Attachment reply

reply

REPLY TO COMMENTS submitted by Wireless Communications Association International Inc.

reply

2005-06-08

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

IBFS_SATMOD2005030100054_437916

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Globalstar LLC ) File No. SAT—MOD—20050301—00054 Request for Authority. to. Implement an ) ) RECEIVED Ancillary Terrestrial Component for the ) Received Globalstar above 1 GHz, or Big LEO, Mobile ) i 1 4 2005 JUN =8 2005 Satellite Service (MSS) System (Call Sign ) 30 FotwalCommunicatorsCommile Es2ii5) ) Policy Brench OfectSecmy ) intornationalBurcau ) Globalstar USA, LLC ) File No. SES—MOD—20050301—00261 ) Applieation for Modification of Blanket ) License Authorization for Mobile Earth ) Station Terminals (Call Sign E970381) ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, INC. The Wireless Communications Association. International, Inc. (‘WCA®), by. its attomeys, hereby submitsits reply comments in response to the "Reply of Globalstar LLC and Globalstar USA, LLC" submitted with respect to the above—captioned. applications of Globalstar LLC and Globalstar USA, LLC (collectively, "Globalstar®) for authority to add an Ancillary Terrestrial Component (°ATC®) to its Big LEO Mobile Satellite Service (°MSS®) system.‘ As shown below, Globalstar‘s filing is highly disingenuous and is otherwise ! See Reply of Globalstar LC and Globalstar USA, LLC, File Nos. SAT—MOD—20050301—00054 and SES—MOD—20050301—00261 (fled May 26, 2005) [*Globalstar Opposition"}. Globalsar‘s filng is an opposiion to WCA‘s intal commentsand the Society of Broadeast Engineers® Informal Objection filed in response to the Commission‘s April 15, 2005 Public Norices announcing acceptance of Globalstar‘s wpplications for filing.. See Policy Branch Information, Satelite Space Station Applications Accepted (eontast onnetare)

E5: unresponsive to the concerns WCA and the Society of Broadcast Engineers ("SBE") have raised regarding the potentally devastating interference consequences of Globalstar‘s proposed ATC operations. It therefore remains imperative that the Commission hold Globalstar‘s appli tions in abeyance pending Commission action on the pending. petiions. for reconsideration of the Commission‘s Report and Order in IB Docket No. 02—364 (the "Reallocation Order")>— Altemnatively, if the Commission elects to authorize Globalstar to deploy ATC, it should condition any grant of the Globalstar applications on the results of the Commission‘s future reconsideration of the Reallocation Order, including but not limited to any band—clearing or other obligations imposed on Globalstar to ensure that grandfathered Broadcast Auxiliary Service ("BAS") channel A10 licensees and relocated Broadband Radio Service (‘BRS") channel 1 licensees in the 2483.5—2500 MHz band (the "S—band") are protected from harmfulinterference, As an initial matter, the Globalstar Opposition is based on the false premise that the interference concems raised by WCA and SBE have no bearing on the grantability of for Filing, Report No. SAT—00284, Public Notice (rel. April 15, 2008); Satelite Communications Services Re: Satelite Radio Applications Accepted for Filing, Report No. SES—00704, Public Notice (rel. April 15, 2005); Comments of Wireless Communications Ass‘n Intl, File Nos. SAT—MOD— 20050301—00054 and SES—MOD—20050301—00261 (filed May 16, 2005) ["WCA Comments"};Informal Objection of the Society of Broadcast Engineers, IB Docket No. 02—364 (filed May 16, 2005) [*SBE Objection"). * See Review ofthe Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non—Geostationary Satelte Orbit Mobite Satelite Service Systems in the 1.6/24 GH: Bands and Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission‘s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHs for Mobile and Fized Service to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, Report and Order, Fourth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Red 13356 (2004) [*Reallocation Order"}; Petition of Wireless Communications Ass‘n InI for Reconsideration, 1B Docket No. 02:364 (filed Sept. 8, 2004Perition of Society of Broadcast Engineess. for Reconsideration, IB Docket No. 02—364 (filed Sept. 8, 2004) [*SBE Petiion}; Petiion of Nextl Communications for Reconsideration, 1B Docket No. 02—364 (fled Sept. 8, 2004); Petiion of Sprint Corporation for Reconsideration, IB Docket No. 02—364 (fled Sept. $, 2004)

a5+ Globalstar‘s ATC applications. More specifically, Globalstar suggests that WCA‘s and SBE‘s interference concerns should not be heard here because they arose "in another proceeding," Ze., 1B Docket No. 02—364." That is nonsense — the procedural history of the Commission‘s ATC rules does not change the fact that an unconditional grant of Globalstar‘s ATC applications may have serious and possibly irreparable interference consequences for others and the Commission has a fundamental obligation to ensure that such interference does not occur. Globalstar‘s argument is a smokesereen and should be dismissed as such. More important, save for eross—citing its prior filings in 1B Docket No. 02—364, Globalstar does not address, much less contest, the interference concerns raised in the WCA and SBE filings. WCA‘s position was quite clear: were the Commission to allow Globalstar to deployATC pending action on the WCA‘s Petition for Reconsideration in IB Docket No. 02« 364 (and on similar petitions filed by Nextel Communications and Sprint Corporation), Globalstar could deploy ATC facilties and then contend thatit cannot reasonably modify those faciliies to comport with the Commission‘s decision on reconsideration." To date, Globalstar has yet to give any indication that it will not do this. Absent such a commitment, the Commission should not permit Globalstar to eliminate the options advanced by WCA and others on reconsideration by deploying ATC facilities prior to the resolution of the serious pending concems before the Commission in IB Docket No. 02—364. * Gllobalstar Opposition at 2; see also id. (stating that WCA‘s and SBE‘s requests for reconsideration "have been fully argued [in IB Docket No. 02—364] and will be resolved there; there is no reason for them to be made an issue here.") ‘ See WCA Comments at 3—4.

Likewise, Globalstar once again glosses over SBE‘s undisputed showing that (1) BAS channel A1O licensees and relocated BRS channel 1 licensees cannot co—exist within the 2495— 2500 MHtz band," (2) BAS channel A1O licensees cannot co—exist with MSS/ATC operations in the 2487.5—2493 MHz band designated. for MSS/ATC in the Reallocation Order, and (3) frequency coordination between MSS/ATC and BAS is not a viable solution to the problem." As before, Globalstar‘s Opposition does not even acknowledge the undisputed interference threat its ATC proposal poses for BAS channel A1O, instead repeating Globalstar‘s vague commitment to "perform any required frequency coordination"" prior to initiating service.". Of course, SBE has already shown that given the itinerant nature of BAS this is no solution at all, * See SBE Perition at 5 ("any attempt (by BAS/BRS channel 1] to share operations in the same area would result in disastrous co—channelinterference."); SBE Objection at24. ° See, e, SBE Porition at 3 (*t appears that the Commission believes that grandfathered TV BAS operations on Channel A1O are relatively minor, but this is most defintely not the case. TV BAS Channel A10 is heavily and regularly used by the TV Pickup licensees with grandfather rights [MJany individual TV stations hold TV Pickup lieenses with Channel A10 grandfather rights, and rely heavily on the availabilty of a third TV BAS channel at 2.5 GHz to make frequency coordination possible. Finaly,this grandfathered use of Channel A1O traditionally takes place in the very same venues that MSS ATC will most likely wish to deploy. The result would be massive and mutval interference to operations in both services, and would bring chaos to good faith BAS frequency coordination efforts that SBE has so carefully fostered."); id. at 2 (SBE concedes that frequency coordination between a grandfathered fixed link TV BAS Channel A1O station and MSS ATC base stations might be possible, given "heroic‘ frequency coordination and engineering that would include use of a costly ulthigh performance, shrouded, receiving antenna by the fixed—link TV BAS station. SBE cannot envision such techniques as ever working for mobile/portable/tinerant grandfathered Channel A1O TV Pickup operations, where heavy, large—diameter parabolic dish antennas. are completely impractical for electranic news gathering (ENG) and manpack applications.") (emphasis in original " See Globalstar Opposition at 3; Application of Globalstar LLC, FCC File No. SAT—MOD—20050301— 00054, Exhibit B—3 at 2 (Riled March 1, 2005) (footmote omited)

and nothing in Globalstar‘s Opposition otherwise gives the Commission any comfort on that poin® In sum,it is ironic that Globalstar portrays itself as the victim here." To the contrary, it is BAS Channel A1O licensees who stand to suffer harmful interference should Globalstar be awarded unconditional authority to deploy ATC.. Globalstar‘s dramaties aside, WCA is only asking the Commission to address Globalstar‘s ATC applications in a time sequence that prevents such interference and assures the Commission full fexibility to address potential interference to relocated BRS channel 1 licensees. Ultimately, the onlyway to truly ensure fair treatment ofall licensees in the 2483.5—2500 MHz band, and especially those who are today operating in the band and face an immediate risk of interference, is to hold Globalstar‘s applications in abeyance pending completion of the reconsideration phase in IB Docket No. 02« 364. Quite clearly, the Commission has more than ample authority to take such action."" * Globalstar plays loose with the facts when it claims it "has made crystal clear that intends to comply fully with . . . any modifed rules that may eventuste from reconsideration of the existing [ATC/BASTBRS] spectrum sharing plan." Globalstar Opposition at 3 (Footmote omitted). Globalstar‘s ATC applications in fact make no reference whatsoever to any of the pending petitins for reconsideration in IB Docket No. 02—364 or how Globalstar itends to comply with any Commission actionthereon. Indeed, as pointed out by SBE, Globalstar‘s ATC applications do not even acknowledas the ATCBAS imerference problem, much less make any. commitment to comport with the Commission‘s resolution of that issue on reconsideration...See SBE Objection at 3 (‘Although the Globalstar application addresses how its proposed ATC would protectthe Radio Astronomy Service .; the Radio—Navigation—Satellite/Aeronautical Radio—Navigation Services . ; the Table Mountain Radio Receiving Zone at Boulder County, Colorado .. ; the National Radio Astronomy Observatories at Green Bank, WV and Sugar Grove WV . ; and all FCC Monitoring Stations ., nowhere in (is] application does Globalstar mention the existence of. co—channel TV BAS Channel AIO operations, with their co—equal pririt, and carlie—n time status"). ° See Globalstar Opposition a2. " See Amendment of the Commission‘s Rules Regarding the 37.0—38.6 GHs and 386—40 GH: Rands Inplementation of Section 309G) of the Communicetions Act — Competitive Bidding, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Red 2910, 1915 (1997) (*[Tihe Commission may take temporary measures to hold applications in abeyance pending its decision on the substantive matters upon which public comments is sought"). Globalstar dismisses the relevance of the Commission‘s decision in ts 39 GHz (contuntnnetare

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in WCA‘s initial comments, WCA requests that the Commission hold Globalstar‘s ATC applications in abeyance pending Commission action on the petitions for reconsideration of the Commission‘s Reallocation Order in IB Docket No. 02—364. If the Commission elects to move forward on the Globalstar ATC applications before addressing those petitions, at a minimum it should condition any grant of the Globalstar ATC applications on the results of the Commission‘s future reconsideration of the Reallocation Order, including but notlimited to any band—clearing or other obligations rulemaking to hold pending 39 GHe applications in absyance pending resolution of application processing issues in that proceeding. See Globalstar Opposition at 4—5. Once again, howeve, Globalstar mistakenly hangs its hat on the irelevant fact that the Commission is addressing the ATCIBASTBRS interference issue in IB Docket No. 02—364, not n IB Docket No. 01—185. See id (*In {the 39 GHz] case, the FCC was reexamining the very licensing process for award of the licenses at issue.. Mere, by contrast, the FCC has already adopred final rules to govern the processing of ATC applications The fact that disappointed parties have petitioned for reconsideration of spectrum sharing rulesin a forally separate proceeding should have no impact on the Commission‘s consideration of Globalstar‘s ATC applications.") (emphasis in original). As shown above, that argument is a red herring: the fact that the Commission is addressing the ATCBAS/BRS interference problem in a separate docket has no bearing on the Commission‘s fundamental obligation to ensure that Globalstr‘s proposed ATC operations do not cause interference, Holding Globalstar‘s applications in absyance pending resolution of the reconsideration peritions i IB Docket No. 02—364 remains the most equitable solution for all lcensees in the 2483,5—2500 MHz band and, as refleted in the Commission‘s 39 GHz rulemaking,is hardly unprecedented

27. imposed on Globalstar to ensure that grandfathered. BAS channel A10 licensees and relocated BRS channel 1 licensees are protected from harmful interference. Respectfully submitted, THE WiIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, INC. Wilkinson Barker Knaver, LLP 2300 N Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037—1128 2027834141 Iis attomeys June 8, 200

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Michelle A. Bynum, hereby certify that the foregoing Reply Comments of The Wizeless Communications Association International, Inc. was served this 8th day of June, 2005 by depositing true copies thereof with the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid, addressed to the following: Mike Kozlowski Anthony J. Navarra Globalstar USA, LLC Williom E. Adler 1340 Treat Blvd. Globalstar LLC Suite 601 461 S. Milpitas Blvd Walnut Creek, CA 94597—7961 Milpitas, CA 95035 Kathieen Campbell* Williem T. Lake International Bureau Josh L. Roland Federal Communications Commission Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dore LLP 445 12th Street, S.W. 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, D.C. 20037 Michelle A. Bynum *Delivered by hand


Document Created: 2005-06-20 13:04:06
Document Modified: 2005-06-20 13:04:06
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC