Attachment ORBCOMM response sec

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-19941116-00088 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA1994111600088_971866

Before the Te C — _ib "M;ii ;;;t:/ E; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIOI 2 \&7 [| , Washington, D.C. 20554W%WW@! psps s rmCEiVEZ} APR 2 7 1995‘ app 2 51995 Ar g] ) Sateifto and In the Matter of hkfidiomm sPEDERAIrCOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION u%.‘;: L, se SS KSXE SE RLS RuKn _2 &A NC “H\Ju Te e FINAL ANALYSIS COMMUNICATIONS File No. 25—SAT—P/LA—95 SERvVICES,> INC. Application for Authority to Construct, Launch and Operate Non—Voice, Non—Geostationary Mobile—Satellite System in the 137—138 MHz, 148—150 MHz and 400—401 MHz Bands RESPONSE OF ORBCOMM Orbital Communications Corporation ("ORBCOMM") hereby responds to the Consolidated Opposition addressing the comments on the Application for a Non—Voice, Non—Geostationary ("NVNG") satellite system filed by FINAL ANALYSIS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. ("Final Analysis").! In its comments on the Final Analysis application, ORBRCOMM questioned the financial and technical qualifications of Final Analysis to become an NVNG satellite system licensee. Despite the Consolidated Opposition of Final Analysis, ORBCOMM continues to believe that Final Analysis has failed to demonstrate that it is financially and technically qualified. A4 Public Notice, Report No. DS—1484, November 25, 1994. The date for filing responses to replies was extended by the Commission to April 25, 1995, in response to a request by GE Americom. Order, DA 95—598, released March 24, 1995 .

With respect to the financial qualifications issue, while Final Analysis has now retained a "real" CPA to review its accounting records, the fact remains that its balance sheet and income statement will not support financing of the constructionj launch and first year‘s operation of the initial two satellites, even accepting the exceedingly low cost estimate of Final Analysis. The primary asset of Final Analysis‘ parent is a recently—launched experimental satellite, labelled "equipment" on the balance sheets.* Although Final Analysis asserts that this "equipment" falls within the category of "inventory" because of its parent‘s line of business, it does not appear to fall within the Commission‘s definition of "current assets" for purposes of assessing the financial qualifications of a satellite applicant. The Commission has indicated that in evaluating an applicant‘s ability to promptly proceed with the construction, launch and operation of a satellite, the Commission will look to operating income and "cash plus other assets reasonably expected to be realized in cash or sold or consumed during a normal operating cycle of a business."} Final Analysis‘ corporate parent‘s experimental satellite does not appear to qualify under this standard.*? It is not at all clear that Final Analysis!‘ ¥ Consolidated Opposition at p. 20. ¥ Licensing Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed—Satellite Sservice, 58 RR28@ 1267 (1985) at n. 24. 4 Final Analysis also refers to possessing "valuable and expensive components" (Consolidated Opposition at p. 25) that will aid it in constructing the initial two satellites of its constellation. It is not clear whether this equipment has also been donated or sold to the corporate parent by the shareholders as was the experimental satellite. 2

parent intends to, or would be successful in, quickly selling the experimental satellite to raise cash.? The other source of Final Analysis‘ funding appears to be government largesse, insofar as NASA has been subsidizing th; design and development costs of the Final Analysis system." It is not clear the extent to which this subsidization will continue, and thus whether Final Analysis can rely on this funding source for demonstrating its financial qualifications to proceed expeditiously with the construction, launch and operation of its satellite system." Given the continuing deficiencies of Final Analysis‘ financial demonstration, it is not even necessary for the Commission to resolve the issue raised by ORRBCOMM concerning the exceedingly (and disproportionately) low cost estimate submitted by Final Analysis for the construction, launch and first year‘s operation of the initial two satellites in its constellation, because Final Analysis does not even demonstrate an ability to finance the $6.2 million cost it claims. Final Analysis has failed to show that it has access to adequate resources that will 3 A quick sale would be particularly difficult if the reports that the Faisat—1 satellite is experiencing severe difficulties are accurate. & Consolidated Opposition at p. 25. L Cf., 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(d) (2) (iii), which allows grants or other external funding commitments to be used to demonstrate financial qualification.

permit it to proceed promptly with the deployment of its system.* With respect to the technical issues, ORBCOMM remains concerned with sharing the spectrum used for the transmitter ~ uplinks. ORBCOMM has indicated that it should be possible to share the 148—150.05 MHz band for the transmitter uplinks, although it will require careful use by, and coordination among, the different satellite systems to minimize risks of interference. In response to ORBCOMM‘s questions, Final Analysis baldly asserts that its "STARS technology contains the necessary algorithms to select unused uplink channels."" However, Final Analysis provides no details on its proposed system that would allow ORBCOMM or the Commission to evaluate the accuracy of that assertion, and whether in fact the Final Analysis scanning system will both preclude interference to terrestrial users and allow sharing with other NVNG satellite systems. $ Cf., Amendment of the Commission‘s Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610—1626.5/2483.5—2500 MHz Frequency Bands, 9 FCC Red 5936 (1994) at (C 26—27 (the public interest is disserved if spectrum lies fallow while funding is raised) . ¥ Consolidated Opposition at p. 15. 1Y% CfE., GE Americom April 10, 1995 Opposition at Technical Appendix pp. 4—6, which (somewhat belatedly) provided details on its proposed scanning system. ORBCOMM had also raised some other concerns with respect to the Final Analysis application, but now believes that in light of the changes made by Final Analysis, those issues can be resolved through the coordination process. ORBCOMM notes the relocation of the Final Analysis downlink channels and agrees that this will measurably reduce the potential for interference between the two systems. While a worst case C/(N+I) of 7.5 dB (as reflected in the Final Analysis filing) is not sufficient to avoid intersystem interference one hundred percent of the time, ORBCOMM realizes that these values are not steady state, but are dynamic. Now that the downlink (continued...)

For the reasons articulated above and in ORBCOMM‘s initial comments on the Final Analysis application, ORBCOMM continues to urge the Commission not to grant the Final Analysis application. Respectfully submitted, Albert Halprin Stephen L. Goodman Halprin, Temple & Goodman Suite 650 East 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 371—9100 Counsel for Orbital Communications Corporation Dated: April 25, 1995 W¥(...continued) channels do not overlap, if good spectrum containment techniques are used, the two systems should be able to be coordinated. With regard to the uplink interference calculations contained in the ORBCOMM submission, Final Analysis is correct concerning the error in Table A2—2 (the value should have been a C/ (N+1) of +1.5 dB). If the Final Analysis Gateway uplink is implemented on frequencies separate from those used by ORRBRCOMM, then no difficulties should be encountered. 5

n COn:k ‘c{ 5ed in this r ep‘ty, aim 12r wil6 Part 25 of t h e Commussion‘s Rules, that I am Lrisn 1at + L o the best of my knowled g°. & 1 fefels 22— 2 o r BY: 1_o i x7 / / teezxi— {Z 7 / 17ZC S Orbital Cormmur mica as Corporation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Katherine H. Rasdorf, hereby certify that the foregoing Response of ORBCOMM was served by first—class mail, postage prepaid, this 25th day of April, 1995 on the following persons: Chairman Reed Hundt* Commissioner James H. Quello* Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 814 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 802 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Commissioner Andrew C. Barrett* Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong* Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 826 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 844 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Commissioner Susan Ness* Karen Brinkman, Special Assistant* Federal Communications Commission Office of the Chairman 1919 M Street, N.W. Federal Communications Commission Room 832 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Room 814 Washington, D.C. 20554 Tom Tycz* Cecily C. Holiday* Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W. 2000 M Street, N.W. Room 811 Room 520 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Kristi Kendall, Esq.* Fern J. Jarmulnek* Satellite Radio Branch Satellite Radio Branch Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 517 2000 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Room 518 Washington, D.C. 20554

Mr. Scott Blake Harris* Jill Abeshouse Stern Chief, International Bureau CTA INCORPORATED Federal Communications Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 800 2300 N. Street, N.W., Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20037 — Robert Mazer Raul R. Rodriguez, Esquire LEO ONE USA Corporation Starsys, Inc. Rosenman & Colin Leventhal, Senter & Lerman 1300 19th Street, N.W. 2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20006—1809 Henry Goldberg, Esq. Ms. Julie Barton Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright Hogan & Hartson 1229 Nineteenth Street, N.W. 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20004 E—Sat, Inc. Albert J. Catalano c/o Leslie A. Taylor Ronald J. Jarvis Leslie Taylor Associates, Inc. Final Analysis Communications 6800 Carlynn Court Services, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland 20817—4301 Catalano & Jarvis, P.C. 1101 30th Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20007 Michael Ladino Joseph F. Sedlak General Counsel Volunteers in Technical Assistance CTA INCORPORATED 1600 Wilson Boulevard 6116 Executive Boulevard Suite 500 Suite 800 Arlington, VA 22209 Rockville, MD 20852 Xlome [ + * Katherine H. R‘asdorf T * Hand Delivered


Document Created: 2012-10-19 16:53:53
Document Modified: 2012-10-19 16:53:53
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC