Iridium Petition to Deny PETITION by Iridium Satellite LLC SAT-MOD-20080904-00165 Iridium Petition to

Iridium Petition to

PETITION submitted by Iridium Satellite LLC

Iridium Petition to Deny

2009-05-18

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-20080904-00165 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD2008090400165_712282

BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Globalstar Licensee LLC ) Call Sign S2115
GUSA Licensee LLC ) File No. SAT-MOD-20080904-00165
)
Application for Modification of )
Nongeostationary Mobile Satellite Service )
System License (S2115) To Launch a )
Second-Generation System )

PETITION TO DENY OF IRIDIUM SATELLITE LLC

Donna Bethea Murphy R. Michael Senkowski
Vice President, Regulatory Engineering Peter D. Shields
Iridium Satellite LLC Jennifer D. Hindin
6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 500 Wiley Rein LLP
Bethesda, MD 20817 1776 K Street N.W.
(301) 571-6200 Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel. (202) 719-7000
Fax (202) 719-7049

Counsel to Iridium Satellite LLC

May 18, 2009

SUMMARY

In the instant proceeding, Globalstar Licensee LLC (“Globalstar”) asks the

Commission to modify its non-geostationary Big LEO mobile satellite service (“MSS”)

license (FCC Call Sign S2115) to authorize the launch and operation of its second-generation

satellite constellation. However, Globalstar has admitted that it has violated—and will

continue to violate—the current terms of its MSS license by operating in spectrum reassigned

exclusively to Iridium Satellite LLC (“Iridium”) by the Commission in an order that became

effective on December 14, 2008, and despite a letter from the International Bureau

specifically directing Globalstar to comply with the terms of its licenses. Moreover,

approximately half of the L Band spectrum to which Globalstar seeks access in its request to

modify its application has been assigned exclusively to Iridium.

Globalstar’s intentional violation of the terms of its licenses and its willful disregard

of the FCC staff’s specific direction require denial of Globalstar’s application. Indeed,

Globalstar’s actions call into question its basic fitness to be a licensee, and, in addition to

denying Globalstar’s application, the Commission should immediately bring an enforcement

proceeding to secure Globalstar’s compliance with its license requirements and to determine

what sanctions are appropriate. The initiation of an enforcement proceeding is particularly

justified here given that Globalstar had more than a year’s notice of the spectrum

reassignment and has been operating in violation of the terms of its licenses and the

Commission’s orders for six months.

In addition, the Commission should deny the application to the extent Globalstar

seeks authorization to operate in spectrum assigned exclusively to Iridium. In its application,

Globalstar requests access to the 1610-1626.5 MHz spectrum. However, Iridium has held

1

exclusive rights to the 1621.35-1626.5 MHz band since the initial authorization of MSS

services in 1994, and the Commission recently reassigned the 1618.725-1621.35 MHz band

from Globalstar to Iridium for its exclusive use. Thus, no basis exists for the Commission to

authorize Globalstar access to those bands. In such respects, Globalstar’s waiver request to

access the 1618.725-1621.35 MHz band is both procedurally improper and without merit,

and even if granted, would be temporary in duration.

Finally, in its opposition to Iridium’s pending transfer application,1 Globalstar

proposed rigorous Commission financial qualifications standards for next generation satellite

applicants. However, Globalstar’s own application fails to meet these steep standards and

offers no explanation for how it will finance its $1.52 billion second generation satellite

system. The application is also devoid of any explanation of how Globalstar will comply

with the Commission’s $5 million bond posting requirement.

1
See Iridium Holdings, LLC and Iridium Carrier Holdings LLC, and GHL Acquisition
Group, IB Docket No. 08-232, Petition to Deny of Globalstar Licensee LLC (filed Dec. 29,
2008) (“Globalstar Petition to Deny”).

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 2
II. GLOBALSTAR IS VIOLATING ITS CURRENT SATELLITE
LICENSE AND THUS LACKS THE REQUISITE CHARACTER
QUALIFICATIONS TO HOLD THE REQUESTED REPLACEMENT
AUTHORIZATION............................................................................................... 5
III. GLOBALSTAR’S APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED TO THE
EXTENT IT SEEKS SPECTRUM ASSIGNED TO IRIDIUM............................ 8
A. 1621.35-1626.5 MHz Band....................................................................... 9
B. 1618.725-1621.35 MHz Band.................................................................. 10
C. 1610-1618.725 MHz Band....................................................................... 12
IV. GLOBALSTAR’S FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION SHOWING IS AT
ODDS WITH ITS OWN CLAIMED STANDARD RAISED IN
OBJECTIONS TO IRIDIUM’S PENDING TRANSFER APPLICATION ....... 12
V. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 15

-i-

into compliance, raises questions concerning Globalstar’s character qualifications and fitness

to be an FCC licensee that must be answered before any new applications can be granted.

Second, Globalstar’s application should be denied to the extent that authority is sought for

spectrum allocated and licensed for exclusive use by Iridium. The 1621.35-1626.5 MHz

frequency band included in Globalstar’s application has always been exclusively reserved for

Iridium and never licensed for Globalstar. Similarly, Globalstar’s request for 1618.725-

1621.35 MHz seeks authority for spectrum that is exclusively allocated and licensed to

Iridium and for which any waiver sought by Globalstar would be transitional and temporary

in nature—assuming grounds for a waiver have been provided (which is not the case).

Finally, Globalstar, in opposing a pending Iridium transfer application, has argued for

rigorous Commission financial qualifications standards to be imposed on next generation

satellite applicants. Globalstar, however, fails to meet its own self-erected financial

standards, and its application offers no explanation for how it will finance its $1.52 billion

second generation satellite system or comply with the Commission’s $5 million bond posting

requirement.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 29, 2008, Globalstar filed the instant application to modify its MSS

license (S2115) to authorize the launch and operation of its second-generation replacement

satellite constellation in the 1610-1626.5 MHz band. The application states that the new

satellites will be “functionally identical” to Globalstar’s first-generation satellites, operating

on the same frequencies, using the same emission designators, operating at the same power

levels, and producing the same service footprint.

The Commission, however, has assigned to Iridium on an exclusive basis

approximately half the spectrum Globalstar seeks to access. In 1994, the Commission

2

adopted a Big LEO band plan that assigned the 1621.35-1626.5 MHz spectrum to Iridium.4

And, a year and a half ago, on November 9, 2007, the Commission released the

Reconsideration Order,5 which reallocated the 1618.725-1621.35 MHz band from

Globalstar’s CDMA MSS system to Iridium’s TDMA MSS system.6

The Reconsideration Order took effect on January 14, 2008. On May 7, 2008, the

FCC released an Order Proposing Modifications to effectuate, through license modifications,

the spectrum reassignment established in the Reconsideration Order.7 After considering and

rejecting a Globalstar protest of the Order Proposing Modifications, the Commission

released the Modification Order on October 15, 2008,8 which took effect sixty days later on

December 14, 2008. Globalstar appealed the Reconsideration Order9 and sought

4
See Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining
to a Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency Bands, Report
and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5936 (1994) (“1994 Big LEO Order”), recon., Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12861 (1996).
5
Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit
Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Second Order on
Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 19733 (2007) (“Reconsideration Order”).
6
Id. at 19734 (¶ 1).
7
Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC, Iridium Constellation LLC, Iridium
Satellite LLC, Iridium Carrier Services, Modification of Authority to Operate a Mobile
Satellite System in the 1.6 GHz Frequency Band, Call Sign S2115, Call Sign E970381, Call
Sign S2110, Call Sign E960132, Call Sign E960622, Order Proposing Modifications, 23
FCC Rcd 7984 (2008) (“Order Proposing Modifications”).
8
Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC, Iridium Constellation LLC, Iridium
Satellite LLC, Iridium Carrier Services, Modification of Authority to Operate a Mobile
Satellite System in the 1.6 GHz Frequency Band, Call Sign S2115, Call Sign E970381, Call
Sign S2110, Call Sign E960132, Call Sign E960622, Order of Modifications, FCC 08-248,
23 FCC Rcd 15207 (¶ 1) (rel. Oct. 15, 2008) (emphasis added) (“Modification Order”).
9
Petition for Review, No. 08-1046 (filed D.C. Cir. Feb. 5, 2008).

3

reconsideration of the Modification Order,10 but never sought to stay the effectiveness of

either order.11 On May 1, 2009, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the Reconsideration Order.12

Moreover, while the Reconsideration Order and Modification Order afforded

Globalstar an opportunity to seek a temporary waiver to alleviate operating problems during

its transition out of the 1618.725-1621.36 MHz band, Globalstar criticized this process and

refrained from making any waiver request before the effective date of the license

modifications. In a request filed one day after the license modifications took effect,

Globalstar sought relief. The company initially asked the Commission for a waiver that

would allow it to continue operating its space stations on the reassigned spectrum in every

international region where Globalstar had been using the now-reassigned spectrum.13

10
See Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC, Iridium Constellation LLC,
Iridium Satellite LLC, Iridium Carrier Services, Modification of Authority to Operate a
Mobile Satellite System in the 1.6 GHz Frequency Band, Call Sign S2115, Call Sign
E970381, Call Sign S2110, Call Sign E960132, Call Sign E960622, Petition for
Reconsideration of Globalstar Licensee LLC and GUSA Licensee LLC (filed Nov. 14, 2008)
(“Globalstar Petition for Reconsideration”).
11
See 28 U.S.C. § 2349(b) (“The filing of the petition to review does not of itself stay or
suspend the operation of the order of the agency . . . .”); 47 U.S.C. § 405 (providing that a
petition for reconsideration shall not “excuse any person from complying with or obeying
any order, decision, report, or action of the Commission, or operate in any manner to stay or
postpone the enforcement thereof”).
12
Globalstar, Inc. v. FCC, No. 08-1046, 2009 WL 1162581 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
13
Globalstar seeks a waiver for all eight international gateways that it previously
identified as the only gateways affected by the spectrum reassignment. Compare Globalstar
Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee, Modification of Authority to Operate a Mobile Satellite
System in the 1.6 GHz Frequency Band, Call Sign S2115, Call Sign E970381, Globastar
Request for Waiver and Request for Special Temporary Authority at 12-15 (filed Dec. 15,
2008) (“Globalstar Waiver Request”), with Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC,
Iridium Constellation LLC, Iridium Satellite LLC, Iridium Carrier Services, Modification of
Authority to Operate a Mobile Satellite System in the 1.6 GHz Frequency Band, Call Sign
S2115, Call Sign E970381, Call Sign S2110, Call Sign E960132, Call Sign E960622, Reply
of Globalstar to Opposition of Iridium, Affidavit of Anthony J. Navarra ¶ 4 (filed June 23,
2008) (“Globalstar Protest Reply”). Globalstar subsequently brought three gateways (in

4

Globalstar also has a still pending request for special temporary authority to continue

operating on Iridium’s frequencies during the pendency of its waiver request.

On December 17, 2008, the International Bureau sent Globalstar a letter reminding it

to operate in full compliance with its licenses pending action on its waiver and STA

requests.14 Notwithstanding this warning, however, Globalstar admitted in pleadings related

to its waiver request that it has been using—and will continue to use—the spectrum the

Commission removed from its license. Globalstar’s continued operation on these frequencies

is a direct, knowing, and willful violation of the terms of its license and the specific direction

provided by the International Bureau.

II. GLOBALSTAR IS VIOLATING ITS CURRENT SATELLITE LICENSE AND
THUS LACKS THE REQUISITE CHARACTER QUALIFICATIONS TO
HOLD THE REQUESTED REPLACEMENT AUTHORIZATION.

Globalstar is clearly engaged in unprecedented, intentional violations of its license

terms. Indeed, Globalstar has admitted to the Commission that since its license was modified

in 2008, it has used, is currently using, and will continue to use spectrum explicitly

reassigned to Iridium,15 notwithstanding an International Bureau warning reminding

France and Brazil) into compliance. Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC,
Modification of Authority to Operate a Mobile Satellite System in the 1.6 GHz Frequency
Band, Call Sign S2115, Call Sign E970381, File No. SAT-STA-20081215-00231,
Opposition of Globalstar Licensee LLC at 6 (filed Feb. 2, 2009) (“Globalstar Opposition”).
14
Letter from Roderick K. Porter, Deputy Bureau Chief, International Bureau, FCC, to
William T. Lake, Counsel to Globalstar LLC, Call Sign S2115 (Dec. 17, 2008) (“Porter
Letter”).
15
Globalstar Opposition at 8 (conceding Globalstar’s “inability to date to achieve full
compliance with the Modification Order”); id. at 9 n.20 (admitting “Globalstar’s difficulties
in achieving full compliance with the Modification Order”); id. at 5-6 (alleging that
Globalstar has made “substantial efforts to transition its gateways off of [Iridium’s]
spectrum” in all regions “[w]ith the exception of the three gateways located in Russia” where
it simply “cannot terminate operations on the affected channels”).

5

Globalstar to comply with the terms of its revised license.16 In its waiver request—the filing

of which implicitly recognizes the validity of the Modification Order17—Globalstar concedes

that it has no plans to alter the operations of its new satellite fleet to comply with the

Commission’s recent spectrum reassignments.18 Rather, it seeks to maintain, grow, and

modify its business operations as if nothing has changed since 1994—i.e., as if the

Commission’s 2007 Reconsideration Order and 2008 Modification Order had never been

issued. This insistence on living in the past and refusal to come to grips with the evolution of

satellite spectrum assignments is simply indefensible. More importantly, Globalstar’s refusal

to comply with Commission license requirements and its disregard for an explicit warning to

cease illegal operations is perhaps unprecedented in nature in the satellite service.

Pursuant to Commission precedent, Globalstar’s blatant disregard for the

Commission’s regulatory authority must result in a finding that Globalstar is unfit for the

requested authorization. The Commission “has traditionally dealt harshly with parties [like

Globalstar] that provide unauthorized radio services to the public,” taking into account such

prior FCC violations when considering an entity’s legal qualifications.19 Under the

Commission’s Character Policy Statements, Globalstar’s willingness to violate the law

signals its proclivity to violate other laws and reflects adversely upon its character and fitness

16
See Porter Letter.
17
See WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1158 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (“The very essence of
waiver is the assumed validity of the general rule.”).
18
Globalstar Opposition at 19-20.
19
Applications of SatCom Systems, Inc., Order and Authorization, 14 FCC Rcd 20798,
20817 (¶ 42) (1999).

6

to hold an FCC license.20 Indeed, if Globalstar “is unwilling to obey the law with respect to”

its own license and the Modification Order, it is “hardly irrational to conclude that”

Globalstar “will be equally unwilling to obey FCC rules that require openness and honesty

with the Commission.”21 Accordingly, the Commission should deny Globalstar’s application

and investigate and resolve any enforcement issues associated with Globalstar’s admitted

violation of its current license.22

A grant of Globalstar’s application would, perversely, facilitate and condone

Globalstar’s continued violation of Sections 301 and 302 of the Communications Act and

Section 25.102 of the Commission’s rules. In its application, Globalstar requests permission

to launch and operate new satellites “functionally identical” to its current satellites.23 In

20
Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d
1179, 1190-91 (¶ 23) (1986) (focusing on “misconduct which violates the Communications
Act or a Commission rule or policy, and . . . certain specified non-FCC misconduct which
demonstrate[s] the proclivity of an applicant to deal truthfully with the Commission and to
comply with [its] rules and policies”); Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in
Broadcast Licensing, 5 FCC Rcd 3252, 3252 (¶ 3) (1990) (“[A] propensity to comply with
the law generally is relevant to the Commission’s public interest analysis, and that an
applicant’s or licensee’s willingness to violate other laws, and, in particular, to commit
felonies, also bears on our confidence that an applicant or licensee will conform to FCC rules
and policies.”); MCI Telecommunications Corp., Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 3
FCC Rcd 509, 515 n.14 (1988) (stating that “[a]lthough not directly applicable to common
carriers, the character qualifications standards adopted in the broadcast context can provide
guidance in the common carrier area as well”).
21
Contemporary Media, Inc. v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
22
Cf. Request for a Limited Waiver of United States Cellular Corporation, 22 FCC Rcd
360 (2007) (denying a waiver request and referring the matter to the Enforcement Bureau
where the company had been on notice of a deadline for several years and then filed its
waiver request only two days before the deadline); see also United States Cellular
Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 16424 (2007).
23
Globalstar Modification Application at 4.

7

other words, Globalstar seeks authorization to continue using Iridium’s spectrum in violation

of its space station license.

Section 301 of the Communications Act, however, prohibits such activity. The

statute provides that “[n]o person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of

energy or communications or signals by radio . . . except under and in accordance with this

Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act.”24 Similarly,

Section 25.102 of the Commission’s rules prohibits the use of spectrum by space stations

without the appropriate FCC license.25 Moreover, Section 302 authorizes the Commission to

implement regulations governing interference between services and devices.26 Pursuant to

this authority, the Commission concluded in the Reconsideration Order that Globalstar’s use

of the 1618.725-16.21.35 MHz band would cause harmful interference to Iridium and thus

rejected Globalstar’s attempt to occupy that spectrum.27 Accordingly, if the Commission

grants the instant application, it will enable—and in fact encourage—Globalstar to continue

to act contrary to the intent of both the Commission and Congress. Therefore, the application

must be denied.

III. GLOBALSTAR’S APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED TO THE EXTENT
IT SEEKS SPECTRUM ASSIGNED TO IRIDIUM.

In its Modification Application, Globalstar states that its “replacement satellites will

operate in the same service links authorized for the first-generation satellites in the band[]

24
47 U.S.C. § 301.
25
47 C.F.R. § 25.102.
26
Id. § 302.
27
Reconsideration Order at 19753 (¶ 44).

8

1610-1626.5 MHz earth to space.”28 However, the Commission has assigned approximately

half of this spectrum for exclusive use by Iridium. Thus, to the extent Globalstar seeks

authority to launch and operate satellites in Iridium’s exclusive spectrum, the application

must be denied.

A. 1621.35-1626.5 MHz Band

First, the Commission unequivocally should deny Globalstar authority to launch and

operate satellites using Iridium’s 5.15 MHz of exclusive spectrum in the 1621.35-1626.5

MHz band. In 1994, the Commission adopted a Big LEO band plan that assigned the

1621.35-1626.5 MHz spectrum to Iridium,29 and this band has remained unchanged and

unaffected by recent modifications to the plan. In 1995, the Commission granted Globalstar

a license to construct satellites capable of operating in the 1610-1626.5 MHz band and to

operate those satellites in the 1610-1621.35 MHz band.30

Today, the Commission no longer includes construction authority in satellite

authorizations.31 The FCC only grants licenses for launch and operation. Satellite operators

are permitted to build satellites capable of operating across any frequencies without an FCC

license. Accordingly, there is no conceivable reason to include the 1621.35-1626.5 MHz

used exclusively by Iridium in Globalstar’s second-generation authorization to launch and

28
Globalstar Modification Application at 4.
29
See 1994 Big LEO Order.
30
Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P. For Authority to Construct, Launch, and Operate
Globalstar, a Low Earth Orbit Satellite System to Provide Mobile Satellite Services in the
1610-1626.5 MHz/2483.5-2500 MHz Bands, Order and Authorization, 10 FCC Rcd 2333 (¶¶
24-25) (1995).
31
47 C.F.R. §25.113 (“Construction permits are not required for U.S.-licensed space
stations.”) The Commission eliminated the construction permit requirement in 1996.
Streamlining the Commission's Rules and Regulations for Satellite Application and Licensing
Procedures, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 21581, 21584-85, 21590-91 ¶¶ 8, 23 (1996).

9

operate satellites. At a minimum, therefore, the Commission should deny Globalstar’s

request to include the 1621.35-1626.5 MHz band in its authorization.

B. 1618.725-1621.35 MHz Band

Globalstar should also be denied authority to launch and operate satellites using the

1618.725-1621.35 MHz band, which, although previously shared, has now been explicitly

assigned to Iridium. More than a year-and-a-half ago, on November 9, 2007, the FCC

adopted the Reconsideration Order in IB Docket No. 02-364, concluding that “the public

interest would be better served by reassigning spectrum in the L-band.”32 In this order, the

Commission reallocated the 1618.725-1621-35 MHz band from Globalstar’s CDMA MSS

system to Iridium’s TDMA MSS system “in order to provide long term certainty and stability

in the Big LEO market and to avoid harmful interference.”33 The spectrum reassignment

went into effect on January 14, 2009, and Globalstar’s and Iridium’s licenses were

subsequently modified to reflect the new assignments.34 Earlier this month, the D.C. Circuit

affirmed the Reconsideration Order.35 As a result of these orders and the D.C. Circuit’s

ruling, Globalstar unequivocally lacks authority to operate in the 1618.725-1621.35 MHz

band.

32
Reconsideration Order at 19739-40 (¶ 14).
33
Id. at 19741 (¶ 17).
34
Modification Order at (¶ 1). Although Globalstar appealed the Reconsideration
Order and has also sought reconsideration of the Modification Order, it never sought to stay
the effectiveness of either order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2349(b) (“The filing of the petition to
review does not of itself stay or suspend the operation of the order of the agency . . . .”); 47
U.S.C. § 405 (providing that a petition for reconsideration shall not “excuse any person from
complying with or obeying any order, decision, report, or action of the Commission, or
operate in any manner to stay or postpone the enforcement thereof”).
35
See Globalstar, 2009 WL 1162581.

10

Globalstar’s pending waiver request does nothing to reinstate its authority to operate

within this spectrum or otherwise justify authorization of a satellite system capable of

operating indefinitely in the spectrum. As an initial matter, the FCC has not granted

Globalstar’s untimely waiver request to use the 1618.725 MHz-1621.35 MHz band.36 In

fact, as Iridium demonstrated in its Petition to Deny,37 Globalstar’s request must be

dismissed. That is, the petition completely lacks merit. Globalstar’s allegations of harm in

its petition are unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the facts,38 and the substance of its

request—i.e., the expansion of its services on the reassigned spectrum for indefinite use—is

fundamentally at odds with the limited transitional relief contemplated by the Commission in

the Modification Order.39 Moreover, given its breadth and scope, Globalstar’s request

plainly constitutes a not-so-subtle attempt to circumvent the Reconsideration Order and

Modification Order to reverse the Commission’s reassignment of this spectrum to Iridium.40

Accordingly, authorizing Globalstar to launch and operate a satellite system in the 1618.725-

36
While the Reconsideration Order and Modification Order afforded Globalstar an
opportunity to seek market specific waivers to prevent transitional harms, Globalstar
criticized this process as inadequate and illusory and refrained from making any waiver
request before the effective date of the license modifications. Only after the license
modifications took effect did Globalstar seek relief from the spectrum reassignment
effectuated by the Modification Order.
37
See Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC, Modification of Authority to
Operate a Mobile Satellite System in the 1.6 GHz Frequency Band, Call Sign S2115, Call
Sign E970381, Petition to Deny of Iridium Satellite LC (filed Jan. 21, 2009) (“Iridium
Petition to Deny”).
38
See id. at 9-14.
39
See id. at 14-16.
40
See id. at 16-18.

11

1621-35 MHz band would merely encourage Globalstar to continue to flaunt the

Commission’s authority and violate its orders.

Even if the Commission ultimately grants Globalstar’s waiver request, denial of

Globalstar’s request to launch and operate a new satellite system using this spectrum is still

appropriate. Contrary to Globalstar’s request, the Modification Order requires that any

waiver be temporary in nature and designed only to alleviate operating problems that occur

while Globalstar transitions permanently out of the 1618.725-1621.36 MHz band.41 Thus,

such a waiver could not justify inclusion of this spectrum in an operating license with a

fifteen year term, especially in light of Globalstar’s demonstrated proclivity for violating the

Commission’s orders.

C. 1610-1618.725 MHz Band

Iridium does not oppose Globalstar’s application to the extent it seeks to launch and

operate satellites using the 1610-1618.725 MHz spectrum. Globalstar is currently licensed to

operate within this spectrum. Where spectrum is allocated and licensed for shared use, other

licensees should be permitted to file applications consistent with the Commission’s

qualification showings and rule requirements.

IV. GLOBALSTAR’S FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION SHOWING IS AT ODDS
WITH ITS OWN CLAIMED STANDARD RAISED IN OBJECTIONS TO
IRIDIUM’S PENDING TRANSFER APPLICATION.

In an unrelated proceeding involving Iridium’s application to deploy a next-

generation satellite system, Globalstar argued that Iridium must submit “pro forma financial

statements or firm contracts with secondary payload providers” demonstrating that it

possesses the “internally generated cash and secondary payloads” sufficient to finance the

41
Modification Order at (¶ 41) (stating that the Commission would entertain waivers
for “limited relief” in “certain parts of the world” in the event of “undue costs”).

12

venture.42 Yet, Globalstar’s own application for authority to launch and operate its second-

generation satellite system is completely devoid of such information. In other words,

Globalstar appears to believe that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Moreover, Globalstar has also failed to demonstrate compliance with the FCC’s $5 million

bond requirement.

In opposing GHL Acquisition’s acquisition of Iridium, Globalstar argued that Iridium

must demonstrate the financial capability to undertake the construction of a new constellation

before the Commission may approve the transaction. For example, Globalstar stated that the

FCC should deny Iridium’s application because it “offers no basis to conclude that Iridium

will have the financial means after the transaction closes even to make a minimal down

payment on the cost of a second-generation system.”43 Globalstar also claimed that GHQ’s

proxy materials were insufficient as they “state only that Iridium anticipates funding ‘a large

part’ of the costs of the new constellation ‘from internally generated cash flows and

secondary payloads, with the remainder from outside financing.’”44

Iridium has fully met the Commission’s requirements, but, ironically, Globalstar now

fails to make the financial showing it demands of Iridium in the context of its own

application to launch and operate satellites. Indeed, Globalstar has not even attempted to

explain how it will finance the construction and launch of its 48 new satellites, which it

42
Globalstar Petition to Deny at 6-7 (“Iridium has not made even the most superficial
case, through the submission of pro forma financial statements or firm contracts with
secondary payload providers, that ‘internally generated cash flows and secondary payloads’
will constitute a ‘large part’ of the funding for its next generation.”).
43
Id.; see also id. at 4-5 (“[N]either the narrative information accompanying the
Application nor GHQ’s filings with the SEC provides any concrete assurance that Iridium
has the intent, let alone the financial ability, to undertake the construction of a new
constellation.”).
44
Id. at 6-7.

13

estimates will require $1.52 billion. Globalstar has provided no information on its own cash

flow or its attempts to obtain third party funding.

To the contrary, Globalstar has provided information that indicates its inability to

finance the project. That is, Globalstar notes that its cash flow has “dropped significantly”

over the last 18 months45 and that it deferred the launch of 24 satellites pending an

improvement to its cash flow.46 These statements—particularly when combined with the

dearth of financial information in Globalstar’s application—raise significant questions

regarding the viability of Globalstar’s proposal.

Globalstar’s application also fails to demonstrate compliance with the Commission’s

$5 million bond posting requirement. Section 25.165 of the Commission’s rules requires all

NGSO licensees to post a $5 million bond within 30 days of the license grant unless the

license is for a replacement satellite.47 A “replacement satellite is one that is (1) [a]uthorized

to be operated at the same orbit location, in the same frequency bands, and with the same

coverage area as one of the licensee’s existing satellites, and (2) [s]cheduled to be launched

so that it will be brought into use at approximately the same time as, but no later than, the

existing satellite is retired.”48 In this case, Globalstar seeks to replace multiple satellites that

45
Globalstar Modification Application at n. 5 (“Globalstar’s cash flow has dropped
significantly since its S-band service began to deteriorate about 18 months ago because few
customers are using the voice service.”).
46
Id. at 4 (noting that “it costs in the range of $50 million to launch six satellites” and
that “[d]eferring the four launches of the second 24 satellites that have been ordered until
cash flow is sufficient makes good business sense”).
47
47 C.F.R. § 25.165 (“For all satellite licenses issued after September 20, 2004, other
than . . . replacement satellite licenses as defined in paragraph (e), the licensee is required to
post a bond within 30 days of the grant of its license. . . . NGSO licensees are required to post
a bond in the amount of $5 million.”).
48
Id. § 25.165(e).

14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 18, 2009, I caused a true and correct copy of the

foregoing to be served by first-class mail, unless noted otherwise, on the following:

Anthony J. Navarra William F. Adler
President – Global Operations Vice President – Legal and Regulatory Affairs
Globalstar, Inc. Globalstar, Inc.
461 S. Milpitas Blvd. 461 S. Milpitas Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035 Milpitas, CA 95035

William T. Lake* Best Copy and Printing, Inc.**
Josh L. Roland fcc@bcpiweb.com
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Counsel to Globalstar Inc.
william.lake@wilmerhale.com
josh.roland@wilmerhale.com

* By first-class mail and electronic mail
** By electronic mail only
/s/ Jennifer D. Hindin
Jennifer D. Hindin

17

Document Created: 2009-05-18 18:44:42
Document Modified: 2009-05-18 18:44:42

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC