Attachment consolidated reply

consolidated reply

REPLY submitted by Wireless communications association

consolidated reply

2001-10-15

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

IBFS_SATSTA2001071200063_456708

CQEKE Before the OCT 15 2001 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CommiSsION Washington, DC 20554 ras maanooe onatrin omercewenssens In the matter of ) ) xM RADIO, INC ) File No: SAT—STA—20010712—00063 ) i Request for Special Temporary Authority ) to Operate Terrestrial Repeaters ) To: Chief, Interational Bureau consoumaTED RerLy The Wireless Communications Association Intemational, Inc. ("WCA"), by its attomeys, hereby replies to the "Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration" and "Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay® filed by XM Radio, Inc. (‘XM®) in response to WCA‘s petition for reconsideration of the International Bureau‘s September 17, 2001 Order and Authorization granting XM special temporary authorization (the "STA®)" to commercially operate terrestril repeaters in the spectrum licensed for satelite Digital Audio Radio Service (‘SDARS®) and WCA‘s request for an emergency stay of the STA pending disclosure by XM to Multipoint Distribution Service (‘MDS®) and Instructional Television Fixed Service ("ITFS®) licensees of location and technical parameters of terrestrial repeaters operating at or below 2 kw EIRP.. As will be demonstrated below, XM is once again advancing disingenious arguments in a transparent effort to avoid any lisbility for interference it causes to Multipoint Distrbution Service (‘MDS®) and Instructional Television Fixed Service (‘ITFS®)licensces As the Bureau considers XMs flings, two facts must be kept in mind ! M Rado,Inc, DA O12172, ) File No. SAT—STA—20010712:00063 (rel. Sept 17, 200b)ereinafer cited as "som

—2. 1) In the comments WCA filed in response to the Commission‘s July 31, 2001 Public Notice seeking public input regarding XMs request for an STA," WCA reiterated its oft— stated concern that terrestrial DARS operations can cause harmful brute force overload interference to MDS and ITFS facilties." WCA called upon the Commission, inter alio, to impose upon the SDARS licensees the same condition imposed on Wireless Communications Service (‘WCS") licensees by Section 2758 of the Commission‘s Rules — that they be required to provide all neighboring MDS and ITFS licensees 30 days advance notice of the technical parameters of all terrestrial repeaters (not just those operating above 2,000 watts EIRP);* and 2) XM made no effort whatsoever to refute WCA‘sposition Strangely, neither of XM‘s recent pleadings even attempt to explain why the arguments XM is now advancing were not made at an appropriate time.. Perhaps XM recognizes what is obvious — its failures are inexcusable More importantly, the arguments XM advances now for refusing to provide MDS and ITFS licensees with the location and operating parameters for all of its repeaters are not only untimely, but are devoid of merit. By now, there should be no question that the operation of terrestrial transmit faciitis in the 2.3 GHz band can result in brute force overload interference to older MDS and ITFS downconverters.. When it established WCS, the Commission recognized that even limiting WCS operations to a maximum of 2,000 watts peak EIRP did not provide complete interference protection to then—existing MDS and ITES downconverters." ‘The record in this STA proceeding (and, it bears repeating, XM never even responded to WCA‘s initil * »Sarelite Policy Branch Information Applcations Accepted forFiling." Public Norce, Report No. SAT—00077 «t Juy 31, 2000) * See Comments ofWCA in Opposion to Grant of STA Request, File Nos. SAT—STA—20010712—00063 and File No SAT—STA20010712—0006¢ ,at 3—5(iled Aug. 21, 2001)[rercinafer ied as "WCA Comments‘} {Seeid art * See Amendiment ofthe Commission‘s ues to Establsh Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (*WCS") 12 rCo red so77, 3984 (9r?)

13. comments concerning the risk of brute force overload interference), just like the record in TB Docket No. 95—91, is devoid of any meaningful distinction between the brute force overload interference threat posed by WCS and that posed by terrestrial DARS repeaters® To the contrary, even Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. has conceded that terrestrial DARS opérations "would be likely to cause overload ofthe MDS downconverters" atreceive locations within 2048 meters of terrestril repeater.". Given the state ofthe record, XM can hardly be surprised that the STA acknowledges: The issue ofblanketing interference to WCS and MDS/ITES systems will be further and more fully addressed [in TB Docket No. 95—91], Indeed, there are areas around terrestrial repeaters where this equipment may be susceptible to blanketing interference® and mandates that "XM immediately reduce the power level or, if necessary, cease operation of any repeater that causes interference to a WCS, MDS or ITFS authorized station upon the receipt of a written, descriptive notification from a WCS, MDS or ITFS licensee identifying the specific source ofinterference."" Apparently recognizing that any attempt to refute this overs‘helming evidence would be fiuitless, XM has changed its tactics and now argues for the first time in this proceeding that it should not be required to provide information regarding 2 kw repeaters because there is no "evidence" in the record that any of the pre—August 20, 1998 downconverters that are most vulnerable are stil in the field.. Simply put, that is not ue and XM knows it — in a January 23, * See Leter rom Pal J Sinderbrand to Magali Roman Salss, 1B Docket No. 9591, at2—3 ied Oct 2, 2001) * See Sits Supplemental Comments, 1B Docket No. 95—91,atExtibit2,at 9—10 (hled Jan. 13, 2000) * SA t 113 mphusisaddec) Pri mt 6

2001 ex parte submission in IB Docket No. 95—91 substantial information was provided to the Commission and XM regarding the continued use of downconverters installed prior to August 20, 1998."". Moreover,it stands to reason that WCA would not be spending tens of thousands of dollars to protect such older downconverters from interference if none were currently being used Nor would the Commission have included in the STA conditions designed to protect older MDS and ITES equipment‘! if, as XM surmises (albeit without any support), the Commission "concluded that no such block downconverters are in use at this time.""* Indeed, the position XM is taking here simply cannot be squared with that it continues to advocate in IB Docket No. 95—91.. If XM truly believes that there are no older MDS/TES downconverters in the field that would be subject to nterference from terrestrial DARS repeaters operating at or below 2 kw EIRP, one must wonder why XM is so vigorousty urging in the rulemaking proceeding that the Commission adopt draconian limits on XM‘s linbiity for curing interference it causes to such downconverters."". On the other hand, if XM traly believes that it would face a substantial risk of liabilty were the Commission to impose the obligation to cure interference to older downconverters on DARS licensees, it should not be advancing here the ‘* See Leter from Paul J Sinderbrand, eral, to Magali Roman Sals, 1B Docket No. 95—91,at 1 (iled Jan. 25, 2000) " The STA requires that "XM immediatly reduce the pover level oif necessany, cease operation of any repeater that causes inerference to a WCS, MDS or ITFS authorized sution upon the reseipt of a writer, descriptve notifeation from a WCS, MDS or TTElcense identfying th specifc source ofintrfrence" and, to aciitare theprocess oaddressing iterference isues, the STA mandatesthat XM "providethe name and tlephone number ofa poit of contacttall WCS lcensees and to WCA prirto commencing opention, tat willb avalable on a continuous bass (e, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) to eceive repots of actual inerference and to take immediate ction to conect it ST4,at$ 14 !* XM Oppostionto Emergency Motionfor Suy, at5 " See Leter fom Paul J.Sinderbrand to Magali Roman Salas, 1B Docket 95.91,at3—4 (Rled Oct 2, 2001)

disingentous argument that there are no older downconverters that would be subject to interference. XM cannot have it both ways However, while it certainly is not necessary given the state of the record before the Commission, in hopes of putting to rest once and for all XM‘s line of argument, attached is a Declaration of Lee Haglund, Director of Video Services for Sprint Corporation (‘Sprint‘), confirming that Sprint‘s affliates continue to utilize downconverters installed prior to August 20, 1908 Implicitly acknowledging that there are, in fact, oder MDS/ITES downconverters subject to brute force overload from terrestrial DARS, XM, for the first time in this proceeding, takes the absurd position that because these older downconverters will not be entitld to interference protection from WCS after February 20, 2002, XM should be free to cause interference to MDs and ITES licensees now."*. The logic of that argument escapes WCA, and WCA trusts it will escape the Commission as well.. If XM wants to operate prior to February 20, 2002, there is no reason for it to be exempt from the same cure obligations imposed on WCS licensees who operate prior to February 20, 2002 XM also contends that MDS and ITES licensees should not be afforded access to the location and technical parameters ofterrestrial DARS repeaters operating at or below 2 kw EIRP because, XM claims, such information is not absolutely essential for them to identify the source of interference coming from DARS terrestrial repeaters."". OF course, XM‘s position cannot be squared with the Commission‘s decision to provide WCS licensees with information regarding !* See XM Oppositonto Emergency Motion for Sayat 6 !* See XM Opposttion o PeitionforReconsidention at 6

terrestrial DARS repeaters operating at or below 2 kw EIRP. Clearly, the location and technical information XM must provide WCS licensees is as essential to MDS and ITFS licensees that may be exposed tointerference from terrestrial DARS repeaters as it is to WCS licensces Moreover, XMs claim that even without information regarding the location of XM‘s repeaters, an MDS or ITES licensee could readily identify the source of interference through the use of a spectrum analyzer is not necessarily correct. XM conveniently ignores that the "detective work" inherent in this approach can be quite time—consuring, all the while licensed MDS and ITFS services must suffer interference at the hands of XM‘s operations.. XM cannot deny that having the location and technical parameters will, if nothing else, expedite the ability of the MDS or ITES licensee to identify the specific repeater believed to be causing the interference. Equally importantly, due to multipath or. other propagation phenomenon, a spectrum analyzer‘s indication of the direction from which an intererence signal is coming will not necessarily point to the offending repeater. Thus, use of a spectrum analyzer alone does not make it possible for MDS and ITFS licensees to meet their obligation under the STA to "identifying the specific source of interference ""* Only with the specific location of the terrestrial repeater will MDS and ITFS licensees be able to identify the specific repeater that is the cause of the problem Indeed, XM‘s argument demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the regulatory regime the Commission imposed to assure that WCS would not cause brute force overload interference to MDS and ITFS. XM completely mis—states the provisions of Section 27.58(a)(1) when it laims that "[t}he rule itself contemplates that these legacy block downconverters will be * sz ary 14.

completely eliminated by February 2002."" In fact, there is no requirement that these older downconverters be replaced by February 20, 2002, nor will they all be replaced by that date. In adopting the rule, the Commission recognized that, since WCS would be limited to 2 kw EIRP, block downconverter interference will only prove problematic in close proximity to WCS transmitters. It would have been incredibly wasteful for the Commission to order the replacement of all MDS and ITES downconverters, since it was recognized that most are not likely to suffer brute force overload interference from WCS. Thus, the Commission shifted the burden of curing interference to WCS licensees for a period oftime, after which it shifted back to MDS and ITFS licensces..In addition, and this XM conveniently forgets, the Commission obligated WCS licensees to provide advance notice of the location and technical parameters of WCS transmitters in perpetuity. See 47 CER. § 27.58(e). Thus, the regulatory scheme contemplates that, even after February 20, 2002, MDS and ITFS licensees will have 30 days advance notice before new WCS transmitters become operational or before existing transmitters begin operating at higher power, and thus will have an opportunity to prevent brute force interference before it occurs. Finally, XM for the first time asks the Commission to impose conditions on any obligations it may have to disclosure information to the MDS/ITES community."® To the extent that XM asks that it be required to make information available to MDS and ITFS licensees and not WCA, WCA has no objection — indeed, thatis exactly what WCA has proposed.." 1‘ See XM Opposin to Emergency Motion for Say, t 6 "* XM Oppositon to Ptiton for Reconsideraion, at 7:# !* se WCA Pettionfor Reconsideration, t 4 (°WCA has o choice bt o sek reconsidertion of the STA and the impostion of a specife condition mandating that XM provide technical information regardingits repeaters to

However, the other conditions requested. by XM are. unnecessary and. unduly burdensome. At the outset, it is worth noting that WCS licensees have been providing the location and technical parameters of their facilities to MDS and ITFS licensees for years without ever seeking any conditions of the sort that XM is now requesting. XM has provided no explanation, and none is apparent, why DARS licensees somehow require additional protections from the Commission — indeed, XM has failed to provide any argument whatsoever that would justify the Commission imposing different obligations Nonetheless, WCA would not object to the imposition of the obligation requested by XM that any MDS or ITES licensee receiving the information execute a reasonable non—disclosure letter (although WCA notes that the difficulties WCS licensees have encountered in negotiating non—disclosure letters does not bode well. However, WCA strongly objects to XM‘s call for MDS and ITFS licensces to provide detailed information to XM in order to receive information from XM. To the extent that XM wants information regarding MDS and ITFS transmit facilities, that information is in the public record (unlike WCS licensees, MDS and ITES licensees must apply for and receive Commission approval for all transmission facilitis) and can be readily accessed by XM through the Mass Media Bureau‘s Broadband Licensing System.. While XM wants "the exact number and location of legacy downconverters," XM has failed to present any explanation as to why it needs that information or how it would be utilized. WCS licensees have been operating for years without it, and there is no apparent reason for XM to have it (other than requesting MDS and ITFS licensces") WCA Comments,at 8 (Cary STA grant should be conditoned on requiring XM and Sitius to provide all neighboring MDS and ITFS lcensees 30 days advance rotice of the technicl parametrs ofall temestal repeaters (rojus those operating above 2000 watts EIRP)in the same fashion that WCS icensees ar obliated to giv advance notice prsuant t Section 27.58.")

£82 to burden the providers of licensed MDS and ITFS services who are going to be subject to interference from XM‘s operations pursuant to the STA) In short, XM‘s recent filings are devoid of any justification for refusing to provide MDS and ITES licensees with information regarding terrestral repeaters operating at or below 2 kw. XM is simply playing a delaying game with the MDS and ITFS community that the Commission should not tolerate..Indeed, the vigor with which XM is again fighting disclosure of benign information should be raising a large red flag at the Commission — just what is it that XM is attempting to hide? Respectfully submitted, WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, INC By Pau inderbrand Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP 2300 N Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037—1128 202.783.4141 October 15, 2001

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Anna Lee Silver, hereby certify that the foregoing Consolidated Opposition was served this 15th day of October 2001 unless otherwise noted by depositing a true copy with the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Lon C. Levin Bruce Jacobs Senior Vice President, Regulatory David . Konczal XM Radio, Inc. ShawPitman, LLP 1500 Eckington Place, NJE 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20002 Washington, DC 20037 and hand delivered to the following: Peter Teahula Brign Tramont Office of the Honorable Michael K. Powell Office of the Honorable Kathleen Q. Abemathy Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 8—B201 Room 8—A204 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Paul Margie Monica Desai Office of the Honorable Michael J. Copps Office ofthe Honorable. Kevin J. Martin Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW 445 12th Street, SW Room 8—A302 Room 8—A204 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 David Furth Julius Knapp Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW 445 12th Street, SW Room 3—C217 Room 7—B133 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Ron Netro Ronald Repasi Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW 445 12th Street, SW Room 3—C163 Room 6—A505 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Bruce Franca Donald Abelson Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW 445 12th Street, SW Room 7—C153 Room 6—C750 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554

Thomas Sugrue Keith Larsen Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW 445 12th Street, SW Room 3—C252 Room 2—C420 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Rosalee Chiara John O‘Connor Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW 445 12th Street, SW Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Room 6—AS21 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Roy Stewart Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Room 2—C337 Washington, DC 20554 aar Annia Lee Silver

avracamere DECLARATION 1, Lee Haglund, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that: . 1 am Director of Video Services for Sprint Corporation (‘Sprint") and am familiar with the multichannel video programzming services offered by Sprint‘s various subsidiaries over Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS®) and Instructional Television Fixed Service ("TFS") channels across the nation . 1 make this declaration in response to assertions by XM Radio, Inc. questioning whether any MDS or ITFS reception sites are utilizing block downconverters installed prior to August 20, 1998,. Although the exact number and location of such downconverters are not readily available, Sprint‘s affiliates are today utilizing block downconverters installed prior to August 20, 1998 to provide service. ce Haffond


Document Created: 2005-09-27 15:31:07
Document Modified: 2005-09-27 15:31:07
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC