Attachment 61998 Opposition - 1

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

IBFS_SATLOA1994111600088_973555

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Office ofSecratery. Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) . FINAL ANALYSIS ) File Nos. 25—SAT—P/LA—95 > COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC. ) 76—SAT—AMEND—95y m:= ) 79—SAT—AMEND06 Sure8i Order and Authorization to Construct, ) 151—SAT—AMEND—96:= Launch and Operate a Non—Voice, Non— ) 7—SAT—AMEND—97 Geostationary Mobile Satellite System ) in the 148—150.05 MHz, 400.15—401 MHz, ) and 137—138 MHz bands ) OPPOSITION Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc. ("Final Analysis"), by its attorneys, subt this Opposition to the "Comments" filed by Leo One USA Corporation ("Leo One") on Ma 1998 in the above captioned matter.‘ Leo One asks that the Commission confirm that the— Certification Letter filed by Final Analysis on May 15, 1998 in fulfillment of the condition in Paragraph 80 of the Final Analysis Licensing Order® satisfies the condition, and that Final Analysis‘s May 14, 1998 Petition for Reconsideration seeking a stay of the condition be 1 Leo One‘s filing is styled as "comments on a blizzard of filings." Such a pleading, whi’(:h; does not respond to any particular filing by Final Analysis, is not authorized under the Commission‘s Rules. In particular, it is late—filed under Section 1.106 of the Commission‘s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106 with respect to Final Analysis‘s May 14, 1998 Petition for Reconsideration, and should be returned without consideration. In any event, Leo One‘s efforts to create its own unauthorized pleading opportunities is just further evidence of its disregard:of Commission Rules and procedures see, e.g., Letter fromJohn I. Riffer, FCC Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, to Robert A. Mazer, counsel for Leo One, dated June 5, 1998 (strongly admonishing Leo One for violations of the Commission‘s ex parte rules), and the Commission should admonish Leo One not to file additional unwarranted and irregular pleadings. However, against the possibility that the Commission may accept the "Comments" | as some sort of motion to dismiss or request for clarification or declaratory ruling, Final Analysis submits this Opposition in accordance with Section 1.45 of the Commission‘s Rules, 47 C.F.R.§ 1.45 2 Letter from Aileen A. Pisciotta to Regina M. Keeney, Chief, FCC International Bureau, dated May 15, 1998 conveying Letter from Nader Modanlo ("Certification Letter").

dismissed as moot. Leo One‘s request is not only unwarranted and meritless, but it actually proves the point made by Final Analysis in its Petition for Reconsideration that the certification= requirement is prejudicial. First, Leo One‘s request is unwarranted on its face as the Certification Letter is perfectly. clear. Final Analysis expressed its "present intention" to constructand coordinate its syste compliance with the Licensing Order license becausethat order is thesubject of a pending: Application for Review," pursuant to which the Licensing Order may be revised. The Certification Letter was also clear that it was filed only because, in the absence of action bythe: International— Bureauon its pending request, it risked thelossofits—license.: Final Analysisv compelled to file the certification on that date, andhadto.do so without. giving up its rights:; this respect; thereis nothing inconsistent withFinalAnalysis‘s expressionof.commitment: c construct and coordinate the system as authorized and its reservation ofall rights to seek a stay_ | of the condition and/or a reversal of the underlying Licensing Ordér. To conclude otherwise= would require a determination that, simply through inaction, the Commission could deprive parties of due process. Second, Leo One‘s request is completely without merit. The International Bureau has— clarified that compliance with the Certification Condition should not compromise Final Analysis‘s due process rights in this proceeding." In its,Petition, Final Analysis showed that compliance with the Certification Condition is in fact préjfidicial. The Certification Letter was expressly filed "without prejudice" to pending proceedings concerning its Licensing Order. Leo g. ..continued) Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc., DA 98—616, Order and Authorization (rel April 1, 1998) ("Licensing Order"). 4 Final Analysis, Application for Review, filed May 1, 1998. 5 Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc., Order, DA 98—881 (rel. May 8, 1998).

One‘s request is merely an effort to obtain clarification from the Commission that the Certification Letter should be deemed to prejudice Final Analysis‘s position. This is completely inappropriate. Finally, Leo One‘s request, and in particular its statemenit, ét p. 2, that "Final Analysis appears to have survived what it graphically characterized as a ‘Hobson‘s Choice‘" is a perfect indication that what Final Analysis has tried to avoid has occurred. Final Analysis argued that imposition of the Certification Condition would cause detrimental reliance among others in the industry that would prejudice Commission decision—making on its Application for Review. Leo One, in seeking further assurances upon which it can rely, essentially requests confirmation that this is the case. Any finding in favor of Leo One would, therefore, be prejudicial to Final Analysis in deprivation of its due process rights. | Final Analysis does not consider its pending Petition to be moot, and further believes that in its Application for Review it has made a compelling case that thé Licensing Order must be modified. It therefore respectfully requests that the International Bureau expeditiously grant its Petition for Reconsideration and stay the Certification Condition pending Commission action on its Application for Review. Only such action would preserve all of Final Analysis‘s rights in this proceeding and prevent further confusion among the other licensees." | Most importantly, Final Analysis urges the Commission to recognize Leo One‘s untimely 6 The fact that the certification is not even necessary is made evident by the fact that Final Analysis and Orbital Communications Corporation ("ORBCOMM") are proceeding with coordination even though certain aspects of both constellations are unresolved. See Joint letter to of Aileen A. Pisciotta, counsel for Final Analysis, and Stephen L. Goodman, counsel for ORBCOMM to Regina M. Keeney, FCC International Bureau Chief, dated June 2, 1998. The Commission is urged to further note that, at this point, the only real ongoing coordination efforts involve ORBCOMM, which does not appear to find Final Analysis‘s position in this proceeding confusing. Leo One professes confusion, but is not apparently active in coordination. In this respect, it is clear that its pleadings on this issue are intended more to harass Final Analysis than to achieve any positive results for the industry.

pleading for what it is, merely one more self—serving attempt on the part of that company to manipulate the administrative process to its advantage. Final Analysis has shown in detail in its May 1, 1998 Application for Review and its June 2, 1998 Reply that many of the errors in the Licensing Order are traceable to misrepresentations and mischaracterizations made by Leo One. Leo One here, and elsewhere,‘ has shown itself to lack credibility in this proceeding. In this light, its Comments are not deserving of consideration. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated, Final Analysis respectfully requests the Commission deny the requests made by Leo One‘s in its "Comments" as untimely filed and unjustified. Respectfully submitted, FINAL ANALYSIS COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC. Aileen A. Pisciotta KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 1200 19°" Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955—9600 Dated: June 8, 1998 Its Attorney See, e.g., Final Analysis‘s May 7, 1998 Request for Investigation of Leo One.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Beatriz Viera, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Opposition" to the Comments filed by Leo One USA Corporation, on behalf of Final Analysis: Communication Services, Inc. was delivered by hand or regular mail this 8th day of June 1998, to each ofthe following: Chairman William E. Kennard* Ms. Cassandra Thomas* Federal Communications Commission Deputy Chief, International Bureau 1919 M Street, NW., Room 814 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 2000 M Street, NW., Room 810 Washington, D.C. 20554 Commissioner Gloria Tristani* Federal Communications Commission Ms. Regina Keeney* 1919 M Street, NW., Room 826 Chief, International Bureau Washington, D.C. 20554 Federal Communications Commission. 2000 M Street, NW., Room 830 Commussioner Harold W. Furchtgott—Roth* Washington, D.C. 20554 Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, NW., Room 802 Ms. Tania Hanna* Washington, D.C. 20554 International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Susan Ness* 2000 M Street, NW., Room 800 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 1919 M Street, NW., Room 832 Washington, D.C. 20554 Mr. Harold Ng* Chief, Satellite Engineering Branch Commissioner Michael K. Powell* Satellite and Radio Communication Div. Federal Communications Commission International Bureau 1919 M Street, NW., Room 844 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 2000 M Street, NW., Room 801 Washington, D.C. 20554 Mr. Christopher J. Wright* General Counsel Mr. Alex Roytblat* Federal Communications Commission Satellite and Radio Communication Div. 1919 M Street, NW., Room 614 International Bureau Washington, D.C. 20554 Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, NW., Room 500 Mr. Thomas Tycz* Washington, D.C. 20554 Chief Satellite Division . Federal Communications Commission Stephen Goodman, Esq. 2000 M Street, NW., Room 811 Halprin, Temple & Goodman Washington, D.C. 20054 Suite 650 East 1100 New York Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C. 20005 Counsel for ORBCOMM DCOLPISCAAZ73S7.1

Henry Goldberg, Esq. Mr. William T. Hatch Joseph Godles, Esq. *‘ Associate Administrator Mary Dent, Esq. Spectrum Management Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright U.S. Department of Commerce 1229 19th Street, NW. National Telecommunications and Washington, D.C. 20036 Information Administration: Counsel for Volunteers in Technical 14*" and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Assistance Washington, D.C. 20230 Robert A. Mazer, Esq. Kira Alvarez, Esq. Vinson & Elkins Attorney Advisor 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20004—1008 National Atmospheric and Oceanic Adm. Counsel for Leo One USA (Dept. of Commerce) 1325 East—West Highway 18111 Leslie Taylor, Esq. Silver Spring, MD 20910 Leslie Taylor Associates, Inc. 6800 Carlynn Court SMC/CHS Bethesda, MD 20817—4302 Attn: Lt. Dave Meyer Counsel for E—Sat 2420 Vela Way, Suite 1467—A8° Los Angeles AFB Mr. Nelson Pollack El Segundo, CA 90245—4659 AFFMA 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 204 Arlington, VA 22203—1613 Mr. Richard Barth U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Radio Frequency Management Room 2246, SSMC—2 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Afo [ . & Beatriz Viera DCOL/PISCA/27357.1


Document Created: 2012-11-02 11:42:10
Document Modified: 2012-11-02 11:42:10
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC