Attachment 1991Ellipsat letter

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

IBFS_SATAO1990110700066_1081837

RECEIVED MILLER & HoLBROOKE MAY 2 1 1991 1225 NINETEENTH STREET, N. W. Fegerai Commurications Commissiqn WwaASHINGTON, D. C. 20086 Office ot ine Secretary MicHkaEL D. BErc TELEPHONE (202) 785—0600 WILLIAM R. MaroNE Or CoUunNsEL WILLIAx W. BurrRIncGton*** TELECOPIER (202) 785—1234 BETTY AnNN KanE* LarRINE S. HoLBROOKE FEpERAL REratiONS Apvisor E1rprED InGRAHAM** TILLMAN L. Lax *Not ADMITTED To THE Bar **ADMITTED IN PENNSYLVANIA ONLY Nicroras P. MILLE®R ***ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLYy KarEnxn HoCcHSTEIN NEUMAN May 21, 1991 i1924 9=9, BarBara D. RaNaAGgAN 1 } ul \P hss JILL ABESHOUSE STERN VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Donna Searcy Secretary Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Ellipsat Corporation FCC. File NoswimeDs8g=F—91(6) t Dear Ms. Searcy: This letter is submitted by counsel for Ellipsat Corporation ("Ellipsat") for the purpose of responding to the May 14, 1991 letter from counsel for Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. ("Motorola") . The Motorola letter responded to Ellipsat‘s letter of May 2, 1991 with respect to the above—referenced application. Ellipsat filed an application for an elliptical orbit satellite system on November 5, 1990 . In Ats application, Ellipsat took the position that it was entitled to be considered concurrently with the Geostar modification applications then pending before the Commission. As more fully detailed in the May 2, 1991 letter, Commission Rule 25.392(b) provides that "[eljach application for a space station in the radiodetermination satellite service shall be placed on public noticve for 60 days." The rule further provides that "[a) 60 day cut—off period shall also be established for the filing of applications to be considered in conjunction with an original application." Pursuant. to Rule 25.392(h) ,; to the extent that the various modifications to the dedicated

MILLEER & HoLBROOKE ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Donna Searcy May 21, 1991 Page 2 Geostar system constituted "an original application," . the September 4, 1990 Public Notice, Report No. DS—999, accepting the Geostar modification applications for filing can be viewed as establishing a 60—day cut—off period for applications to be considered in conjunction with the Geostar applications. Ellipsat‘s application was timely filed within that window. The Commission subsequently concluded that the Geostar applications were, in fact, new applications. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 91—528, released April 30, 1991. Indeed, Motorola has itself arqgued that the Geostar applications proposed "substantial" modifications with "radical changes to system design." See Comments of Motorola, Inc., filed November 5, 1990, at 5—6. The purpose of Ellipsat‘s May 2, 1991 letter was merely to point out to the Commission that, in inviting competing applications to be filed against the Ellipsat application, it may have exposed Ellipsat‘s application to significant additional delay and prejudice without a procedural reason for doing so. Contrary to Motorola‘s suggestion, Rule 25.392(b) does not require the Ellipsat and Motorola applications to be considered together. Nor would Ellipsat‘s application be subject to competing applications, or to a daisy chain situation, under the interpretation of Rule 25.392 that Ellipsat offers. Contrary to Motorola‘s incorrect assumption, it was Geostar‘s 1990 applications that opened the window, and the filing of Ellipsat‘s application did not elongate the window. Thus, the timeliness of Motorola‘s application is governed by the Geostar public notice not by Ellipsat‘s. The important point is that the FCC could, consistent with its rules, have considered, and now remains obliged to consider Ellipsat and Geostar in a discrete processing group. To the extent that Motorola filed after the window closed, it could legally be subjected to competing applications and a new processing group under Commission precedent.

MILLE®R & HoLBROOKE ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Donna Searcy May 21, 1991 Page 3 Ellipsat also takes issue with Motorola‘s unsubstantiated suggestion in its May 14 letter that Ellipsat‘s application was deficient in material respects. Despite the serious nature of this charge, Motorola offers no concrete evidence of any deficiency. Contrary to Motorola‘s implication, Ellipsat‘s application, as—originally filed, was complete in all material respects. Indeed, Motorola‘s attack is surprising given that Motorola itself has filed an amendment to its application which, among other things, significantly increases Iridium‘s proposed power levels. amik Respectfully submitted, 11 Abeshouse Stern — Counsel for ' Ellipsat Corporation cc: Richard Firestone, Esquire Geraldine Matise, Esquire Cecily Holiday, Esquire Michael Yourshaw, Esquire Philip L. Malet, Esquire


Document Created: 2015-03-26 11:03:07
Document Modified: 2015-03-26 11:03:07
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC