Attachment response

response

RESPONSE TO REPLY COMMENTS submitted by Globalstar

response

2005-05-26

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-20050301-00054 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD2005030100054_434637

fextal RECEIVED FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 MaY 2 6 2005 FdealCommuncaton Conmiision Offes tSecmiay In the Matter of Globalstar LLC File No. SAT—MOD—20050301—00054 ; Request for Authority to Implement an Parsived Ancillary Terrestrial Component for the 2005 Globalstar above 1 GHz, or Big LEO, i Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) System Jranch (Call Sign ES2115) «.cralBure— Globalstar USA, LLC File No. SES—MOD—20050301—00261 Application for Modification of Blanket License Authorizationfor Mobile Earth Station Terminals (Call Sign 2970381) REPLY OF GLOBALSTAR LLC AND GLOBALSTAR USA, LLC Globalstar LLC and Globalstar USA, LLC (collectively "Globalstar®) submit this reply to the comments provided by the Wireless Communications Association Intemational, Inc. (‘WCA*)"and the Informal Objection filed by the Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (‘SBE*)" in connection with the above—referenced applications in which Globalstar is seeking authority to implement an Ancillary Terrestrial Component (°ATC") for the Globalstar Above 1 GHz, or "Big LEO," Mobile Satellite Service (‘MSS") system."" For the reasons discussed ® See Comments of the Wireless Communications Association Intemational, Inc., FCC File Nos. SAT—MOD—20050301—00054 and SES—MOD—20050301—00261 (filed May 16, 2005) ("WCA Comments"). # See Informal Objection of the Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc., Docket No. 02—364 (filed May 16, 2005) (‘SBE Comments"). # See Globalstar LLC Request for Authority to Implement an Ancillary Terrestrial Component forthe Globalstar above 1 GHz, or Big LEO, Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) System

below, the extraordinary relief WCA and SBE requestis neither justified nor necessary, and the Commission should expeditiously proceed to grant Globalstars ATC Applications, which no party has opposed on the merits. WCA and SBEs filings represent simply an unwarranted effort to hold Globalstars ATC Applications hostage because those parties are unhappy with certain aspects ofthe Commission‘s decision, in another proceeding, to establish a spectrum—sharing plan for MSS and fixed—wireless operators in the 2.4 GHz band*‘ Globalstar‘s Applications here unquestionably comport with FCC policy as established in that proceeding. WCA‘s and SBE‘srequestto change that policy on reconsideration in that proceeding have been fully argued there and will be resolved there; there is no reason for them to be made an issue here. As Globalstar has made clear in its ATC Applications, it will comply with all applicable Commission rules in connection with its deployment of ATC services, including any Commission rules intended to prevent interference toterrestrial operations in the 2.4 GHz band. Specifically, Globalstar has certiied that: (1) "[t}he Globalstar ATC system will comply with all requirements of the Commission‘s Rules regulating ATC for 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS systems,"" (2) "[Globalstar] will take steps necessary to ensure that ATC base stations do not cause harmful (Call Sign ES2115); Globalstar USA LLC Application for Modification of Blanket License Authorization for Mobile Earth Station Terminals (Call Sign E970361); FCC File Nos. SAT— MOD—20050301—00054 and SES—MOD—20050301—00261 (*ATC Applications"). # See Report and Order, Fourth Report and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Review ofthe Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non—Geostationary Satellte Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.672.4 GHz Bands; Amendment ofPart 2 ofthe Commission‘s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHzfor Mobile and Fixed Services To Support the Introduction ofNew Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, 19 FCC Red 13356 (2004) (‘Reallocation Order"). * See ATC Applications, Exhibit B (Compliance with 47 C.F.RPart 25) at1.

interference to other services sharing the use of the 2450—2500 MHz band through frequency coordination;"* and (3) IpJrior t initiating service, (Globalstar] will perform any required frequency coordination, noting any necessary steps taken or to be taken to avoid causing interference from an ATC base station to other services sharing the 2450—2500 MHz band.""" In short, Globalstar has made crystal clear that it intends to comply fully with the Commission‘s ules goveming ATC operations in the 2.4 GHz band, including any modified rules that may eventuste from reconsideration of the existing spectrum sharing plan." ‘The pendency of WCA‘s and SBE‘s reconsideration petitions fumishes no basis for delaying action on, or othervise conditioning the grant of, Globalstar‘s ATC Applications. The Commission‘s action on the application by Mobile Satelite Ventures (‘MSV) for ATC authority® mandates rejection of the relief sought by WCA and SBE. ‘The Commission granted that application even before the licensing and technical rales establishing the ATC service itself had become final. The Commission authorized MSV to provide ATC service on November 8, 2004, even though a number of parties (including SBE) had challenged various #00 thakk. x See ATC Applications, Exhibit B—3 at 2. * Globalstar and others have stated in the spectrum sharing rulemaking the reasons why WCA‘s and SBE‘s reconsideration petitions are unfounded and should be denied. See, e£., Globalstar LLC, Consolidated Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration, Docket Nos. 02—364 and 00—258 (filed Oct. 27, 2004); Globalstar LLC, Consolidated Reply to Oppositions of Broadband Radio Services Proponents, Docket Nos. 02—364 and 00—258 (iled Nov. 10, 1004). * See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Application for Minor Modification of Space Station License for AMSC—1; Application for Minor Modification of Blanket License for Authority to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with MSAT—1, FCC File Nos. SAT—MOD— 20031 118—00333; SAT—AMD—20031 118—00332, SES—MOD—20031118—01879 (amended. application filed Nov. 18, 2003) (‘MSV ATC Application‘®).

aspects of the ATC rules, and those challenges remained pending.®" The Commission proceeded with a grant of MSV‘s ATC Application even though it was in the process of formulating revised ATC rules that it later acknowledged would "substantially change certain technical standards for ATC in the L—Band,*""" in which MSV operates. ‘The Commission simply observed that MSV‘s ATC authorization was "subject to any restriction necessary for conformance with a Commission decision disposing of petitions for reconsideration of the ATC Report and Order."!" ‘The Commission‘s sound conclusion that it was unnecessary to impose any specific conditions to account for potential future changes in the ATC rules applies afortion‘ here: the applicable rules are already in place, and Globalstar‘s application fully complies with them. ‘The precedents cited by WCA do not remotely support the relief it requests®" ‘The Commission‘s decision not to process pending mutually exclusive applications for licenses in the 39 GHz service while it considered whether to make such applications subject instead to competitive bidding made sense in that entirely different context: In that case, the FCC was reexamining the very licensing process for award of the licenses at issue. Here, by contrast, the 12— See Order and Authorization, Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Applicationfor Minor Modification ofSpace Station LicenseforAMSC—1; Applicationfor Minor Modification of Blanket Licensefor Authority to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with MSAT—1, 19 FCC Red 22144 (2004) ("MSV Order and Authorization"). 2¥ see Memorandum Opinion and Order, Flexibilitfor the Delivery ofCommunications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L—Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Band, 20 FOC Red 4616 at J 1(2005) ("ATC Reconsideration Order®). 12— See MSV Order and Authorization, 19 FCC Red at 22176—79 (95. 1¥ See WCA Comments at 6 n. 13 (citing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Rules Regarding the 37.0—38.6 GHz and 38.6—40.00 GHz Bands; Implementation ofSection 309(j) ofthe Communications Act —— Competitive Bidding, 11 FCC Red 4930, 4988—89 (1995) ("39 GHRulemaking") and Memorandum Opinion and Order, CellularVision, Inc. 11 FCC Red 9672 (WTB 1995) ("CellidarVision®)). a

FCC has already adopted final rules to govem the processing of ATC applications and, in fact, has already granted another MSS licensee‘s ATC application. ‘The fact that disappointed parties have petiioned for reconsideration of spectrum sharing rules in a torally separate proceeding should have no impact on the Commission‘s consideration of Globalstar‘s ATC Applications. Globalstar‘s ATC authorization will be subject to the Commission‘s spectrum sharing policies, as they presently exist and as they may lawfully be changed in the future. WCA‘s reliance on the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau‘s decision to condition the grant of CellularVision‘s applications in the 28 GHz (LMDS) service is similarly misplaced. As was the case in the 39 GHz Rulemaking, in CellularVision, the applications at issue were filed while the Commission was secking comment on proposals to revise the very licensing and technical rules that would govem all aspects ofthe operations proposed in the applications. Understandably, when the Bureau decided to grant the applications, it specifically conditioned the grant on the outcome of ts pending rulemaking proceeding"®" By contrast, in the instant case, the rulemaking proceeding govering Globalstar‘s ATC Applications has been completed, and the relevant rules are effective. The fact that petitions for reconsideration of Commission action in a separate proceeding remain pending does not justify any special condition on Globalstar‘requested ATC authorization. The regulatory hostage—taking that WCA and SBE advocate would simply penalize the ultimate beneficiaries of Globalstar‘s application for ATC authority — Globalstar‘s current and future customers, ts investors and its employees. As Globalstar‘s ATC applications make clear, 4¥ Notably, in CellidarVision,the Wircless Bureau specifically rejected commenters‘ requests that the applications be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the rulemaking proceeding, on the theory that granting CellularVision‘s application was consistent with "the Commission‘sdesire to facilitate the development of LMDS®and thus was "in the public interest." See CellularVision, 11 FCC Red at 9679 4 21.

Globalstaris the only MSS operator presently capable of incorporating ATC into its existing, {irst—generation MSS system in full compliance with all of the relevant terms and conditions contained in the Commission‘s ATC rules."®" This means that, upon grant ofthe ATC Applications, Globalstar is poised to bring to realityall ofthe significant public interest benefits the Commission envisioned when it decided to permit MSS operators to integrate ATC into their existing services. As described in detail in its Applications, Globalstar intends to employ its ATC suthorization to provide new and innovative services to consumer and governmental telecommunications customers whose needs are not currently being met by existing satellite or terrestrial providers."®" In urban areas, for example, grant of ATC authority will enable Globalstar dramatically t increase the usubility of MSS phones, thus making Globalstars MSS/ATC service invaluable for public safety and emergency response providers who demand fulltime communications capabilitis in the event of natural disasters or terroristattacks*‘ Similarly, Globalstar‘s proposed MSS/ATC service will benefit customers in rural and remote sreas, enabling Globalstar to offer much needed day—to—day, as well as emergency telecommunications services to customers that are currently unserved or underserved by wireline or wireless providers."®" Finally, by enabling Globalstar rapidly and inexpensively to deploy MSS/ATC local area networks in areas where terrestrial wireless infrastructures are currently 4 ATC Applications, Exhibit A (Description of Globalstar MSS/ATC System and Public Interest Benefits) at3. *\ ow ¥0.0% ® thark

unreliable, Globalstar‘s proposed MSS/ATC service will bring immeasurable benefits to Globalstar‘s military and other customers.®" WCA and SBE have not justified putting on hold these much needed services while the Commission considers WCA‘s and SBE‘ reconsideration peritions in a separate rulemaking proceeding. For these reasons, the Commission should deny the relief requested by WCA and SBE and promptly grant Globalstar‘s ATC Applications. Respectfully submitted, GLOBALSTAR LLC AND GLOBALSTAR USA LLC Of Counsel: Richard S. Roberts William T. Lake William F, Adler Josh L. Rolend GLOBALSTAR LLC WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE GLoBALSTAR USA LLC AND DORR LLP 461 Milpites Blvc. 2445 M Street, N.W. Milpitas, CA 95035 Washington, D.C. 20037 Tel: (408) 933—4401 Tel: (202) 663—6000 Fax: (202) 663—6363 Dated: May 26, 2005 14.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1. Josh L. Roland, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply of Globalstar LLC and Globalstar USA LLC was served by hand this 26th® day of May, 2005, to the following partis, unless otherwise noted: Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, SW Room CY—B402 Washington, DC 20554 Kathleen Campbell International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, SW Room CY—B402 Washington, DC 20554 Paul J.Sinderband* Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037—1128 Ray Benedict® Dane E. Ericksen® Christopher D. Imlay® Booth, Freret, Imlay and Tepper 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, MD 20904 LAukear—A—— 1 — Roland *By United States Postal Service, First Class postage prepaid. May 26, 2005


Document Created: 2005-06-01 16:47:45
Document Modified: 2005-06-01 16:47:45
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC