Attachment opposition

opposition

OPPOSITION submitted by Globalstar; GUSA

opposition

2008-07-11

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-19960308-00044 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD1996030800044_654603

Before The FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of 1 ) Globalstar Licensee LLC ) Call Sign S2115 GUSA Licensee LLC 1 Call Sign E970381 1 Iridium Constellation LLC 1 Call Sign S2110 1 Iridium Satellite LLC 1 Call Sign E960132 Iridium Carrier Services 1 Call Sign E960622 1 Modification of Authority to 1 Operate a Mobile Satellite System in the 1 1.6 GHz Frequency Band 1 1 OPPOSITION OF GLOBALSTAR TO IRIDIUM’S REQUEST TO STRIKE AFFIDAVIT Pursuant to section 1.45 of the Commission’s rules, Globalstar Licensee LLC and GUSA Licensee LLC (“Globalstar”) hereby oppose the Request To Strike Affidavit submitted by Iridium Satellite LLC (“Iridium”)” in the above-referenced proceedin$’ in which the l’ See Iridium Satellite LLC, “Request To Strike Affidavit” (filed July 1,2008) (“Iridium Request”). 21 See Globalstar Licensee LLC, Call Sign S2115; GUSA Licensee LLC, Call Sign E9703 8 1; Iridium Constellation LLC, Call Sign S2 110; Iridium Satellite LLC, Call Sign E960132; Iridium Carrier Services, Call Sign E960622 - Modification of Authority To Operate a Mobile Satellite System in the I . 6 GHz Frequency Band, FCC 08-125 (rel. May 7,2008) (‘‘Modijication Order”). The Modification Order was issued in order to g v e effect to the Commission’s Second Report and Order revising the Big LEO spectrum sharing plan in the United States by reassigning certain spectrum previously reserved for CDMA carriers, such as Globalstar, for exclusive use by Iridium. See Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non- Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1H2.4 GHz Bands, Second Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 19733 (2007) (“November Pth Order”). Globalstar has filed a protest of the modifications proposed in the Modzfication Order to the extent that they purport to forbid Globalstar’s provision of service in other countries on fi-equenciespermitted by the MSS band plans in effect there. See Protest of

Commission proposes to modify Globalstar’s and Iridium’s space and earth station authorizations. Iridium’s Request fails to present any reason why the Navana Affidavit should be stricken. To the contrary, Iridium’s filing highlights the need for a hearing under section 3 16 to enable the Commission to resolve the factual issues raised by Globalstar’s Protest and the Navarra Affidavit. Iridium quotes snippets fi-om prior Globalstar filings in an attempt to establish that the factual issues Globalstar raises were raised and resolved earlier in the proceeding?’ But those snippets show just the opposite - they show clearly that never until Iridium’s March 7,2008 ex parte lettes’ did the Commission or any party propose that the Commission’s US band plan for Big LEO MSS services be given effect outside the United States, or discuss the possible consequences of such an action. The Globalstar filings from which Iridium quotes - most of which were filed in 2003 and 2004, before the Commission authorized Iridium to share an initial 3.1 MHz of Globalstar’s spectrum in July 20045’ - could not have addressed the consequences of limiting Globalstar’s use of spectrum in other countries to the frequencies prescribed in the US band plan, because no such action had been proposed or was being considered. Accordingly, Globalstar Licensee LLC and GUSA Licensee LLC (filed June 6,2008) (“Globalstar Protest”); Reply of Globalstar To Opposition of Iridium (filed June 23,2008) (“Globalstar Rep&”) and attached Affidavit of Anthony J. Navarra (“NavarraAfJidavit”). 3/ See Iridium Request at 4- 10. ’‘ See Iridium Satellite LLC Ex Parte Filing in IB Docket No. 02-364 (filed Mar. 7,2008) (“lridium March 7th Letter”). /’ See Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Report and Order, Fourth Report and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 13386 (2004) (requiring Globalstar to share 3.1 MHz of spectrum with Iridium in the United States). -2-

Globalstar noted in its filings that, as a technical matter, Iridium might cause interference with Globalstar’s operations overseas if Iridium transmitted indiscriminately in other countries on spectrum that Iridium might be authorized to share with Globalstar in the United States but not authorized to use in other countries.6/ Far from suggesting that the Commission’s US band plan would constrain Globalstar’s operations overseas, Globalstar expressly noted that other countries would decide whether “to follow the Commission’s lead in requiring spectrum-sharing between Globalstar and Iridium” in their territories.2/ Tellingly, Iridium can point to no statement it made disagreeing with that proposition, prior to its March 7,2008 letter. Thus, the Navarra Affidavit is absolutely correct in asserting that the record before the Commission contains no factual evidence about the impact on Globalstar’s operations of a Commission decision to require “that Globalstar operate throughout the rest of the world in conformance with the Big LEO MSS band plan that the FCC has 6’ See, e.g.,Joint Reply Comments of L/Q Licensee. Inc., Globalstar, LP, and Globalstar USA, LLC in IB Docket No. 02-364 (filed Jul. 25,2003) at 27 (“Interference fiom Iridium’s operations in Channels 8 and 9 has.. .been experienced by Globalstar’s local service provider in Australia, and it has filed a complaint with the Australian Communications Authority.”); Globalstar LP Ex Parte Filing in IB Docket No. 02-364 (filed Sept. 11,2003) at 30 (“Because the Iridium system cannot assign fi-equencies geographcally, Iridium could not implement a new U.S. assignment in the U.S. alone.”); Globalstar LLC Ex Parte Filing in IB Docket No. 02-364 at 9 (filed May 27,2004) at (“Iridium cannot discriminate spectrum use geographically.”). z’ See Comments of Globalstar LLC in IB Docket No. 02-364 (filed Sept. 8,2004) at n. 12 (cited in Iridium Request at n. 32). See also Globalstar, Inc. Ex Parte Filing in IB Docket No. 02-364 (filed Feb. 6,2007) at 3 (“Iridium now is soliciting regulators in Europe and elsewhere to conform their authorizations to the FCC’s (to allow Iridium to use the 1616- 1618.25 MHz band which is allocated to Globalstar on a global basis . ... However, in Europe, a technical committee of regulators recently concluded that CDMA and TDMA systems cannot share spectrum in the traditional sense, and that therefore there was no technical basis to give Indium access to Globalstar’s spectrum.”); Globalstar LLC Ex Parte Filing in IB Docket No. 02-263 (filed May 28,2004) at 2 (‘“’A reduction in the number of channels available to Globalstar at either L-band or S-band may impact Globalstar services internationally, if other countries attempt to follow the Commission’s action.”). -3-

established in the United States?&’ And the Commission’s November qhOrder contains no discussion or findings about any impact that the revision of the US band plan might have on Globalstar’s or Iridium’s operations in other countries. In short, Globalstar’s limited earlier references to possible international ramifications of a spectrum-sharing regime do not address - and do not relieve the Commission of the duty to resolve - the serious and wide-ranging factual questions about the likely impact of a Commission decision to restrict Globalstar’s use in other countries of frequencies that it is permitted to use under the band plans in effect in those countries. The Navarra Affidavit draws attention to the impact that such a decision would have on Globalstar’s operations in over 60 countries and regions, served by eight gateways. Iridium may want to avoid having those factual issues examined under a bright light and determined fairly, but section 3 16 and the Administrative Procedure Act do not allow the Commission to ignore the factual justification for its proposed action or the likely consequences of its action on services outside its regulatory jurisdiction. Iridium’s assertion that the Navarra Affidavit should be stricken as untimely is no more persuasive. Section 3 09 expressly authorizes the filing of affidavits to “support[]” the allegations of fact in a protest,” which the Navarra Affidavit does. The affidavit is well within the scope of Iridium’s Opposition, which challenges the specificity and relevance of Globalstar’s allegations of harm?’ And Indium plainly has not been prevented fi-om responding to the affidavit, which it has done in a filing longer than the affidavit itself. Iridium’s Request actually serves to confirm Globalstar’s argument that the proposed ModzJcation Order raises significant and relevant s/ See Navarra AfJidavit at 7 3 . ” 47 U.S.C. 6 309(d)(l). lo! See Opposition of Iridium Satellite LLC to License Protest of Globalstar, Inc. (filed June 16,2998) at 31-33. -4-

factual issues that must be resolved in a hearing under section 3 16 if the Commission does not rescind the order for the other reasons stated in Globalstar’s Protest. Conclusion For these reasons, the Commission should deny Iridium’s Request to Strike Affidavit. Respectfblly submitted, William F. Adler William T. Lake Vice President - Legal and Josh L. Roland Regulatory Affairs WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE GLOBALSTAR, INC. AND DORR L.L.P. 461 S. Milpitas Blvd. 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Milpitas, CA 95035 Washington, D.C. 20006 (408) 933-4401 (202) 663-6000 Counselfor Globalstar Licensee LLC and GUSA Licensee LLC July 11,2008 -5-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Josh L. Roland, do hereby certify that a copy of the of Globalstar To Iridium’s Request To Strike Affidavit was served by hand following parties, unless otherwise noted: Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Matthew Berry, General Counsel* Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12&Street, sw 445 1 P Street, sw Room CY-B402 Room CY-B402 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Helen Domenici, ChieP Jim Ball, ChieP International Bureau Policy Division, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12&Street, sw 445 1 P Street, sw Room CY-B402 Room CY-B402 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Robert Nelson, ChieP Michael Senkowski* Satellite Division, International Bureau Brendan Carr Federal Communications Commission Elbert Lin 445 12&Street, sw Wiley Rein LLP Room CY-B402 1776 K Street, N W Washington, DC 20554 Washington DC 20006 Counsel to Iridium Satellite LLC, Iridium Constellation LLC, and Iridium Carrier Services *By United States Postal Service, First Class postage prepaid, and electronic mail. July 11,2008


Document Created: 2008-07-18 14:06:45
Document Modified: 2008-07-18 14:06:45
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC