Attachment RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE TO REPLY COMMENTS submitted by Inmarsat Ventures Limited ("Inmarsat")

RESPONSE OF INMARSAT

2005-11-10

This document pretains to SES-AMD-20050922-01313 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESAMD2005092201313_465794

RECEIVED Before the 8 Federal Communications Commission mi~ i OV 1 7 2005 wushington, — DC 20554 FfiECENED Satelte Division InternationalBureau woy 1 0 2006 icateesconnisson In the Matter of ) *T Aimpntemin ) Stratos Communications, Inc. ) File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 Application for Title IIt Blanket License to ) File No. SES—AMD—20050022—01313 Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat ) 4B2 at 52.75°W ) ) Stratos Communications, Inc. ) File No. ITC—214—20050826—00351 Application for Section 214 Authorization to ) Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat ) 4B2 ar 52.75°W ) RESPONSE OF INMARSAT VENTURES LIMITED Diane J. Comeil John P. Janka Vice President, Government Affairs Jeffrey A. Marks Inmarsat, Inc. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1100 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1425 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Artington, VA 22209 Suite 1000 Telephone: (703) 647 4767 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 637—2200 Counselfor Inmarsat Ventures Limited November 10, 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS Inropucrion Axp Summary Thz Snzwros Arpuications Cax anp Soutp B Grantep Provetcy . HL ‘Thimk is No Basis to Livrr mie Srzcrzuon wiice Invarsard Seaves TiU.S IV. No Orier Issue Provipes a Reason to Wimimot.o Aumiority

RECEIVED Before the noy 1 0 2005 Federal Communications Commission o Washington, i DC 20554 retenconmuestonon catorsConnt In the Matter of ) ) Stratos Communications, Inc. ) File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 Application for Title IIt Blanket License to ) File No. SES—AMD—20050022—01313 Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat ) 4B2 ar 52.75°W ) ) Stratos Communications, Inc. ) File No. TC—214—2005082c—00351 Application for Section 214 Authorization to ) Operate Mobil Earth Terminals with Inmarsat ) 4B2 ar 52.75°W ) RESPONSE OF INMARSAT VENTURES LIMITED Inmarsat Ventures Limited ("Inmarsat") opposes the Petition to Hold in Abeyance or Grant with Conditions filed by Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV") in the above—captioned proceedings. L. Intropucrion Axb Summary Prompt Commission grant of authority to Stratos Communications, Inc. (*Stratos") in these proceedings will open the door to revolutionary changes in the MSS industry here in the United States. Through these applications,‘ Stratos proposes to offer broadband MSS to the United States atspeeds of almost half a megabit per second to satellite earth terminals that are one third the price, size and weight ofthose in use today with the Inmarsat system. Stratos will do so by providing Broadband Global Area Network ("BGAN®) service over the U.K.— Hicensed Inmarsat 4 L—Band satellte that was launched just two days ago, and that will be ready to provide commercial service early next year. Thus, prompt approval ofthese applications is _ Stratos Communications, Inc., File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 (Aug. 26, 2005) (‘Stratos Title III Application‘);Stratos Communications, Inc., Fle No. TTC—214—20050826—00351 (Aug. 26, 2005).

essential to allow Stratos and Inmarsatto bring these technological innovations to U.S. consumers, enhancing their options for communications services, and increasing competition. MSV currently provides MSS in the United States over two L—Band satellites, one Hicensed by the United States, and one licensed by Canada. Thus, MSV is Inmarsat‘s direct competitor. Significantly, MSV does not oppose the grant ofthese applications. Rather, MSV secks regulatory delay in the provision of Inmarsat services in the U.3. And MSV seeks to do so simply for ts own commercial advantage in intemational spectrum negotiations: MSV expressly asks that the Commission hold Stratos‘ applications in abeyance "until the conclusion of a coordination agreement that resultsin a more efficient assignment of L band spectrum" among the five existing L—Band operators, "including the assignment of contiguous and wider frequency blocks." As detailed below, MSV‘s requestis fundamentally inconsistent with how the Commission consistently has authorized L—Band service in the U.S. in the absence of an L—Band coordination agreement. Moreover, the Commission has recognized that it would be inconsistent with U.S. market access commitments in the WTO Agreement to withhold market access in order to improve MSV‘s leverage in international spectrum negotiations, as MSV requests here." The use of the L—Band by MSV, Inmarsat, and three other non—U.S.—satellite operators for MSS is govemed by the 1996 Mexico City Memorandum ofUnderstanding (the "Mexico City MeUorthe "MoU7"). The Mexico City MoU does not assign specific frequencies to any L—Band operator, nor does it gover the types of carriers that the operators may employ. * MSV Petition at 1 See SatCom Systems, Inc. etal, 14 FCC Red 20798, 20813 4 30 (1999) ("PMMarket Access Order") (declining to exact coordination concessions favorable to MSV as the price for U.S. market access, because doing so would violate U.S. WTO commitments).

Frequency assignments are made through successively negotiated coordination agreements, each with a one—year term. The last annual agreement, covering the twelve months ended December 1999, expired by its own terms and has not been extended or renewed." Thus, there is no coordination agreement in effect assigning specific L—Band frequencies to any operator, or governing any ofthe carriers(wideband or narrowband) that any operator uses in its current MSS operations, or that it may wish to use on itsfuture satellites. Any new coordination agreement would require the consent not only of Inmarsat and MSV, but also of the Russian, Mexican, and Canadian L—Band operators. Thus, the ability to successfilly negotiate a five—party L—Band coordination agreement is not a matter within any one party‘s control. Despite the efforts of Inmarsat and its regulator, Ofcom, to convene a meeting of all L—Band operators to facilitate the possible negotiation ofa new multi—lateral coordination agreement,no such meeting has been held since 1999. MSV has a long history ofopposing new competitive MSS offerings in the L— Band, cloaked under the guise of "intemational coordination" concems, and based on absence of an existing coordination agreement. Prior to 2000, MSV‘s predecessors, AMSC/Motient, had a regulatory monopoly in the U.S. land mobile market in the United States. MSV opposed the * Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, DA 05—1492, at 1| 34 (rel. May 23, 2005) ("MSV 101° Order"); Mobile Satellte Ventures Subsidiary LLC, DA 0—50, at § 23 (rel. Jan. 10, 2008) (°MSY 63.5° Order"); Kitcomm Satellite Communications Ltd., 19 FCC Red 6069, 4 9 (2004); AMSC Subsidiary Corp. v. FCC, 216 F.3d 1154, 1159—1160 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (AMSC v. FCC‘); MSV Petition at 4. 5 See TMI Market Access Order, 14 FCC Red at 20813 430 (*AMSC argues that ... we should preclude any other L—band system from serving the United States until AMSC has coordinated 20 megaherts of spectrum. ... Put another way, AMSC requests that we keep foreign carriers out ofthe U.S. market long enough for AMSC to use its monopoly power over U.S. customers to increase itstraffic so significantly thatit justiies ts increased spectrum assignment.").

entry by TML into the U.S. market.® Once TMI received market access, MSV partnered with TML, and thereby effectively restored MSV‘s longstanding monopoly in the U.S." MSV next opposed Inmarsat‘s entry into the U.. market, which the Commission approved." Each time, the Commission rejected MSV‘s request to forestall competition, and each time the Commission‘s policy regarding the absence of a coordination agreement was clear:"Without an agreement assigning each ofthe five systems to specific operating frequencies, all systems must operate on a non—interference basis consistent with the TTU Radio Regulations."" In fact,in the absence of a coordination agreement, he Commission has uniformly provided all operators (including MSV) the rightto operate in the entire range ofL— Bandfrequencies, on a non—interference basis. ‘The Commission did so for MSV‘s partner, MSV Canada (inits prior incarmation as TMI) in 1999,it did so for Inmarsat‘s distribution partners when they firs reeeived U.S. market access in 2001, and it did so twicefor MSV itselfjust this year." Thus, the Commission has not, as MSV requests here, constrained operators to the spectrum last coordinated for their use under an expired agreement. * See id. at 20807—20808, 20810 97 17, 24. * MSV‘s attempts to paint Inmarsat as a "monopolist" are particularly hollow in light the Commission‘s repeated rejection of those arguments and its express findings tothe contrary—that Inmarsat‘s privatization and entry into the U.. market have enhanced service options and competition in the U.S. See FCC Report to Congress as Required by the ORBIT Aet, FCC 04—132, at 13—14 (2004); see also Inmarsat Market Access Order, 16 FCC Red at 21697—21700 19 69—76; FCC Report to Congress as Required by the ORBIT Act, FCC 03— 131, at 16 (2003). * Comsat Corporation dla Comsat Mobile Communications, et al., 16 FCC Red 21661, 21695—21996 (2001) ("Inmarsat Market Access Order") (finding that grant ofmarket access for the Inmarsat system will promote competition in the U.S.). * TMI Market Access Order, 14 FCC Red at 208144 34. ‘* See id; Inmarsat Market Access Order , 16 FCC Red at 21698—21699 9 72, 21712 1115; MSV 63.5° Order at 23; MSY 101° Order at § 34.

The right of an L—Band operator to operate anywhere in the L—Band, in the absence of an L—Band coordination agreement, was at the heart of a recent appeal by MSV‘s predecessor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cireuit."" In 1999, MSV (then AMSC) disputed MSV Canada‘s (then TMTs) ability to serve the U.S.in certain L—Band frequencies, arguing that allowing MSV Canada to do so would impermissibly modify MSV‘s FCC license for those very same frequencies. Both the Commission‘" and the Court of Appeals®" examined MSV Canada‘s right to operate in the disputed portion ofthe L—Band, under TTU regulations, the MoU, and relevant FCC license provisions. They also considered whether,in the absence of a coordination agreement, MSV had a right to any segment ofthe L—Band that warranted precluding MSV Canada (TMI) from being allowed to use that very same spectrum. Both the Commission and the Court of Appeals determined that MSV had no right to keep others from using frequencies once coordinated for MSV‘s use under an expired coordination agreement. In fact, MSV‘s predecessor, AMSC, admitted in federal court that,in the absence ofa coordination agreement, another operator is ‘free to operate on anyfrequency [licensed to AMSC},including thefrequencies that previously had been coordinatedfor AMSC" under an expired coordination agreement." Thus, there is no question that the Commission can and should grant the Stratos applications to operate in the L—Band in the absence ofa coordination agreement. MSV‘s other " AMSCy. FCC, 216 R3d at 1154. "*— TMIMarket Access Order, 14 FCC Red at 20810—20814 § 25—34. * AMSCy. RCC, 216 R3d at 1159—1160. "* 14. at 1158—59 (emphasis supplied) (citing MZMarket Access Order, 14 FCC Red at 20826 16360

assertions about "replacement satellites,"station—keeping parameters, possible national security concems, and E911 are entirely baseless and dispensed with below. For these reasons, Inmarsat urges the Commission to grant the Stratos applications without delay and without any conditions, other than the requirement to operate on a non—interference basis in the absence of an international coordination agreement covering the L— Band operations ofthe Inmarsat 4 satellt. IL. Ti Smrazos Arruications Can anSoutp Be Granrep ProvierLy Inmarsat is replacing its Inmarsat 3 L—Band satellte at 54° W.L. with a new Inmarsat 4 spacecraft, Inmarsat 4F2, located at 52.75° W.L., and capable of providing MSS over the same L—Band frequency range as the existing Inmarsat3 satellte."" Specifically, Inmarsat 4F2‘s MSS service links will operate using 1525—1544/1545—1559 MHz and 1626.5— 1645.5/1646.5—1660.5 MHz, the same frequency range authorized for communications with the Inmarsat fect in the /nmarsat Market Access Order."® Moreover,the geographic coverage ofthe U.S. from 52.75° W.L is very similar to the coverage 1.25 degrees away at 54° W.L. In its petition, MSV baldly claims that the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite is "more likely to cause harmful interference"and that "{t}he technical issues presented by the proposed operation of Inmarsat 4 satellites can only be resoived through a prior/ frequency coordination among L— Band operators and their license administrations .. ..""" MSV is wrong. First,and foremost, Inmarsat can operate Inmarsat 4F2 in a manner that produces no greater potential for interference into MSV‘s 101° W.. satellite than Inmarsat 3. In fact, in "*.— Due to the highly—non—directional antennas used to provide MSS, Inmarsat 4F2‘s orbital location is the finctional equivalent of Inmarsat3‘s current location at 52.75° W.L. 1 Stratos TitleIII Application, Attachment 3, at 6; Zumarsat Market Aecess Order, 16 FCC Red at 216841 &n3. !*— MSV Petition at 8.

many ways, Inmarsat 4F2 is more "interference friendly" than the Inmarsat 3 satellitethat it will replace: (} its narrower spot beams with steeper antenna side lobes reduce interference to adjacent areas, and (i) its higher gain spot beams allow the use ofterminals that radiate less than one—tenth the power of existing Inmarsathigh speed data terminals. Second, the Commission has consistently found, as recently as a few months ago, that in the absence ofa coordination agreement,the satellite operators covered by the MoU, including MSV and Inmarsat, "have contined to coordinate their operations informally and have been operating interference—free.""" Citing the Commission‘s enforcement authority, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cireuit has previously noted, "without surprise," that MSV‘s predecessor (AMSC) did not elaim to have experienced any interference since the last coordination agreement expired..". And MSV presents not a shred of evidence here that this situation will not continue to be the case after Inmarsat 4 is launched. Third, this year,in two separate decisions, and despite the absence of a coordination agreement, the Commission granted MSV authority to launch and operate new L~ Band spacecraft with far different technical parameters than MSV‘s existing spacecraft, including wider—band carriers than those about which MSV expresses concem here. In both cases, MSV proposed carriersthat are up to 1000x wider than MSV‘s existing carriers, and up to twenty—five times wider than the Inmarsat 4 carriers at issue here. MSV also proposed to add an entirely new geographic region to its service area——South America. In fact, one new L—Band MSS spacecraft that the Commission authorized MSV to operate is both () approximately 40° * MSV 101° Order at 1 34; MSY 63.5° Order at 1 23. © AMSCv. FCC, 216 FAd at 1159—60 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 312).

closer to Inmarsat‘s L—Band satellteat 54° W.L. than MSV ever was before (in fact, only 9.5° away from Inmarsat)"" and (i) not even contemplated by the terms of the Mexico City MoU The Commission did not hold either of MSV‘s L—Band applications in abeyance despite () the fundamental changes in MSV‘s geographic coverage and technical architecture, (i1) the potential forincreased interference into Inmarsat, (ii) the absence of a coordination agreement covering these very different parameters, or (iv) the fact that the new MSV satellite at 63.5° W.L. is outside the ambit ofthe MoU and MSV has not even attempted to initiate coordination ofthat location with Inmarsat. Rather,the Commission simply imposed the same types ofconditions that it has imposed for years: the operation of MSV‘s satelltes must be conducted on a non—harmful interference basis until MSV completes a coordination agreement that governs those spacecrat."" IFMSV‘s evolution from 5 kHHz carriers to 5,000 kHz carriers (a 1,000; increase in bandwidth), its new coverage of South America, and its use of an entirely new orbital location almost 40 degrees away, did not warrant holding its applications in abeyance, pending MSV‘s entry into a new coordination agreement, neither does Inmarsat‘s evolution to 200 kHz carriers with the Inmarsat 4 satellite." In sum, the Commission‘s international and domestic legal obligations mandate that it grant this request for market access over the Inmarsat 4 satellite in a manner consistent ®* Thus,ifany issue even theoretically existed whether Inmarsat 4 fits with the scope ofthe MoU, the same issue would existwith respectto the new MSV spacecraft at 101° W.L. and 63.5° W.L. *‘ MSV 101° Order at § 34 ("We also remind MSV that until coordination is completed, ts operations will be on a non—harmfil interference basis to other lawully operating satellite or radio faciliies and will receive no protection from interference caused by those facilities."); MSV 63.5° Order at1 39 (‘in the absence of a coordination agreement, MSV‘s operation in the L—band will be on a non—harmful interference basis to other mobile—satellite service systems operating in the L—band."). "*. Stratos Title IHI Application, Attachment A, at 18.

with its treatment ofMSV and with existing U.S. precedent, and without regard for the absence of an L—Band coordination agreement. IH. Tiert is No Basis to Lmirr rue Specrum on witch Inmarsar 4 Serves tue U.. Recognizing that the Commission cannot treat Stratos‘ application for Inmarsat 4 differently than it treated MSV‘s applications for new L—Band satellites, MSV has a fall—back request: that the Commission exclude from its grant of authority certain frequencies with respect to which MSV claims certain rights under the Mexico City MoU, MSV grossly mischaracterizes the MoU. However, the Commission need not (and should not) address in this proceeding issues that currently are under dispute in intemational coordination negotiations. Fortunately,the Commission can (and should) grant the Stratos applications based on longstanding Commission precedent. In fact,in the absence of a coordination agreement, the Commission has uniformly provided all operators (including MSV) the right to operate in the entire range ofL—Bandfrequencies on a non—interference basis. ‘The Commission did so for MSV‘s partner, MSV Canada (in its priorincamation as TMI) in 1999, it did so for Inmarsat‘s distribution partners when they first received U.S. market access in 2001, and it did so twice for MSV itselfjust this year." °: Thus, the Commission has not,as MSV requests here, constrained operators to the spectrum last coordinated for their use under an expired agreement. The Commission has allowed all operators,including MSV, to operate in the entire range ofL—Bandfrequencies, in the absence of a coordination agreement, because no L~ Band operator has the exclusive, permanentright to any particular frequeney."" Because no * See TMIMarket Access Order, 14 FCC Red at 20814 4 34, 20826 9# 63—64; Inmarsat Market Access Order, 16 ECC Red at 21698—21699 4 72, 21712 4 115; MSY 63.5° Order, DA 0—50, at 1 23; MSY 101° Order, DA 05—1492, at1 34. * See Flexibilityfor Delivery ofCommunications by MSS Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L— Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, ECC 05—30 at n.91 (rel. Feb. 23, 2005) ("In the L—Band, all

operator "owns"any L—Band frequency, and because there is no operating agreement in effect assigning any specific frequency to any operator,(i) no operator today has any spectrum assignment that it can "loan" to another; consequently, (i) no operator has any spectrum loan thatit can "recall.""" More fundamentally, the law is clear that when no coordination agreement is in effect, as here, any operatoris free to use any L—Band frequencies on a non—interference basis, including thosepreviously coordinatedfor another operator under an expired coordination agreement. Thus, it simply does not matter whether MSV claims that certain parts of tL—Band spectrum were "owned"or "loaned."at one time. The right of an L—Band operator to operate anywhere in the L—Band, in the absence of an L—Band coordination agreement, was at the heart of a recent appeal of a Commission decision to the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit. In 1999, MSV (then AMSC) disputed MSV Canada‘s (then TMI‘s)ability t serve the U.S. in certain L—Band licenses have equal rights toall channels in the band."); TMF Market Aecess Order, 14 ECC Red at 20803 4 8 ("The 1996 operator—to—aperator agreement provided each system with an amount of spectrum based upon ts current and projected near—term traffic requirements. Thus unlike most interational coordination agreements that create permanent assignments of specific spectrum, here the operators‘ assignments could change from year to year."); Inmarsat Market Access Order, 16 ECC Red at 21670 4 6 (the MoU creates a "unique framework to facilitate annual spectrum assigament agreements among the operators."). * Inmarsat does not agree with MSV‘s recitation of the history of spectrum assignments under the MoU, its characterization ofthe terms and conditions under which various operators used or use portions ofthe L—Band, ts assertions whether a specific portion ofthe L—Band was ever "loaned," or its assertions about global beams oritsassertions about which Inmarsat satelltes are covered by the MoU, Nor has Inmarsat "acknowledged itsrefusal to retur the loaned spectrum" as MSV wrongly claims. Jt. atn.8.; of Inmarsat ple, Prospectus, June 17, 2005 at 45 (available athttps/about.inmarsat.com/investor._relationsdefault.aspx) (‘MSV and MSV Canada have challenged our rightto use particular frequency ranges .. .claiming they are entitled tothose spectrum segments. We have refected those claims."). MSV‘s claims in that regard are legal "red herrings" because the Commission has consistently granted applications, such as this one, subject to the outcome of intemational coordination negotiations over such issues. See cases cited, supra, notes 9 & 10. 10

frequencies, arguing that allowing MSV Canade to do so would impermissibly modify MSV‘s FCC license for those very same frequencies. Both the Commission*" and the Court of Appeals®" examined MSV Canada‘s right to operate in the disputed portion ofthe L—Band, under ITU regulations, the MoU, and relevant FCC license provisions. They also considered whether, in the absence of a coordination agreement, MSV had a right to any segment ofthe L—Band that warranted precluding MSV Canada (TM) from being allowed to use that very same spectrum. Both the Commission and the Court of Appeals determined that MSV had no right to keep others from using frequencies once coordinated for MSV‘s use under an expired coordination agreement. Specifically, the Court found that the condition in MSV Canada‘s license that Himited its operations to frequencies coordinated for its satellite®" is "comes imto play, however, only when there is a coordination agreement in effect."" In contrast, and as MSV‘s predecessor, AMSC, admitted in federal court,in the absence of a coordination agreement, another operator is ‘free to operate on anyfrequency [licensed to AMSCJ,including thefrequencies that previously had been coordinatedfor AMSC" under an expired coordination agreement.® The * TMI Market Access Order, 14 FCC Red 20798. 7 AMBSCyv. RCC, 216 F3d at 1159—1160. * TMI Market Access Order, 14 ECC Red at 208264 64 ("TMI Communications and Company, L.P. 18 AUTHORIZED to operate up to 100,000 mobile earth terminals through the Canadion licensed MSAT—1 space station in the portions ofthe 1545—1558.5 and 1646.5— 1660 MHz band coordinated for the TMsatellite network in the most recent annual L—band operator—to—aperator coordination agreement, to the extent indicated herein, in accordance with the technical specifications set forth in is application and its Radio Station Authorization, and consistent with the Commission‘s rules."). * AMSC v. RCC, 216 F.3d at 1158—59 (emphasis supplied) (citing TMFMarket Access Order, 14 FCC Red at 20826 9 63—64). s 14. In this instance, MSV Canada‘s authorization provided: "In the absence of a continuing annual L—band operator—to—operator eoordination agreement, TMI‘s operation in the 1545— 1558.5 and 1546.5—1660 MHz bands will be on a non—interference basis until a future 1

Commission acknowledged this is the case, arguing that it did not increase the likelihood of interference because ofthe continuing requirement that operations be on a non—interfering basis."! In sum, in the absence of an L—Band coordination agreement,the Commission has uniformly provided operators the express rightto operate in the entie range ofZ—Band frequencies, subjectto a non—interference condition: "without an agreement assigning cach of the five systems to specific operating frequencies, all systems must operate on a non—interference basis consistent with the ITU Radio Regulations.""" No further condition is warranted or appropriate here. Finally, the Mexico City MoU provides clear measures to resolve disputes among operators—a specified multlateral dispute resolution process. Consistent with the obligations on the United States under that MoU, any unresolved disputes between the operators should be resolved through that multilateral process,in a manner that involves all ofthe Administrations, not just the United States. operator—to—aperator agreement is concluded." TMZ Marker Access Order, 14 FCC Red at 20826 1 64. Inmarsat‘s U.S. distributors have a virtuallyidentical provision in their authorizations to provide service over the current Inmarsat flet. See Inmarsat Market Access Order, 16 FCC Red at 21712—21713 4115 (‘TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the applications listed in Appendix C to operate mobile earth terminals to provide domestic and intemational Mobile Satellte Service via the privatized Inmarsat system ARE GRANTED subject to te following conditions: . . . c. Operations shall be limited to the portions ofthe 1525—1559 and 1626.5—1660.5 MHz band coordinated for the Inmarsatsatellte system in the most recent annual L—Band operator—to—operator agreement; d.In the absence ofa continuing annual L~ band operator—to—operator coordination agreement, operations ofMETs in the 1525—1559 and 1626.5—1660.5 MHz bands will be on a non—interference basis until a fature operator—to— operator agreement is concluded."). Thus, there is no basis to modify the existing authorizations of Inmarsat‘s distributors, as MSV suggests. MSV Petiion at 10, n.16. * AMSCv. RCC 216 F3d at 1158—59. * TMIMarket Access Order, 14 FCC Red at 208149 34. 12

IV. No Orier Issue Provioes a Reason to Wrrunoto Autnority MSV raises four additional issues that warrant a brief response, none of which warrants withholding grant of Stratos‘ applications. First, MSV claims that there is a question whether Inmarsat 4 qualifies as a "replacement satellite" under the Commission‘s rules. As an inital matter, the rule to which MSV cites—specifying when a bond must be posted®"———is wholly inapposite. Inmarsat 4 was launched on November 8, 2005, and no bond is due after launch. Inmarsat 4F2‘s orbital location is the functional equivalent ofthe current location of the Inmarsat 3 satellite 1.25° away, and no other operator could use at any nearby orbital location the same L—Band frequencies that Inmarsat will continue to employ to serve the U.S."" Moreover, the Commission has a longstanding policy of allowing replacement satellites to cover additional areas beyond that of the spacecraftthey replace."" Second, MSV‘s arguments regarding Inmarsat‘s station—keeping tolerance are baseless. MSV acknowledges that "the Commission rule requiring FSS satellite to operate with ® a7 CRR. §25.165. **. See, eg, MSY 63.5° Order at 1 8 ("geographic separation is not sufficient to limit co— frequency interference between multiple NGSO—like systems serving [North and South Ameriea]. The Commission ... will not consider applications for new systems where the new system‘s operations would cause interference to licensed systems."). * Amendment of the Commission‘s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, 18 FCC Red 10760, 108579 258 (2003). Indeed, MSV‘s substantial geographic coverage expansion to reach an entirely new hemisphere did not prevent the Commission from decming MSV‘s next—generation satellite at 101° W.L. a "replacement," see MSV 701° Order at 14, or from considering MSV‘s application for 63.5° W.L. outside a processing round, MSY63.5° Order aty 8. Stratos‘ application provides that "Inmarsat will retire Inmarsat 3 from service ar 54° .L. shortly after bringing Inmarsat 4F2 into commercial service.". Stratos Title HlI Application, Attachment A, at 2. Stratos did not, nor could it,indicate what Inmarsat would do with the Inmarsat3 spacecraft after Inmarsat 4F2 is launched. Nor is the question of Inmarsat‘s fleet management relevant here. 13

+0,05° East—Weststtion keeping does not apply to MSS satellites," such as Inmarsat 4F2. Indeed, the Commission explicily declined to apply this station keeping requirement to MSS satellites."* Yet MSV tries totie this proceeding to an unrelated problem———an issue that arose elsewhere because MSV asked for a waiver of a rule that did not exist."" As Stratos described in its application,"" Inmarsat has coordinated the operation of Inmarsat 4F2 with adjacent operators and ensured that the station—keeping boxes do not overlap.. Any reasons that might have justified imposing a £0.05° East—West station keeping requirement on MSV at the congested 101° W.L. location‘" do not existin the case of Inmarsat 4F2. Therefore, there is no legitimate basis to tie the grant of Stzatos‘ application to the resolution of an issue raised by MSV in is petition for reconsideration of a decision involving an entirely separate application. Third, there is no reason for the Commission even to entertain MSV‘s request that Stratos file with the Commission Stratos‘ network security arrangements with the United States * Mitigation ofOrbital Debris, 19 FCC Red 11567, 11586 4 44 (2004) ("We conclude that the record in this proceeding is not sufficiently developed at thi time to adopta change in our ules [to apply the station—keeping requirement] to non—FSS space stations.") * In its pending Petition for Reconsideration of that authorization for a new satellite at 101° W.L., MSV also admits that "there is no rule requiring MSS satellites to operate with a £0.05° East—West station keeping box."" Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary, LLC, Petition for Clarification or Partial Reconsideration, fled in File No. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066 er al, at 3 (Tun. 22, 2005). **: Stratos Title IHI Application, Attachment A, at 47—48 * While there is o station—keeping tolerance requirement of general application to MSS satelltes, the Commission reserved discretion to impose a condition on station—keeping tolerance on a case—by—case basis (eg., where there are multiple spacecraft leading to concerns related to orbital colliions). Afiigation ofOrbital Debris, 19 FCC Red at 11587 447 ("We retain discretion in any specific case, based upon any concems arising in the Hicensing process,to include any needed conditions conceming the tolerance within which an NGSO spacceraft maintains itsorbit."). 14

Government. Stzatos‘ arrangements with the Executive Branch are not a matter for public comment by competitive MSS providers Fourth, MSV‘s speculation about the possible future application ofE911 to MSS" provides no basis to withhold action on this application. Inmarsat and its distribution partners will make appropriate provision for E91 1 service to covered terminals, in accordance with such requirements as may be adopted in the future. «+ > For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should deny MSV‘s petition and grant the Stratos applications without further delay. Respectfully submitted, Diane J. Comell TohrP. Janka ~ Viee President, Govemment Affairs Lelfrey A. Maiks Inmarsat, Ic. LATHAM & WATEINS LLP 1100 Wilson Blyd, Suite 1425 555 Eleventh Street, NW. Arlington, VA 22209 Suite 1000 Telephone: (703) 647 4767 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 637—2200 Counselfor Inmarsat Ventures Limited November 10, 2005 ® Inmarsat is confident that Stratos will address any national security concems of the U.S. government prior to grant, but notes that national security and business confidentiality are among the legitimate reasons that resolution ofnational security issues may not be appropriate for disclosure on the public record, as MSV requests. "‘ MSV Petition at 13. is

CERTIFICAT P PERSON RESPONSIBLE PREPARING ENGINEERING INFORMATION hereby certify thatI am the technically qualified person responsible for preparation ofthe engineering information contained in the foregoing Response of Inmarsat Ventures Limited, that am familiar with Part 25 of the Commission‘s rules, that 1 have either prepared or reviewed the enginecring information contained therein, and thatit is complete and accurate to the best ofmy knowledge and belief. ist Tonas Encberg Manager, Spectrum Regulatory Affairs Inmarsat Global Limited November 10, 200

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Jeffrey A. Marks, hereby certify that on this 10th day of November, 2005, caused to be served a true copy ofthe foregoing "Response of Inmarsat Ventures Limited," by firsclass mail, postage pre—paid (or as otherise indicated) upon the following: James Ball Andrea Kelly International Bureau Interational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, SW. 445 12"Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20584 By Hand By Hand Cassandra Thomas Scott Kotler Interational Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Streat,SW. 445 12"Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 By Hand By Hand Howard Gribof® Karl Kensinger International Bureau Intemational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Streat,SW. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20584 Washington, DC 20554 By Hand By Hand Roderick Porter Gardner Foster International Bureau Interational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street,SW. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 By Hand By Hand Fem Jarmuinck Jennifer A. Manner Interational Bureau Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Federal Communications Commission Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC 445 12" Street, SW. 1002 Park Ridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20554 Reston, Virginia 20191 By Hand By Hand

Robert Nelson Alfred M. Mamlet International Bureau Philip Malet Federal Communications Commission Mare A. Paul 445 12" Street, S.W. Steptoe & Johnson LLP Washington, DC 20554 1330 Connectiout Avenue, NW By Hand Washington DC 20036 JoAnn Ekblad Bruce D. Jacobs International Bureau David S. Konczal Federal Communications Commission Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 445 12" Street, SW. 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20037—1128


Document Created: 2005-11-22 14:06:03
Document Modified: 2005-11-22 14:06:03
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC