Attachment Opposition

Opposition

OPPOSITION submitted by FTMSC US, LLC

Opposition to Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC's

2005-12-08

This document pretains to SES-AMD-20051118-01602 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESAMD2005111801602_599454

DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-2412 T 202.861.3900 F 202.223.2085 W www.dtapiper.com VIA HAND DELIVERY December 8,2005 WILLIAM K. COULTER william.coulter@dlapiper.com T (202)861-3943 F (202)689-8460 Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20054 Re: FTMSC US, LLC; Application for Title I11 Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75 degrees W and Application for Section 2 14 Authorization to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75 degrees W; File Nos. SES-LFS-20051011-01396; SES-AMD-2005 1 118-0 1602; and ITC-2 14-2005 10 12-00406 Dear Ms. Dortch: By its undersigned counsel, enclosed for filing please find FTMSC US, LLC's ("FTMSC's") Opposition to Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC's ("MSV's") Petition to I Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions in the above captioned applications. Kindly direct any questions regarding this filing to the undersigned. Sincere regards, William K. Coulter Counsel for FTMSC US, LLC WKC:clz Enclosure I In order to consolidate this Opposition to MSV's Petition regardin both the Title I1 and Title 111 % applications, this Opposition IS being filed today, December 8, 20 5 . To the extent that a motion to acce t late filed pleading is required as pertaining to the Section 214 Application, such a motion is E here y made.

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the matter of FTMSC US, LLC ) Application for Title 111 Blanket License ) File No. SES-LFS-20051011-01396 to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with ) File No. SES-AMD-20051118-01602 Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75”W 1 FTMSC US, LLC ) File No. ITC-2 14-2005 1012-00406 Application for Section 2 14 Authorization ) to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75OW OPPOSITION Pursuant to Sections 25.154(c) and 63.20(d) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. $3 25.154(c) and 63.20(d), FTMSC US, LLC (“FTMSC”), by its undersigned counsel, hereby opposes Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC’s (“MSV’s”) Petition to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions (“MSV Petition”) the above-captioned applications of FTMSC (collectively “FTMSC BGAN Applications”). ’ Because the MSV Petition does not demonstrate that grant of the above-referenced applications is prima facie inconsistent with the public interest as required by the Commission’s Rules,* the Bureau must dismiss or deny the MSV Petition and promptly grant the FTMSC BGAN Applications. I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY FTMSC is seeking Commission authority to provide new Broadband Global Area Network (“BGAN”) services in the United States. At least two other carriers, including Stratos Communications, Inc. (“Stratos”) and Telenor Satellite, Inc. (“Telenor”), have also filed ’ In Re MSV Petition to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions (Nov. 23, 2005). ‘ 47 C.F.R. $$ 25.154 and 63.20.

applications to provide BGAN services in the United Statesa3MSV, a competing mobile satellite service provider in the United States, has sought to delay the grant of all pending BGAN applications with almost identical pleading^.^ The MSV pleadings are clearly designed to delay as much a possible the entry of new competitive services into the mobile satellite services ("MSS") market, as well as to pressure Inmarsat to settle an unrelated dispute between itself and MSV related to the international coordination of Lband frequencies. Because the MSV Petition does not demonstrate that grant of the above-referenced applications is prima facie inconsistent with the public interest and does not oppose it on this basis, the Bureau must dismiss or deny the MSV Petition. 11. GRANT OF THE FTMSC APPLICATIONS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST The FTMSC BGAN Applications satisfy the Commission's rules and grant of such applications is in the public interest. As explained below, the MSV Petition does not 5 demonstrate otherwise. 3 See Stratos Communications, Inc. Application for Title 111 Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75'W.L.; File Nos. SES-LFS-20050826- 00 1 175 and SES-AMD-20050922-013 13, and Application for Section 214 Authorization to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75' W.L., File No. ITC-2 14-20050826- 00351; and Telenor Application for Title I11 Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75"W.L., File Nos. SES-LFS-20050930-01352, SES-AMD-20051111- 01564, and Application for Section 214 Authorization to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75' W.L., File No. ITC-214-2005 1005-00395. See Petition of Mobile Satellites Ventures Subsidiary LLC to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions Application of Stratos Communications, Inc., dated Oct. 28, 2005; and Petition of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions Application of Telenor, dated Nov. 23, 2005. 5 Because the MSV Petition is practically identical to the MSV Petition to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions in the Stratos proceeding, in order to avoid duplicative arguments before the Commission, FTMSC is incorporating by reference arguments contained in the responses filed by Inmarsat and Stratos to the MSV pleading in that case. The Response of uootnote continued to next page) 2

First, MSV argues that grant of the FTMSC BGAN Applications should be delayed pending the conclusion of an international coordination agreement in the Lband.6 However, the absence of an Lband coordination agreement does not justify postponement of a grant of the 7 FTMSC BGAN Applications. In fact, the FCC has recently granted two MSV applications to operate in the Lband despite the fact that no Lband coordination agreement exists.’ Further, it appears that MSV’s predecessor is the entity responsible for the expiration of the last Lband coordination agreement in 1999. Next, MSV argues that the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite will result in increased risk of harmful interference to other L-band operator^.^ This allegation is both unfounded and technically incorrect. The Inmarsat 4F2 satellite does not use wide band carriers as alleged by MSV, and the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite will in fact not increase interference when compared to the Inmarsat 3 satellite (by using narrower spot beams with steeper antenna side Cfootnote continued from previous page) Inmarsat Ventures Limited (“Inmarsat”) to the MSV Petition (“Inmarsat Response”), as well as the Stratos Opposition to the MSV Petition to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions (“Stratos Opposition”) in File Nos. SES-LFS-20050826-001175, SES-AMD-20050922-013 13, and ITC-214-20050922-013 13, filed on Nov. 10, 2005. FTMSC also hereby incorporates by reference the arguments contained in the Opposition of Inmarsat Ventures Limited in this case, File Nos.SES-LFS-20051011-01396, SES-AMD-20051118-01602 and ITC-214-20051012- 00406, dated Dec. 7, 2005 (“Inmarsat Opposition”). 6 MSV Petition at 7 . 7 FTMSC hereby incorporates by reference the arguments raised by the Inmarsat Response, Inmarsat Opposition and Stratos Opposition on this issue. Inmarsat Response at 6 9 , Inmarsat Opposition at 5- 1 1 and Stratos Opposition at 5-7. ’ In Re Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Order and Authorization, DA 05-1492, (rel. May 23, 2005); In Re Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary, Order and Authorization, 20 FCC Rcd. 479 (2005). 9 MSV Petition at 10. 3

lobes).” Further, interference should not be an issue because FTMSC is requesting that the Commission grant the FTMSC BGAN Applications on a nom harmful interference basis. Second, MSV argues that FTMSC should not be allowed to use certain frequencies which were “loaned” by MSV to Inmarsat.” FTMSC opposes this condition” MSV has no legal right to keep FTMSC from using frequencies that at one time were coordinated for MSV’s use under an expired coordination agreement. Further, in the absence of a coordination agreement, all operators have the express right to operate in the entire range of the Lband frequencies, subject 13 to a norrharmful interference condition. Third, MSV argues that the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite is not a “replacement satellite” under 14 15 the Commission’s Rules. FTMSC disagrees with this contention. Inmarsat 4F2’s orbital location is the functional equivalent of the orbital location of Inmarsat 3, and FTMSC will use the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite to provide service only in U S . regions currently served by the IO FTMSC hereby incorporates by reference the arguments raised by the Inmarsat Response, Inmarsat Opposition and Stratos Opposition on this issue. Inmarsat Response at 6-7, Inmarsat Opposition at 19-25 and Stratos Opposition at 6-7. II MSV Petition at 14- 17. 12 FTMSC hereby incorporates by reference the arguments raised by the Inmarsat Response, Inmarsat Opposition and Stratos Opposition on this issue. Inmarsat Response at 9-12, Inmarsat Opposition at 11-19, and Stratos Opposition at 7-8. 13 In Re SatCom Systems, Inc., Order and Authorization, FCC 99-344, 14 FCC Rcd. at 20814 (rel. Nov. 30, 1999). 14 MSV Petition at 8. IS FTMSC hereby incorporates by reference the arguments contained in the Inmarsat Response and Stratos Opposition on this issue. Inmarsat Response at 13 and Stratos Opposition at 8-9. 4

Inmarsat 3 satellite. Further, the Commission has allowed a replacement satellite to cover additional areas beyond those of the spacecraft being replaced. l 6 Fourth, MSV argues that the Commission’s rule requiring FSS satellites to operate with 17 *0.05” East-West station should be applied to Inmarsat MSS satellites. FTMSC again disagrees with this statement.18 In 2004, the Commission specifically rejected a proposal to 19 modify Section 25.210Q) of its Rules, 47 C.F.R. !j 25.210Q), to such MSS space stations. Fifth, MSV argues that there is a public safety issue raised by FTMSC’s Application related to E91 1.” Currently, the Commission’s E91 1 regulations do not apply to MSS.” If and when MSS is subject to E91 1 requirements, FTMSC will make the necessary modifications to its network to ensure compliance with the Commission’s regulations at that time. Lastly, MSV argues that FTMSC has not satisfied national security and law enforcement 22 concerns raised by operation of the proposed BGAN services. Once again, MSV is incorrect. FTMSC has a current agreement in place with the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau 16 See Stratos Opposition at 9, n.20. 17 MSV Petition at 18. 18 FTMSC incorporates by reference the arguments contained in the Inmarsat Response and Stratos Opposition on this issue. Inmarsat Response at 13- 14 and Stratos Opposition at 9- 10. 19 In Re Mitigation of Orbital Debris, 19 FCC Rcd. 11567 (2004). 20 MSV Petition at 20. 21 FTMSC hereby incorporates by reference the arguments contained in the Inmarsat Response and Stratos Opposition on this issue. Inmarsat Response at 15 and Stratos Opposition at 11-12. 22 MSV Petition at 19. 5

~ ~ requested by US.law enforcement, FTMSC submitted for review by the of I n ~ e s t i g a t i o n As Executive Branch a confidential Implementation Plan to specifically address the proposed BGAN services. This plan is not being filed with the Commission at the request of law enforcement agencies for security reasons. If legitimate security concerns exist, then it is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to raise this issue with the Commissioq and not MSV. III. PORTIONS OF THE MSV PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED For the reasons set forth in the Stratos Motion to Strike Portions of the MSV Petition in that proceeding, incorporated herein by reference, FTMSC also specifically moves that the Commission dismiss those portions of the MSV Petition which are redacted and have not been 24 provided to FTMSC for review. Because FTMSC has not been provided with a full and fair opportunity to defend its applications, the Bureau must not base any decision in this case on any information which has been withheld from FTMSC. To the extent that MSV is willing to provide the redacted information with FTMSC at some point in the future, FTMSC hereby reserves its right to amend this Opposition in order to respond to such information. 23 Agreement of France Telecom S.A., Atlas Telecommunications S.A., Equant N.V. and Equant U.S., Inc., the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dated June 11,2001. 24 Stratos Communications, Inc., Motion to Strike Portions of the MSV Petition, File Nos. SES-LFS-20050826-001175, SES-AMD-20050922-01313, and ITC-214-20050922-013 13, filed Nov. 10,2005. 6

IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, FTMSC respectfully requests that the Bureau dismiss or deny the MSV Petition and promptly grant the FTMSC BGAN Applications as set forth therein. Respectfully submitted, FTMSC US, LLC William K. Coulter DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP 1200 19th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 861-3943 Fax: (202) 689-8460 william.coulter@dlapiper.com Counsel to FTMSC US, LLC December 7,2005 7

I, Danielle Aguto, am ilrl authorized repmsentathe of FRdSC US,L E . 1 have read the foregoing Oppoeition of FI'MSC US, LLC to Mobile Satellite V e n m s Subsidimy U C ' s Petition to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions ("Opposition")). 1 have personal howlcdge of the facts stated in the Opposition. The facts set forth in the Opposition, other than those of which official notice may be taken, arc truc and c o m t to the best of my knowledge, infonation, and belief. I declare under penalty of p c j q that the forgoing is true and correct. T&/&JsJ -c elte Aguto, Authori Dated: Dec. 7,2005

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christine L. Zepka, hereby certify that on this 7th day of December, 2005, I caused to be served a true copy of the foregoing "Opposition of FTMSC US, LLC" by first class mail, postage pre-paid (or as otherwise indicated) upon the following: James Ball Andrea Kelly International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 By Hand By Hand Cassandra Thomas Scott Kotler International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 By Hand By Hand Howard Griboff Karl Kensinger International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 By Hand By Hand Roderick Porter Gardner Foster International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 By Hand By Hand Fern Jarmulnek Jennifer A. Manner International Bureau Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Federal Communications Commission Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. 1002 Park Ridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20554 Reston, Virginia 20 191 By Hand By Hand

Robert Nelson Bruce D. Jacobs International Bureau David S. Konczal Federal Communications Commission Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 445 lzthStreet, S.W. 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20037- 1128 By Hand Counsel for: Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC JoAnn Ekblad John P. Janka International Bureau Jeffrey A. Marks Federal Communications Commission Latham & Watkins LLP 445 1 2 ' ~Street, S.W. 555 1lthStreet, N.w., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20004 By Hand Counsel for: Inmarsat Ventures Limited Christine L. Z e p M 2


Document Created: 2007-10-19 10:40:00
Document Modified: 2007-10-19 10:40:00
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC