Attachment app for review

app for review

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW submitted by AT&T Wireless Services

app for review

2001-10-17

This document pretains to SAT-STA-20010724-00064 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATSTA2001072400064_456809

RECEIVED Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS comssion OCT 1.7 2001 Washington, DC 20554 memonos comsse orme o ne uesnt ) Jn the Matter of ) ) Stwus SatEuume Rapio, Inc. ) File No. SAT—STA—20010724—00064 ) Request for Special Temporary Authority ) To Operate Terrestrial Repeaters in the ) Satelite Digital Audio Radio Service ) cmd APPLICATION FOR REVIEW, 5lo Pursuant to Section 1.115 ofthe Commission‘s rules, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. ("AWS®) respectfully requests that the Commission grant this application for review and reverse the decision of the International Bureau granting Sitius Satellte Radio, Inc. (‘Siris") Special Temporary Authority (°STA") to operate a nationwide terrestrial repeater network in the 2320—2332.5 MHz band." Sitius has not demonstrated the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to justify grant ofthe STA. As a threshold matter, Siius has made no showing ofneed because it does not plan to launch service in the foresecable future..In addition, Sirius has provided no information concemning the ow power repeaters that it admittedly intends to operate pursuant to the STA. Absent both demonstrated need and a complete disclosure by Sirius of the location and technical parameters of all epeaters to be operated pursuant to the STA, grant ofthe STA was in clear violation of the Commission‘s rules. Accordingly, the Bureau‘s order must be reversed and Sirius‘s request denied. ! Sire Satelite Radi,Inc, ApplcationforSpecalTemporary Authorit, Orderand duthoriation, ile No. SAT—STA—20011072¢—00054 (rel. Sept 17, 2001).

On July 24, 2001, Siriusfiled an STA request covering 151 high power repeaters to operate at powers up to 40 kW nationwide. Curiously, in a footnote, and without explanation, Sirius observed thatit "has not included this {location and operational) information for the low power repeaters (&e., EIRP of 2 kW or less) it seeks to operate pursuant to this STA."" In response o a Public Notice secking comment on the application,* AWS detailed a number of substantive and procedural defects in Siius‘s request and argued that those issues must be addressed prior to any grant of authority." Specifically, AWS argued (1) that Sirius‘ request was premature because it had announced that service would not begin prior fourth quarter 2001; (2) thatits application was facially defective because it did not include complete information on all ofthe transmitters it sought to operate pursuant to the STA; and (2) that a number of the high power repeaters disclosed in the application could be shown conclusively to interfere with AWS‘s current and near— term deployment ofis fixed wireless network." Section 25.120 of the Commission‘s rules govems the standards and requirements relevant to a grant ofan STA for satellite communications services. The rule plainly states that "[t}he request [for special temporary authority] must contain thefidl particulars ofthe proposed operation including all facts sufficient to justify the us Stelite Radio Requestfor Special Temporary Authoriy to Operate Diital Audio Radio Service Terestrl Repeaters July 24, 2001) * +Satelite Policy Branch Information Applications Accepted for Filing," Pubiic Noic, Report No. SAT— (0077 (re. July31, 2001). * XM Radio Ic.and Sizis Satlite RadioIn. Request for Special Temporary Authority, Conment of AT&T Wireess Services,Inc. File Nos.SAT—STA20010712—00063 and SAT—STA—20010724—00064 {August21, 2001) AWS cxrrenty perates afied wirelss network provcing liflin voiceand Intemet broodand services to residential customersover Wirless Communications Servie ("WCS") spectrum. The SDARS specttum is lcated in the mids ofthe WCS band and thercby poses substanil iskofblanketig inteence to the WCS icensees

temporary authority sought and the public interest therein."" Further, an applicant must demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" warranting such extraordinary relief. Despite these explicit requirements,the Bureau on delegated authority decided to read them out of the rule.. It did not even bother to address AWS‘s concem that grant ofan STA would be premature. As widely reported yesterday, Sirius anticipated launch ofservice has been delayed into 2002. It is difficult to see the need for extraordinary relief. Furthermore, at this point, no one except Sirius knows the locations ofhundreds — perhaps thousands — of transmitters that it intends to operate nationwide. Such a generous grant ofauthority —— one that is definitionally unlimited in scope — clearly exeeeds that contemplated by the Commission or authorized by the rule. The contradictions in the Bureau‘s order belieits analysis. The Bureau‘s entire discussion conceming whether it should actually require Sitius to disclose all of the repeaters for which it sought operational authority is as follows: "because the focus ofthe party‘s [sic] technical interference objections has been on repeaters operating above 2 KW EIRP and because the particulars of those repeaters have been disclosed, Section 25.120‘s requirement for specificity have been satified."? Odly, then, not even the Bureau knows what it has authorized.". Furthermore, because it looks like a blanket grant for all repeaters at or below 2 kW, it appears that Sitius can continue to construct more repeaters and bring them into operation anywhere in the country without receiving the prior consent of the Commission. 47 CFR. § 25 120(0)Comphasisadded. " Order and Authorizaton, n¥ * in meeting with 1B sAWS counsel confiemed that the Bureau does not intnd to askSirusto provide it ny infomation on it repesters operating at or below 2 kW.

The reference to the "parties‘ objections" as focused on high power repeaters, operating at levels up to 40 KW, is inspposite in this proceeding. As the Bureau recognized, the Commission is actively considering "complex issues" about SDARS repeaters‘interference to WCS operations in rulemaking docket No. 95—91. And it is rue that many ofthe WCSlicensees, including AWS, have indicated that authorization by ule ofrepeaters below 2 kW may be appropriate because 2kW is the standard power authorized in the band. However, no such rules have been adopted. Moreover, WCS Hicensees have never indicated that a 2kW environment would leave them free from interference from SDARS repeaters. Though the Bureau‘s analysis could be read to suggest the WCS licensees have "waived" any objection to repeaters operating at or below 2 kW, that is simply not the case. Nor, indeed,is it appropriate for the Bureau to make a ruling in this adjudicatory proceeding based on conjecture about what the Commission may decide in a pending rulemaking proceeding. Appropriately, the Bureau orderindicated that operations pursuant to the STA must be on a noninterference basis to all other Kicensed services. The orderindicates that "Sirius {must] immediately reduce the power level of or, ifnecessary, cease operation of any repeater that causes interference to a WCS, MDS or ITFSauthorized station."" Ironically, this requirement ieffective upon "receipt ofa written, descriptive notification from a WCS... lcensce identifring the specific source ofinterference.""" How a WCS Hicensee is to identify an interfering transmitter operating at 2 KW is not discussed. Perhaps recognizing this deficiency, the Bureau required Sirius to share information on all repeaters it intends to operate pursuant to the STA. However, it 1, Order and Authorization, ¥14 (emphasis added) 14

invited Sirius to impose a non—disclosure agreement on any recipient of the information. By taking this path, the Bureau has allowed Sitius to continue its consistent practice of withholding information that could be useful in resolving interference concerns. To date, despite a formal request made by AWS one month ago, no WCS licensee has received this information. Even disclosure through an NDA, however, does not resolve the legal deficiency in the Bureau‘s order. That order gives Sirius a blank check on terrestrial repeaters. The requirement that an applicant for extrordinary reliefdisclose the "full particulars" ofits request exists to protect operational liensees, such as AWS, from unauthorized and potentally dangerous interference. If Sirius wishes to make the showing necessary to receive confidential treatment of that information, let it do so. But the burden of doing so should be on the applicant prior toits receipt ofextraordinary relief— and not upon existing licensees who continue to be held in the dark long as Sitius continues to build its network. By issuing the STA in the absence ofidentification of all ofthe repeaters to be authorized, the Bureau acted in derogation ofthe Commission‘s rules.. For the reasons stated above, the Commission must grant this application for review and reverse the Bureau‘s grant ofthe STA. Respectfully submitted, AT&T Wircurss Services, Inc. By: William M. Wiltshire Karen L. Gulick Eamus, Wicrsime & Gramus uP 1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 202—730—1300 Douglas L Brandon AT&T Wirstess Services, Inc. 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 4* Floor Washington, DC 20036 2022039222 Dated: October 17, 2001


Document Created: 2005-09-27 15:44:19
Document Modified: 2005-09-27 15:44:19
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC