Attachment opp to petit

opp to petit

OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION submitted by Wireless Communications Association International Inc.

opp to petition for recon

2001-10-09

This document pretains to SAT-STA-20010712-00063 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATSTA2001071200063_456705

DUEHGOEE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 2 Washington D.C. 20554 6+ 92001 ntevicommonos auisse: In the Matter of orme o ne ucrenin ) ) XM Radio Inc. ) File No. SAT—STTA=20010712—00063 ) Application for Special Temporary Authority ) to Operate Satellite Digital Audio Radio ) Service Complementary Terrestrial Repeaters ) OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION XM Radio Inc. (*XM") hereby filesthis Opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Wireless Communications Association Interational, Ic. ("WCA") ofthe Intemational Bureau‘s Order in the above—captioned proceeding granting XM special temporary authority ("STA") to operate Satellte Digital Audio Radio Service (*DARS®) terrestral repeaters in itslicensed frequency band, 2332.5—2345 MHz.! The Bureau made the proper decision not to require XM to provide Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") or Instructional Teleision Fixed Service ("ITFS®) licensees with the location and technical parameters ofall repeaters operating pursiant to the STA. WCA has never shown any harm to any MDS or ITFS operation from the hundreds of repeaters that have been disclosed by the DARS licensees or from any operation of those repeaters, either during their non—commercial, experimental operation or since their authorization. Indeed, the record does not even show that, in the citiesin which such repeaters are being deployed, MDS or ITFS operators continue to use the old block downconverters that may valnerable to DARS repeaters Wireless Communications Association Intemational, Inc., Petition for Reconsideration, File No. SAT—STA—20010712—00063 (September 25, 2001) (*Petition for Reconsideration").

and were to be replaced by February 2002. In addition, even if MDS/TES facilities were vulnerable to interference from DARS repeaters,there is no need for MDSATES licensees to knowthe exact location ofXM‘s repeaters prior to experiencing actual interference. If WCA and its members are sincere about resolving potentialinterference issues with XM, they have had (and continue to have) ample opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, WCA instead seems determined to forego practical effortsat resolving these issues in favor of wasting the resources of the Commission and other parties on frivolous matters such as this Petition for Reconsideration. Background On July 12, 2001, XM filed a request for temporary authority to operate DARS terrestril repeaters for commercial service on a non—interference basis pending the outcome of a fouryear~ old rulemaking regarding terrestrial repeaters," The XM request provided location information for over 700 repeaters that XM plans to operate in approximately 60 urban areas ata power level greater than 2 kW EIRP. Consistent with ts discussions with Commission staff, XM did not disclose the location of the approximately 550 repeaters that it plans to operate at a power level of 2 kW or less.® The Commission issued a Public Notice of this STA request on July 31, 2001. Public Notice, Report No. SAT—00077 (July31, 2001). The Public Norice asked commenters to provide specific information concerning interference from DARS repeaters to stations that are "currently deployed and operational.". n response to the Public Notice, two Wireless Communications Service ("WCS") liensees identified specific repeaters that might cause interference to their 4 XM Radio Inc., Request for STA, File No. SAT—STA—20010712—00063 (July 12, 2001). ? See Reply Comments of XM Radio Inc., File No. SAT—STA—20010712—00063, pp. 10—11.

facilities. Neither WCA nor any MDS or ITFS licensee identified a single instance in which its operations might be affected in any of the cities in which XM proposes to operate." On September 17, 2001, the International Bureau ("Bureau") issued an Order granting XM‘s STA request to operate terrestrial repeaters for commercial service on a non—interference basis." In the STA Order, the Bureau required XM to make available to WCS licensees, pursuant to appropriate confidentialty agreements and reciprocal information sharing concemning WCS facilites, the locations and technical parameters of repeaters operating pursuant to the STA, including those operating at or below 2 KW EIRP.® The Bureau did not require XM to provide thisinformation to MDS/ITES licensees. The Bureau also required XM to provide WCS Hicensees and WCA with the name and telephone number of a point of contact to receive reports of actual interference." On September 25, 2001, WCA filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the STA Order, arguing that the Bureau did not adequately protect MDS/TES licensees from interference from XM‘s repeaters when it failed to require XM to provide MDS/TTFS licensees with information about the location and technical parameters of all repeaters operating pursuant to the STA, & BellSouth Corporation and Worldcom, Inc. are MDS/TES licensees, but their comments focused exclusively on potentialinterference to their WCS operations 5 XM Radio Inc., Order and Authorization, File No. SAT—STA—20010712—00063 (September 17, 2001) ("STA Order®). £ STA Order® 14. XM provided this contact information in its August 31 Reply Comments, prior to the Commission requiring such information. Reply Comments of XM Radio Inc., File No. SAT—STA—20010712—00063, at 11 (August 31, 2001) (*In the event of an interference complaint, XM Radio designates Derek de Bastos (der kdebastos@xmeadio.com; (202) 380—4184) and Phil Barsky (phil.barsky@xmradio.com; (202) 380—4090) as is points of contact").

including those operating at or below 2 kW EIRP.". Because XM‘s STA request already provides the Commission and interested parties with the location and technical parameters of the repeaters it seeks to operate above 2 KW EIRP, WCA‘s Petition amounts to a request that the Bureau require XM to provide MDS/TES licensees with information conceming repeaters that will operate at 2 kW EIRP or les. For the reasons stated below, the Bureau should dismiss WCA‘s Petition for Reconsideration. Discussion ¥: THE BUREAU ACTED PROPERLY IN NOT REQUIRING XM TO PROVIDE MDS/ITES LICENSEES WITH THE LOCATION AND TECHNICAL PARAMETERS OF ALL REPEATERS OPERATING PURSUANT TO THE STA The Burean‘s decision not to require XM to provide MDS/TES licensees with the location and technical parameters ofthe repeaters XM will operate pursuant to its STA was proper considering the absence of any evidence that MDS or ITES licensees will be harmed by the higher—power repeaters identified in the STA request. WCS licensees were the only ones to submit any evidence ofpotential interference to existing facilites. Indeed, to this day, there is no evidence in the record showing that MDS and ITES users continue to use the block downconverters that are allegedly valnerable to SDARS repeater transmissions, or the extent of * Wireless Communications Association International, Inc., Pettion for Reconsideration, File No. SAT—STA—20010712—00063 (September 25, 2001) (‘Petition for Reconsideration"). Concurrent with its Petition for Reconsideration, WCA filed an Emergency Motion for Stay requesting the Bureato immediately stay the effectiveness of the 57A Order untilit acts on its Petition for Reconsideration. See Wireless Communications Association Interational, Inc., Emergency Motion for Stay, File No. SAT—STA—20010712—00063 (September 25, 2001). XM filed an Opposition to this stay request on October 5, 2001. See XM Radio Inc., Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay, File No. SAT—STA—20010712—00063 (October 5, 2001).

such use. Thus, the Commission could reasonsbly have concluded that no such block downconverters are in use at this time in those cites. WCA‘s argument that it needs information regarding the location and technical parameters of XMs repeaters assumes that operation of these repeaters will cause interference to MDS/TTES facilities. As XM and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. ("Sitius") have demonstrated in their comments in the DARS rulemaking docket, this is not the case." MDS/ITESlicensees have been replacing their legacy analog receivers that require protection from operators in adjacent frequency bands with new digital receivers that are less susceptible to interference.." MDSATES Hicensees have had to replace these old analog receivers due to the advent of personal communications services (°PCS") systems operating in the 1930—1990 MHz band and WCS systems operating in the 2305—2320 MHz and 2345—2360 MHz bands. In fact, the Commission‘s rules contemplate that these legacy block downconverters will be completely replaced by February 2002. 47 C.ER. §27.58(@)(1). The failure of WCA or any MDS/TES licensee to identify a single MDS/ITERS facility thatislikely to suffer interference from XM‘s repeaters, despite the Commission‘s request for such information in the Public Notice, demonstrates the lack of any real interference threat to MDS/TTES facilities posed by XM‘s repeaters. This should come as no surprise considering that XM has been testing its repeaters pursuant to a nationwide experimental license for over a year, ut has not received any complaints of interference from MDS/ITES licensees or customers during this time. * Consolidated Reply of XM Radio Inc., IB Docket No. 95—91 (March 8, 2000) (*XM March 2000 Comments"); Reply Comments of Sirius Satellite Radio, IB Docket No. 95— 91 (March 8, 2000) ("Sirius March 2000 Comments"). !° XM March 2000 Comments at 6—14; Sitius March 2000 Comments 6—14.

WCA also repeats the argument stated in its comments that because WCS licensees are required to notify MDS/TES licensees prior to commencing operations ofa WCS facility, DARS licensees should be required to do the same."" This rule, however, was adopted over 4 and a half years ago to protect the analog MDS/TTES receivers that were common at the time."" Because these receivers are likely to have been replaced with more robust digital receivers, there should be no need for a similar disclosure requirement for DARS licensees. The rule itself contemplates that these legacy block downconverters will be completely eliminated by February 202. 47 CER. $27.58@)(1). Finally, WCA states that it needs information regarding the location of all ofXM‘s repeaters operating pursuant to the STA in order to "trace any new or increased interference." Petiion for Reconsideration at 2. This is not the case. In the unlikely eventthat an MDS/TES facility were to experience interference, the frst step in determining the source ofinterference would be for the MDS/ITES operator to use a spectrum analyzer to determine the frequency and the direction of the interfering signal."" If the interfering signal is in the 2332.5—2345 MHz band, then the MDS/ITES operator can reasonably assume that XM is the source of the interference. At that point, the MDS/TTES operator would notify the XM point of contact and explain the location ofthe MDS/TES facility receiving the interference and the predicted location ofthe source ofthatinterference.. After determining which repeater is the cause of the interference, Petiion for Reconsideration at 4 n.10; Comments ofWireless Communications Association Intemational, Inc., File No. SAT—STA—20010712—00063, at 5—6 (August 21, 2001) (citing 47 C.F.R. § 27.58). & Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (*WCS"), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Red 3977 (April 2, 1997). * See XM Radio Inc., Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay, File No. SAT—STA— 20010712—00063 (October 5, 2001),at 6—7.

XM will reduce the power ofor cease operation of the repeater as required by the clear mandate of the ST4 Order. STA Order 1 14. Thus, there is no need for MDS/TES licensees to know the exact location of a DARS repeater prior to experiencing actual interference. In fact, the same can be said for WCSlicensees, but XM has chosen not to challenge the Bureau‘s requirement that XM provide WCS licensees with information about the repeaters it operates pursuant to the STA. It THE BUREAU SHOULD ATTACH CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO ANY REQUIREMENT THAT XM PROVIDE MDS/TES LICENSEES WITH THE LOCATION AND TECHNICAL PARAMETERS OF ALL REPEATERS OPERATING PURSUANT TO THE STA 1f the Bureau requires XM to provide MDS/TFS licensees with information concerning the location and technical parameters ofthe repeaters XM operates pursuant to the STA, then the Bureau should attach certain conditions. Firs, the Bureau should require MDSATES licenseesto share information regarding MDS/ITES faciliies with XM. While the STA Order required XM to disclose information regarding its repeaters to WCS licensees, it also imposed a reciprocal obligation on WCSlicensees to provide information to XM "regarding the location and technical parameters" of WCS stations. 57A Order at n.30. The Bureau should impose a similar obligation on MDS/ITES licensees. For example, MDSATFS licensees should be required to provide XM with the exact number and location ofthe legacy block downconverters in each of the markets where XM will operate repeaters pursuant to the STA.. It i reasonable for the Bureau to assume that WCA has already gathered this information in determining that the number of legacy block downconverters in these marketsis significant enough to justify the filing of its Petition for Reconsideration as well as its Emergency Motion for Stay ofthe STA Order.

Second, the Bureau should recognize, as it did with its requirement that XM provide information regarding its repeaters to WCS licensees, that it would be reasonable for XM to require MDS/TES licensees to enterinto a nondisclosure agreement prior to receiving this information. STA Order at 30. Third, the Bureau should make clear that any obligation that XM provide information about the repeaters it operates pursuant to the STA should extend to individual MDS/TES licensees and not the WCA. WCA states that information about XM‘s repeaters is needed to trace the source of harmful interference. Petition for Reconsideration at 2. Only a Commission licensee, and not a rade association, would experience harmful interference and would therefore have any need for this information. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Commission should deny WCA‘s Petition for Reconsideration. Respectfully submitted, XM RADIO INC. : / Ce a Bruce D. Jacobs Lon C. Levin David S. Konczal Senior Vice President, Regulatory Shaw Pitman LLP XM Radio Inc. 2300 N St, NW. 1500 Eckington Place, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20037 Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 663—3000 (202) 380—4000 October 9, 2001

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Sylvia A. Davis, a secretary to the lawform of Show Pittman LLP, hereby certify that on this 9th day of October 2001, I caused copies of the foregoing Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration to be mailed via first—class postage prepaid mail t the following: Donald Abelson* Thomas Sugruc® Interational Bureau Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Room 6—C750 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 3—C252 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Anna Gomez® Ronald F, Netro* International Bureau Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Room 6—C475 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 3—C163 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Chris Murphy® Rosalee Chiara® Intemational Burcau Intemational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 6—C437 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room 6—A521 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Ron Repasi® Keith Larson® Intemational Bureau Mass Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street,S.W., Room 6—A505 445 Twelfth Street,S.W., Room 2—C420 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Mary Nordberg O‘Connor Robert B. Jacobi Director, Government Regulatory Affairs Cohn and Marks WorldCom Broadband Solutions, Inc. 1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 300 8521 Leesburg Pike Washington, DC 20036 Vienna, VA 22182 Counsel to Mt. Wilson PM Broadcasters, Inc.

William M. Wiltshire Douglas I Brandon Karen L. Gulick AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Haris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP 1150 Connectiout Ave., NW., 4° Floor 1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036 Counsel to AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. James G. Harralson Brian M. Madden Charles P. Featherstrun Leventhal, Senter & Lerman P. BellSouth Corporation 2000 K Street, N.W. BellSouth Wireless Cable, Inc. Washington, DC 20006 1155 Peachtree St, N.E.,Suite 1800 Counsel to Entercom Communications Corp. Atlanta, GA 30309 Henry L. Baumann David H. Layer Jack N. Goodman Director, Advanced Enginecring Valerie Schulte NAB Science and Technology Ann W. Bobeck National Association of Broadcasters National Association of Broadcasters 1771 N Street, N.W. 1771 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036 Paul J. Sinderbrand Brian Sutton Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP Regulatory Engineer 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 700 Navini Networks, Inc. Washington, DC 20037 2240 Campbell Creek Blvd., Ste. 110 Counsel to Wireless Communications Richardson, TX 75082 Association International, Inc. Tom W. Davidson Michacl K. Hamra Erin L. Dozier Director of Regulatory and Government Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP Affairs 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.,Ste. 400 Metricom, Inc. Washington, DC 20036 1825 I Street, N.W., Suite 400 Counsel to Metricom, Inc. Washington, DC 20006 Randall Schwarte John T. Scort,M Director, Regulatory and Standards Donald C. Brittingham BeamReach Networks Inc. Michael P. Samsock 755 North Mathilda Avenue Verizon Wireless Sunnyvale, CA 94085 1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 400W Washington, DC 20005 Sylvia A. Davis *Via Hand


Document Created: 2005-09-27 15:22:26
Document Modified: 2005-09-27 15:22:26
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC