Attachment 1992AMSC-Opposition

This document pretains to SAT-A/O-19901107-00066 for Authority to Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAO1990110700066_1081788

BEFORE THE . Federal Commumcat1ons Commlss1on RECEIVED ‘WN 2 4 1992 + rederal Communications Commission Office of the Secretary In re Applications of Nn n Ne n N N N Nt Ni ut N m N mt Nt N N Nn un m i2z AMSC SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION File Nos . 15—DSS—MP—91 16—DSS—MP—91 CONSTELLATION COMMUNICATIONS, File Nos. 17—DSS—P—91(48) INC. CSS—91—013 ELLIPSAT CORPORATION File No. HiN=DSS=P=91(6) File No. 18—DSS—P—91(18) LORAL QUALCOMM SATELLITE File Nos. 19—DSS—P—91(48) SERVICES, INC. CSS—91—014 MOTOROLA SATELLITE File Nos. 9—DSS—P—91(87) COMMUNICATIONS, INC. CSS—91—010 TRW INC. File Nos. 20—DSS—P—91(12) CSS—91—015 For Satellite Systems to Operate in the RDSS Bands OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR EXPEDITED ACTION AMSC Subsidiary Corporation ("AMSC"), by its attorneys, hereby opposes the Petition for Expedited Action ("Petition") filed by Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. ("MSCI") on June a, 1992." MSCI‘s Petition deals with the above—referenced 1/ AMSC is the licensee of the U.S. Mobile Satellite Service ("MSS") system. See Final Decision on Remand, Gen. Docket No. 84—1234, 7 FCC Rced 266 (i992). AMSC has filed an application to integrate frequencies from the RDSS uplink band into its system, and has opposed the applications for non—geostationary MSS systems to operate in one or both of the RDSS bands. {continued...})

(,_7 _2 mutually—exclusive applications to use certain frequencies currently assigned to the Radiodetermination Satellite Service ("RDSS"). The "expedited action" sought by MSCI is the grant of MSCI‘s own application precisely as filed and the assignment of new, heretofore unproposed spectrum to all of the other applicants except AMSC, to be used on a shared basis. Thfis, effectively, the Petition requests the modification of the other applicants‘ proposals and the dismissal of AMSC‘s application. AMSC agrees with MSCI that the Commission should move expeditiously to resolve this proceeding. AMSC obviously disagrees, however, with this particular proposal for "expedited action." First, as AMSC has demonstrated previously, the public interest is served best by the use of the RDSS band to supplement the existing Mobile Satellite Service ("MSS")}) allocation, rather than to attempt to provide spectrum for a new satellite system. Second, there appear to be significant problems with the use by the other applicants of the new frequencies proposed by MSCI. As AMSC has discussed previously, the most expeditious resolution of this proceeding in the public interest would be the grant of AMSC‘s application and the adoption of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to allocate additional spectrum in the 1850— 1/ (...continued) This Opposition is being filed pursuant to Section 1.45 of the Commission‘s Rules, which provides only ten days for the preparation of a response to a petition, plus an additional three business days since the Petition was served by mail.

—3— 2200 MHz range to MSS, some of which could be assigned to non— geostationary systems. Background AMSC‘s application proposes to integrate frequencies from the 1616.5—1626.5 MHz band into the U.S. MSS system. AMSC has shown beyond any question that there is a shortage of spectrum in the existing MSS bands.*‘ Since the RDSS band frequencies are proximate to the MSS spectrum, the addition of the RDSS band frequencies would enable AMSC to add up to several thousand additional channels to its system, at a cost of no more than between $1 million and $10 million per satellite. MSCI and the other applicants, Constellation Communications, Inc. ("Constellation"), Ellipsat Corporation ("Ellipsat"), Loral Qualcomm Satellite Services, Inc. ("Loral") and TRW Inc. ("TRW"), propose to construct and operate non—geostationary MSS systems in the RDSS bands, systems that would range in cost from hundreds of millions of dollars to several billion dollars. While AMSC does not oppose the development of non—geostationary MSS systems, it has shown that, in light of the severe harmful interference these systems would cause to existing and planned users of the RDSS bands and the resulting impact on the systems‘ capacity, there is 2/ See Comments of AMSC, ET Docket No. §2—9 (June 8, 1992), at 3—4; Comments of AMSC, Gen. Docket No. 89—554 (December 3, 1990 ) .

—4— not enough spectrum for any of the proposed systems to operate viably.y AMSC has demonstrated that the proposed non—geostationary MSS systems, including that of MSCI, wéuld be accommodated better in other bands, and that the public interest would be served better by allowing AMSC to integrate the available RDSS frequencies into the U.S. MSS system. For example, the Commission has proposed to reallocate the 1930—1990 MHz band, the 2120—2150 MHz band, and the 2160—2200 MHz bands for new 3/ See Petition of AMSC, RM—7806 (June 3, 1991); Response of AMSC, File Nos. 11—DSS—P—91(6), 9—DSS—P—91(87), CSS—91—010 (August 5, 1991); Petition to Deny of AMSC, File Nos. 17— DSS—P—91(48), CSS—91—0l13 et al. (December 18, 1991); Consolidated Reply of AMSC, File Nos. 17—DSS—P—91(48), CSS— 91—013 et al. (March 27, 1992). The other users of the 1610—1626.5 MHz band include radio astronomy observatories, the rapidly developing Glonass radionavigation system, and systems in the fixed service. MSCI‘s system design is unique in its proposal to use the upper 10.5 MHz portion of the RDSS uplink band (1616—1626.5 MHz) in both the Earth—to—space direction and the space—to— Earth direction. This bidirectional design exacerbates the interference its system will cause to existing users of the RDSS uplink band. See Consolidated Opposition of AMSC to Requests for Pioneer‘s Preference, ET Docket No. 92—28 (April 8, 1992); see also Opposition of Constellation to Pioneer‘s Preference Request of MSCI, ET Docket No. 92—28 (April 8, 1992); Opposition of Elllpsat to Pioneer‘s Preference Request of MSCI, ET Docket No. 92—28 (April 8, 1992); Opposition of Loral to MSCI‘s Request for Pioneer‘s Preference, ET Docket No. 92—28 (April 8, 1992); Opposition of TRW to Pioneer‘s Preference Request of MSCI, ET Docket No. 92—28 (April 8, 1992). While a portion of the RDSS uplink band is allocated 1nternatlonally for space—to—Earth %SS transmissions, this allocation is on only a secondary asis.

—_5.— communications technologies, including Mobile Satellite service." The 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference adopted this position, which was advocated and supported by the non—geostationary system applicants, including msct." Now, under the guise of a "Petition for Expedited Action," MSCI advances two alternative spectrum allocation proposals that have not been addressed in this proceeding. Under either approach, the Commission would grant MSCI exclusive access to the entire 1616—1626.5 MHz band and AMSC would receive no spectrum at all." constellation, Ellipsat, Loral and TRW would be assigned the 1610—1616 MHz band and, under Option 1, 10.5 MHz of spectrum from the 1675—1710 MHz band, or, under Option 2, the 1599.5—1610 MHz band. Discussion I. The Public Interest Is Served Best By Assigning Additional Spectrum to the U.S. MSS System MSCI‘s proposal would deny vital spectrum to the U.S. MSS system, which is in immediate need of additional spectrum for its 4/ See Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 92—9, 7 FCC Rced 1542 (1992). These bands will become available in the U.S. in 1996. 5/ AMSC has urged the Commission to allocate these bands, which have been allocated internationally to MSS, to MSS domestically. See Comments of AMSC, ET Docket No. 92—9 (June 8, 1992), at 7—8. MSCI‘s Petition does not discuss the possible use of these bands by the proposed non— geostationary MSS systems. 6/ See Petition at 23 n.28.

—6— full development. Moreover, neither of the options provides any solution to the problems that AMSC has identified with an assignment of RDSS band spectrum to the other applicants. All of the technical and financial problems identified by AMSC would remain. For instance, MSCI‘s proposals do nothing to establish the ability of itsisystem to share withAGlonass users in the 1616—1626.5 MHz band, or the ability of the other applicants to share with Radio Astronomy and CGlonass in the 1610—1616 MHz band. Moreover, MSCI‘s proposals do not even attempt to resolve the sharing concerns with respect to the operation of the proposed non—geostationary systems in the RDSS downlink band (2483.5—2500 MHz). AMSC has noted that thousands of terrestrial fixed systems use this band around the world, and with such a significant potential for MSS systems to cause interference to and suffer interference from those systems, it is unlikely that the coordination mechanism provided for by the 1992 WARC will provide the proposed non—geostationary systems with access to this band in many areas.y II. The New Allocations Proposed by MSCI Appear to Have Problems That At Least Require Further study Option 1 (1675—1710 MHz)}). The most obvious problem with the 1675—1710 MHz band is that it is allocated to MSS in Region 2 only. The non—geostationary MSS applicants, however, propose 7/ See Consolidated Reply of AMSC, File Nos. 17—DSS—P—91(48), CSS—91—013 et al. (March 27, 1992), at 10—11.

ultimately to provide worldwide service. Thus, the band will not be able to accommodate their systems. MSCI‘s petition does not address this issue of how the other applicants will be able to gain worldwide access to the band. Option 2 (1599.5—1610 MHz). It is also questionable whether the non—geostationary MSS systems can use the 1599.5—1610 MHz band without causing harmful interference to Glonass, which uses frequencies throughout this band. MSCI‘s only argument in support of this claim is that the other non-geostatiénary applicants have stated that they can avoid interference to Glonass. This contention, however, ignores AMSC‘s showing that these systems in fact will cause intefference to Glonass and wili be unable to coordinate the use of frequencies on which Glonass requires protection. MSCI‘s proposal also ignores the other non— geostationary applicants‘ recognition of the sharing difficulties in the adjécent 1610—1616 MHz band.y FAMSC also is concerned that emissions from MSS systems in the 1599.5—1616 MHz band would seriously degrade the sensitivity of Global Positioning System ("GPS") receivers, which receive signals in the frequencies between 1564 and 1584 MHz. AMSC plans to provide GPS—based position location service; therefore, any 8/ See Reply Comments of Constellation, File Nos. 17—DSS—P— 91(48), CSS—91—013 et al. (March 27, 1992), at 8; Response of Ellipsat, File Nos. 15/16—DSS—MP—91 et al. (March 27, 1992), at 9; Consolidated Reply Comments of Loral, File Nos. 15/16—DSS—MP—91 et al. (March 27, 1992), at 10—11.

—§— degradation in GPS quality is a matter of serious concern to AMSC . If the Commission does not G@ismiss MSCI‘s Petition for the reasons stated above, it should afford AMSC and other interested parties sufficient notice and opportunity to conduct a full analysis of MSCI‘s proposals.y Far from-being the mere procedural pleading that its title suggests, MSCI‘s Petition clearly is a petition for rulemaking, as it requests for the first time new changes in the Commission‘s allocation table. To allow interested parties to conduct a meaningful evaluation of MSCI‘s new proposals, and to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act‘s notice—and—comment rulemaking requirements, the Commission should place MSCI‘s propoéals on public notice and provide sufficient time for comprehensive public comment. As AMSC has demonstrated previously, the best "alternative" spectrum for the non—geostationary MSS system applicants is in the 2 GHz range, which already is the focus of a concerted Commission effort to allocate additional frequencies for new technologies>such as Mobile Satellite Service. Cconclusion The proposals contained in MSCI‘s Petition clearly are contrary to the public interest. Not only would they deprive 9/ For example, MSCI apparently did not serve a copy of its Petition on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which operates meteorological systems in the 1765—1710 MHz band.

—9— AMSC of spectrum necessary for full development of the U.S. MSS system and award over 10 MHz of spectrum on an exclusive basis to MSCI‘s technically and financially flawed system proposal, but there are significant questions about the alternative allocations MSCI is proposing. AMSC therefore urges the Commission to deny AMSC‘s Petition or, in the alternative, place MSCI‘s rulemaking proposals on public notice and provide interested parties with the opportunity to meaningfully address the numerous issues the proposals raise. Respectfully submitted, AMSC SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION im{bith Bruce fiacobs Jn Chn in Lon C. Levin Glenn Richardas Vice President and Gregory L. Masters Reqgulatory Counsel Fisher, Wayland, Cooper & Leader American Mobile Satellite 1255 23r8 Street, N.W. Corporation Suite 800 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 659—3494 (202) 331—5858 Dated: June 24, 1992

CERTIFICATE OFP SERVICE I, Valerie A. Mack, a secretary in the law firm of Fisher, Wayland, Cooper and Leader, hereby certify that true copies of the fofegoing "Opposition to Petition for Expedited Action" were sent this 24th day of June 1992, by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Robert A. Mazer Albert Sshuldiner Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyl Suite 800 f One Thomas Circle, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Jill Abeshouse Stern Sshaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Linda K. Smith Robert M. Halperin Crowell & Moring 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004—2505 Leslie A. Taylor ooms Leslie Taylor Associates 6800 Carlynn Court Bethesda, MD 20817 Norman P. Leventhal Raul R. Rodriqguez Stephen D. Baruch Leventhal, Senter & Lerman 2000 K Street, N.W. suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 Jeffrey L. Sheldon General Counsel Utilities Telecommunications Council 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. suite 1140 Washington, D.C. 20036 William K. Keane Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

J. Geoffrey Bentley Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot 1155 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20036 veronica Haggert Robert Frieden Motorola, Inc. 1350 I Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Philip L. Malet Steptoe & Johnson 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 James G. Ennis Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth 1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Cheryl Lynn Schneider Communications Satellite Corporation 950 L‘Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024 J. Ellis McSparran, President 3S Navigation 23141 Plaza Pointe Drive Laguna Hills, CA 92653 John L. Bartlett Wiley, Rein & Fielding 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 M. Worstell Vice President, Contracts Litton Aero Products 6101 Condor Drive Moorpark, CA 93021 UVabait 1. Jhaul Valerie A. Mack



Document Created: 2015-03-26 16:04:47
Document Modified: 2015-03-26 16:04:47
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC