Attachment reply

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20031118-00332 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2003111800332_371874

RECEIVED Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APR 2 6 2004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ) Apk 3 2o04 ) Application for Modification of Space ) F#er~&,&&MOD-2003 , 1118-00333 Station License (AMSC-1) ) rn*ernationa ) Amendment to Pending Application to ) File No. SAT-AMD-20031118-00332 Launch and Operate a Next-Generation ) Replacement MSS Satellite System 1 ) Application for a Modification of ) File No. SES-MOD-20031118-01879 Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth 1 Terminals with MSAT-1 1 REPLY OF INMARSAT VENTURES LTD Gary M. Epstein JohnP. Janka Alexander D. Hoehn-Sanc LATHAM & WATKINSLLP 555 1I* Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-2200 (phone) (202) 637-2201 (fax) Counsel for INMARSAT VENTURES LTD April 26,2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. AND SUMMARY 1 .................................................................................................................................................. DISCUSSION .8 I. MSV CLOUDS THE DEBATE BY UNJUSTLY CLAIMING INMARSAT TO BE AGAINST INNOVATION AND ANTICOMPETITIVE ............................................................. 11 A . Inmarsat Supports True Innovation .Not Half-formed Schemes Used To Justify Increases In Interference To A Competitor ....................................................................... 11 B. Inmarsat’s Objections Are Motivated Solely By Interference Concerns .......................... 13 I1. THE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN THE ATC SERVICE RULES SOUGHT BY MSV SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED IN A “MINOR MODIFICATION” APPLICATION PROCEEDING.................................................................................................... 17 A . MSV Uses Its ATC Application to Relitigate the ATC Order .......................................... 17 B. Requiring Inmarsat to Accept Uplink Interference To A Total Of 6% ATIT From A Secondary Service Has Policy Ramifications That Extend Far Beyond the L- band ................................................................................................................................... 19 III. MSV’S ATC APPLICATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS INCOMPLETE .......................... 24 A . MSV Does Not Demonstrate How It Would Use 18 dB of Link Margin Solely to Overcome Structural Attenuation ...................................................................................... 25 B . MSV Fails To Demonstrate The Peak EIRP Of Its ATC MTs ......................................... 30 C . MSV Fails To Demonstrate That Its Proposed CDMA Architecture Produces No Greater Potential Interference Than A GSM System ........................................................ 30 rv. MSV’S PROPOSED ATC SYSTEM WILL CAUSE INCREASED INTERFERENCE TO INMARSAT ............................................................................................................................. 32 A. MSV Mischaracterizes the Technical Debate Regarding the Interference Impact of MSV’s Proposed ATC System ..................................................................................... 32 B. Waivers Resulting In Increased Uplink Interference To Inmarsat .................................... 33 1. Non-Compliance With 18 dF3 Structural Attenuation Requirement..................... 33 2. Increase in ATIT To Inmarsat Uplinks ................................................................. 33 3. MSV’s Refusal to Provide Peak Antenna Gain for the MTs. and MSV’s Proposal to Consider Only the Average MT Antenna Gain ................................. 33 4. Use of a Half-Rate Vocoder Instead of the Required Quarter-Rate Vocoder ................................................................................................................ 34 5. Use of CDMA With No Equivalent Constraint to Maintaining Vacant Time Slots in a TDMA System and No Clear €ommitment to Reduce Power When Vocoder Operates at Reduced Coding Rates .................................. 35 6. Increased US Deployment (vs. Canadian Deployment)....................................... 35 7. MSV’s Self-InterferenceCancellation ................................................................. 35 C. Waivers Resulting In Increased Downlink Interference To Inmarsat ............................... 39 1. MSV Refuses to Address the Overload Interference to Inmarsat

Receivers Caused by Intermodulation Products of MSV Transmissions Falling Into the Inmarsat Receive Band ............................................................... 39 a. Aggregate EIRF' Limit for ATC Base Stations ....................................... 40 b. Aggregate EIRP Limit for All ATC Base Stations Within a 50- Mile Radius ............................................................................................ .4 1 C. ATC Base Station EIRP Limit Towards the Horizon ............................. 41 d. ATC Base Station Limits Near Airports ................................................ .4 1 e. Overhead Gain Suppression ................................................................... .42 .............................................................................................................................................. CONCLUSION 43 11

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON,D.C. 20554 In the Matter of 1 ) Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ) 1 Application for Modification of Space ) File No. SAT-MOD-20031118-00333 Station License (AMSC-1) 1 1 Amendment to Pending Application to ) File No. SAT-AMD-20031118-00332 Launch and Operate a Next-Generation ) Replacement MSS Satellite System ) 1 Application for a Modification of ) File No. SES-MOD-20031118-01879 Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth ) Terminals with MSAT- 1 ) REPLY OF INMARSAT VENTURES LTD Inmarsat Ventures Limited (“Inmarsat”) hereby replies to the Response of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (“MSV”) in the above-cited proceedings.’ INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Under the guise of “technical advancements,” MSV seeks to undermine the very underpinnings of the ancillary terrestrial component (“ATC”) service rules: though a series of twelve waiver requests. Like the Wizard in the movie Wizard of Oz, MSV hides behind a curtain, pulling levers, setting of€explosions, and creating smoke. When Inmarsat pulls back the curtain and exposes the ruse, MSV pleas with the Commission to ignore what it said and to look 1 See Response of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiaries LLC to Opposition of Inmarsat Ventures Ltd., Application of MSV, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20031118-00333, SAT-AMD- 20031 118-00332, SES-MOD-20031118-01879 (April 14,2004) (“MSVResponse”). 2 See Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Bund, the L-Band, and the 1.612.4 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1962 (2003) (the “ATC Order”), amended by Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Sewice Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Bund, and the 1.612.4 GHz Bands, Errata, IB Docket Nos. 01-185 and 02-364 (March 7,2003).

at new technology that MSV claims it has spent lots of money developing. As a fbrther distraction, MSV has resorted to the timeworn yarn that Inmarsat (a fully privatized company no longer under control of its former signatories) used to be an intergovernmental organization that is not playing fair. The claims of allegedly problem-solving “innovations” and MSV’s unfounded sniping about the current state of competition are, with apologies to William Shakespeare, merely a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The Commission should take no comfort in MSV’s assurances that “everything will be all right” if the Commission simply moves quickly and allows MSV to deploy yet another competitive offering in the ever-consolidating terrestrial wireless marketplace. There are very real technical problems with MSV’s proposal to increase the size of its proposed terrestrial network by afactor o f 1 7 by, among other things, requiring Inmarsat to accept a significant increase in uplink interference to a total of 6% ATIT, and by lowering the level of protection currently provided to Inmarsat mobile users, including U.S. military, other U.S. Government users, aeronautical, maritime and land mobile commercial users. There should be policy concerns as well. The reality is that MSV’s applied-for ATC system is little more than an attempt to convert the fundamental nature of the L-band at the expense of the MSS services provided by other entities. The Commission attempted to slam the door on such a scam, by limiting MSV to 1725 ATC base station spectrum reuses, and clearly warning ATC licensees that it would not ~ all of its talk of “researching and developing ways to countenance “gaming” the ~ y s t e m .For increase efficient use of L-band spectrum,” MSV is far more focused on terrestrial usage of the L-band than advancing the state of satellite sewices at L-band. Indeed, MSV’s recent 3 See ATC Order at f 3, n.5. 2


Document Created: 2004-05-05 16:03:08
Document Modified: 2004-05-05 16:03:08
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC