Attachment comments

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-20031118-00333 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD2003111800333_411599

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Wasimron, D.C. 20554 RECE“,ED Received pec 23 100 In the Matter of ) ) DEC 2 A 004 ratenlCommentaterscomnien Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ) ofenot Secmiay i Policy Branch Application for Modification of Space ) rile RES@roNi@pza0031118—00333 Station License (AMSC—1) ) ) Amendment to Pending Application to ) File No. SAT—AMD—20031118—00332 Launch and Operate a Next—Generation ) Replacement MSS Satellte System ) ) Application for a Modification of ) File No. SES—MOD—20031118—01879 Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth ) Terminals with MSAT—1 ) comments in suprort or APPLICATION FOR REVIEW Alfred M. Mamlet Philip L. Matet Mare A. Paul Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 429—3000 Counsel for Stratos Mobile Networks (USA) LC and MarineSat Communications Network, Inc. December 23, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS STRATOS® ROLE AS A DISTRIBUTOR OF MSS IN THE UNITED STATES IL MSS MUST BE PROTECTED FROM HARMEUL INTERFERENCE BY ATC NETWORKS OPERATING IN THE L—BAND u. INMARSAT HAS RAISED SIGNIFICANT ISSUES REGARDING THE INCREASED POTENTIAL FOR HARMFUL INTERFERENCE BY ATC NETWORKS INTO MSS OPERATIONS A. Interference from ATC Mobile Terminals 8. Interference from ATC Base Stations 10 IV. CONCLUSION i1

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WasimnGron, D.C. 20554 In the Mater of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC Application for Modification of Space File No. SAT—MOD—20031118—00333 Station License (AMSC—1) Amendment to Pending Application to File No. SAT—AMD—20031118—00332 Launch and Operate a Next—Generation Replacement MSS Satellte System Application for a Modification o File No. SES—MOD—20031118—01879 Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with MSAT—1 COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW Stratos Mobile Networks (USA) LLC and MarineSat Communications Network, Inc. (collectively "Stratos") hereby submit these comments in support of the Application for Review filed on December 8, 2004, by Inmarsat Ventures Limited ("Inmarsar‘)" of the MSV Order? in which the International Bureau granted in part the appliations of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (°MSV*) (collectively, t"A7C Application) to operate an Ancilary Terrestrial Component (*ATC") to itslicensed Mobile Satellite Service (°MSS"). Stratos urges the Commission to grant the Application for Review in order to ensure that MSS services in the L—Band remain protected from ATC interference, and to preserve the ability of Stratos to deploy new and innovative MSS services in all parts of the United States, including urban, suburban and rural areas. ‘ See Application for Review, File Nos. SAT—MOD—20031118—00333, et al. (fled Dec. 8, 2004). ? See In re Applications of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, DA 04—3553 (rl. Nov. 8, 2004) (the "MSV Order‘).

Stratos strongly supportsInmarsat‘s request that the Commission review the Interational Bureau‘s decision to allow MSV to operate its proposed ATC network. By granting the ATC Application of MSV, the Bureau has gone well beyond the carefully balanced framework set forth in the ATC Order® for licensing such networks and protecting from harmful interference MSS operations in the L—band. MSV‘s ATC network, as licensed by the Bureau with its numerous waivers ofthe Rules, could seriously threaten the performance of critical public safety and other MSS communications services provided by Stratos to ts customers as well as inhibit the operations of future broadband MSS services. . STRATOS® ROLE AS A DISTRIBUTOR OF MSS IN THE UNITED STATES As the largest U.S. distributor of MSV services and the largest distributor in the world of Inmarsat and Iridium Satellite LLC services, Stratos is uniquely qualified to comment on the critical role that MSS plays in providing vital communications services for public safety, commercial users and governments to remote as well as urban areas in the United States.. For example, the U.S. Department of Defense is the largest user of commercial MSS in the world. With communications needs that are global in reach and require reliability, access and security, MSS is uniquely positioned to satisfy the "mission critical" needs of the U.S. military:* 5 See Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellte Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L—Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, 18 FCC Red 1962 (2003), Emata,1B Docket Nos. O1—185 and 02—364 (re. March 7, 2003), on reconsideration, FCC 03— 162 (rel. July 3, 2003) (the "ATC Order®). * See "DoD Awards $72 Million Contract to Revamped Iridium," Satellite Today, (Dec. 7, 2000) ("The Iridium service is attractive to DoD to provide communications for personnel whose duties take them to places where conventional phone service is not available. The Navy will gain most from the Iridium service, since it needs more than twice as much capacity as it now has, Pentagon officials said. Special Forces, combat search and rescue activiies and polar communications also will be enhanced by the Iridium service, they added.").

Similarly, other government agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Ageney, as well as domestic and worldwide relief organizations, rely on MSS because ofitsability to provide communications capabilityin inaccessible locations and during emergency situations. This was clearly demonstrated on September 11th when terrestrial communications facilities failed, Stratos and other MSS providers rushed hundreds of MSS mobile terminals to New York City and Washington, D.C. to provide reliable communications to the United Nations,the U.S. State Department, the FBI and other government agencies atthe federal, state and local levels. News reports highlight the increased demand for MSS in the wake of September 11th: In the hours after thattacks, people tumed to satellite phones when traditional cellular networks were overloaded with calls... Now, soldiers, intelligence officers and members of the media are purchasing satelite phones to keep in contact as they fun out to remote areas ofthe globe in anticipation of U.S. military action." Satellite phones provided a vital communications link during the September 11 catastrophe in New York and Washington ... .‘ Indeed, MSV (formerly Motient) observed in the ATC rulemaking proceeding that: {i}n addition to serving the Commission‘s goal of bringing advanced communications to all areas, MSS systems also serve a critical role in times of national emergency and disasters. Many disasters, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, disrupt terestrial wireline and wireless telecommunications systems. Because [Motients] satellites will be located 22,000 miles above the Earth, itsinfrastructure is unaffected by these disasters. MSS systems thercby provide a reliable means of communications for emergency response organizations." 5 See "Satellite Phone Companies Rebounding," The San Diego Union—Tribune, Sept. 29, 2001, atCl. * See "Satelite Phones Find Renewed Interest in Wake of September 11 Assault," Agence France Presse, Sept. 28, 2001. See Motient Comments, IB Docket No. O1—185, at 9—10 (10/22101). 3.

T particular note is the recent announcement by the Fire Department of New York City and Stratos to use Inmarsat terminals in New York City for emergency response communications forthe "dependable transmission of video and voice communications between on—the—scene responders and headquarters locations."* This selection follows the successful demonstration of Inmarsat technology for the New York Fire Department‘s field and command center units.. Based upon these successful rials, it can be expected that other emergency response organizations will deploy Inmarsat terminals in metropolitan areas throughout the United States. 11. MSS MUST BE PROTECTED FROM HARMFUL INTERFERENCE BY ATC NETWORKS OPERATING IN THE L—BAND With the critical role that MSS plays for industry and government, especiallyin the L—band, it clearly is not in the public interest o allow ATC networks to operate significantly more base stations with reduced performance and increased power levels than authorized by the full Commission in the ATC Order. Indeed, as the Commission correctly recognized, MSS communications in the L—band are particularly susceptible to harmful interference, and therefore required the gradual deployment of ATC networks in this spectrum.. An ad hoe decision by the Bureau to relax these restrictions before the first ATTC base station or mobile terminal is deployed goes against tclear direction of the Commission‘s "go slow" approach.. For this reason alone, the Commission must review and reverse the MSV Order. "The increased likelihood of harmful interference into MSS operations in the United Statesis particularly troubling since the Commission only recently authorized companies, like Stratos, to operate a wide—range of mobile earth terminals to provide domestic land mobile * See Application for Review, at Appendix B.

MSS via Inmarsat. In the words of the Commission,this authority was granted because it would *serve the publicinterest by increasing competition and providing additional services for U.S. consumers.""" There are several critical assumptions that the Bureau made in its analysis of MSV‘s ATC Application that are simply in error and must be corrected. Most significantly, it is incorrect to assume, as the Bureau has done in granting a multilicity of waiver requests, that there will be litle,if any, overlap between the coverage of ATC base stations and the location of Inmarsatterminals in the United States, n expanding the number of ATC base stations on the same channel by approximately 40 percent and increasing the powerlimits for high—powered base stations by 8 dB, the number and size of MSS "exclusion zones" in the L—band will necessarily increase substantially. "The Bureau believes, however, that this substantial increase should not seriously affect MSS operations in the United States due to the assumed limited number of MSS terminals currently being used in urban areas where most ATC base stations presumably would be located." Contrary tothis Bureau assumption, MSS services are being provided in urban areas today and will likely continue to increase as new broadband MSS services are brought into use as result of the expected launch next year of Inmarsat—4 satellites. As indicated above,the recent announcement by the Fire Department of New York to use Inmarsat terminals in New York City for emergency response communications belies any suggestion that such terminals are not being deployed in urban settings.. And as pointed out by Inmarsat, with the upcoming launch ° See In the Matter of Comsat Corporation d/b/a Comsat Mobile Communications et al., FCC 01— 272 (rel. Oct.9, 2001). " td ud 1. ‘‘ See MSV Order, at¥ 81.

of Inmarsat—4 satellites, additional MSS services will soon be made available throughout the United States, including in many urban areas previously unable to receive adequate reception from previous generations of Inmarsatsatelites,!" Nor was it correct forthe Bureau to assume that ATC base stations would only be deployed in urban areas. Indeed, in the AZC Order, the Commission found that "achieving optimal spectrum usage may require an MSS operator to use ATC even though a particular call might be served by satellit.""". Thus, there is no basis for the Bureau to assume that most ATC base stations will be deployed by MSV in urban areas, where MSV‘s satellte signals are weak. MSV is not constrained as to where it can deploy its ATC base stations, only as to how many base stations it can initally deploy and at what power levels. The Bureau‘s novel mechanism for resolving disputes regarding interference concerns that might arise due to the sighting of particular ATC base stations is also flawed and does not correct the other deficiencies in the MSV Order. As pointed out by Inmarsat,this mechanism impermissibly places the burden on MSS distributors,like Stratos, to demonstrate that their primary MSS services will be used in the areas surrounding high—powered ATC base stations and would be adversely affected by the "ancillary" ATC services of other MSS providers. The Bureau‘s new prior showing requirement fundamentally reverses the Commission‘s determination that as an "ancillary" service, an ATC proponent bears the burden of demonstrating non—interference.. ATC operations were authorized by the Commission only on !* See Application for Review, at 5, 7—8. Inmarsatalso notes that the U.K. is in the process of coordinating orbitallocations for ts Inmarsat—4 satellites using L—band spectrum at 98° W.L. and 104° W.L. 14. at 11—12. With these slots over the middle of the United States, Inmarsat users should be able to achieve superior link margins and line of sight coverage even in densely populated urban areas. " See ATC Order ut 2015 (emphasis added).

a secondary, non—harmful interference basis, even in those instances in which ATC operations otherwise comply with the Rules."* The placement of such a burden on MSS operators is inconsistent with the relative status of the two services and was never contemplated by the Commission in its ATC Order. Moreover, the prior showing requirement contemplated by the Bureau is clearly unworkable. As a large distributor of Inmarsatservices in the United States, much of the burden placed upon MSS operators for demonstrating the likelihood of an interference problem with high—powered ATC base stations will rest squarely on Stratos. Inmarsat correctly points out that there are hundreds of thousands ofregistered users on the Inmarsat system who operate mobile terminals, including over 100000 "mini M" land mobile terminals, and virtually all of these terminals could be used anywhere in the Inmarsat coverage area at any given time. This is because the beams of the Inmarsat spacecraft encompass both urban and non—urban areas, and Stratos is unable to determine whether any of these users are near a proposed ATC base station location. In addition, this mechanism does not appear to accommodate, afterthe initial 30—day objection period. the deployment of new Inmarsat services and technologies, changes in the marketplace, or new customer requirements, such as the expected deployment in New York City of Inmarsatterminals by the Fire Department of New York. At a minimum, Stratos should not be foreclosed from making such a showing at a later date to allow it to address such future developments. "* Id.at 2017 ‘The Commission authorized ATC on a non—harmful interference basis to ensure consistency with applicable TU regulations, because such terrestrial uses of the L—Band were not provided for in the International Table of Frequency Allocations. 14. at 2066. 24.

IIL. INMARSAT HAS RAISED SIGNIFICANT ISSUES REGARDING THE INCREASED POTENTIAL FOR HARMEUL INTERFERENCE BY ATC NETWORKS INTO MSS OPERATIONS A. Interference from ATC Mobile Terminals Inmarsat correetly points out that MSV has never been able to demonstrate how its ATC mobile terminals would be able t avoid causing harmful interference into Inmarsat‘s satelltes when operating outdoors with 18 dB of power control for "structuralattenuation." While the use of power control was authorized for indoor operations in order to overcome signal attenuation from buildings or vehicles that completely enclose the mobile terminals, it was never contemplated that such higher—powered operations would be used outdoors. The reason for such a limitation is clear. When operating indoors or in vehicles, a mobile terminal‘s transmissions presumably would be attenuated both in the direction ofthe ATC base station as well as an Inmarsatsatelite in geostationary orbit. However, when located outdoors, an ATC mobile terminal could increase its power by up to 18 dB in order to overcome outdoor signal attenuation while maintaining a clear line of sight to an Inmarsat satellite. As Inmarsat observes:"" Enforcement of these requirements is crtical to constraining interference into Inmarsat spacecraft to manageable levels. Even if MSV complies with all the other restrictions imposed by the Commission, if its ATC mobile terminals operate atfull power while outdoors then a few dozen ATC terminals operating on the same channel could produce the same interference impact as the overall 1725 co—channel reuse limit seby the Commission in the ATC Order. The Commission clearly defined "structural attenuation" as a reduction in signal strength that takes place when an ATC mobile terminal transmits within a building, automobile "* See Application for Review, at18.

of other structure that completely encloses it."" The Commission distinguished that effect from "outdoor blockage," which occurs when an obstruction interrupts the line—of—sight path to a transmitter."" The Bureau is simply wrong when it states that the structural attenation requirement is the same as the constraint to limit the size of ATC cells to ensure mobile terminals do not exceed certain power levels under free space conditions."" The structural attenuation requirement obligates MSV to demonstrate how it will ensure that its ATC system does not exceed the interference level assumed in the Commission‘s analysis. The Commission went on to adopt a distinct and separate requirementie., that "MSS licensees shall not extend the coverage area of any ATC cell beyond the point where an ATC MT could operate at the edge of coverage of the ATC cell with a maximum EIRP of ~[18] dBW." In addition, the Bureau improperly granted a relaxation of the 1725 co—channel reuse limit that the Commission deemed critical for constraining interference into Inmarsat spaceeraft antenna. The Bureau based its decision on MSV‘s claim that an ATC mobile terminal‘s average antenna gain should be used in the interference calculations instead of the peak anterna gain specified in the Rules. Thus, the Bureau waived the strict application of Section 25.253(@)(1), which expressly requires that the ATC mobile terminal be limited to a peak power level. The Bureau reasoned that even though peak power was used to determine the co— ‘® ATC Order at 2034 (n. 375), 2109 (Appendix B § 25.201), and 2151 (Appendix C2 at n. 69). ‘" See ATC Order at 2151 (Appendix C2 at § 1.3.1). "* See 47 C.FR. § 25.253(@)(8); ATC Order, at{ 140 & 142 ( "Our analysis assumes ... that the link budget for ATC reserves a minimum of 18 dB for structuralattenuation ... ."); see also ATC Order at 2035, 2152 (Appendix C2 § 1.3.5) (‘analyses is based on the expectations that MSV will implement the full 18 dB of margin for structural attentation that they state is ‘per standard PCS design practices"). ‘" See ATC Order at 2036.

channel reuse limits in Section 25.253(g)(1), the underlying purpose of that provision is satisied. by taking into account the average power of MSV‘s mobile terminals."" As Inmarsat correctly notes, in granting this waiver request, the Bureau has failed to take into account the impact that such a waiver would have on the margin available to accommodate other variables in the Commission‘s ATC interference analysis, such as the future ocations of Inmarsat‘s satellites that will be more susceptible to interference."‘ MSV admittedly does not comply with the Commission‘s peak power limits for mobile terminals, and instead of relaxing these limits through the grant of a waiver of the Rules, the Bureau should have allowed for fewer than 1725 co—frequency ATC base stations in the United States. B. Interference from ATC Base Stations The Bureau also impermissibly granted waivers to MSV that willallow it to increase ATC base station EIRP by up to 8 dB and to deploy lower performance base station antennas. The cumulative effect of these waivers will increase the potential forinterference into MSS terminals, and as previously indicated. increase the size of the exclusion zones around high— powered ATC base stations. Of particular note, the Bureau appears to have failed to take into account Inmarsat‘s thorough analysis of the increase in potentialinterference into Inmarsat aeronautical terminals resulting from the requested waivers as well as the effects of intermodulation products on Inmarsat terminals."" Inmarsatraised serious interference issues and supported its assertions with technical details and a test report, and the Bureau simply cannot ignore such objections without any explanation. ® See MSV Order ut 1 56. *" See Application for Review, at 24—25. * See Application for Review, at 22—24. «10—

Iv. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above and in Inmarsat‘s Application for Review, Stratos urges the Commission to review the MSV Order, and refect those waivers granted by the Bureau that threaten the reliability of existing Inmarsat services and constrain the future development of broadband MSS service in the United States. Respectfully submitted, Stratos Mobile Networks (USA) LLC MarineSat Communications Network, Inc. Alfred M. Mamlet Philip L. Malet Mare A. Paul Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 429—3000 Counsel for Stratos Mobile Networks (USA) LLC and MarineSat Communications Network, Inc. December 23, 2004 i94

1. Brendan Kasper, hereby certifythat on this 23" day of December 2004 the foregoing "Comments" was served by hand (*)or via fist—class mail postage prepaid, upon the following: Michel K. Powell® Bryan Tramont® Chairman Chief of Statt Federal Communications Commission Office of Chairman Powell 445 12" Street, SW Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 445 12° Streeu, SW Washington, DC 20554 Kathieen Q. Abemnathy® Shery!J. Wilkerson® Commissioner Legal Advisor Federal Communications Commission Office of Chairman Powell 445 12" Street, SW Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 445 12° Streeu, SW Washington, DC 20554 Michael J. Copps* Jennifer Manner® Commissioner Senior Counsel Federal Communications Commission Office of Commissioner Abemathy 445 12® Street, SW Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 445 12" Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 KevinJ.Martin® Paul Margie® Commissioner Legal Advisor Federal Communications Commission Office of Commissioner Copps 445 12® Street, SW Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 445 12" Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Jonathan S. Adelstein® Sam Feder® Commissioner Legal Advisor Federal Communications Commission Office of Commissioner Martin 445 12® Street, SW Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 445 12° Stree, SW Washington, DC 20554 Edmond J. Thomas® Barry Ohison® Chie Senior Legal Advisor Office of Engineering and Technology Office of Commissioner Adelstein Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12® Street, SW 445 12® Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Donald Abelson® Bruce A. Franca* Chie Office of Engineering and Technology International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12® Street, SW 445 12® Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554

Irs R. Kelte® Chip Fleming* Office of Engineering and Technology International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Streeu, SW 445 12° Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 ‘Washington, DC 20554 Alan Scrime* Howard Griboft® Office of Engineering and Technology International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12® Street, SW 445 12" Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Richard B. Engelman® Karl Kensinger® ChiefEngineer International Bureau Tnternational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12° Street, SW 445 12" Steeu, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Roderick K. Porter® Paul Locke*® Deputy Chief International Bureau International Buresu Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, SW 445 12® Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Steven Spacth® Kathiyn Mediy® Legal Advisor International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12° Street, SW 445 12" Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 David Strickland* Robert Nelson® Legal Advisor International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, SW 445 12° Streeu, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 James L. Ball® Sean O‘More® International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12® Street, SW 445 12° Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 William H. Bell* Cassandra Thomas* International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, SW 445 12° Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 —is—

Lon C. Levin Vice President Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC 10802 Parkridge Boulevard Reston, Virginia 20191 Bruce D. Jacobs David Konceal Shaw Piman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Counselfor Mobile Satelite Ventures LLC John P.Janka Thomas A. Allen Latham & Watkins LLP 555 119 Street, NW Sute 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Counselfor Inmarsat Ventures Limited Brendan Kasper f Bre


Document Created: 2004-12-28 14:26:10
Document Modified: 2004-12-28 14:26:10
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC