motorola/Iridium. As
noted above, our action here is primarily based on our authority under Section 316 of the Act to modify
an existing license. The Commission’s exercise of Section 316 authority was simply not at issue in
Aeronautical Radio. Thus we expressly stated in the NPRM that this proceeding “does not involve initial
applicants and the hearing rights of eligible new applicants under [S]ection 309 of the Act,”54 matters that
were at issue in Ashbacker, Storer, and Aeronautical Radio. 55 None of the commenters has suggested that
this proceeding involves competing eligible applicants for the lower L-band spectrum. We did not
propose to open this spectrum for competing applications and we have not done so. This decision is a
permissible exercise of our rulemaking authority. Nor have we “established the licensee itself by rule,”56
Motient is already a Commission licensee, and we have simply modified its license pursuant to Section
316.

28. Furthermore, even if the court’s decision in Aeronautical Radio were relevant, we note that
many of the fundamental legal premises underlying that decision have been affected by subsequent
statutory amendments to the Act. In questioning the Commission’s authority to license only a consortium
of applicants, rather than utilizing comparable hearings, the court relied heavily on the proposition that
the Act embodies a congressional policy that “comparable consideration ... is the process most likely to
serve the public.”57 Congress, however, has since modified the Act to make clear it dissatisfaction with
the comparative licensing scheme.58 Although the statutory amendments require competitive bidding as
53
Id. at 511.
54
NPRM at 11685.
55
See Reuters Limited v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1986)("Ashbacker's teaching applies not to prospective
applicants, but only to parties whose applications have been declared mutually exclusive.")(Emphasis in original).

56
Committee for Effective Cellular Rules, 53 F. 3d 1309, 1318-20 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
57
Aeronautical Radio, 928 F. 2d at 450.
58
In 1993, Congress gave the Commission permissive authority to resolve mutually exclusive license applications
by auctioning spectrum licenses in certain radio services. See Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA-
93), Pub. L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312 (1993), § 6001(a) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 923(a)-(b)). The dissatisfaction with
comparative hearings was further underscored by the legislative history of OBRA-93. In addition to addressing the
desire for use of spectrum auctions, the Conference Report stated that “. . . the Conference Agreement includes a
provision that requires the Commission to continue to use engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold
qualifications, service regulations, and other means in order to avoid exclusivity in application and licensing
proceedings.” See H. R. Conf. Rep. 103-213, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. 485 (1993). In 1997, Congress expanded the
Commission’s auction authority by amending Section 309(j) of the Communications Act to require that all mutually
exclusive applications for initial licenses, including those for broadcast services, “shall” be auctioned except for
licensing for public radio services and certain other types of licenses not relevant here. See Balanced Budget At of
1997 (OBRA-97), Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997), § 3002(a) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(f), 309(j), 397).
The Conference Report for OBRA-97 similarly stated that the Commission should not “overlook[ing] engineering
solutions, negotiations, or other tools that avoid mutual exclusivity.” See H. R. Conf. Rep. 105-217, 105th Cong.,
1st Sess. 572 (1997). These enactments are a clear indication that Congress does not consider the comparative
hearing process the exclusive means of effectuating the public interest.

12

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

the selection process for most services they do not apply to international or global satellite
communications services.59 Congress’s decision not to use auctions for these international satellite
services does not suggest, however, that it favors the use of comparative hearings instead.60 Indeed,
many of the reasons that Congress relied on to reject the use of auctions for international satellite services,
such as the long lead time required for satellite construction and the uncertainty that could result from use
of auctions, apply equally to the use of comparative hearings. Thus, as the Commission explained in its
decision on remand from Aeronautical Radio, the Commission historically as never used comparative
hearings to select among satellite applicants.61

29. We continue to believe, therefore, that the Commission has ample authority to modify
Motient’s license as discussed above and that this action best serves the public interest. MSS provides
service to areas in the United States that would otherwise go unserved. Motient is the U.S. company in

59
Section 647 of the Open Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications (ORBIT
Act) provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not have the authority to assign by competitive
bidding orbital locations or spectrum used for the provision of international or global satellite communications
services. The President shall oppose in the International Telecommunication Union and in other bilateral and
multilateral fora any assignment by competitive bidding of orbital locations and spectrum used for the provision of
such services.

Pub. L. 106-180, 114 Stat. 48 § 647 (2000) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 647).
60
The legislative history of the ORBIT Act provides:

New section 649 [section 647] prevents the Commission from using competitive bidding procedures (i.e.,
auctions) to award licenses for spectrum or orbital locations used for providing international satellite
services. In addition, it requires the Administration to oppose the adoption of auctions to award licenses for
orbital locations or satellite services in the ITU and other fora.

The Committee believes that auctions of spectrum or orbital locations could threaten the viability and
availability of global and international satellite services, particularly because concurrent or successive
spectrum auctions in the numerous countries in which U.S.- owned global satellite service providers seek
downlink or service provision licenses could place significant financial burdens on providers of such
services. This problem would be compounded by the fact that the multi-year period required for design,
construction and launch of global and international satellite systems usually requires service providers to
invest substantial resources well before they obtain all needed worldwide licenses and spectrum
assignments. The uncertainty created by spectrum auctions could disrupt the availability of capital for such
projects, and significantly reduce the available benefits offered by global and international satellite systems.

Report of Committee on Commerce, Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act of 1998, H.R.
Rep. No. 494, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. 64-65 (1998).

61
Final Decision on Remand, 7 FCC Rcd 266, 269 (1992). For example, the Commission stated, citing its tentative
decision on remand, Tentative Decision, 6 FCC Rcd 4900, 4904-05 (1991), that because of the significant time
required for construction and launch and rapidly developing satellite technology, the considerable time involved in
comparative hearings would likely cause a substantial delay in service to the public unless the Commission adopted
more pragmatic, timely approaches to licensing.

13

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

the best position in the L-band to provide this service and it is entitled to a reasonable expectation that
enough spectrum will be coordinated to support its authorized system. Commenters have not
persuasively demonstrated that a different outcome is warranted. Thus Motient will be granted use of the
first 20 megahertz of internationally coordinated spectrum in the L-band.

C. Priority Access and Preemption

30. Footnote US315 to Section 2.106 of the Commission’s rules states that lower L-band MSS
systems may not interfere with maritime mobile-satellite (MMSS) distress and safety communications
that are also operating in these frequencies.62 Footnote US315 protects MMSS distress and safety
communications, such as GMDSS, domestically by providing priority access and real-time preemptive
capability for distress and safety communications. To ensure MSS compliance with the provisions of
Footnote US315, the Commission proposed establishing priority access and preemption standards and
policies for mobile-satellite service in the lower L-band and incorporating these standards into the
Commission’s rules. The proposed system and terminal requirements are delineated in Appendix B of the
NPRM.63 The Commission sought comment on the proposed standards in Appendix B, and on the
maximum number of seconds to which half-duplex data MET transmissions should be limited. The
proposed requirements are derived from similar requirements that the Commission adopted in connection
with the operation of aeronautical distress and safety-related communication in the upper L-band. These
technical requirements were formulated in order to comply with the provisions of Footnote US308 for
priority and preemptive access for aeronautical safety communications.64 The Commission also proposed
in the NPRM to continue to allow U.S.-licensed MSS systems to operate half-duplex Inmarsat “Standard
C” type or technically similar mobile earth terminals (“METs”) in the lower L-band.65 Additionally, the
Commission proposed establishing a time limit for data messages transmitted in half-duplex from METs
in order to protect the integrity of maritime safety and distress communications in the lower L-band. At
the end of this period, the MES could be commanded to pause by the LES and the higher priority traffic
could be placed ahead of any further transmissions. In cases where priority traffic is intended for the
MES that is transmitting, it could be commanded to stop transmitting and receive the priority traffic.

31. The Commission stated that the proposal to allow U.S.-licensed MSS systems to operate in
half-duplex with appropriate restraints could provide sufficient distress and safety communication priority
to comply with the intent of Footnote US315. The NPRM explained that maritime distress and safety
services in the lower L-band have been operational for years and are sufficiently dynamic and robust to
accommodate the operation of half-duplex METs. In this regard, it also noted that Inmarsat and others

62
47 C.F.R. § 2.106.
63
NPRM at 11691-93.
64
See AMSC Subsidiary Corp., 1995 WL 109123 (F.C.C., Mar 13, 1995)(DA 95-482).
65
The International Bureau previously found that full compliance with Footnote US315 was not possible while
operating in half-duplex in the lower L-band, since this mode of operation is not capable of real-time termination.
That is, a transmission cannot be interrupted once it has started. Nevertheless, the Bureau found that, because of the
short duration of half-duplex transmission, MSS METs then in use complied with the intent, if not the letter, of
US315. Consequently, full compliance with Footnote US315 had been waived for two years. See AMSC Subsidiary
Corp., 10 FCC Rcd 10458 (Int’l.Bur. 1995) and Rockwell International Corp. 10 FCC Rcd 10952 (Int’l.Bur. 1995).

14

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

operate in half-duplex “Standard C” or other technically similar data METs with no apparent harm to
maritime safety and distress communications.

32. Only Motient and the U.S. Coast Guard commented on the Commission’s priority access and
preemption proposals. Each expressed some misgivings, but both generally endorse the proposals.
Motient states that it supports providing priority and preemptive access in the lower L-band.66 It objects,
however, to the establishment of a maximum time limit on transmissions by half-duplex terminals.
Motient contends that half-duplex terminals can be operated in either the upper or lower MSS L-bands in
a manner that meets the requirements for priority and preemptive access for both aviation safety and
maritime safety communications. In fact, Motient states that priority and preemptive access operations in
the lower L-band are easier than operation in the upper L-band. Motient explains that whatever the
relative demand may be for capacity for aviation safety and maritime safety communications, the peaks in
demand for maritime safety communications are much more gradual than for aviation safety
communications. Moreover, Motient maintains that the maritime community and its aviation
counterparts, made no demonstration of what, if any, time limit is needed to ensure safety at sea. Motient,
therefore, submits that there is no basis for an arbitrary time limit.67

33. In addition, Motient says that while its half-duplex terminals are capable of operating in
compliance with the requirements of Footnote US315, it believes that the demand for maritime safety
communications can be easily satisfied with only a few channels.68 Using this assumption, Motient
provides several options for providing priority and preemptive access for distress and safety
communications. One option includes a subsystem designed, operated, and controlled by maritime
entities, including the U.S. Coast Guard, to which Motient would provide the necessary space segment
and frequencies.69

34. Motient offers some suggestions regarding the proposed system and terminal requirements
specified in Appendix B of the NPRM. Motient maintains that some of the provisions in Appendix B are
ambiguous. Its principal concerns are with Requirements Nos. 2 and 8 for MES and Requirement No. 9
for LES.70 Specifically, Motient argues that these requirements obligate terminals to be capable of being
automatically interrupted during a transmission to receive a higher priority incoming call. Motient says
that a more reasonable approach to a busy signal will typically be to try again momentarily. It explains
that automatic preemption works well in the case of packet data or data message communications
systems. In those cases, Motient says, messages or packets from a ship may be queued, either in the MES
or in other shipboard communications equipment. It adds that a high priority message or packet could
then be placed at the head of the queue, and, if necessary preempt an ongoing outbound transmission.
Motient also advises that its data services queue messages for processing, distribution, and transmission,

66
See Motient Comments at 7.
67
Id. at 8-9.
68
In support of its claim, Motient provides an affidavit of Rear Admiral M. Edward Gilbert (USCG, Ret.). Id.
“Exhibit A.”
69
Id. “Technical Appendix.”
70
See NPRM at 11691-93.

15

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

so that those services have the capabilities specified in Appendix B of the NPRM. Voice
communications, submits Motient, are handled differently. It says that it is reasonable to expect that
preemption be done manually by the ship’s crew disconnecting a low priority call when one of higher
priority is placed. Motient therefore professes that there is no need for a requirement that this preemption
be done automatically by the MES, and it proposes the following revisions to MES Requirements Nos. 2
and 8, and LES Requirement No. 9, to limit them to data terminals:

MES No. 2: “Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and safety data
communications shall be capable of either (1) recognizing message and call priority
identification when transmitted from its associated Land Earth Station (‘LES’) or (2)
accepting message and call priority identification embedded in the message or call when
transmitted from its associated LES and passing the identification to shipboard data
message processing equipment.”

MES No. 8: “Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and safety data
communications shall have the capacity within the station to automatically preempt lower
precedence data traffic. This capability may reside in either the MES or in the shipboard
message processing equipment.”

LES No 9: “An LES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and safety data
communications shall have the capability within the station to automatically preempt
lower precedence traffic.”71

35. The U.S. Coast Guard, though generally agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, takes
issue with the assertion concerning the ability of maritime distress and safety services in the lower L-band
to accommodate the operation of half-duplex METs. It says that GMDSS satellite equipment, while
improving the U.S. Coast Guard’s distress and safety communications with ships, is not as “dynamic and
robust” as the Commission believes. An example cited by the U.S. Coast Guard concerns the passenger
vessel Achille Lauro, which caught fire near the coast of Somalia on November 30, 1994. We are
informed that rescue operations were delayed for two hours because of the loss of radio contact between
rescue coordination center authorities and the rescuing vessels. The U.S. Coast Guard states that the
communications failure was due to interference caused principally by calls from the news media and
because of a lack of preemptive priority capability in the shore-to-ship facilities. Conceding that the
Achille Lauro incident involved the use of a different type of terminal, the U.S. Coast Guard contends that
operation of that system, nevertheless, requires an equivalent portion of L-band spectrum and its terminals
are similar to half-duplex METs. The U.S. Coast Guard also says that there are other instances that
exemplify the vulnerability of GMDSS. It points out that Standard C half-duplex METs operated by
Inmarsat are incapable of identifying and protecting maritime safety messages other than distress alerts.72
Due to this limitation, the U.S. Coast Guard says other, but nonetheless important messages, such as those
concerning medical emergencies, warnings to mariners, and rescue coordination center communications,
are occasionally delayed significantly. Moreover, these inadequacies, contends the U.S. Coast Guard,

71
Motient Comments “Technical Appendix” at 6.
72
The U.S. Coast Guard notes that in a report to the International Maritime Organization, Norway stated that 154
out of 158 distress alerts received over a four-year period were false. Citing “Report of GMDSS Alerts, from 1991
through November 1995, within the Norwegian SRR,” IMO COMSAR/INF. 14, 22 Dec. 1995.

16

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

requirements for MES and LES proposed in Appendix B of the NPRM. Motient notes that the
Commission’s proposed MES Requirement Nos. 2 and 8, and LES Requirement No. 9, which require
automatic preemption, are requirements based on aeronautical rather than maritime application. As such,
the requirements do not take into account how voice communications are handled aboard ships. Motient
raises a valid point. The Commission’s proposed requirements were derived from similar requirements
that it adopted in order to ensure the integrity of aeronautical safety communications.78 Upon further
analysis, we do not believe that they are entirely suitable for maritime application. We believe that
provision should be made for shipboard voice systems. Therefore, we adopt Motient’s proposed
modification to MES No. 2.

39. We decline, however, to adopt Motient’s proposed modifications to MES No. 8 and LES No.
9. Regarding, MES No. 8, we do not agree with Motient’s interpretation that this requirement relates to
requested traffic only within the ship. That traffic should be handled manually. The requirements of
provisions MES No. 8 and LES No. 9 refer to both traffic from ships to gain access to a channel (ship-to-
shore), and to traffic from coast stations to the ship (shore-to-ship) communications that may be busy with
ongoing routine traffic. We note previously the importance of having shore-to-ship channels available
for rescue operations such as during the Achille Lauro incident. Regarding LES No. 9, we shall modify
this and LES No. 10, specifying that each LES shall have a capability to preempt ongoing routine traffic
from MES in order to complete a maritime distress, urgency or safety call to that particular MES.79 We
believe that this wording is better suited to meet the priority and preemption needs of maritime
communications. The remaining proposals are adopted as specified in Appendix B.

40. We also noted that Motient has proposed that no time limit be established for transmissions
by half-duplex METs. In the NPRM, however, the Commission proposed placing a limit on the duration
of MET transmissions because it believed that such a time limit, coupled with priority access and
preemption requirements, would ensure the integrity of maritime safety and distress communications.
Long –term needs of maritime distress and safety communications may not ultimately be met if no time
limit is imposed on transmissions by half-duplex METs. We have not, however, received adequate
comment on this issue to make a reasoned determination as to what the time limit should be. For
example, we need to know how Motient will give high priority requests for a satellite channel for half-
duplex traffic in face of a system being saturated by half-duplex data traffic.

41. Accordingly, until a record on this issue is more fully developed, we decline to adopt a
definite time limit for transmissions by half-duplex terminals. Parties may, of course, file a petition for
rulemaking to address the imposition of a definite time limit if, and when there is sufficient evidence to
demonstrate what the limit should be. Until that time, the Commission and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will continue to review applications for
half-duplex MES terminal operational authority (with requests for waiver of Footnote US315, as
appropriate) on a case-by-case basis. NTIA indicated to the Commission, in its case-by-case review of
recent applications to operate half-duplex MES terminals, that if a MES terminal is capable of, among

78
See AMSC Subsidiary Corp., 1995 WL 109123 (F.C.C., Mar 13, 1995)(DA 95-482).
79
The proposed language of these two requirements was as follows: LES No. 9 “An LES with a requirement to
handle maritime distress and safety communications shall have the capability within the station to automatically
preempt lower precedence traffic.” LES No. 10 “Each LES shall be capable of automatically turning off one or
more of its associated channels.”

18

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

other things, ceasing transmissions and inhibiting further transmissions within one second, that terminal
would be considered to meet the real time preemption requirements. 80 We anticipate that new licenses to
operate half-duplex terminals will be similarly conditioned, or limited by waiver of Footnote US315 as in
past practice, to ensure that GMDSS in the frequency band remain protected.

D. System Design

42. In the NPRM, the Commission specifically sought comment only on the proposed standards
in Appendix B and on the maximum number of seconds to which half-duplex data MET transmissions
should be limited in order to ensure the integrity of maritime distress and safety communications.
Motient, however, has advanced several system design proposals for providing priority and preemptive
access for maritime distress and safety communications.81 We believe that Motient’s suggestions are
beyond the scope of this proceeding. Matters such as how a licensee designs its system to comport with
our rules are properly left to satellite system operators. Therefore, once Motient finalizes its system
design, it can seek to amend its construction and operating authority.

E. Interference

43. Motorola/Iridium raises concerns about interference into its system from out-of-band
emissions from Motient METs operating in the lower L-band.82 In the NPRM, however, the Commission
explained that if the lower L-band spectrum coordinated for Motient’s operation does not include
spectrum at the lower band edge it expects that there will be no adjacent band interference. The
Commission also noted that should an interference issue arise, it expects the parties to first attempt to
resolve interference issues among themselves. We will address such interference issues only if the parties
are unable to reach a solution. Finally, the Commission noted that Inmarsat, Australia, Mexico, Canada,
and the Russian Federation are either now or will soon be using terminals having out-of-band emissions
similar to the METs operated by Motient. Consequently, the Commission noted that Motorola/Iridium
may need to coordinate, worldwide, with all the parties operating at band edge.83

F. Inmarsat Use of Lower L-Band

44. The Commission also recently authorized several entities to operate mobile earth terminals
and land earth stations via Inmarsat satellites to provide domestic and international mobile-satellite
service in the L-band. 84 The authorizations were granted pursuant to the ORBIT Act85 and our DISCO II
80
See Letter from William T. Hatch, Associate Administrator, NTIA, to Donald Abelson, Chief, International
Bureau, FCC, filed August 25, 2000.
81
Id. “Technical Appendix.”
82
See Motorola/Iridium Comments at 4-7.
83
See NPRM at 11684.
84
See In the Matter of COMSAT Corporation d/b/a Comsat Mobile Communications, Application for authority
under Section 753(c) of the International Maritime Satellite Act and Section 214 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, to establish channels of communication between land earth stations at Brewster, Washington,
Santa Paula, California, Southbury, Connecticut and Clarksburg, Maryland and Inmarsat Third generation
satellites in the Atlantic Ocean Region in support of Federal Aviation Administration’s Wide Area Augmentation
19

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

decision.86 In the Inmarsat Authorization Order, the Commission stated that the permanent authority for
the specified earth stations to communicate on frequencies in the lower L-band granted would not become
effective until further action in this Lower L-Band proceeding. In the interim, the Commission granted
applicants Special Temporary Authority to operate in the lower L-band subject to further action in the
Lower L-band proceeding. It said that if the decision in the Lower L-Band Proceeding does not require
modification of the authorizations granted for use of Inmarsat, the authorizations would become effective
without further action by the applicants. Our decision in this proceeding requires modification only to the
half-duplex terminal the authorizations granted to Comsat Corporation/Mobile Communications (Comsat)
and Marinesat Communications Network d/b/s Stratos Communications (Stratos) for use of the Inmarsat
system.87 Accordingly, the authorizations are now permanent. The authorizations recently granted to
Comsat and Stratos for 1000 half-duplex terminals, each, are modified by this Order to be limited to a
term of two years.88

IV. CONCLUSION

45. We adopt the licensing policies discussed in this proceeding to govern MSS in the L-band.
We also assign to Motient up to 20 megahertz of spectrum that is internationally coordinated in the L-
band. We conclude that this is sufficient spectrum to enable Motient to implement its authorized satellite
system. In addition, we incorporate into the Commission’s service rules, priority access and preemption
standards. The standards will safeguard the integrity of maritime distress and safety services in the lower
L-band. The action we are taking will enable Motient to construct and operate an MSS system that will
be economically viable without interfering with maritime distress and safety communications. In
addition, by limiting Motient’s use of the L-band to 20 megahertz, we believe that there may be an
opportunity for others to inaugurate competing MSS systems as well.

V. ORDERING CLAUSES

46. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),
and 303(r),of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152,154(i), 303(c),
303(f), 303(g), 303(r), Part 2 and Part 25 of the Commission’s rules ARE AMENDED as specified in
Appendix A, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 316, Motient’s license (Call Sign AMSC-1) to operate only in the upper
L-band IS MODIFIED to include up to 20 megahertz of spectrum from the lower L-band, but no part of

System, et. al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01-272 (released Oct. 9, 2001) (Inmarsat Authorization
Order).
85
Pub.L. 106-108, 115 Stat 48 (2000).
86
Amendment of the Commission’s Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide
Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States, IB Docket No. 96-111, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 18178 (1996), Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 24094 (1997) (DISCO II).
87
See Inmarsat Authorization Order at para. 88.
88
This is consistent with authorizations granted to AMSC and Rockwell in the past. See supra, footnote No. 51.

20

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

the lower L-band frequencies so assigned shall enable Motient’s allotted combined upper and lower L-
band spectrum to exceed 20 megahertz.

48. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COMSAT Corporation/Mobile Communications (Call
Sign E000284) and MARINESAT Communications Network d/b/s Stratos Communications (Call Sign
E010050) licenses ARE MODIFIED to reflect a license term of two years form the release of the
Commission Order granting operational authority in the lower L-band.

49. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer Information Bureau,
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Caton
Acting Secretary

21

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

APPENDIX A

AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

PART 25 – SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

1. The authority citations for Part 25 continue to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies 47 U.S.C. sections 51, 152, 154, 302,
303, and 307, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 25.136 is amended by revising the title and introductory language and by adding
paragraphs (d) and (e) which read as follows:

§ 25.136 Operating provisions for earth stations for each station network in the 1.6/2.4 GHz
and 1.5/1.6 GHz mobile-satellite services.

In addition to the technical requirements specified in § 25.213, earth stations operating in the
1.6/2.4 GHz and 1.5/1.6 GHz Mobile Satellite Services are subject to the following operating conditions:

* * * * *

(d) Any mobile earth station (MES) associated with the Mobile Satellite Service
operating in the 1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz bands shall have the following minimum set of
capabilities to ensure compliance with Footnote S5.353A and the priority and real-time preemption
requirements imposed by Footnote US315.
(1) All MES transmissions shall have a priority assigned to them that preserves the priority and
preemptive access given to maritime distress and safety communications sharing the band.
(2) Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and safety data communications
shall be capable of either (1) recognizing message and call priority identification when transmitted from
its associated Land Earth Station (LES) or (2) accepting message and call priority identification
embedded in the message or call when transmitted from its associated LES and passing the identification
to shipboard data message processing equipment
(3) Each MES shall be assigned a unique terminal identification number that will be transmitted
upon any attempt to gain access to a system.
(4) After an MES has gained access to a system, the mobile terminal shall be under control of a
LES and shall obtain all channel assignments from it.
(5) All MESs that do not continuously monitor a separate signalling channel or signalling within
the communications channel shall monitor the signalling channel at the end of each transmission.
(6) Each MES shall automatically inhibit its transmissions if it is not correctly receiving separate
signalling channel or signalling within the communications channel from its associated LES.
(7) Each MES shall automatically inhibit its transmissions on any or all channels upon receiving
a channel-shut-off command on a signalling or communications channel it is receiving from its associated
LES.
(8) Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and safety communications shall
have the capability within the station to automatically preempt lower precedence traffic.
(e) Any Land Earth Station (LES) associated with the Mobile Satellite Service operating in the
1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz bands shall have the following minimum set of capabilities to
22

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

ensure that the MSS system complies with Footnote 726C and the priority and real-time preemption
requirements imposed by Footnote US315. It should be noted that the LES operates in the Fixed-Satellite
Service ("FSS") as a feeder-link for the MSS (Radio Regulations 71) and that the following capabilities
are to facilitate the priority and preemption requirements of the above footnotes. The FSS feeder-link
stations fulfilling these MSS requirements shall not have any additional priority with respect to FSS
stations operating with other FSS systems.
(1) All LES transmissions to mobile earth stations (MESs) shall have a priority assigned to them
that preserves the priority and preemptive access given to maritime distress and safety communications.
(2) The LES shall recognize the priority of calls to and from MES and make channel assignments
taking into account the priority access that is given to maritime distress and safety communications.
(3) The LES shall be capable of receiving the MES identification number when transmitted and
verifying that it is an authorized user of the system to prohibit unauthorized access.
(4) The LES shall be capable of transmitting channel assignment commands to the MESs.
(5) The communications channels used between the LES and the MES shall have provision for
signalling within the voice/data channel, for an MES, which does not continuously monitor the LES
signalling channel during the time of a call.
(6) The LES shall transmit periodic control signalling signals to MES, which do not continuously
monitor the LES signalling channel.
(7) The LES shall automatically inhibit all transmissions to MESs to which it is not transmitting
a signalling channel or signalling within the communications channel.
(8) The LES shall be capable of transmitting channel-shut-off commands to the MESs on
signalling or communications channels.
(9) Each LES shall be capable of interrupting, and if necessary, preempting ongoing routine
traffic from an MES in order to complete a maritime distress, urgency or safety call to that particular
MES.
(10) Each LES shall be capable of automatically turning off one or more of
its associated channels in order to complete a maritime distress, urgency or safety call.

23

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-24

APPENDIX B

FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION

1. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”)89 requires that a regulatory
flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”90 The RFA generally
defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,”
and “small governmental jurisdiction.”91 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as
“small business concern” under the Small Business Act.92 A small business concern is one that: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field or operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).93

2. The Report and Order adopts and incorporates into the Commission’s service rules
specific operational parameters and technical requirements to ensure that the integrity of maritime distress
and safety will not be compromised by mobile satellite service operation in certain portions of the L-band.
By this action the Commission is essentially codifying the same conditions that are placed on every
mobile satellite service license for operation in these portions of the L-band. There are currently three
entities, Motient Services, Inc., TMI Communications and Company, L.P., and the International Maritime
Satellite Organization (“Inmarsat”), that are authorized to provide L-band mobile satellite service in the
United States. None comes within the definition of small entity. We therefore certify that the adoption of
this Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including a copy of this final
certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996.94 In addition, the Report and Order and this final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the SBA and will be published in the Federal Register.

89
See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The FRA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America
Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (“CWAA”). Title II of the CWAAA is the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”).
90
5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
91
5 U.S.C. § 605(6).
92
5 U.S.C. § 605(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after the
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term that are appropriate to the
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register
93
Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).
94
5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

24

Document Created: 2003-11-12 10:41:09
Document Modified: 2003-11-12 10:41:09

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC