Attachment B

0798-EX-ST-2006 Text Documents

SES Americom, Inc.

2006-10-25ELS_78520

Attachment B

Exhibit 1

I1CO September22, 2006 Mr. James Burtle Chief, Experimental Licensing Branch Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, Southwest Washington, D.C, 20554 — Dear Mr. Buitle: ICO Global Communications ("ICO®) and Globalstar, Inc. ("Globalstar") submit this letter in support of an application forexperimental special temporary authority for testing at earth stations in Brewster, Washington using frequencies in the 5/7 GHz band. Since 2000, ICO and Globalstar, Inc. have coordinated use of the 5/7 GHz band to support feeder link operations of their res&)ec‘cive non—geostationary satellite systems vnider an interim coordination agreement.‘ By this letter, ICO and Globalstar confirm that the interim coordination agreement for sharing the 5150—5250 MHz (uplink) band and the 6975—7075 MHz (downlink) band, in which the gateway earth stations of these systems operate, remains in effect. Please direct any questions regarding the above—referenced application to the undersigned, Sincerely, Suzanne IImchmgs Ma@ %fi?/figf Senior Regulatory Counsel V.P., Legal and Regulatory Affairs 1CO Globalstar Communications Globalstar ‘ The U.S. Table of Allocations provides forthe use of the 5150—5250 MHz (uplink) band and the 6975— 7075 Mz (downlink) band by two gateway earthstations opernting with the Globalstar 8Y8tEt g{5 connectiout Avenue, NW gateway carth station operating with the ICO system. Sulte 610 Washington, DC 20006 202 380 4005 phone 202 830 4008 fax web: www.lco.com

Exhibit 2

FOR INFORMATION . Doc. 35293/1 U.S, Department 800 Independence Ave., SW, of Transportation Washington, DC 20591 Federa! Aviation Administration aig 23 2006 MEMORANDUM Mr. Karl B. Nebbia Chairman, Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee National Telecormmunication and Information Administration 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20230 Subject: Coordination of ICO feeder link earth stations at Brewster, WA Dear Mr. Nebbia: In February 2002, the FAA received a request from ICO to coordinate their planned installation of a feeder link earth station in Brewster, WA. The coordination involved two meetings and discussion of analyses performed by ICO to determine the compatibility with existing and planned microwave landing system sites; The Brewster earth stations were successful coordinated, Recently, ICO coordinated with the FAA their request to renew their Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license. As a result of the successful coordination, the FAA had no objection to the FCC license renewal. I would like to provide the documentation of the first coordination as information to the IRAC for the record. No action is being requested of the IRAC or National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Please contact me at 202—493—4157 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael Richmond FAA Representative Enclosures (2)

MmINUTES OF SECOND AND THIRD MEETINGS INTERFERENCE PROTECTION OF MLS SITES IN REGARD TO 5 GHz OPERATION OF USEI‘S BEARTH STATIONS AT BREWSTER, WASHINGTON WITH ICO SATELLITES On February 1, 2000 and February 7, 2000, the below—listed representatives from U.S. Electrodynamics, Inc. ("USEI") and ICO Global Communications ("ICO") discussed with Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") personnel the potentfial for harmful interference to existing operational and planned installations of the aeronautical radionavigation service microwave landing system (MLS) from the five transmit/receive earth station antennas al Browster, Washington ("Brewster Satellite Access Node (SAN)"), which are to provide tracking, telemetry and command ("TT&C") and feeder link communication carriers for the ICO medium Earth orbit satellite system. In accordance with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") Order and Authorization of June 24, 1999, USEI is required to demonstrafe, prior to commencing operation of fts antennas, that its operation will not cause interference to existing and planned MLS installations. A list of these sites is aftached as Exhibit 1, At these mectings, ICO presented a detailed analysis of interference from Brewster Satellite Access Node operations (single or aggregate carrier total EIRP of 81 dBW) into MLS receiver at aircraft landing al Moses Lake, Wenatchee and Pemberton (Canada), in order to assess if the ARINC 727 MLS "out of band"interference protection criterion of—55 dBm(in the range 5150—5250 MHz) would be respected. A copy of the ICO study describing the analysis and reviewed at each meeting is attached as Exhibit 2. At the meetings, the FAA posed technical questions, The ICO staff responded to all of the queries by the second meeting,. At the conclusion of the second meeting, the FAA folt that ICO had satisfactorily demonstrated that harmful interference would not be caused to the MLS stations of concern. Under the worst case seenario, ICO demonstrated the following: (1) the maximum worst case interference level to MLS receivers on aireraft landing at Moses Lake is ~74,5 dBim; (2) the maximum worst case interference level to MLS receivers on aircraft landing at Wenatches is ~62.4 dBm; and (3) the Brewster Satellite Access Node would not have the visibility of aireraft operating MLS and landing at Pemberton (Canada), Jt was agreed among the parties to the meeting that: {1) The FAA considered that Brewster Satellite Access Nodo operations, within the parameters as described by ICO and USEI, would not ecause interference concerns with respect to the existing and planned MLS operations in Washington State and Pemberton (Canada). (2) The FAA agreed to notify NTIA aud the FCC that the Brewster Satellite Access Node 5 GHz emissions in the band 5150—5250 MHz, operating up to an aggregals tolal EIRP of 81 dBW, SAN minimum efevation angle of 5 degrees, SAN circular polarization and SAN antenna radiation pattem wasainoren n nem

complying with ITU—R Rec. $.580, would not cause harmful interference to MLS operations to the sel of existing and planned MLS installations in Washington State and Pemberton Canada. (3) USEL and ICO would prepare these Draft Meeting Minutes for circulation to all the participants for their comments. Exhibits Attendees: (1) Michael Richmond, FAA (2) Robert Frazier, FAA® (3) Tom Christein, FAA‘ (4) Fred Neudecker, FAA* (5) Tony Azzarelli, ICO (6) Jeffrey Binckes, ICO (7) Kumar Singarajah, ICO® (8) William Coulter, USEI (9) Blizabeth Holowinski, USEI * Attended February 1, 2000 Meeting only. *‘ Attended February 7, 2000 Meeting only. WaSIHRGYON 2t1760vl

EXHIBIT MLS Station Geographic Coordinates Particulars of Qperation Wenatchee. WA 47" 24‘ 00" N, 120° 12‘ 00" W MLS @ Runway 30; Runway length 5500 ft; Airport elevation 1249‘ above mean sea level ("ams!"); Antenna ortented 318° True North Moses Lake, WA 47° 13‘ 43" N, 119° 19‘ 41" W Active MLS @ Runway 32R; 47° 11‘ 36" N, 119° 18‘ 34" W Runway length 13,503 ft; Airport elevation 1185‘ amsl; Antenna orlented 162° True Ns *h Seattle, WA 47° 27 42" N, 122° 17 34" W Not available Bellingham, WA 48° 47 09" N, 122° 32‘ 11" W Active MLS @ Runway 34; Runway 48° 48‘ 18" N, 122° 32‘ 15" W length 6751 ft; Airport elevation 168‘ ams!; Antenna oriented 180° True North ‘MeChord, WA 47° 08‘ 18" N, 122° 28‘ 86"W Transportable milltary system. A 47° 07 36" N, 122° 28‘ 28" W cylindrical coverage volume is assumed Pultman, WA 46° 44‘ 26" N, 117° 07 08" W Planned MLS @ Runway 23; 46° 44‘ 84" N, 117° 06‘ 38" W Runway length 6731 ft; Airport elevation 2551‘ amsl; Antenna ) oriented 70° True North Portland, OR 45° 34‘ 52" N, 122° 35 09" W Not available 48° 85° 55" N, 122° 37. 50" W Pemberton, Canada 50° 18‘ 28" N, 122° 46‘ 30" W Not available WaSnNGTON 219180

ANNEX 1 : BREWSTER — MoSsEs * Interference Geometry — Real Case pg 2 * Interference Geonictry — Worst Calculation Case pg 3 * ARINC 727 Interference Specifications pg 4 * Worst Calculation Case — As per Communication pg 5 * Worst Calculation Case — Modified pg 6 * Worst Calculation Case — Real Case pg 7 * Ameliorating Factors pg 8 * Interference At Approach Path pg 9 «»Brewster — Moses Lake Map pg 10 Page 1 l Confidential & Proprietary to 1CO Global Communications 1 !‘ O

Minimum 5° elevation angle with the horizon Aircraft on approach to Moses Lake Airport 3.42 ° off axis {min) angle G = 15.65 dBi SAN—Plane Elevation = 1.58° Brewster SAN "ixed Earth Staf} «O 6 km o8 c e\,'a altitude Moses Lake Airport P ns mcz « Range = 106 km —~>p % Range = 148 km 4 —P> Page 2 f Confidentiat & Proprietary to 1CO Globat Communications [ l‘ O

Minimum 5° etevation angle with the horizon 3 5 a‘&O( 348\ 2.24 ° off axis (min} angle G = 20.24 dB: Brewster SAN Aircraft on top of "ixed Earth Station} Moses Lake Airport SAN—Plane Elevation = 2.76° 6 km altitude Moses Lake Atrport myhl e é\ Range = 106 km 4 J>> . Range = 146 km 4 > l ‘ O Page 3 ! Confidentiat & Propritaryto ICO Global Communications i

ARINC 27 Interference Spec‘ifications ARINC 727 page 3.16 PW.0.dBm In—Band i | —20 dBm Wanted MLS —20 dBm i ~40 dBim | 55 dBm —55 dBm iCO Feeder Link Band p| _ 375 3 H C# Bs | _ |£ 5 3 E a 3 30 20 2 C @ s 8 & & 2 @0 € a © 2 20 § n & sho Page 4 Confidential & Proprietary to ICO Gicbal Communications I1CO

As per Communication * TT&C Emergency Mode SAN Peak EIRP = 81 dBw * Plane Elevation Angle from Brewster = 2.76 degrees * Worst Case SAN Off—Axis Angle to Plane (8) = 5.0 — 2.76 = 2.24 degrees * SAN Antenna Gain toward plane = 29 — 25 Log(8) = 20.25 dB * SAN Peak Gain = 50.3 * Gain Differential = 50.3 — 20.25 = 30.05 dB * EIRP toward plane = 81 — 30.05 dBw = 50.95 dBW * Free Space Path Loss (106 km) = 14711 dB * MLS antenna Gain = O dBi * Polarization Advantage =—1 dB *Worst Case Total Interference Power at Antenna Output = —97115 dBw or =—67.15 dBm * Interference Threshold level = 55 dBm E * Margin =12.15 dB Page 5 } Confidential & Proprietary to (CO Global Communications i ‘‘ O

* TT&C Emergency Mode SAN Pesak EIRP = 81 dBwW * Plane Elevation Angle from Brewster = 2.55 degrees * Worst Case SAN Off—Axis Angle to Plane (8) = 5.0 — 2.76 = 2.45 degrees * SAN Antenna Gain toward plane = 29 — 25 Log(0) = 19.3 dB * SAN Peak Gain = 50.3 * Gain Differential = 50.3 — 19.3 = 31.0 dB * EIRP foward plane = 81 — 31.0 dBw = 50.0 dBW * Free Space Path Loss (106 km)= 20 Log{(4r 5.2/0.3 *106000) = =—147.27 daB * MLS antenna Gain = 0 dBi * Polarization Advantage =—1 dB *Worst Case Total Interference Power at Antenna Output =—988.27 dBwW or = —68.27 dBm * Interference Threshold level = —55 dBm * Margin = 13.27 dB d Page 6 [ Confidential & Proprietery to !CO Global Communications . l‘ O

* TT&C Emergency Mode SAN Peak EIRP = 81 dBW * Plane Elevation Angle from Brewster = 3.42 degrees * Worst Case SAN Off—Axis Angle to Plane (8) = 5.0 — 3.42 = 1.58 degrees * SAN Antenna Gain toward plane = 29 — 25 Log(0) = 15.65 dB * SAN Peak Gain = 50.3 * Gain Differentiat = 50.3 — 15.65 = 34.65 daB * EIRP toward plane = 81 — 34.65 dBw = 46.35 dBW * Free Space Path Loss (143 km)= 20 Log{4x 5.2/0.3 *143000) = =—149.87 dB * MLS antenna Gain = 0 dBi * Polarization Advantage =—1 dB *Worst Case Total Interference Power at Antenna Output = —104.52 dBwW or = —74.52 dBm * interference Threshold level : = —55 dBm * Margin = 19.52 dB # Page T { Confidentiat & Proprietery to ICO Global Communications i Ii O

meliorating Factors _ Why Worst Case ? * TT&C Emergency is normally used during launch phase and in emergency only cases, Le. when there is a state of satellite being lost. Normal Cases TT&C = 66 dBW. * The SAN antennas will be moving with the moving satellites, hence the % time that the antenna will be pointing foward the Moses Lake direction and near the 5 degrees minimum elevation will be much much less than 1% of the time * The Terrain will block SAN emissions when plane is approaching Moses Lake run—way. From simulations this will happen af plane—runway distance of about 12 km. in such cases the interfering signal level will be many dBs betow the line of sight interference level. * As the plane approaches the run—way and descends, the minimum SAN off—axis angle will increase, hence the Interference tevel toward the plane will decrease (see simulations}. * MLS Receive Wanted Siync‘ Level increases by 6 dB for every halving of plane—runway distance §Ptn# as plane is approaching to run—way. )K Page 8 1 Confdentel & Proprietary to ICO Giohal Communications { ‘‘ O

SAN Interference — Free Space Path Loss 100 105 ‘HO 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 { 1 M j 1 F t {— t ——4+——f——}—— J_ j ~100 [ ( | | | —~102 i 104 —106 1 ( dBw ) ~— / Currert Azetr[Range) vs ~108 4 C Wanted link MLS — ~110 Rx2.Forward.| —112 114 \\ Point of Terrain Blockage ~116 118 ! —120 i i_J | Range [( km ) Page 9 E Confdential & Proprietary to 1CO Gicbal Communications ; Simulation Toot : Visualyse® V3 Professional I1CO

Page 10 E Confidential & Proprietary to ICO Global Communications Simulation Toot : Visualyse"" V3 Professional l( O

+« Landing Scenarios + Brewster — Wanatchee Map + SAN — Plane Link Geometry at Worst Case * SAN—Plane Worst Case Interference + Interference Calculation from Brewster to MLS Receiver Landing at Wenatchee +« Terrain Blockage + Worst Case Vertical Profile for Link 2 * Worst Case Vertical Profile for Link 3 +« Worst Case Vertical Profile for Link 4 «_ Link 2B at Terrain Blockage + Link 3B at Terrain Blockage «_ Link 4B at Terrain Blockage 1 C Page 11 ] Confidential & Proprietery to [CO Globat Communications ' O

1 L Landing Scenarios 1 3 Plane 40 deg Qb;s, Definition Plane 20 deg Plane 0 deg = plane landing 0 deg off runway axis Plane 20 deg = plane landing 20 deg off runway axis Plane 0 deg Plane 40 deg = plane landing 40 deg off runway axis Confidential & Proprietary to ICO Global Communications i . ‘< O Page 12

Calculation of Interference hi Here it is shown: 1. The geometry ofthe landing paths at Wenatchee with respect to Brewster. 2. The worst case interference scenario on page 15 and 16. 3. The interference level from the SAN antenna at the point of the hypothetical landing paths on page 17. in reality the SAN will never be pointing at the plane, but instead will follow an ICO sateifite. When this happens the SAN will start at 5° minimum etevation angle and then will be moving with the satellite with a angular velocity between 1°/minute to 1.25°/minute. The angle between the SAN antenna boresight and the plane landing will hence have an angular velocity which is greater than the one given above since now there also exist the movement of the plane landing at the airport. 4. The rest of the plots are supporting material for this Annex. Page 18 { Confidential & Proprietary to 1CO Global Communications i l ‘ O

’%%Ei,éii! ;i! R 'tu'tu{ Horizontal and verficé? distances not to scale Page 14 { Confidentie! & Proprietary to ICO Global Communications Simulation Toot : Visualyse?* V3 Professional l CO

AN — Piane Link Geometry at Worst Case | i The following geometrical link characteristics are at the worst case point, which correspond to the position when the plane is at its highest altitude (6km AMSL) and at the edge of the MLS coverage volume (see page 12 and 14). Link Link Azimuth (°) Elevation & (°) Range (km) Number from SAN from SAN from SAN SAN to Wanatchee 1 2044 —0.4 (below Horizon) 91.1 SAN to Plane Odeg 2 185.8 2.41 110.4 SAN to Plane 20deg 3 182.0 2.179 _ 99.2 SAN to Plane 40deg 4 180.0 3.33 86.4 Worst Case defined when plane is at Edge of the MLS Coverage Volume, Height of 6000m and Distance uf 37 km. E Confidentiat & Proprieteryto 1CO Global Communications 1 l‘ O Page 15 %

i AN-Planeé Worst, Case Interference Below are the interference values from the SAN at Brewster in the Worst Case position for planss at the edge of the MLS coverage volume (see page 12 and 14). As the plane lands these values will be reduced (see page 17). Link EIRP AG Lp Grx Pol Adv. I Number (dBW) (dB) (dB) (dBi) (dB) (dBW) 2 81 —31.6 —147.6 0 —~1 —99.2 3 81 —29.9 —~146.7 0 —1 —96.6 4 81 —26.9 —145.5 0 —1 —92.4 AG =29—25Log(O0) — Gpeak $ =5°—s The Polarization Advantage between Circular Pol. (MSS) and Linear Pol. (MLS) ~ ass umed at 1 dB ‘ l ‘ O Page 16 Confidential & Proprietary to ICO Global Communications

Interference Calculation from Brewster to MLSReceiver Landing at Wenatchee Below are calculations results for the cases depicted on page 12 and 14. These show that at the landing path {assumed as a straight lins), due to the lower plane elevation from the SAN, the interference reduces as sao..~a up until when the Terrain Blockage kicks in where then the interference will be much much less than the line of sight free space interference. Worst Case Interference from Brewster SAN to MLS 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 7 Plane 0 deg Interference ( dBW ) " Plane 20 deg Terrain Blockage * Plane 40 deg SAN — Plane Range ( km ) E Page 17 i Confidential & Proprietary to ICO Globat Communications i Simulation Tool : Visualyse®" V3 Professional |< O

At the landing paths (see page 19, 20 and 21) as the height AMSL reduces and also the elevation angle from the SAN reduces, the interference level reduces with respect to the worst case (see page 16), since the angle between the SAN antenna boresight and the plane increases and hence the SAN antenna gain discrimination increases. At a certain point in the landing path the Terrain will block the SAN—Plane line of sight link as shown on page 21, 22 and 23. Betow are the interference values fust before this happens (also see graph on page 17). Link Plane Plane Interference Level at MLS Number Height Distance to Before Blockage _at Blockage Wanatchee {see previous page) 2 3600 m 28 km —~101.1 dBW 3 4100 m 24 km —100.4 dBW 4 4400 m 23 km —104.0 JBW E Page 18 i Confidential & Proprietary to ICO Global Communications l ‘ I ( O

Following are Vertical Piots of the links at the Edge of the MLS coverage volume. These corresponds when the planes are at 6000m AMSL and at about 37 km from the run—way. These plots also show the terrain cut from the SAN to plane and from the airport to the plane. Page 18 E Confidential & Proprietary to ICO Global Communications i l‘ o

B Brewster SAN —1 to plone 0 deg aven Link 2B .. soee — a a i0 is 2o as xo ss as «s ao s« an «> #> Brewsser mae o1 #> #o as so es 105 rea se Rangaters plans 0 ase z— Wenntche e amnes s to to prpinuc 0 der & so0e + plane Link 2A TT Wwrenscemeo Ransetore pimos 0 ase yae Page 20 Confidential & Proprietary to iCO Global Communications Simulation Toot : Visualyse®" V3 Professional —f O

rst Case Vertical Profile forLink 3 £ Hrewster SAN —1 to pluue 20deg se0e — 2000 so «s zo 73 ao +5 «> es Beoweter Sn —a RengeGurp zs Wenntchee to plane 20deg Link 3A w remassmce as s as piane 200+e me Page 21 i Conidentia! & Proprietary to 1CO Global Communications ! Simulation Tool: Visualyse?" V3 Professional l\ O

Brewster SAN —1 to plane 40 deg 3 Link 4B . 2000 z00e 1000 o * * * e o s 10 is 20 as z0 ES 10 as so ss eo es To rs so es Erewste: SAN —1 RengeCeny & Weuntchee mue cuatchee t to plime de, 40 deg rese Link 4A aoce soee Wanatanas as »o mane Page 22 f Confidential & Proprietery to iCO Global Communications Simulation Tool : Visualyse®® V3 Professional ! k_o

LinkPlotsWhen the SAN—Plane Link Gets Blocked by Terrain Folliowing are Vertical Plots of the SAN—Plane links when it gets blocked by the terrain between the SAN and the airplane. The point of terrain blockage is near the SAN {about 12—15 km) as can be seen from the following three figures. The plane is already inside the MLS coverage volume, since it is already descending and its respective height AMSL and distance from the airport are reported on page 18. Page 23 5 Confidential & Proprietary to 1CO Giobal Communications \ ‘( O

.— 9 4 * t T * 4 5 19 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 56 55 60 §5 40 75 8 85 90 95 108 Brewster SAN —1 Plane 0d g Renge(er) pianc 0 deg Page 24 } Confidential & Proprieteryto !CO Global Communications Simulation Toot : Visualyse®* V3 Professional c l( O

Brewster SAN to plane 20deg plane 8 5 10 is 20 as 30 35 a3 a5 s 58 & 6 7'0 BrewsterSAN —1 Pline Odeg RengeGen) plane 20deg Page 25 Confidential & Proprietary to ICO Global Communications Simulation Tool : Visualyse"" V3 Professional I CO

Brewster SAN to plane 40 deg Y plane 3600m 1000 —5 SAN®* 0 8 : 10 is 2s 2s ss s 85 Brewster SAN—1 Fiane Odeg Renge(ez) plane 40 deg Page 26 Confidential & Proprietary to ICO Global Communications i Simulation Tool : Visualyse?* V3 Professional

z\g Brewster SAN —1 to Pemberton & Pemberton (Canada } Brewster Airport 1000 3 * 9 * e \ g j0 2 3o 40 59 60 78 80 98 100 ilo 2e 12e 140 150 l66 170 180 190 200 210 220 250 240 250 260 270 280 200 300 310 320 Brewster SAN —1 Rengeem) Pemberton * Distance Brewster — Pemberton = 330 km * There exist No line—of—sight between these two locations or any MLS receivers near Perberton at 6km height as shown in the figure above. Page 27 E Confidential & Proprietary to ICO Giobal Communications i Simulation Tool : Visualyse"" V3 Professional

90 — ~3 | || Extreme SAN Pointing 30 4 > > (Bbaop) uoneag;3 15 + E=5° it3. uzL. ) 150 180 20 240 270 Azimuth (deg) 310° Page 28 Confidential & Proprietary to 1CO Global Communications ICO Proprietery Software I1CO

Exhibit 3

FREQUENCY COORDINATION AND INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared for 1CO Global Communications BREWSTER, WA Satellite Earth Station Prepared By: COMSEARCH 19700 Janelia Farm Boulevard Ashburn, VA 20147 September 28, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. CONCLUSIONS ... .ccscc 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS .... 3. SUPPLEMENTAL SHOWING.. 4. EARTH STATION COORDINATION DATA .. 5. CERTIFICATION .000 m ce en emearvcerveverrerenenenenreneerverevees Frequency Coordination and Interference Analysis Report 09/26/2006 Page 2 of 10

1. CONCLUSIONS An interference study considering all existing, proposed and prior coordinated microwave facilities within the coordination contours of the proposed earth station demonstrates that this site will operate satisfactorily with the common carrier microwave environment. Further, there will be no restrictions of its operation due to interference considerations. Frequency Coordination and Interference Analysis Report 09/26/2006 Page 3 of 10

2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS A number of great circle interference cases were identified during the interference study of the proposed earth station. Each of the cases, which exceeded the interference objective on a line—of—sight basis, was profiled and the propagation losses estimated using NBS TN101 (Revised) techniques. The losses were found to be sufficient to reduce the signal levels to acceptable magnitudes in every case. The following companies reported potential great circle interference conflicts that did not meet the objectives on a line—of—sight basis. When over—the—horizon losses are considered on the interfering paths, sufficient blockage exists to negate harmful interference from occurring with the proposed transmit—only earth station. Company Spokane Television Inc./KXLY—TV No other carriers reported potential interference cases. Frequency Coordination and Interference Analysis Report 09/26/2006 Page 4 of 10

3. SUPPLEMENTAL SHOWING Pursuant to Part 25.208(c) of the FCC Rules and Regulations, the satellite earth station proposed in this application was coordinated by Comsearch using computer techniques and in accordance with Part 25 of the FCC Rules and Regulations. Coordination data for this earth station was sent to the below listed carriers with a letter dated 09/13/2006. Company APPLE VALLEY BROADCASTING INC. Fisher Broadcasting — Seattle TV, LLC KING BROADCASTING COMPANY — KREM KIRO TV, INC MOUNTAIN LICENSES, L.P. SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT #81 SPOKANE TELEVISION INC/KXLY—TV Tribune Television Northwest, Inc. Frequency Coordination and Interference Analysis Report 09/26/2006 Page 5 of 10

4. EARTH STATION COORDINATION DATA This section presents the data pertinent to frequency coordination of the proposed earth station that was circulated to all carriers within its coordination contours. Frequency Coordination and Interference Analysis Report 09/26/2006 Page 6 of 10

COMSEARCH Earth Station Data Sheet 19700 Janelia Farm Boulevard, Ashburn, VA 20147 (703)726—5500 http://www.comsearch.com Date: 09/26/2006 Job Number: 060913COMSGEO1 Administrative Information Status ENGINEER PROPOSAL Call Sign Licensee Code ICOGLB Licensee Name I1CO Global Communications Site Information BREWSTER, WA Venue Name Latitude (NAD 83) 48° 8‘ 47.2" N Longitude (NAD 83) 119° 42‘ 3.7" W Climate Zone A Rain Zone 5 Ground Elevation (AMSL) 382.8 m / 1255.9 it Link Information Satellite Type Low Earth Orbit Mode TO — Transmit—Only Modulation Digital Minimum Elevation Angle 5.0° Azimuth Range 0.0° to 360° Antenna Centerline (AGL) 4.88 m / 16.0 ft Antenna Information Transmit — FCC32 Manufacturer NEC Model 7.6 Meter Gain / Diameter 34.2 dBi/7.6 m 3—dB / 15—dB Beamwidth 1.30° /2.60° Max Available RF Power (dBW/4 kHz) ©34.9 (dBw/MHz) 410.9 Maximum EIRP (dBwW/ kHz) —0.7 (dBw/MHz) 23.3 Interference Objectives: Long Term ~154.0 dBW/A kHz 20% Short Term —131.0 dBW/A kHz 0.0025% Frequency Information Transmit 2.0 GHz Emission / Frequency Range (MHz) 150KG7D / 2000.0 — 2015.0 Max Great Circle Coordination Distance 235.0 km / 146.0 mi Precipitation Scatter Contour Radius 100.0 km / 62.1 mi Frequency Coordination and Interference Analysis Report 09/26/2006 Page 7 of 10

COMSEARCH Earth Station Data Sheet 19700 Janelia Farm Boulevard, Ashburn, VA 20147 (703)726—5500 http:/www.comsearch.com Coordination Values BREWSTER, WA Licensee Name ICO Global Communications Latitude (NAD 83) 48° 8‘ 47.2" N Longitude (NAD 83) 119° 42 3.7" W Ground Elevation (AMSL) 382.8 m / 1255.9 ft Antenna Centerline (AGL) 4.88 m / 16.0 ft Antenna Model NEC 7.6 Meter Antenna Mode Transmit 2.0 GHz Interference Objectives: Long Term —154.0 dBW/4 kHz 20% Short Term —131.0 dBW/4 kHz 0.0025% Max Available RF Power —34.9 (dBW/4 kHz) Transmit 2.0 GHz Horizon Antenna Horizon Coordination Azimuth (°) Elevation (°) Discrimination (°) Gain (dBi) Distance (km) 0 0.00 69.62 8.00 235.00 5 0.00 65.27 8.00 235.00 10 0.00 60.97 8.00 235.00 15 0.00 56.73 8.00 235.00 20 0.00 52.58 8.00 235.00 25 0.00 48.54 8.00 235.00 30 0.00 44.65 8.00 235.00 35 0.00 40.94 8.00 235.00 40 0.00 37.47 8.00 235.00 45 0.00 34.32 9.50 235.00 50 0.00 31.59 9.50 235.00 55 0.00 29.40 9.50 235.00 60 0.00 27.87 9.50 235.00 65 0.00 27.11 9.50 235.00 70 0.00 27.20 9.50 235.00 75 0.00 28.12 9.50 235.00 80 0.00 29.80 9.50 235.00 85 0.00 32.12 9.50 235.00 90 0.00 34.94 9.50 235.00 95 0.00 38.16 9.50 235.00 100 0.00 41.69 9.50 235.00 105 0.00 45.44 9.50 235.00 110 0.00 49.37 9.50 235.00 115 0.00 53.43 9.50 235.00 120 0.00 57.60 9.50 235.00 125 0.00 61.85 9.50 235.00 130 0.00 66.16 9.50 235.00 135 0.00 70.52 9.50 235.00 140 0.00 74.92 9.50 235.00 145 0.00 79.34 9.50 235.00 150 0.00 83.78 9.50 235.00 165 0.00 88.23 9.50 235.00 160 0.00 92.69 9.50 235.00 165 0.00 97.13 9.50 235.00 170 0.00 101.57 9.50 235.00 175 0.00 105.99 9.50 235.00 180 0.00 110.38 9.50 235.00 185 0.00 114.73 9.50 235.00 Frequency Coordination and Interference Analysis Report 09/26/2006 Page 8 of 10

COMSEARCH Earth Station Data Sheet 19700 Janelia Farm Boulevard, Ashburn, VA 20147 (703)726—5500 http://www.comsearch.com Coordination Values BREWSTER, WA Licensee Name 1CO Global Communications Latitude (NAD 83) 48° 8‘ 47.2" N Longitude (NAD 83) 119° 42‘ 3.7" W Ground Elevation (AMSL) 382.8 m / 1255.9 it Antenna Centerline (AGL) 4.88 m / 16.0 ft Antenna Model NEC 7.6 Meter Antenna Mode Transmit 2.0 GHz Interference Objectives: Long Term —154.0 dBW/A4 kHz 20% Short Term ~131.0 dBW/4 kHz 0.0025% Max Available RF Power +34.9 (dBW/4 kHz) Transmit 2.0 GHz Horizon Antenna Horizon Coordination Azimuth (°) Elevation (°) Discrimination (°) Gain (dBi) Distance (km) 190 0.00 119.03 9.50 235.00 195 0.00 123.27 9.50 235.00 200 0.00 127.42 9.50 235.00 205 0.00 131.46 9.50 235.00 210 0.00 135.35 9.50 235.00 215 0.00 139.06 9.50 235.00 220 0.00 142.53 9.50 235.00 225 0.00 145.68 9.50 235.00 230 0.00 148.41 9.50 235.00 285 0.00 150.60 9.50 235.00 240 0.00 152.13 9.50 235.00 245 0.00 152.89 9.50 235.00 250 0.00 152.80 9.50 235.00 255 0.00 151.88 9.50 235.00 260 0.00 150.20 9.50 235.00 265 0.00 147.88 9.50 235.00 270 0.00 145.06 9.50 235.00 275 0.00 141.84 9.50 235.00 280 0.00 138.31 9.50 235.00 285 0.00 134.56 9.50 235.00 290 0.00 130.63 9.50 235.00 295 0.00 126.57 9.50 235.00 300 0.00 122.40 9.50 235.00 305 0.00 11815 9.50 235.00 310 0.00 113.84 9.50 235.00 315 0.00 109.48 9.50 235.00 320 0.00 105.08 8.00 235.00 325 0.00 100.66 8.00 235.00 330 0.00 96.22 8.00 235.00 335 0.00 91.77 8.00 235.00 340 0.00 87.31 8.00 235.00 345 0.00 82.87 8.00 235.00 350 0.00 78.43 8.00 235.00 355 0.00 74.01 8.00 235.00 Frequency Coordination and Interference Analysis Report 09/26/2006 Page 9 of 10

5. CERTIFICATION | HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE FREQUENCY COORDINATION DATA CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION, THAT I AM FAMILIAR WITH PARTS 101 AND 25 OF THE FCC RULES AND REGULATIONS, THAT 1 HAVE EITHER PREPARED OR REVIEWED THE FREQUENCY COORDINATION DATA SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT IT IS COMPLETE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, . zt BA Gary K. Edwards Senior Manager COMSEARCH 19700 Janelia Farm Boulevard Ashburn, VA 20147 DATED: September 28, 2006 Frequency Coordination and Interference Analysis Report 09/26/2006 Page 10 of 10


Document Created: 2006-10-24 17:10:46
Document Modified: 2006-10-24 17:10:46
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC