Attachment petition

petition

PETITION TO DENY submitted by Ondas Spain SL

petition

2005-04-18

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20050311-00061 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2005031100061_428485

GRIGINAL RECEIVED Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APR 18 2005 Washington, D.C. 20554 Fodun O Received"s#Swm —"*‘ In the Matter of ) APR 2 0 2005 ) Afrispace, Inc. ) Polcy Branch ) Intormational Sureay Application for Authority ) SAT—LOA—2008311—0061 to Launch and Operate Afristar—2 ) PETITION TO DENY Ondas Spain, SL (*Ondas") hereby Petitions to Deny the above—captioned application. A review of the Afrispace application reveals that t is an application to provide Satellite—Digital Audio Broadcasting (°S—DAB") service to Europe. Ondas believes that the development of S— DAB in Europe is best determined by European regulatory authorities and as such urges the FCC to reject the Afrispace application.. Ondas his a vital interest in the outcome of this proceeding since it currently is developing a European S—DAB system. 1. Background Afrispace currently operates Aftistar—1, a Broadcasting Sound Service (°BSS") satellte system in the 1452—1492 MHz band serving the Middle East and Africa. This satellite was Hicensed by the FCC in 199. On July 7, 2004 Afrispace submitted an application to the FCC to launch and operate Aftispace—2 and to co—locate it at 21° EL. with its Afristar—1 satellite. Aftispace filed the application as an application for a replacement satellte. Evidently, after reviewing the technical specifications of Afristar—2, the FCC determined that the gain contours for Afristar—2" were quite different than Afristar—1 in that Afristar—2 is optimized to serve Europe f See Afrispace,Ins. 15 FCC Red 1632 (1999). stoee sarconsmsmniamer imsssoos AiSpace, nc 4 See Aftisar2 Application Figure 3, Exhibit A at 9 armistar2

not Africa. Consequently, the FCC rejected Afrispace‘s request to be considered a replacement satellite. When it was placed on Public Notice on September 24, 2004 the FCC determined "that this is an application for a new satelite."" On March 4, 2005, the FCC dismissed the Afistar—2 application as technically defective. Affispace subsequently resubmitted its application which was placed on Public Notice on March 18, 2005A review of this newly filed Aftispace application reveals quitclearly that it is designed to control S—DAB spectrum over Europe. As discussed below, Ondas believes the development and implementation of European S—DAB service should be governed by European regulators not the FCC. IL. Afristar—2 is not a Replacement Satellite Historically, the FCC has provided a replacement expectancy to replacement satelltes that had technical characteristics consistent with those of the satelite being retired.. However, the Commission recently noted that any attempt to expand coverage of a replacement satellte would not be included in the replacement expectancies." Here, there is no doubt that Afristar—2 is not a replacement satellite.. Afrispace provides in the Afrista—2 application the contours for the northwest beam and northeast beam of Afristar—1.. The center of both of these beams are in central Africa with some limited spillover into souther Europe. On the other hand, the Afristar— 2 gain contours are centered over Westem Europe with limited African coverage. In its attempt to argue that this is a replacement satellite, Afrispace states that with the launch of Affistar—2, Aftispace will be able to conserve power on Afistar—1 and thus prolong satellte lifetime. What is confounding about this argument is that according to Afrispace‘s application, Aftistar—2 will # See ECC PubliNotce, Report No. SAT—00243, September 24,2004 5 See FCC Public Notice, Report No. SAT—00279, March 18, 2005. £ See Amendment othe Commission‘s Space Sttion Licensing Rulesand Poliis, is Repor and Order and Further Notee ofProposed Rulemaking, 1B Docker No.02—34, 18 FCC Red 10760 (2003)at para 258

have very limited capability to serve Africa and is optimized to serve Burope. This is nothing more than an attempt by Afrispace to use the FCC to get a foothold in Europe. This should be treated for what it is—a new application to provide S—DAB service to Europe. IHI. ‘The FCC has no obligation to consider Afrispace‘s European Proposal The Affista—2 application presents the FCC with a novel issue. Should the FCC be Hicensing BSS systems not serving the United States.. As the Commission is aware, the WTO and DISCO 11 obligations do not extend to the BSS. Thus, the Commission has no affirmative obligation to consider a proposal for European S—DAB service. The question then presented is whether it is sound public policy for the FCC to assert jurisdiction over Afrispace—2. IV. European Regulatory Authorities should license and establish S—DAB System In 1992 ITU allocated 23 blocks of L—Band spectrum within the 1452—1492 MHz band on a co—primary basis with terrestrial DAB for the BSS. The frequency blocks designed to a DAB multiplex (per EIS 300.401) are each 1.536 MHz wide with central frequencies separated by 1.712 MHz. In 1995 the Conference of European Postal and: Telecommunications Administrators (*CEPT) adopted an allotment plan for the introduction of terrestrial DAB in the 1457—1467.5 MHz band (#1995 Wiesbaden Agreement"). In 2002 CEPT adopted a second allotment plan in the introduction of terrestral DAB in the 1467.5—1479.5 MHz band (©2002 Masstrict Agreement"). In October 2003, CEPT adopted a decision that designates the frequency band 1475.5—1492 MHz for use by S—DAB systems in Europe.® As the above demonstrates, European regulators have been actively considering S—DAB issues during the last ten years. They have the knowledge, expertise and jurisdiction to best determine how S—DAB should be introduced in Burope. Moreover, as the Commission is aware there are a myriad of & See ECC Decision on Satelite Audio Broadcasing Systems, ECCIOEC(03) 02, 17 October 2003

broadcast, equipment and related regulations in Burope that will impact the introduction of S— DAB. Overlapping U.S. and European regulation of this service will not serve anyone‘s interest. Aftistar in its application seeks to launch and operate a geostationary satellite to serve Europe. Ondas has taken a different approach. Based on its research and analysis, Ondas believes that a geostationary satellite will have limited capabilities in Europe because ofthe high latitudes of most European countries. These high latitudes result in poor look angles inhibiting the service area and increasing the need for repeaters. Thus, Ondas proposes to launch a highly elliptical orbit S—DAB system. However, as a result of the existing priority in RR22.2 ofthe ITU regulations, the FCC‘s grant of Afrista—2‘s application could preclude the introduction of the Ondas system." This would essentially put the FCC in a position of making choices regarding Buropean S—DAB implementation without a full record. The FCC does not have any information on the service requirements, technical requirements or market needs in Europe to make a determination as to which is the superior technology. Here, Commission grant of the Afrispace application may have devastating impact on Ondas and the introduction of S—DAB in Europe. ‘The net effect oan FCC decision granting the Afristar2 application could be to precude implementation of the Ondas system and limit Europeans to a geostationary S—DAB system. At a minimum, FCC consideration of this application will create significant jurisdictional issues between the U.. and Europe resulting in the delay ofthe introduction ofthis important new service to European listeners. Based on the above, Ondas urges the FCC to reject the Afristar—2 application. However, if the FCC determines that it has jurisdiction over this service, Ondas would like the opportunity & As the Commision is aware, CEPT has developed alotment plan orterestial DAB in 1452—1479.5 Mite band. This,only the 1479—1492 MHe is clearly avilableatthis ime foS:DAB in Europe. Based on the U.S. experience, 12.5 MBz i minimurm necessiry o implementa visble —DAB system.

to submit its own application and make the case why its technical approach is superior to the Afrispace approach. V._ Conclusion For all the above reasons, Ondas urges the Commission to reject the Afrispace—2 application. Respectfully submitted. ist Celso Azevedo President & CEO Ondas Spain, SL Cascanveces 10F Madrid 28043 Spain Date: April 18, 2005 ssurmanoo


Document Created: 2005-04-21 14:37:05
Document Modified: 2005-04-21 14:37:05
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC