Attachment comments

comments

COMMENT submitted by Wireless Communications Association International Inc.

comments

2001-08-21

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

IBFS_SATSTA2001071200063_456880

CC m /A mM Before the RECEIVED FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 6 Washington, DC 20554 aus 2 1 2001 commee Inthevittie:of ) hnievemenet XM RADIO, INC. ) File No. SAT—STA—20010712—00063 ) * 50. Request for Special Temporary Authority ) 5 to Operate Terrestrial Repeaters ) a ) & ) SIRIUS SATELLITE RADIO, NC. ) File No. SAT—STA—20010724—0006¢ ) Request for Special Temporary Authority ) to Operate Terrestrial Repeaters ) comMENTs in orrosITION To GRANT oF STA REQUESTS The Wireless Communications Association Intemational, Inc. ("WCA®), by its attomeys and in response to the Commission‘s July 31, 2001 Public Notice soliciting public comment, hereby opposes grant of the above—captioned requests by XM Radio, Inc. (‘XM®) and Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. (‘Sirius") for special temporary authorization ("STA") to commercially operate networks of terrestrial Digital Audio Radio Service (°DARS®) feelliies. For the reasons set forth below, WCA submits that neither XM nor Sirius have made the public interest showings necessary under Section 25.120 ofthe Commission‘s rules tojustify an STA. As WCA explained in its February 22, 2000 Comments in IB Docket No. 95—91 (in which the Commission is considering the adoption of permanent rules to govern terrestrial DARS repeaters), WCA is the trade association of the fixed wireless broadband industry.. Its ! *Satlfte Policy Branch Information Applications Accepted for Filing," Pubiic Norice, Report No. SAT—00077 (rel Jty 31,2001). * Leter from Lon C. Levin, XM Radio, Ic. to Magalie Roman Salas, SAT—STA—20010724—00063, at 2 (fled July 12, 2001)frereinafer cited as "XM STA Request‘} Robert D. Brskman, Srlus Satelite Radio, nc. to Mazalie Roman Sali, SAT—STA—20010724—00064,at3 (Rled Jaly 24, 2001)[herciate ctedas"Sits STA Request.

13. members include; among others, a wide variety of Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS"), Instructional Television Fixed Service (‘ITFS") and Wireless Communications Service ("WCS") licensees, wireless cable system operators who utlize MDS and ITFS spectrum to provide video services to subscribing members of the public, and manufacturers of MDS, ITFS and WCS transmission and reception equipment. Several WCA members that hold WCS authorizations (specifically, BellSouth Wireless Cable,Inc., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Metricom, Inc. and WorldCom, Inc.) are fling separately to address the procedural defects in the STA requests and the substantial harm that grant of the XM and Sirius STA requests will impose on the WCS community. In the interest of brevity, WCA will refruin from reiterating the arguments of its WCS—licensee—members, and incorporates their views by reference. However, WCA is filing this separate pleading to reaffitm its long—standing position that terrestrial DARS repeaters must operate subject to the same terms and conditions that were imposed on WCS operations in order to protect MDS and ITFS systems. Before tuning to the MDS/TFS—related issues, WCA must note that the instant STA requests cannot be squared with the clear and unambiguous terms of Section 25.120(b) of the Commission‘s Rules. That section provides that the Commission may grant an STA only upon a finding that there are "extraordinary circumstances"requiring temporary operations in the public interest, but specifically provides that "marketing considerations of meeting scheduled customer in—service dates, will not be deemed sufficient for this purpose."" The only public interest justification that either XM or Sirius has advanced for their STAs is, at bottom, that they want to ‘ See47 CBR $ 25.1200)

13. commence commersial services to subscribers" Similarly, Section 25.120 requires the disclosure of the "full particulars" ofthe proposed operations. Yet, although both XM and Sitius apparently seck authority to operate numerous repeaters at power levels not exceeding 2,000 watts EIRP, they have failed to provide any specifies regarding where those repeaters will be, the powers at which they will operate, or the antenna systems they will use.. Thus, on their faces neither STA request meets the fundamental requirements that extraordinary circumstances be demonstrated and full particulars disclosed. These particulars must be provided before the Commission can even consider a grant of the instant STA requests. The DARS terrestrial repeaters contemplated by Sirius and XM will operate in the 2320— 2345 MHz band, directly between the 2305—2320 MHz and 2345—2360 MHz bands allocated to the WCS. When it adopted the Part 27 rules that govern WCS, the Commission recognized that terrestrial WCS operations in the 2305—2320 MHz and 2345—2360 MHz bands could pose a substantial threat of interference to MDSATFS operations, and imposed a series of power limits, notice requirements,and equipment replacement rulesto minimize thatrisk of interference." The WCS power limitation was a direct result of evidence WCA presented to the Commission that, absent a limit on WCS EIRP, brute force overload interference would be caused to the subscriber equipment that had been widely deployed for use in MDS/ITFS systems.°. The Commission agreed with WCA, holding that: " See XM STA Requestat2; Siius STA Request, at 2. * See Anendment ofthe Commision‘s Ruls to Establsh Part 27, he Wirless Communications Service (*WCS") 12 FCC Red 3977 (1977)[herenater citedas WCS Reconsideraion Order"} * See Pettion for Expodited Reconsidertion of the Wizeless Cable Association Itermtional, Ic, GN Docket 96— 228 (Rled Mar. 10,1997)

o4. After careful consideration of this issue, we find that the public interest will be best served by setting limits on WCS operating power. We will therefore restrict WCS fixed, land and radiolocation land stations to 2,000 watts peak EIRP and WCS mobile and radiolocation stations to 20 watts EIRP. Setting maximum power levels: on WCS. operations will provide. MDS/TFS equipment manufacturers and service providers with the necessary certainty regarding the potential WCS environment to enable them to design and purchase more robust receiving installatipns, including better designed downconverters." The Commission also recognized that limiting WCS operations to a maximum of 2,000 watts peak EIRP did not provide complete interference protection to existing MDS and ITFS installations. To the contrary, the Commission agreefd with WCA that MDSATES equipment that was designed to operate in a pre—WCS environment should be afforded some degree of protection from interference.. The introduction of possibly a large number of transmitters in WCS spectrum will increase the potential for interference to existing MDS/ITFS receivers that were designed with different expectations about the extent and nature of use of nearby bands." As a result,the Commission found that "itis appropriate and equitable to shift to WCS licensees some ofthe cost and responsibility for remedying interference to MDS/ITES operations."" Specifically, the Commission required that each WCS licensee would be required to provide neighboring MDS/TES licensees advance notice before commencing operations, and required each WCS Hicensee to bear the full cost of replacing an MDS/TES downconverter when: (1) the interference complaintis received by the WCS licensee prior to February 20, 2002; (2)the MDS/TRS downconverter was installed prior to August 20, 1998; (3) the WCS operation transmits at 50 or more watts EIRP; (4) the MDS/ITES downconverter is located within a WCS " HCS Reconsideration Order,12 PCC Red at3983.—84. * 1ar3084. W

<%% transmitter‘s —34—dBW/m" power flux density contour; and (5) the MDS/ITES customer or licensee has informed the WCS licensee of the interference within one year from the initil operation of the WCS transmiter or within one year from any subsequent power increase.!" There is no doubt that high—power terrestrial DARS operations pose the same threat to MDSATES as WCS di Indeed, the record in IB Docket No. 95—91 is devoid of any meaningful distinction between the brute foree overload interference threat posed by WCS and that posed by terrestrial DARS repeaters."" To the contrary, even Siius has conceded in a January 2000 filing in IB Docket No. 95—91 that terrestrial DARS operations *would be likely to cause overload of the MDS downconverters® at receive locations within 2048 meters of a terrestrial repeater."" And even XM has conceded that the 2,000 watt EIRP limitation designed to avoid interference is "completely standard" in the band.® Because terrestrial DARS repeaters in the 2320—2345 MHz band pose essentially the same risk of interference as did WCS terrestrial operations in the 2305—2360 MHz band, WCA‘s consistent position in TB Docket No. 95—91 has been that similar rules (albeit adjusted to reflect that terrestrial DARS operates on narrower bandwidths than WCS) must be applied to terrestrial ®arcr®. 52758 0. " tromiall, Sirsatempted ast yearto convineethe Commisson that WCS and terestral DARS difered because *satelite DARS terestial epeaters have a more limited coverage than WCS or MDS systems . .. Sinus Supplemental Comments, IB Docket No. 9591, at12 (Rled Jan. 13, 2000)._Now that the XM and Sirue STA requests provide the Commisson with ts isalimpse of thesealeand scope oftrestial DARS deployment it an be seen with erystaline claity that the trestial DARS networks hardly have tlimited coverage promised by i. To the contrary, emesral DARS has evoived from small "gapfilers" to high power sutions designed to blanket matkets with a broadeastlike signal. As uch, it s impossbletofind any meaningfil ditinction between the propensiy oferestal DARS and WCS to cause brte foree overload iterference to MDSMTES receives. ©See Sitis Reply Comments,Exhibit2,at 9—10. ® Lete fom Beuce D. Jacobs to Magale Roman Salis, IB Docket No.95—91, t2 (Rled Apri25, 2001)

a6s DARS repeater aperations in the 2320—2345 MHz band."" Specifically, WCA has urged the Commission (1) to protect MDS/ITES reception by limiting terrestrial DARS repeaters to 400 watts/MHz (the same 2,000 watts EIRP limit as is applied to fixed WCS operations, but adjusted to reflect bandwidth differences);(2) to require notice to nearby MDS and ITRS licensees before a terrestrial DARS repeater commences transmissions; and (3) to impose on terrestrial DARS licensees the same obligation to replace MDSZTES downconverters as has been imposed on WCS licensees."" Despitethe fact that WCA‘s proposals have been a matter ofrecord in IB Docket No. 95— 91 since before XM and Sitius secured the authorizations for "experimental"stations they now seek to operate commercially,‘° neither XM nor Sirius have made any attempt to tailor their STA requests to address WCA‘s concemns. To the contrary, without any discussion whatsoever of the brute foree overload issue, Sitius and XM would have the Commission ignore the power limits imposed on WCS stations (as well as the similar power limits on MDS and ITRS stations) by !* See WCA Commentsat2.6. ° See id 56 % "* wCA is woubled that XM and Sirus both have utlized experimental authorizations to constrect and test nationwide networks of emestal ficiltis that are itended for commersil operations. While WCA recopnizes that there may have been some use of some of these ficlties that fell wihin the scope of experimental use permited under Section 5.3 of the Commission‘s rles, ts inconceivable thatall ofthese fciites were necessary for XM and Siius to perform the type o esting Part 5 experimental authorizations are intended to promote. While the Commission has gone to great lengths in the pas to assure that the experimental cense process is not abused, the fic that XM and Sirus were able to secure experimentalauthoriztions permiting nationide deployment of terestialnetworks suggesta seriousfaw in the Commisson‘s processes Moreaver,as the Commisson consides the STA requests, it must not forpet that experimental authorization are granted with the express undersianding that the authoriztion confers no right to continuing opertion and no asswrance that commercial use willbe authorized. See 47 CFIR. $ 583. Thus, XM and Sirus cannot be heard to claim tha hey have some sortofprotected expectition thatheir experimentafciltes willbeauthorized to perate on a commercial basis. They knowingly took th risk of consticting highpower repeter fciites despite the secord opposion to such faciites, and cannotcomplain if the FCC refies to permit the commercial operaton of such experimenial fiilies

authorizing the commercial operation of almost 900 repeaters operating at power levels in excess of 2,000 watts EIRP (778 high—power repeaters proposed by XM and 104 high—power repeaters proposed by Sirius)."" Moreover, Sitius and XM would have the Commission authorize operations of those faciliies, as well as an indeterminate number of repeaters operating at 2,000 watts EIRP or less, without imposing the same notice or equipment replacement conditions WCS Hicensees have readily accepted to protect the MDS and ITRS community. Admittedly, each of the STA requests includes boilerplate language to the effect that the applicant will cease operations of any repeater upon receipt of notice of interference."". Quite frankly, WCA fears that such relief will proveelusive. WCA is concemed that in cases where a terrestrial DARS repeater operated under an STA is suspected of causing brute foree overload, XM and Sirius will not cease operations upon receipt of a complaint, but instead will fore MDS and ITFS licensees to seek a costly, time—consuming Commission decision ordering cessation (all while interference to the MDS/ITES station is occurring).. This concem is rooted in the efforts by XM and Sirius in 1B Docket No. 95—91 to avoid meaningful liability to the MDS and ITFS community for interference caused by terrestrial repeaters,"" as well as thei more recent "‘ See XM STA Request atExhbit A;Sis STA Request at 1 3M STA Request, at 2; Sirius STA Requestat3. " tnital, both XM and Sitls fought th impositon of any sbily to MDS and TTFS stations for curing brite foree overload intrfeence,_ See Reply Comments of Siris, TB Docket No. 9531, at10 (Rled March 8,2000); Reply Comments of XM, 1B Docket No. 95.91, at 14 (Rled March 8, 2000), More ecently, the thtoric from the DARS camp has cooled somewhat, as Sirusand XM have proposed to be govemed by wateed.down versions of Section 27.58. See Leter from Carl R.Frank, Counselto Sirus, o Magalic Roman Salas, TB Docket No 98—91, at Exhibit1 (iled April 23, 2001); Leter from Brice D. Tcobs, Counse to XM, to Magali Roman Saas,IB Docket No, 95.91,at Extbit 1 (Rled April23,2001). However, the proposalsthey have advanced are far from adequate, as they provide MDS and ITFS operations fr less proection than afforded against WCS. To oijusa ow of the flavs i te ules proposed by XM and Sieius + While Section 2758 mandates tat the WCS Hicence cure any brite foree interfrence at the WCS Hicemsee‘s full cos, XM and Sitiis would merely require the inerfrence—causing DARS Hicensee to

os— laims that once they commence operations at high power levels, they cannot decrease power to avoid interference."" Thus, at a bare minimum, the Commission must make clear to XM and Sirius that if an MDS or ITFS licensee notifies them of suspected interference due to brute force overload caused by a terrestrial DARS repeater, the offending repeater must cease operating until it is agreed by the affected parties either that the terrestrial DARS repeater is not the cause of the interference or that the terrestrial DARS licensee has taken appropriate steps to cure the interference.. In addition, any STA grant should be conditioned on requiring XM and Sitius to provide all neighboring MDS and TTFS Hicensees 30 days advance notice of the technical parameters of all terrestrial repeaters (not just those operating above 2,000 watts EIRP) in the same fashion that WCS licensees are obligated to give advance notice pursuant to Section 27.58. Such a condition is necessary to assure that MDS and ITFS licensees will be aware in advance of the increased potentialfor brute force overload interference and will be able to trace any new or reimburse the MDS/TTES Hicensee for the cost oa bandpass or bandstop fiter. Nelter provides for reimbursement of the cort ofinstalling that fiter, or forfurther remedial effos f such a fteris ineffecive in curing t interferenc. * The DARSproposed rules would exemptterstral DARS Hicensees from curing brute foree inerfrence eaused by repeaters operating atbetween 50 and 2000 wats EIRP, depit the fct that WCS Ncensees are requied by Section 27.58 of the Commission‘s miles to cure brite foree overioad interference at such power evels. + While Section 27.58() providesforWCS lcenseesto sharethe costof curing brateforce overload at MDS and TFS receive sites, XM and Sitiushave drfied ther proposed rules in such a way that they are not required to make any financial contibation even in cases where they are partally responsible for the interference. * XM and Sitius would limittheircumilative lability o $500,000 each, a number thatthey have apparently palled from thin air and tht has no relaton to the coss that could be incurred by the MDS and MTES communies due to DARS—caused brit foree overload inrference. These loophleridden proposals make clear that, unlike WCS Hicensees, XM and Sirus are not serious about assumingtheir fairshare ofthe costof curing brut free overload iterference. * See Leter rom Jennifer D. Hindi, Counsel t Sirins, to Magalie Roman Salas, 1B Docket No. 95—91 (filed July 31, 2001); Leterfrom Lon C. Levin, XM,to Donald Abelson and Thomas Sugrie,IB Docket No. 95—91, at 7 (Rled Aug.7,2000)

v8> increased interference to the appropriate terrestrial repeater. Absent these two conditions, the Commission will be putting in jeopardy existing, licensed service to MDSZTES subscribers for the benefit of those who have chosen to construct terrestril repeater facilities at their own risk prior to the adoption of final rules and licensing. To summarize, neither XM nor Sirius has met the requirements of Section 25.120 that there be extraordinary circumstances unrelated to consumer demand for a service in order to justify an STA, and that the full particulars of the proposed operations must be disclosed. Thus, on their faces the STArequests are defective and should be denied. Should, however, XM and Sirius cure these fundamental flaws, any grant must be conditioned as proposed above to assure that MDS and ITES licensees reeeive no less protection from terrestrial DARS than they do from wes. Respectfully submited, WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, INC. By: Paul J. Sinderbrand Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP 2300 N Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037—1128 2027834141 August 21, 2001

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Anna Lee Silver, hereby certify that the foregoing Comments in Opposition to STA Requests was served this 21st day of August 2001 by depositing a true copy thereof with the United States Postal Service,frst—class postage prepaid, addressed to the parties isted below: Lon C. Levin Senior Vice President XM Radio, Inc. 1500 Eckington Place, NE Washington, DC 20002 Bruce Jacobs ShawPittman, LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Robert Briskman 3 Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. 1221 Avenue of the Americas, 36th floor New York, NY10020 Carl Frank Wiley, Rein & Fielding 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Anna Lee Silver


Document Created: 2005-09-28 15:17:25
Document Modified: 2005-09-28 15:17:25
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC