Attachment Comments

Comments

COMMENT submitted by MSTV & NAB

Comments of the Association for MSTV, Inc. and NAB

2008-04-24

This document pretains to SES-AMD-20080219-00172 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESAMD2008021900172_637033

C O V I N G T O& N BURLING LLP 1201 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON WASHINGTON, D C 20004-2401 NEW YORK TEL 2 0 2 . 6 6 2 . 6 0 0 0 SAN FRANCISCO FAX 2 0 2 . 6 8 2 . 8 2 9 1 WWW.COV.COM LONDON BRUSSELS April 24,2008 BY HAND DELIVERY Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Attn: International Bureau, Satellite Division Comments of Maximum Service Television, Inc. In the Matter of Application of New I C 0 Satellite Services G.P. for Blanket Authority for Ancillary Terrestrial Component Base Stations and Mobile Terminals for 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service Dear Ms. Dortch: On behalf of Maximum Service Television, Inc., attached are comments for filing with the Satellite Division of the International Bureau. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned or my assistant, Sharon McDonald at 202-662-6494. Sincerely, / \ - &rn-&i/d/LI 1 Brandon D. Almond Counselfor the Association for Maximum Television, Ilnc. DC: 2811679-1

Before the Federal communications Commission FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION otflce of the Secretary Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of 1 1 Application of New I C 0 Satellite ) File Nos. SES-LIC-20071203-01646, Services G.P.for Blanket Authority for ) SES-AMD-20080118-00075, and Ancillary Terrestrial Component Base 1 SES-AMD-200802 19-00172 Stations and Mobile Terminals for ) 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service ) To: The Commission COMMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR MAXIMUM SERVICE TELEVISION, INC. AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS David L. Donovan Jonathan D. Blake Bruce Franca Brandon D. Almond* ASSOCIATION FOR MAXIMUM COVINGTON & BURLING LLP SERVICE TELEVISION, INC. 1201 Pennslyvania Avc. ,N.W. 4100 Wisconsin Ave., N. W. Washington, DC 20004-240 1 Washington, DC 2001 6 Marsha J. McBride Counsel for the Associationfor Lawrence A. Walke Maximum Service Television, Inc. NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONOF BROADCASTERS 1771 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 April 24, 2008 * Admitted to the Virginia Bar only. Work supervised by principals of the firm.

Before the FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of 1 ) Application of New I C 0 Satellite ) File Nos. SES-LIC-20071203-01646, Services G.P. for Blanket Authority for 1 SES-AMD-20080118-00075, and Ancillary Terrestrial Component Base 1 SES-AMD-200802 19-00172 Stations and Mobile Terminals for ) 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service ) To: The Commission MSTV and NAB COMMENTS The Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (“MSTV”)’ and the National Association of Broadcasters file these comments in response to Sprint Nextel Corporation’s April 4,2008 Petition to Deny I C 0 Satellite Services G.P.’s (“ICO”) Application for Blanket Authority for Ancillary Terrestrial Component Base Stations and Mobile Terminals for 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service, and KO’s April 17,2008 Consolidated Opposition and Re~ponse.~ I MSTV is a nonprofit trade association of local broadcast television stations committed to achieving and maintaining the highest technical quality for the local broadcast system. 2 NAB is a trade association that advocates on behalf of more than 8,300 free, local radio and television stations and also broadcast networks. 3 See Petition to Deny of Sprint Nextel Corporation, in the Matter of Application of New I C 0 Satellite Services G.P. for Blanket Authority for Ancillary Terrestrial Component Base Stations and Mobile Terminals for 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service, April 4,2008 (hereinafter “Sprint Nextel Petition”); Consolidated Opposition and Response of New IC0 Satellite Services G.P., in the Matter of Application of New IC0 Satellite Services G.P.for Blanket Authority for Ancillary Terrestrial Component Base Stations and Mobile Terminals for 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service, April 17,2008 (hereinafter “IC0 Opposition”). 2

KO’s request for Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) operations, if implemented prior to the complete conversion of the Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) band to digital, could cause significant interference to the services provided by BAS users for the benefit of the p ~ b l i c .Therefore, ~ the Commission should deny ICO’s request until the BAS conversion has been successfully completed. I C 0 seeks authority to begin “promptly” operating up to one million mobile earth terminals that will transmit in the 2000 to 2020 MHz band.’ These frequencies are currently being used for important services such as electronic news gathering and studio-to-transmitter links. To avoid causing interference with these valuable services,6 the Commission should deny ICO’s request to begin operating ATC base stations and mobile terminals at this time. As Sprint Nextel points out, IC0 has repeatedly ignored its duty to relocate incumbent BAS users before beginning operation in the 2 GHz banda7Despite diligent and expedient efforts to complete the conversion, many BAS incumbents remain on the spectrum, and I C 0 provides no indication either in its Application or in its Opposition of how it intends to avoid interference to incumbent BAS operations. In fact, ICO’s sole mention of BAS is limited See Sprint Nextel Petition at i, 6-9. 5 I C 0 Application for Earth Station Authorizations, File No. SES-LIC-INTR2007-02866, at 23 (filed Dec. 3,2007); IC0 Application, FCC Form 312, Response to Question 43, at 29 (filed Dec. 3,2007). 6 The Commission has recognized that the 2 GHz BAS is “a critical part of the broadcasting system by which information and entertainment is provided to the American public.” See Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd. 14969,1250 (2004). Broadcasters use the full seven 2 GHz BAS channels to cover live news reports and special event coverage. Any interference caused by KO’s ATC stations would cause these critical newsgathering operations - and the viewers who rely on them -to suffer. 7 See Sprint Nextel Petition at 3. 3

to a very brief discussion of out-of-band interference and appears to assume that all BAS operations will have been relocated and converted to the new BAS frequency plan.’ This will not be the case, however.’ MSTV, NAB and the broadcast community have worked assiduously and in good faith to allow MSS operators to test their satellite systems and begin initial operations in some BAS frequencies and under certain circumstances. In addition, MSTV and NAB have been updating the Commission on a regular basis, informing it of their plan to direct the 2 GHz conversion process as efficiently as possible. However, this plan for completing the BAS conversion extends well beyond when I C 0 has requested to begin ATC operations. l o Although the Commission is considering the possibility of authorizing IC0 to begin MSS operation as early as January 2009,” there is no indication that traditional MSS operations - let alone a million nationwide ATC mobile transmitters - can technically operate in markets that have not See, e.g., ICO Opposition at 4-5 (YCO expects to commence commercial satellite service as soon as January 2009, and this commercial service will be offered using a 2 GHz MSS [geostationary satellite orbit] system with nationwide coverage capability.”). See, e.g., Sprint Nextel BAS Target Relocation Plan, available at: http://www.2ghvelocation.com/plugidarticle/broadcast/ 1723/--- /Sprint%2ORelocation%20Schedu1e.pdf (showing that, even by January of 2009, several dozen markets will still not have been relocated). IC0 should be well aware that many BAS incumbents will still be occupying the 2 GHz band in January 2009, as I C 0 has participated in the Acceleration Summit with MSTV and NAB, and has been consistently apprised of the relocation progress. lo Although MSTV has initiated discussions with MSS providers on the protection of BAS operations from traditional MSS use, these discussions have not been concluded and it is still unclear how such traditional MSS operations will protect incumbent BAS users. See Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in the Matter of Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band . . ., at 7 49 (rel. March 5,2008) (hereinafter “Further Notice”). 4

been cleared.I2 Operation of such a large number of mobile terminals also would create an impossible enforcement situation should interference occur. Finally, the Commission has not proposed to eliminate the requirement that MSS relocate all fixed nationwide BAS operations before ICO’s operations can begin.I3 Clearly, such relocation is also required before ATC operations can be permitted. CONCLUSION ICO’s failure to discuss or demonstrate that ATC implementation could be undertaken at this time without causing interference to existing BAS operations makes its proposal fatally flawed. Accordingly, the Commission should deny its application for ATC authority at this time. 12 See Further Notice at 50 (“Because these MSS facilities are licensed in the same spectrum as existing BAS operations, the Commission has had to adopt policies, such as the top 30 market rule, that take into account the likelihood of MSS and BAS interference.”). l3 See id. at 7 53. 5

Respectfully submitted, 6 onathan D. Blake randon D. Almond* COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 (202) 662-6000 (tel.) (202) 662-6291 (fax) Counselfor the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. April 24,2008 * Admitted to the Bar of Virginia. Not admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia. Work supervised by principals of the firm pending admission. 6


Document Created: 2008-04-28 13:26:36
Document Modified: 2008-04-28 13:26:36
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC