Attachment reply to opp

reply to opp

REPLY TO OPPOSITION submitted by AT&T Wireless

reply to opp

2001-11-13

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

IBFS_SATSTA2001071200063_456914

RECEIVED Before the rEpERAL communications commssion NOV 13 2001 Washington, DC 20554 rem, enmaovers cnmmwnts ‘eneemsnen ) In the Matter of ) ) XM Ranio, Inc. }) rile Nof§Wmemnezooromiz:o0063]iny 3 Request for Special Temporary Authority ) To Operate Terrestrial Repeaters in the ) Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service ) Repcy to Orrostrion to ArpLication ror Review AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. ("AWS®), pursuant to Section 1.115(d) of the Commission‘s rules,‘ hereby responds to the Opposition ofXM Radio, Inc. (°XM®) to AWS® Application for Review of the International Bureau‘s grant of special temporary authority ("STA") to XM.* In its Application, AWS alleges that grant ofthe STA was in clear violation of Section 25.120 of the Commission‘s rules because XM had not disclosed the location and technical parameters of all repeaters to be operated pursuant to the STA. Specifically, the XM‘s Request expressly stated that it did not include any information on the low power repeaters t sought to operate pursuant to the STA. XM argues that the Bureau‘s decision was correct because of a position taken by certain wireless communications services ("WCS") licensees in the course of a separate rulemaking proceeding concerning blanketing interference to WCS receivers caused by stellite Digital Audio Radio Service ("‘SDARS®) terrestral repeaters. Specifically, XM acrrg insd M Radio Ic. Requestfor SpecialTemporary Authoritto Operate Stelite Digial Audio Radio Service Terrestial Repeates, Fil No. SAT—STA—20010724—00063, DA O1—2172 (Sope. 17, 2001}STA Orten

alleges that "AWS and other WCS licensees have conceded the operation ofrepeaters at up to 2 KW EIRP and have stated that the [sic] such repeaters do not present an interference concem."" AWS would dispute the accuracy of this statement, but that is beside the point. Technical and policy analysis offered in a rulemaking proceeding is simply inapposite to the grant ofthe STA. And it would be a novel expansion ofthe Commission‘s STA precedent if bureaus were free to grant STAs on the basis oftheir own view ofthe likelihood ofa particular outcome in an ongoing rulemaking proceeding ——especially an outcome that has nothing to do with the ability to operate on a non— interference basis as required under the STA. Section 25.120 ofthe Commission‘s rules, governing the grant of special temporary authority, requires that any request contain the "full particulars ofthe proposed. operations."* Disclosure is not optional. The Bureau, in granting the STA, did not have authority to waive the disclosure of information concerning untold numbers of low power repeaters operating pursuant to a blanket authorization. * Opposion of XM, ard. * arcrm g2s.120

XM‘s Opposition can repair none of the Bureau‘s errors. The Commission must grant the application for review and reverse the Bureau‘s grant ofthe STA. Respectfully submitted, AT&T Wireurss Services, Inc. Brm William M. Wiltshire Karen L. Gulick Hagus, Wirtsniee & Gramus Lue 1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202—730—1300 Douglas L Brandon AT&T Wiretess Services, Inc. 1150 Connectiout Avenue, N.W. 4" Floor Washington, DC 20036 202.223—9022 Dated: November 13, 2001

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE hereby certify that on this 13° day of November, 2001, a copy of the foregoing Reply to Opposition to Application for Review was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Bruce D. Jacobs Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Lon C. Levin Senior Vice President, Regulatory XM Radio Inc. 1500 Eckinston Place, NE. Washington, DC 20002


Document Created: 2005-09-27 17:10:21
Document Modified: 2005-09-27 17:10:21
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC