Attachment Reply

Reply

REPLY submitted by WCS Coalition

Reply

2006-10-16

This document pretains to SAT-STA-20060623-00067 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATSTA2006062300067_532307

RECEIVED — FCC Before the oct 1 6 2006 (COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 Feden Conmneate Connisson Bm /Ofice In the matter of Sirius Satellite Radio Inc File No. SAT—8TA—20060623—00067 ; Request for Modification of Bpe Temporary Authority to Operate Repeaters | To: Acting Chief, Internatiopal REPLY The WCS Coaliio its attomeys and pursuant to Section 25.154(d) of the Commission‘s Rules, hereby t Hies to the Opposition filed by Sirius Satellte Radio Inc. (‘Sitius") with respect to pouiti submitted by the WCS Coaltion and two of its members urging the Commission to (en Sirius‘ request for a modification to the special temporary authority (°STA") that periits irius to operate terrestrial repeaters in conjurction with its sutellie Digital Audio Radia S ice (‘SDARS®) system.. For all of the misplaced rhetoric of Sirius® response, t shas bri isfied the requirements for an STA set forth in Section 25.120 for an STA A. Sitius Defies Cref In Suggesting That WCS Is A Secondary Service Relative To SbARS. Sirius‘ Opposition il s that Sirius can not only cite to a work of fiction,‘ it also can create one. In a thinly—veiled ort to imply that licensees in the 2.3 GHz band Wireless Communications Service ("WCS lack interests to be protected in this matter, Sirius goes to recount the history of WCS and ARS. However, the story it portrays bears litle relationship ‘ See Opposition of Sirins Satelite do Inc.to Petitions to Deny, File No. SAT—STA—20060623—00067 at 6124 (filed Oct 2, 2006) [*Siriug osiion‘}.

+# to the facts" Most strikingl in Sirius claims that "WCS [is] secondary to satellte DARS® and that there is a "primacy elite DARS over WCS,"" it distorts the Commission‘s actions over the past decade with res o these two services beyond any recognition Admittedly, when t ission established rules to govern WCS, it adopted strict limits on WCS out—of—band ons ("OOBE") into the adjacent SDARS allocation." But that hardly makes WCSa secondé vice relative to SDARS. To the contrary, in the very decision cited by Sirius for the propoji that WCSis secondary, the Commission made very clear that "our intention in determining ofband emission limits for WCS into the spectrum used by DARS has been to limit thel tial for interference to a reasonable level — not to provide a pure interference—free enviro "* Although protection from WCS to SDARS is not germane to whether the Commissiont Id permit Sitius to deploy even more high—power terrestral ° Not surprisingly, Sirius cho gloss over the fact that terestral DARS repeaters were initally envisioned by the Commission —power "wap—filers"that would be deployed in "urban caryons and other areas where it may be di receive DARS siznalstrinsmited by satelite." See Asrablishnnent of Rules and Policies for the Audio Radio Satellte Service in the 23102360 MHz Frequency Band, Report and Order, Memdran im Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Red 5754, 5810 (199 s we now know, however, the SDARS licensees would prefer to deploy much high—power devi t are located to blanket large geographic areas with their signals, ather than target the urban and other discrete locations where satelite signal reception is problematic. * See Sirius Opposition at 2. 3 n * See Amendment of the Commi Rulesto Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service, 12 RCC Red 3077 (1997)IPC: nsideration Order®\ ° See WCS Reconsideration On 2 FCC Red at 3991 Indeed, the Commission made clear that the OOBE restrictions were likely restrictive than necessary because the fexibilty afforded WCS Hicensees made it dificult to a in the nature of WCS service offerings at the time.. See id. The Commission recognized that "[ ifi systemconiuration may have certain attrbutes that were not taken into account when develo i general emission limits but which reduce ts potentil t interfere with DARS." See .. Thus, it ded that t is possible o provide a reasonable level ofprotecton to DARS by taking into account fie WCS system, although it may exceed the out—ofband emission limits adopted in the Report a ir." .. Indeed. Sirius has recently conceded that under certain circumstances, "the limit on band interference can be revisited and potentilly. relaxed." "Interference to the SDARS S WCS Transmittrs," White Paper prepared by Siius Satelite Radio Engineering er al, at 1 h 28, 2006) filed as an arachment to Leter from Carl R. Frank, Counsel to Sirus Satelite Radio c, to Mariene H. Dortch, Secretary, Rederal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 0 2s (filed March 29, 2006)

1$. repeaters that threaten futured (Wil ‘AX and other deployments in the WCS band, the Commission should promptly disabuse S in of any notion that SDARS is entitld to absolute protection against interference from We Sirius® contention thit W S is secondary to SDARS (and thus the Commission need not worry about the impact of $D RS terrestrial repeaters on WCS) is further belied by the Commission decisions grant rius ts first STA.. When the Commission initially authorized to operate its repeater netw k, i. expressly stated that "[oJperation of all SDARS repeaters authorized pursuant to this TA on a non—interference basis"" and Sirius must *immediately reduce the power level or,i neck sary, cease operation of any repeater that causes interference to a WCS"station." The Co ion explained that is intention was "to prevent interference to WCS" — something that wor d dly be a concem were WCS secondary to SDARS as Sirius contends." Moreover, Siriusass Erti that the Commission views WCS as a secondary stepchild to SDARS is impossible to 5q hre ith the Commission‘s own internally—zenerated proposals for les resolving the long—standing over the rules that will ultimately govern SDARS terrestrial repeater operations." Suffi e it io say that the Commission‘s proposals did not reflect any primacy of SDARS terrestria rep ers. The Commission‘s proposals would have imposed strict limits on OOBE from terrest al ARS repeaters into the WCS band,!" required advance notice ° See Sinus Sarellie Radio Inc. or and Authorization, 16 FCC Red 16773, 16779 (2001)(@Sirius STA4 Order") " See idat 16778. ‘ See Sirius Sarelite Radio Inc, . 16 FCC Red rs4e1, tssz (2001) * See "Request For Further C& t On Selected Issues Regarding The Authorization Of Satelite #5 Digitl Audio Radio Service Ter I Repeater Networks," 16 FCC Red 19435 (2001) * See id.at3 (*Below 2320 MH sbove 2345 MHz,the power of any SDARS repeater emission stull beattennated belowthe peak eq is ntistropically radiated power (P.,) within the assigned frequency

24. by SDARS licensees to S Bperators prior to deployment of repeaters,". and mandated fnanciil compeneation fromf@Dl licensees to WCS licensees adversely impacted by certain terrestrial SDARS repeater tions."" While the Commission‘s proposal was criticized by both WCS and SDARS inte slind is not a fuitfil avenue to pursue," the important point is that none ofthese proposals oul have been developed by the Commission if it did not pereeive WCS licensees as entitled to tction from SDARS interference In short, the WCS Fo tion does not, as Sirius so snidely suggests, suffer ffom "*allocation amnesia‘ about e DARS spectrum primacy.""" To the contrary, Sirius appears to be suffering from delusio egulatory grandeur totally unsupported by any rational review of the record B. Sitius Has Vet +o tablish Entitlement To A Modification Of Its STA Under Section 25.12 OffThe Commission‘s Rules. In petitioning the Cof sion to deny Sirius® request for a modification of its existing STA to permit operation of iddifjonal repeaters levels in excess of 2,000 watts peak EIRP, the WCS Coaliion established t jat Sirius® request fails to satisy the requirements of Section 25.120 of the Commission‘s Rules must be met before any special temporary authority can be granted..In particular, the ICS Foalition noted that Sirius® filing was surprisingly short of any band(s) of operation between 320MH and 2345 MHz, measured in watts, by a factor not less than 75 + 10log (P.,,)dB, where P., asured in wants.") " See id.at4. !* See id.at6. " See Comments of the WCS laslifn, IB Docket No. 95—91 (filed Dec.14, 2001); Comments ofSirins Satelite Radio Inc.1B Docket io $5—91 (filed Dec. 14, 2001); Comments of XM Radio Inc. IB Docket No. 95.91 (filed Dec. 14, 2 1); [Pomments of the Wireless Communications Ass‘n Int, Inc., in Response to Public Notice, IB No.95.—91 (fied Dec.14, 2001). "* Sirius Opposition at 7.

<$1 technical evidence establishing need for the sixteen additional high—power repeaters it is requesting.® Sirius* Opposition dges thing to change that fact.. Sitius mischaracterizes the WCS Coalition‘s point, claiming i is ising an issue the Commission rejected in its 2001 decision granting Sitius‘ iniial STA dppli ation ‘* That is not true. There, the Commission determined, over objections from the We S ofmmunity, tat the "extraordinary circumstances" and "serious prejudice to the public interept" nchmarks of Section 25.120 were satisfied by Sirius‘ business desire to begin market its cof cial service, notwithstanding the specific provision of Section 25.120 that "convenience fo applicant, such as marketing considerations or. meeting scheduled customer in—servige will not be deemed sufficient.""" Here, however, the WCS Coalition has raised a very difffrent issue — whether the public interest will be served by allowing Sirius to constru itional repeaters operating above 2000 Watts peak EIRP, particularly given Sitius‘ undbasl d lobbying for the grandfathering of all of ts repeaters when final rules are adopted. " See Petiion ofthe WCS Conl io Deny, Fil No. SAT—8TA—20060623—00067, at 7—8 (Rled Sept. 18, 2005)*WCS Coaliion Pett The WCS Coaliion was not alone in its position. NextWave Broadband, Inc. (NextWave") BellSouth Mobile Dato, Inc and BellSouth Wireless Cable, Inc. (*BellSouth") similarly established t Sitius has fuiled to establish its entitlement to an STA under the requirements of Section 25. 12 Petition of NextWave Broadband Inc. to Deny, File No. SAT—STA— 20060623—00067 (filed Sept )(*NextWave Petition‘}; Pettion of BelSouth Mobile Data and BellSouth Wireless Cable to s or Deny, File No. SAT—STA—20060623—00067 (filed Sept. 18, 2006)"BellSouth Petiion") "* See Siris Oppositionat 5. " See Sirius STA Order, 16 BC at 16775—6. The Commission‘s rationale there was that it would be unfair t prejudice Siris "becalis c are no finalrepeater rules." 14. at 16775. It is telling that while Sirius has sought and enjoyed efit of regulatory relief owing to the delay in adopting permanent repeater rules, it has fought to t the WCS community from enjoying relief rom the substanial service deadlines they find profj fc because, in par,ofthe same delay in adopting permanent repeater rules. See Opposition of Sitius t Radio nc., WT Docket 06—102 (fled June 9, 2006).

As the WCS Coaltip iijted in its petition, Sitius concedes that "Lalll of the proposed sites are located within [MS where Sitius is already licensed to utilice complementary terrestrial repeaters to ovire the effects of satellte signal. blockage and. multipath interference.""". Thus, the WCSJCoalition petition (as well as that filed by NextWave) asked why, given that Sirius already idhauthorized to utlize repeaters in these markets, Siius cannot simply invoke its current aut bori to deploy additionalterestrial repeaters operating with a peak EIRP of 2,000 Watts or less tfi in those areas not covered by the existing repeater network."" Although Sirius conten that "[efach proposed transmitter was engineered at power levels no more than necessary tofplug perceived service availabilty shortfalls,"" that statement, unsupported by any declarati m an engineer, simply cannot be true. As WCS interests have pointed out throughout IB No. 95—91, SDARS licensees can fill in gaps in satelite coverage by using terrestrial ers limited to 2,000 watts peak EIRP.. While that may impose additional costs that the SDLR licensees would. prefer to avoid, the record is clear that such ower—powered. terestrial épealers threaten less interference to WCS. adjacent. channel operations 2‘ As such, Smus[m burden here ofestablishing why it cannot reasonably fill the gaps in its coverage area throf igh ployment of already—authorized terrestril repeaters operating at or below 2,000 watts peak BHSP. It has failed to carry that burden, and thus the Commission cannot find that ether "extradedi circumstances"justifying even more high—power repeaters "* WCS Coalition Petition at 7-%::‘ i Sitius Satelite Radio Inc., Application for Space Station Special Temporary Authority, File No. (TH§TA—20060623—00067, At. A. a1 (filed June 23, 2008). " See id.at ; NextWave Petitio at ® Sirus Opposition at 4. * See, eg., BellSouth Petition atlé4.

29. WHEREFORE, for lue woing reasons, the Commission should deny Sirius® request for modification of its STA to d authority to construct and operate additional high—power repeaters. Respectfully submitted, THE WCs COALTION Wiuanson Baricer Kxave®, LLP 2300 N Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037—1128 2027834141 Their Attomeys October 16, 2006

RTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Karla E. Huffstickler; eby certify that the foregoing Reply was served this 16° day of October, 2006 by deposi ing true copy thereof with the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid, addres ed the following Patrick L. Donnelly Carl Frank Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. Wiley Rein & Fielding, LLP 1221 Avente of the Americas 1776 K Street, NW 36th Floor Washington, DC 20006 New York, NY 10020 * Fred Campbell * Bruce Gottlib Federal Communications omthission Federal Communications Commission Office of Chairman Marti Office of Commissioner Copps 445 12" Street, SW, Roont 8—8po1 445 12th Street, SW, Room 8—B115 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 * Bary Ohlson * Asron Goldberger Federal Communications omihission Federal Communications Commission Office of Commissioner Aflels in Office of Commissioner Tate 445 12th Street, SW, Rooi sAsor 445 12th Street, SW, Room 8—A204 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 * Angela Giancarlo * Julius Knapp Federal Communications lomhission Federal Communications Commission Office of Commissioner MeD ell Office of Engineering and Technology 445 12th Street, SW, Root 8—Go2 445 12th Street, SW, Room 7—C250 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20584 * Bruno Pattan * Ron Chase Federal Communications lomihission Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Tectfpology Office of Engineering and Technology 445 12th Street, SW, Roont 7—Aico 445 12th Street, SW, Room A—A364 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 * Hung Le * Hany Wong Federal Communications lomijission Federal Communications Commission Office of Enginecring and Fecfpology Office of Engineering and Technology 445 12th Street, SW, Roont 7—Aico 445 12th Street, SW, Room 7—A345 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554

* Robert Nelson * Rockie Patterson Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission International Bureau International Bureau 445 12th Street, SW, Root 445 12th Street, SW, Room 6—B524 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 * Cassandra C. Thomas * Salomon Satche Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission International Bureau Office of Engineering and Technology 445 12th Street, SW, Rooi 445 12th Street, SW, Room 7—A124 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20584 * Ira Kelte * Richard Engelman Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and International Burcau 445 12th Street, SW, Rooi 445 12th Street, SW, Room 6—A668 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20584 * Rod Porter * Breck Blatock Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission Interational Bureau International Bureau 445 12th Street, SW, Roon 445 12th Street, SW, Room 6—C749 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 * Cathleen Massey * David Purth Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission Wireless Telecommunicat Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 445 12th Street, SW, Rooi 445 12th Street, SW, Room 3—C162 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 * Roger Noel * Tom Derenger Federal Communications o Federal Communications Commission Wireless Telecommunicat ns Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 445 12th Street, SW, Portal S 445 12th Strees, SW, Portals 1 — Rim. 6239 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 * Zenji Nakazawa * Guy Benson Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission Wireless Telecommunicati Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 445 12th Street, SW, Roont 445 12th Street, SW, Room 3—A334 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554

Bennett Ross Stephen Coran BellSouth D.C., Inc Rini Coran P.C. Legal Department 1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1325 1133 21" Street, NW, Suite $00 Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036 George Alex NextWave Broadband Inc. 75 Holly Hill Road, Suite 200 Greenwich, CT 06830 arla E. Huffstickler * Via Hand Delivery


Document Created: 2006-10-19 09:01:21
Document Modified: 2006-10-19 09:01:21
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC