Attachment 1991AMSC Reply Comme

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

IBFS_SATAO1990110700066_1081830

RECEIVED Before the JUL-31991 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OFHCEQFTHESECRETARY In the Matter of the Applications of Ellipsat Corporation File No. Motorola Satellite File Nos. 9—DSS—P— Communications, Inc. 91 (87) CSS~91—~010 REPLY COMMENTS OoF $3 O AMERICAN MOBILE SATELLITE CORPORATION Lo a 1991 American Mobile Satellite Corporation ("AMSC"), byits /. attorneys, hereby replies to the comments filed June 3;”1591 in response to the Commission‘s Public Notice concerning the above— referenced applications of Ellipsat Corporation ("Ellipsat") and Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. ("MSCI")." As discussed below, many of the June 3 comments support AMSC‘s position that there are serious problems with the Ellipsat and MSCI applications. The comments and the applications filed on the same day also support AMSC‘s position that the frequencies in question should be reallocated from the Radiodetermination Satellite Service ("RDSS") to the Mobile Satellite Service ("MSS") . 1/ Public Notice, Report No. DS—1068, DA 91—407 (April 1, 1991).

2 Background Ellipsat and MSCI have applied to construct satellite systems that would provide mobile voice and position location services. Ellipsat‘s Ellipso I system would consist of six small satellites operating in the 1610—1626.5/2483.5—2500 MHz bands. MSCI‘s Iridium system would be a constellation of 77 satellites that would operate with uplinks and downlinks in the 1610—1626.5 MHz band. Both Ellipsat and MSCI have requested various waivers of the Commission‘s RDSS licensing rules. In its June 3 Petition, AMSC urged the Commission to deny the Ellipsat and MSCI applications because they are technically deficient and speculative. AMSC demonstrated that the proposed systems would violate existing domestic and international linmits on the power of RDSS systems in these bands; cause harmful interference to existing users of the bands; suffer serious reliability problems because they would experience frequent and prolonged outages; and are characterized by questionable financing. AMSC urged the Commission to allocate to fiss ten megahertz of the RDSS uplink bands (1616.5—1626.5 MHz) and assign the frequencies to AMSC to help meet the international spectrum shortage in the L—band.* 2/ More than 35 MSS satellites are competing to use the 28 MHz that the Commission has assigned to AMSC. See Comments of AMSC, Gen. Docket No. 90—56, Technical Appendix (May 11, 1990) .

3 Several other entities also filed in opposition to Ellipsat and MSCI. Because of the potential for interference to the.kadio Astronomy service in the 1610.6—1613.8 MHz band, the National Academy of Sciences ("NAS") filed petitions to deny both applications. NAS states that Ellipsat and MSCI have not demonstrated that their systems can meet the requirements established for RDSS uplink sharing with Radio Astronomy in the 1610.6—1613.8 MHz band and that MSCI‘s proposed downlinks in the band also would be incompatible with radio astronomy operations. In addition, NAS questions the feasibility of MSCI‘s proposal not to operate in the portion of the RDSS uplink band used by radio astronomy. According to NAS, transmissions from MSCI‘s satellites in cells that do not directly cover a radio astronomy site would leak into adjacent cells that do include radio astronomy sites. TRW, Inc. and Hughes Aircraft Company ("Hughes"), two leading satellite manufacturers, raise serious questions about the complexity and cost of the fundamental technology proposed by MSCI.* TRW states that it will be extremely difficult to construct and launch a system with 77 satellites, particularly since each of the satellites proposed by MSCI will require complex on—board computer processing to control the frequent cell—to—cell handoffs and maintain the intersatellite links. Petition of TRW, pp. 2—3. Hughes presents an extensive analysis 3/ A subsidiary of Hughes Aircraft Company, Hughes Communications Mobile Satellite Services, Inc., is a part—owner of AMSC.

4 that shows that a geostationary satellite system with three satellites could provide all of the services that the $3.5 billion MSCI system is designed to offer, and do so more efficiently, at a far lower cost, using existing teéhnology. Hughes recommends that the bands be allocated to MSS and assiqgned to AMSC, which is deploying geostationary satellites. Both Hughes and Communications Satellite Corporation ("Comsat") suggest that the Commission should consider the issues raised by the Ellipsat and MSCI applications in the context of a notice and comment rulemaking. Comsat notes that the MSCI proposal raises broad policy, technical and operational issues that will affect the future design and operation of both LEO and geostationary satellite systems. Comsat states that the Commission should carefully consider the international implications of the MSCI system, including its relationship to Inmarsat and Intelsat. MSCI and Ellipsat challenge the feasibility of each other‘s applications. Ellipsat states that MSCI‘s proposeda bidirectional operation in the 1610—1626.5 MHz band will preclude other users from operating in the band. Ellipsat Petition to Deny or Dismiss, pp. 9—10, Appendix A. MSCI points to serious coverage problems with the Ellipso I system and clainms that Ellipsat‘s satellites are physically unstable. MSCI Petition to Dismiss and/or Deny, p. 16. The only support for the MSCI proposal is in a number of letters that discuss the utility of a global mobile telephone and

5 broadcasting service. See e.g., Letters of The Christian Science Monitor, Hispanic Information & Telecommunications Network, ‘Inc., GLOSas/USA. The only proponent of maintaining the existing allocation is RDSS, Inc., an entity with no apparent existing operations and unspecified ownership. RDSS, Inc. claims that a grant of the Motorola and Ellipsat applications would be premature and would cripple the ability of new entities to offer RDSS. According to RDSS, Inc., it intends at some unspecified time in the future to seek FCC authority to provide RDSS. _Two other parties filed comments expressing concern about the demise of RDSS. The Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), which had been using the interim Geostar system, is concerned about its investment in Geostar mobile terminals. GTE Spacenet, which is authorized to carry three RDSS payloads for the now— bankrupt Geostar Corporation, claims that any new licensees authorized to operate in the 1610—1626.5 MHz band should be required to coordinate with GTE Spacenet. In addition to the comments and petitions filed concerning the above—referenced applications, five applications were filed on June 3, 1991, in response to the cut—off established by the Commission concerning use of the RDSS band." These applications 4/ AMSC comments on those applications here only to the extent that the applications relate to the issue of spectrun allocations. AMSC reserves the right to file additional comments on the applications at such time as the Commission places the applications on public notice.

6 were filed by AMSC, Ellipsat (for an Ellipso II systenm), Constellation Communications, Inc., Loral Cellular Systems,‘Corp. ("Loral"), and TRW. All of the proposed systems are designed primarily to provide mobile voice services only and to provide position location services on a secondary basis. Moreover, all of the proposed systems would operate at power levels that substantially exceed the Commission‘s limits for RDSS systenms." Subsequent to the June 3 filings, the Commission issued its Report concerning preparations for the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference ("WARC"). In the Report, the Commission recommends substantial new allocations for MSS, including all but one of the bands proposed by AMSC in its application." In addition, on June 28, 1991, Geostar Corporation, the only RDSS licensee, failed to inform the Commission of its intention to comply with its milestones, as required in a recent order; thus, its RDSS authorization is now subject to being cancelled. See Geostar Positioning Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Red 2776 (1991), para. 18. 5/ AMSC has proposed a power limit in the 1616.5—1626.5 MHz band for MSS systems that is higher than the limit for RDSS systens. Comments of AMSC, Gen. Docket No. 89—554, at Technical Appendix (April 12, 1991). The higher linmit for MSS systems is feasible in the upper 10 MHz of the band because there is no need to share with radio astronomy or radio navigation satellite systems, including Glonass, and because AMSC will not operate outside North America. 6/ Report, Gen. Docket §89—554, FCC 91—188 (June 20, 1991).

9 Discussion a 8 As discussed above, a number of comments were filed which raise serious questions about the technical feasibility of the proposed systems. By and large, AMSC concurs with the comments of NAS, TRW, Hughes, Comsat, Motorola and Ellipsat. Furthermore, there is no meaningful support for the Ellipsat and MSCI applications. As noted above, the letters filed in support of MSCI are not so much supporting a particular MSS system as they are supporting the concept of MSS. The comments and applications also provide no compelling reason to maintain the RDSS allocation. A market for RDSS simply has not materialized. Geostar Corporation, the last remaining RDSS licensee, is bankrupt. The new applicants all are proposing MSS systems, relying heavily on mobile voice and data applications, and offering position location service only on an ancillary basis. There are three proposals that would decouple the existing RDSS uplink and downlink bands." In addition, all of the proposed systems would violate the EIRP 1imit-in the 1610— 1626.5 MHz band and (to the extent they propose operations in the band) the PFD limit in the 2483.5—2500 MHz band. The Commission‘s Report concerning the 1992 WARC provides further support for AMSC‘s proposed MSS allocations. In the Report, the Commission notes the "spiraling demand" for MSS, and, as a result of this demand, proposes new allocations for 7/ See Applications of AMSC, Motorola and Loral.

8 geostationary MSS systems totalling 118 MHz, including the bands currently allocated for RDSS.5 These new MSS allocations ificlude all but one of the bands proposed by AMSC in its Petition." The only advocate for the existing allocation éppears to be RDSS, Inc. RDSS, Inc. clains that it will file an application with the Commission to provide RDSS on existing space segment. However, to date, no application has been filed. Moreover, even if someone were to file a true RDSS application, there is no sound public policy reason to maintain an allocation that for so many years has been virtually unused.®" The marketplace has spoken loudly and clearly about the absence of any demand for a stand—alone RDSS systen. There is also no basis for GTE Spacenet‘s clain that its RDSS payloads have given it some kind of permanent right to operate in the 1610—1626.5 MHz band. The Commission authorized these payloads only so that Geostar could provide an interinm service until its dedicated system was launched. Order and 8/ The proposed new allocations include the 1525—1530 MHz, 1610— 1626.5 MHz, 2110—2130 MHz, 2160—2180 MHz, 2390—2430 MHz, and 2483.5—2500 MHz bands. In addition, the Commission proposed a footnote allocation to MSS in the 1850—1990 MHz band that is intended for LEO systems, but may be used by geostationary systems as well. Report, Gen. Docket No. 89—554, para. 57. 9/ The Commission has not proposed an MSS allocation in the 1515— 1525 MHz band, instead noting that some portion of the 1435— 1525 MHz band may be allocated for digital audio broadcasting. Id@., para. 73. 10/ Before its demise, Geostar claimed to have only 130 customers using its interim system. Geostar Positioning Corporation, 6 FCC Rced 2776 (1991), para. 27.

9 Authorization, 1 FCC Red 1163 (1986). The Commission has ruled that the payloads could not be substituted for Geostar‘s « dedicated system. Order Authorizaton, File No. 1480—DSS—MP/ML—87, paras. 17—19 (August 28, 1987). Accordingly, there should be no requirement that new licensees in the 1610—1626.5 MHz band coordinate with GTE Spacenet. As DEA points out, there will be some dislocation experienced by those companies and government agencies that invested in equipment to be used with the Geostar systen. Geostar—system terminals do not appear to be compatible with any of the new systems that have been proposed. There are relatively few such Geostar customers, however, and they and hundreds of thousands of other, prospective MSS customers will benefit fron the reallocation of the RDSS spectrum to MSS. Such a reallocation will permit the development of a more financially viable satellite system that offers a wider variety of mobile services than Geostar was able to offer.

10 Cconclusion Based on the foregoing, AMSC continues to urge the Commission to dismiss or deny the applications of Ellipsat and MSCI, and grant AMSC‘s Petition for Rulemaking. Respectfully submitted, AMERICAN MOBILE SATELLITE CORPORATION i [/ By : éaAbbf”L 45206664“427.2241 By: ,j£?322244fi“ Aé;? /4:11é2ZL<2§2 Bruce D. Jacobs Lon C. Levin Glenn S. Richards Fisher, Wayland, Cooper Gurman, Kurtis, Blask & & Leader Freedman, Chartered 1255 23ra Street, N.W. 1400 Sixteenth Street, N.W. Suite 800 Ssuite 500 Washington, D.C. 20037 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 659—3494 (202) 328—8200 Leslie A.L. Borden Vice President and General Counsel American Mobile Satellite Corporation 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 4&4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331—5858 Dated: July 3, 1991

FACSIMILE 202—231 4861 TELEPHONE 202—331—5858 AMERICAN MOBILE SATELLITE CORPORATION DECLARATION I, Michael Ward, under penalty of perjury, do hereby declare as follows: I have reviewed tha foregoing Reply Comments of Anrerican Mobhile Satellite Corporation. The facts contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Michael Warda Senior Sscientist Anerican Mobile Satellite corperation Pate: _‘ _~ A : iZ// 1150 Connecticut Averwe, NW.. Feurth Fleor, Washington, D.C. 20036

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ruth E. Davis, a secretary in the law offices of Gufman, Kurtis, Blask & Freedman, Chartered, do hereby certify that on this 3rd day of July, 1991, a copy of the foregoing "Reply Comments of American Mobile Satellite Corporation" was sent by U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid to: Jill Abeshouse Stern Miller & Holbrooke 1225 Nineteenth Street, N.W. wWashington, D.C. 20036 (Counsel for Ellipsat Corporation) Mr. Robert G. Perry President & Chief Operating Officer Ellipsat Corporation 2420 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Henry M. Rivera Ginsburg, Feldman and Bress Chartered 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (Counsel for RDSS, Inc.) Martin N. Chamberlain Executive Vice President The University of the Worla 1055 Torrey Pines Road Suite 203 La Jolla, California 92037 Meres McCarroll Emergency Preparedness Information Corporation 140 South Lake Avenue Suite 222 Pasadena, California 91101—2651 Jerry Apodaca President National Institute of Former Governors 2000 L Street, N.W. Suite 702 Washington, D.C. 20036

William P. DuBose, IV National Ocean Industries Association 1050 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 Gary H. Marks, Ph.D. Executive Director . Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education P.0O. Box 2966 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Louis A. Bransford President Public Service Satellite Consortiunm 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 904 Arlington, Virginia 22202 Chris Morton, Ph.D. Director of Information Systenmns and Research Center for Information Systems and Research Projects Building c/o Putnam/Northern Westchester BOCES Pinesbridge Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Takeshi Utsumi, Ph.D. President, GU/USA The Global Systems Analysis and Simulation Association in the United States of America, Inc. 43—23 Colden Street Flushing, NY 11355~—3998 Kate Dearborn Director of Monitor Radio The Christian Science Monitor One Norway Street Boston, Massachusetts 02115 H. Rex Lee Shore Towers #1204 2500 Torrey Pines Road La Jolla, California 92037

Parker Rossman P.O. Box 382 Niantic, Connecticut 06357 Jose Luis Rodriquez President Hispanic Information & Telecommunications Network, Inc. 449 Broadway 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Donald E. Hanna Associate Vice President Washington State University 106 Van Doren Hall Pullman, WA 99164—5220 M. Roy Schwarz, MD Senior Vice President Medical Education & Science American Medical Association 515 North State Street Chicago, Illinois 60610 Richarda J. Williams President WIMPOL, INC. 10607 Haddington Houston, Texas 77043 Frank Blythe Executive Director Native American Public Broadcasting Consortium, Inc. P.0. Box 83111 Lincoln, Nebraska 68501 Robert A. Mazer Albert Shuldiner Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle Oone Thomas Circle, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 (Counsel for Constellation Communications, Inc.)

Tedson J. Meyers Reid & Priest 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. * Washington, D.C. 20004 (Counsel for AfriSpace, Inc.) Leslie A. Taylor Leslie Taylor Associates 6800 Carlynn Court Bethesda, Maryland 20817—4302 (Counsel for Norris Satellite Communications, Inc.) Terri B. Natoli Troy D. Ellington GTE Spacenet Corporation 1700 Old Meadow Road McLean, Virginia 22102 Cheryl Lynn Schneider Communications Satellite Corporation 950 L‘Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024 Gary M. Epstein James F. Rogers Kevin C. Boyle Lathan & Watkins 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 1300 Washington, D.C. 20004—2504 (Counsel for Hughes Aircraft Company) Dr. Robert L. Riemer Committee on Radio Frequencies HA—562 National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418 Philip L. Malet Steptoe & Johnson 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (Counsel for Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc.})

Leonard Kolsky Vice President & Director Regulatory Affairs * Motorola, Inc. 1350 I Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Linda K. Snith Robert M. Halperin Crowell & Moring 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004—2505 (Counsel for Loral Cellular systems, Corp.) Norman P. Leventhal Raul R. Rodrigqguez Stephen D. Baruch Leventhal, Senter & Lerman 2000 K Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 (Counsel for TRW, Inc.) "Puth Dau Ruth E. Davis


Document Created: 2015-03-26 11:06:43
Document Modified: 2015-03-26 11:06:43
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC