Attachment summary exparte mtg

summary exparte mtg

Ex PARTE PRESENTATION NOTIFICATION LETTER submitted by Final Analysis

April 11 2000 ex parte meeting

2000-04-12

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-19971030-00175 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD1997103000175_975234

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP A LIMITEO LIABILITY PaRTNERSHIP 1200 1978 STREET, N.W. NEW YORK, NY SsuUItTE 500 FACSIMILE LOS ANGELES, CA (202) ©S55—9792 ° WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 cHicaso, iL STAMFORD, CT (202) 955—9600 PARSIPPANY, NJ birEct Ling (202) ass—a771 (202) ass—as06 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM E—MAIL: HONG KONG apisciotta@kelleydrye.com rsifers@kelieydrye.com April 12, 2000 AFFILIATE OFFICES BANGKOK, THAILAND JAKARTA, INDONESIA MANILA, THE PHILIPPINES MUMBA!, INDIA TOKYO, JAPAN Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Re: Ex Parte Notice: Meeting of Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc. with Office of General Counsel (Application for Clarification and Review of Non—Voice, Non—Geostationary Mobile Satellite Service ("NVNG MSS") License, 12 FCC Red 6618 (1998), File No. 7—SAT—AMEND—98) Dear Ms. Salas: This letter provides notice, pursuant to Section 1.1206(b)(4) of the Commission‘s rules, together with a summary of the April 11, 2000 ex parte meeting with Joel Kaufman and Daniel Harrold from the Office of General Counsel and other parties to discuss Final Analysis‘s concern regarding the decision—making procedure recently proposed by the International Bureau to resolve pending Non—Voice Non—Geostationary MSS ("NVNG MSS" or "Little LEO®") matters, 1nc1udmg the above—captioned proceedmg Attendmg from Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc. ("Final Analysis") were Nader Modanlo, Chairman and President, and Jan Friis, Government Relations. Also attending the meeting from Kelley Drye & Warren, were Aileen A. Pisciotta and Randall W. Sifers, counsel to Final Analysis. Attending from the International Bureau was Mark Young. Also in attendance were Stephen Goodman, counsel to ORBCOMM; Joseph Godles, counsel to Volunteers in Technical Assistance ("VITA"); and Robert A. Mazer and Albert Shuldiner, counsel to Leo One Worldwide, Inc. E—SAT, Inc. was notified of the meeting but did not send a representative to attend.

Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary April 12, 2000 Page Two . Summary of Meeting Final Analysis explained that the International Bureau (the "Bureau") granted Final Analysis its license in 1998. Because there were mistakes in fact and lack of clarity concerning certain issues in the license, and because it appears that the Bureau applied to Final Analysis different standards than to others on comparable issues, on May 1, 1998 Final Analysis filed an application for clarification and review of the license order. Subsequently, an extensive record has been developed. ORBCOMM and Leo One filed comments and an opposition, respectively, against Final Analysis‘s application for clarification and review in part on the basis of allegedpotential increased interference issues. Recently, in a joint letter with Final Analysis, and without prejudice to its right to maintain an objection against all second round licensees under Section 25.142(a)(1) of the Commission‘s rules, ORBCOMM withdrew its objections to Final Analysis‘s proposed modifications. To illustrate the application by the Bureau of different standards on the same issues, Final Analysis discussed the Bureau‘s handling of downlink power increases in the licenses. Issues of potential increased interference resulting from increased downlink power were resolved for the other second round licensees by requiring post—license coordination. In contrast, in the case of Final Analysis, rather than resolving the issue raised regarding potential increased interference through post—license coordination, its request to increase downlink power was denied on essentially the same facts. Final Analysis expressed its appreciation for the Bureau‘s efforts and acknowledged that issues exist that are beyond the Bureau‘s control that limit the Bureau‘s ability to resolve the. pending matters. Moreover, Final Analysis explained that the purpose for meeting with the Office of General Counsel was to get its help in resolving the issues, and not to be critical of the Bureau. The Bureau recently informed the Little LEO licensees that, due to a lack of staff and resources, rather than address the matters contained in the significant record that has accumulated over the past two years to resolve the issues, it would require industry agreement or deny the pending applications. Final Analysis believes that application of the decision—making procedure proposed by the Bureau to Final Analysis‘s application for clarification and review deprives Final Analysis ofits due process rights, denies other procedural rights, and violates provisions of the Commission‘s own rules. Final Analysis acknowledged that the industry previously had come to agreement when it entered into the joint spectrum sharing plan that, in part, was relied upon by the Commission to accommodate all of the applicants in the Little LEO second processing round. However, Final Analysis made clear that the joint sharing plan was limited to spectrum sharing issues and didnot

Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary April 12, 2000 Page Three ~ address, and importantly, was not designed to address, the technical design or parameters of any party‘s NVNG MSS system. This is consistent with the long—standing Commission policy of leaving design decisions to system operators. Final Analysis asserted that over the past two years the NVNG MSS industry has tried but failed to agree on a variety of issues, significantly because the Bureau has not clarified the basis on which its original licensing orders were made. Until the Bureau clarifies the apparent inconsistencies in the licensing orders and therein establishes a baseline from which the parties can begin negotiations, Final Analysis believes that industry agreement cannot be achieved. Additionally, Final Analysis noted that certain parties who filed oppositions against other parties‘ pending applications do not have pending applications themselves. Accordingly, these parties have no incentive to reach agreement. Indeed, under the Bureau‘s proposal, such parties can cause pending modification requests to be denied simply by not acting. ORBCOMM expressed its support for this position at the meeting. _ Final Analysis believes that as NVNG MSS operators begin deploying and operating their systems, they will need to continue to modify the characteristics of their systems to further optimize performance and efficiency in spectrum use. Until now, issues of potential increased interference arising from system modifications have been effectively and efficiently resolved through post—licensing coordination. However, under the Bureau‘s proposed procedure, there is no incentive to coordinate. In the absence of industry agreement, an application to modify a system that is opposed by a party making a claim of increased potential interference effectively will be denied without requiring the complaining party to demonstrate the potential for actual interference. The Commission‘s rules provide that applications for review are to be acted upon by the Commission. Consequently, reliance on industry agreement to resolve Final Analysis‘s pending application is misplaced and contrary to the Commission‘s rules. Final Analysis believes that all of the pending applications can be equitably and expeditiously resolved if the Commission applies the necessary resources to an examination of the record and the achievement of a fair decision on the basis of existing standards. >

Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary April 12, 2000 Page Four Pursuant to Section 1.1206(b)(2) of the Comm1ssxon s rules, an original and one copyof this letter are submitted for inclusion in the record in the above-captloned proceeding. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Aileen A. Pisciotta Randall W. Sifers Counsel to Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc. co: Attached Service List

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Aileen A. Pisciotta, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Ex Parte Notice, on behalf of Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc., was delivered by hand or regular mail this 12 day of April 2000, to the individuals on the following list: Mr. Donald Abelson* Mr. Ari Fitzgerald* Chief, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Room 8—B201N 445 12" Street, S.W. _ 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Chairman William E. Kennard* Mr. Mark Schneider* Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Portals — Room A302 Room 8—B115 445 12"" Street, S.W. 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Commissioner Gloria Tristani* Mr. Bryan Tramont* Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Portals — Room C302 Room 8—A302B 445 12"" Street, S.W. 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott—Roth* Mr. Peter A. Tenhula* Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Portals — Room B201 Room 8—A¢A204F 445 12"" Street, S.W. 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Commissioner Susan Ness* Mr. Adam Krinsky* Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Portals — Room B115 Room 8—C302 445 12"" Street, S.W. 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Commissioner Michael K. Powell* Mr. Thomas Tycz, Chief* . Federal Communications Commission Satellite and RadioCommunications Div. Portals — Room A204 Federal Communications Commission 445 12"" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554

Mr. Harold Ng, Chief* Robert A. Mazer, Esq. Satellite Engineering Branch Vinson & Elkins — Satellite and RadioCommunication Division 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. International Bureau Washington, D.C. 20004—1008 Federal Communications Commission Counsel for Leo One Worldwide, Inc. 445 12"" Street, S.W. _ Washington, D.C. 20554 _ Leslie Taylotr, Esq. Leslie Taylor Associates, Inc. Ms. Cassandra Thomas* 6800 Carlynn Court Deputy Chief, International Bureau Bethesda, MD 20817—4302 Federal Communications Commission Counsel for E—Sat 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Henry Goldberg, Esq. Joseph Godles, Esq. Ms. Alexandra Field* Mary Dent, Esq. International Bureau Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright Federal Communications Commission 1229 19th Street, N.W. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20554 Steve Goodman, Esq. Mr. Alex Roytblat* Halprin, Temple, Goodman & Maher Satellite and RadioCommunication Div. 555 12" Street, N.W. International Bureau Suite 950 North Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20004 445 12"" Street, S.W. Counsel for ORBCOMM Washington, D.C. 20554 Mr. Mark Young* . International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Randall W. Sifers ¥ * Via Hand Delivery


Document Created: 2012-11-15 13:46:33
Document Modified: 2012-11-15 13:46:33
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC