Attachment letter

letter

LETTER submitted by TMI/TERRESTAR

letter

2005-11-29

This document pretains to SAT-PPL-20050926-00184 for Permitted List on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATPPL2005092600184_473725

November 29, 2005 Via Hand Delivery Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary RECEIVED Fedetal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Nov 2 9 2005 Washington, D.C. 20554 Gunibttndints Oficect Srmay Res 1B Dockets No. 05—220,05—221 File No. SAT—PPL—20050926—00184 Dear Ms. Dortch: In its November 16, 2005 exparte filing, Inmarsat makes yet another attempt o obstruct the emergence of robust competition in the mobile satellt service (*MSS") market." As described below, this latest attempt, like the others,is without merit. The Commission should not allow Inmarsat‘s seemingly endless arsenal ofdelaying tacticsto block TMITerreStar‘s access to the 2 x 10 MHz of spectium necessary to deliver a highly sophisticated but affordable MSS/ATC service throughout the United States. First, in claiming thata third 2 GH provider is a competitive necessity, Inmarsat ignores the selient conclusion ofthe economic analysis ofDr. Bruce M. Owen: to wit, the 2 GHz MSS frequency band does not definethe MSS market.Inmarsat thus refers to the two 2 GHz providers as a "duopoly" nine times in itsleter,as iits repeated incantation might make it so. Yet, even ifone ignores the evidence that TMITerreStar‘s service will likely compete with terrestrial wireless services,‘ substantial competition will exist between two robust 2 GHz: ‘ See Letter from John P. Janka, Counsel to Inmarsatto Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Nov. 16, 2005) ("Inmarsat Letter®). * See Leter from Jonathan D. Blake, Counsel to TerreStar to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (et. 17, 2003),attaching Bruce M. Owen, Competition and Licensing in the 2 GHz Band, t 2— 12 (Oct. 14, 2003) (*Owen Repor®). * See, e.g.Inmarsat Letter at 1 (opposing "lieensing TerreStar/TMI and 1CO to duopoly at2 GHz). * Indeed., ifthe 2 GHz band were an isolated market, as Inmarsat claims, errestrial wireless carriers would not have spent years attempting to derail the assignment of spectrum for the 2 GHz MSS/ATC service. See, Letter from Dustin L. Ashton, CTIA to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 99—81 (filed June 11, 2001) (reterating request that the Commission initate rulemaking to sharply reduce 2 GHz MSS spectrum allocation and opposing efficient re—use of MSS spectum for ancillary terrestrialservices).

MSS/ATC providers and other MSS providers in the Big LEO and L bands." Inmarsat‘s argument that the 2 GHz band is a "greenfield" in comparison to the L—band speaks more to its own inefficient use of28 MH: of spectrum in the L—band than to any unusual characteristic of the 2 GHz spectrum. Second, Inmarsatfalsely asserts that TMI/TerreStar does not need aditional spectrum because it has "raised substantial capital and is spending billions ofdollars based on [a] 2 x4 MHz MSS authorization." In fact, consistent with ts entreprencurialphilosophy, TMI‘TerreStar has proceeded a robust system design despite regulatory uncertainty. In making this decision, it has relied on the Commission‘s announced intention to distribute surrendered spectrum pro ata among the remaining two licensees upon a showing that such w redistribution willlead to "extraordinarily large, cognizable,and non—speculative efficiencies. TM1/TerreStar‘s investors thus have confidence that the Commission will assign sufficient spectrum to enable TMITerreStarto deploy a broadband, consumer—oriented mobile telecommunications service, rather than a traditional niche mobile satelie service. They are, however,taking thatrisk; if the Commission does not do so, hat investment in innovation will have been in vain and the public will be deprived the benefits ofa ubiquitous, fully competitive mobile telecommunications system. Finally,Inmarsatseeks to read a 2 GHz and L—band consolidation into a plan announced by Motient Corp. to reorganize ownership of MSV, an L—band provider,and TerreSta." MSV and TerreStar are today independently managed and operated companies and will ontinue to be so afte the transaction contemplated in that leter. Moreover, Inmarsat conveniently ignores in the same announcement the likelihood that TerreStar will subsequently be spun off from Motient. In any event, this corporate reorganization does not alter the {fundamental choice facing the Commission in this proceeding: distribute surrendered 2 GHz spectrum to the entreprencurial 2 GHz MSS entrants ready and willing to put the spectrum rapidly into use for the benefit of consumers, first responders and homeland security or obstruct the development of such a service for the benefit ofthose who would compete with t 5 See Owen Report at 3—8. ® Inmarsat Letter at 3. Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Space Station Licensing Rules, TB Docket 02—34, 18 FCC Red. 10760, 10774 9 64 (2003).. TMITerreStar has exhaustively demonstrated that such efficiencies would result from assignment of 2 x 10 MHz to ts next—generation MSS/ATC service. See, eg. Comments of TMUTerreStar, IB Docket No. 05—221 (filed July 29, 2005) (documenting benefits oa 2 x 10 MHz assignment,including the provision of uniquely valuable communications asset to public safety and homeland security users, delivery ofrelible broadband services torural America,injection of competition into the market for wireless services, and expansion of spectrum reuse, innovation and efficiency to an unprecedented level). * See Intmarsat Letteat 2. Inmarsat fals to mention thatif it were granted access to the 2 GHz band, it would hold over 34 MHz of spectrum in the 2 GHz and L—bands. + 3

Accordingly, TMITerreStarreiteratesits request that the Commission promptly grant TMITerreStar the 2 x 10 MHz of spectrum necessary to bring the full benefits of next— generation MSS/ATC services t the public without further delay. Respectfully submitted, T44 Bok fi. Adéz. Gréahry CSugle ;gnuhan D. Blake Viison & Eucnis urt A. Wimmer 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Matthew S. DefNero Washington, D.C. 20004—1008 Covnioron & Burzma 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004—2401 Counselfor TMI Communications and Company Limited Partnership Counselfor TerreStar Networks Inc. ce (via electronic mail): John P. Janka Counsel for Inmarsat


Document Created: 2005-12-30 11:10:58
Document Modified: 2005-12-30 11:10:58
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC