Attachment 1997Motorola-Teledes

1997Motorola-Teledes

REPLY submitted by Teledesic Corporation

res

1997-02-02

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-19970613-00053 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA1997061300053_841155

RECEIVED Before the FEB — 2 1998 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION aaSiase 8 . + Federal Communications Gommiéglon Washington, D.C. Office of Secretary In re Application of f, MOTOROLA GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, File No. 79—SAT—P/LA—97 INC. for Authority to Construct, Launch, and Operate the Celestri Multimedia LEO System CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE of TELEDESIC CORPORATION Teledesic Corporation hereby submits its Consolidated Response to the comments on the above—captioned application of Motorola Global Communications, Inc. Teledesic agrees with every other commenting party that Motorola has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that its proposed Celestri system can operate without causing harmful interference to previously licensed operations.! In this Response, Teledesic wishes only to emphasize that Motorola‘s universally recognized failure to prevent harmful interference to licensed stations requires that its 1 See Comments of Fixed Point—to—Point Communications Section, Wireless Communications Division, Telecommunications Industry Ass‘n; Comments of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. ("Loral Comments"); Comments of KaStar Satellite Communications Corp. In addition, Reply Comments have already been filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation, and petitions to deny or defer were filed by GE American Communications, PanAmSat, Hughes, Primestar, USSB, and EchoStar. Teledesic‘s Consolidated Response is directed only toward the Comments that have been filed; the petitions will be addressed, if at all, only in reply to Motorola.

application be denied, regardless of whether the licensed stations that would receive the interference are part of geostationary, non—geostationary, or even terrestrial systems. In its petition to deny Motorola‘s application, Teledesic has already demonstrated that the Celestri application suffers from deep technical flaws, and cannot be granted consistent with settled law or sound policy.2 In particular, Motorola‘s proposed constellation design and switching algorithm are inadequate and cannot support the "satellite diversity" scheme upon which the Celestri application is based. Because of these technical flaws, Motorola‘s proposal would cause harmful interference to other licensed operations, including Teledesic‘s," and would fail to achieve the global coverage required under the Ka—band service rules. Commenters are unanimous in their view that Motorola has failed to discharge its clear responsibility to avoid interference to licensed systems. Indeed, it is apparent from the comments that the Celestri proposal will cause harmful interference not only to Teledesic‘s licensed NGSO FSS operations, but also to other previously licensed systems in the frequencies sought by Motorola. It is important to recognize that Motorola‘s responsibility to avoid harmful interference to or from previously licensed operations is precisely the same in all segments of the Ka band, regardless of whether the previously licensed operations are geostationary or non—geostationary. Ever since the early days of FCC regulation of the radio spectrum, it has been "clear that the ‘newcomer‘ is responsible, financially and otherwise, for taking whatever steps may be necessary 2 Teledesic Corporation Petition to Deny (filed Dec. 22, 1997).

to eliminate objectionable interference."4 The Commission reaffirmed this policy in the satellite context in the recent DISCO II rules, making clear that no U.S. licensed system will be required to "significantly alter" its operations to remedy a later applicant‘s failure to eliminate the possibility of harmful interference." In addition to this clear Commussion precedent, it would be contrary to the public interest for the Commission to allow an unlicensed system proposal to go forward without a demonstration that the proponent would protect the systems of previously existing licensees. As noted by Loral: Application of any other policy would allow unlicensed systems to dictate the design of licensed systems. This policy would not be in the public interest since licensees would have to continuously modify their system design to account for unlicensed systems, delaying the implementation of services, and possibly affecting their quality as well as discouraging investment and undermining business plans. Licensees, . . . relying on the Commission‘s actions, have invested millions of dollars to develop their licensed systems, would suffer higher costs as a result of redesign, and would encounter significant delays in providing service. An untested system such as Celestri has the burden to prove to the Commission . . . that its interference mitigation techniques will not harm licensed systems in which millions of dollars have already been invested, and in which [Footnote continued from previous page] 3 See Teledesic Corp., 12 F.C.C. Red. 3154 (Int‘l Bur. 1997). 4 Sudbrink Broadcasting of Georgia, Inc., 65 F.C.C.2d 691, 692 (1977) (citing Midnight Sun Broadcasting Co., 11 F.C.C. 1119 (1947)). Amendment of the Commuission‘s Regulatory Policies to Allow Non—U.S.—Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States, FCC 97—399 (rel. Nov. 26, 1997), [ 149.

billions of dollars are to be invested.8 Loral also notes that "an FCC license would not mean anything if new proposals continuously jeopardized its development. The Commission should promote a stable regulatory environment and protect its licensees."" Loral‘s statements are just as true for NGSO FSS licensees as for GSO FSS licensees. Motorola must protect all previously licensed stations of the same or a higher category of service.s In some portions of the spectrum requested in the Celestri application, Motorola would bear the additional burden of avoiding interference to or from later—licensed GSO FSS systems, in accordance with the Commission‘s band plan for the Ka band." In other words, in the portion of the Ka band in which GSO FSS operations are primary, Celestri must protectfuture GSO FSS systems in addition to existing ones. This additional burden, however, does not relieve Motorola of its more fundamental obligation to avoid harmful interference to existing licensees such as Teledesic. 6 Loral Comments at 8. 7 14. 8 Cf. 47 C.F.R. § 2.104(d) (discussing relative priorities of primary, permitted, and secondary services). 9 Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commussion‘s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5—29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5—30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92—297, First Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (rel. July 22, 1996).

By designing a system that creates harmful interference with virtually every other technology licensed in the Ka band, Motorola has utterly failed to discharge its most important and elementary obligation as an applicant for an FCC license. Teledesic agrees with every other commenter that Motorola‘s application cannot be granted unless and until it can provide a compelling technical demonstration of its ability to protect licensed systems from harmful interference problems. Respectfully submitted, TELEDESIC CORPORATION PPAnleA )/ Mark A. Grannis Evan R. Grayer HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS, LLP 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1012 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857—9711 is Attorneys Dated: February 2, 1997

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Grannis, hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "Consolidated Response of Teledesic Corporation" were served, via first—class mail, upon the following this 2"° day of February, 1998: Philip L. Malet Stephen E. Coran James M. Talens David G. O‘Neil Maury D. Shenk Rini, Coran & Lancellota, P.C. Steptoe & Johnson Suite 900 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036 Gary M. Epstein Benjamin J. Griffin John P. Janka Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay LLP James H. Barker Suite 1100, East Tower Abid R. Qureshi 1301 K Street, NW Latham & Watkins Washington, DC 20005 Suite 1300 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Karen E. Watson Washington, DC 20004 EchoStar Communications Corp. Suite 1070 Philip L. Verveer 1850 M Street, NW Andrew R. D‘Uva Washington, DC 20036 Nicos L. Tsilas Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher Denis Couillard Three Lafayette Centre Eric Schimmel 1155 Twenty—First Street, NW Fixed Point—to—Point Section, TIA Washington, DC 20036 1500 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 Henry Goldberg Joseph A. Godles Robert J. Miller Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright Emily S. Barbour 1229 Nineteenth Street, NW Gardere & Wynne, L.L.P. Washington, DC 20036 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000 Dallas, TX 75201 Peter A. Rohrbach Karis A. Hastings Philip V. Otero Hogan & Hartson LL.P. Sr. VP and General Counsel 555 Thirteenth Street, NW GE American Communications Washington, DC 20004 Four Research Way Princeton, NJ 08540

Scott B. Tollefsen Raymond G. Bender, Jr. VP, General Counsel, and Secretary Carlos M. Nalda Hughes Electronics Corp. Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC 1500 Hughes Way 1200 New Hampshire Avenue Long Beach, CA 90810 Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Jonathan D. Blake Kurt A. Wimmer Gerald Musarra Jennifer A. Johnson Jennifer A. Warren Covington & Burling Space and Strategic Missiles Sector 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Lockheed Martin Corporation P.O. Box 7566 1725 Jefferson Davis Highway Washington, DC 20044 Arlington, VA 22202—4127 Eric Fishman Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. 11"" Floor 1300 North Seventeenth Street Rosslyn, VA 22209 Michael D. Kennedy VP & Director Satellite Regulatory Affairs Motorola, Inc. Suite 400 1350 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Plabo A)_ Mark ,A.'Grannis


Document Created: 2019-05-31 08:22:06
Document Modified: 2019-05-31 08:22:06
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC