Reply to Opposition

REPLY submitted by Iridium Satellite LLC

Reply to Opposition

2015-05-18

This document pretains to SES-AMD-20120823-00781 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESAMD2012082300781_1088304

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Inmarsat Mobile Networks, Inc. File Nos. SES—LIC—20120426—00397, SES—AMD—20120823—00781, and Application to Operate a Fixed—Satellite SES—AMD—20150114—00008 Service Gateway Earth Station Facility in Lino Lakes, Minnesota with the Call Sign: E120072 Inmarsat—5 F2 Space Station REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION On April 29, 2015, Iridium Satellite LLC ("Iridium") filed a Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification ("Petition") of the Order! issued by the International Bureau ("Bureau") in the above—captioned proceeding. On May 11, 2015, Inmarsat Mobile Networks, Inc. ("Inmarsat") filed an Opposition to Iridium‘s Petition.2 Iridium, by its attorneys, hereby replies to Inmarsat‘s Opposition. Iridium demonstrates in this Reply that Inmarsat has mischaracterized the terms of its coordination with Iridium and has made claims that are unrelated to the relief Iridium requested. Once these errors are rectified, no basis remains for Inmarsat‘s Opposition. Accordingly, Inmarsat‘s arguments should be disregarded and Iridium‘s Petition should be granted. 1 Order and Authorization and Declaratory Ruling, DA 15—392, released March 30, 2015 ("Order"). 2 Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification ("Opposition").

1. Inmarsat Has Mischaracterized the Terms of its Coordination with Iridium In the United States, there is no designation in the Commission‘s band plan for GSO FSS operations in the 29.1—29.25 GHz band, i.e., such operations are a non— conforming use." In recognition of this non—conforming status, the Bureau in its Order required that Inmarsat‘s Lino Lakes earth station not cause harmful interference to NGSO MSS feeder links, and not claim interference protection from NGSO MSS feeder links, in the 29.1—29.25 GHz band.4 Iridium requested in its Petition that the Bureau either clarify or determine on reconsideration that these requirements apply both to U.S. NGSO MSS feeder links that already are licensed and to U.S. NGSO MSS feeder links that may be licensed in the future. Iridium demonstrated that applying the requirements to existing U.S. NGSO MSS feeder links and future U.S. NGSO MSS feeder links: (1) would be in keeping with basic allocation principles that give primary operations priority over non—conforming uses; and (2) would avoid a preclusive effect on Iridium‘s U.S. use of the 29.1—29.25 GHz band for the primary purposes for which it has been designated. Inmarsat opposed Iridium‘s request to apply the "do not interfere" and "do not claim interference protection" conditions to future Iridium feeder links. According to Inmarsat, Iridium‘s request "could inadvertently change the terms of the [Inmarsat— 3 See Order at [ 14. 4 See Order at 4| 17.

Iridium] coordination and improperly expand the scope of Iridium‘s rights under those [coordination] agreements."" Inmarsat has mischaracterized the terms of its coordination with Iridium. In sum, Inmarsat‘s argument is based on an erroneous factual premise. Protecting operation in the United States of future Iridium feeder links using the 29.1— 29.25 GHz band cannot "inadvertently change the terms of the [Inmarsat—Iridium] coordination," because,|, 5 Opposition at 3.

IL. Inmarsat Has Made Claims That Are Unrelated to the Relief Iridium Requested Iridium also requested in its Petition that the Bureau either clarify or determine on reconsiderafion that Inmarsat‘s inability to claim interference protection from U.S. NGSO MSS feeder links in the 29.1—29.25 GHz band applies to the receivers on the Inmarsat—5 F2 satellite. Iridium showed that this clarification or determination is appropriate because the receivers on the Inmarsat—5 F2 satellite are where Inmarsat‘s 29.1—29.25 GHz band transmissions from the Lino Lakes gateway earth station will be received. Inmarsat opposed Iridium‘s request for two reasons. Neither has any merit. First, Inmarsat asserts that a condition relating to the receivers on the Inmarsat—5 F2 satellite is "unnecessary because the operations of the Lino Lakes gateway with Inmarsat—5 F2 will be fully consistent with the terms of Inmarsat‘s coordination with Iridium."6 This assertion is a non sequitur, because @@aa Second, Inmarsat claims that a non—interference condition would be "overbroad" because "the receivers on the [Inmarsat—5 F2] spacecraft receive signals from other parts 6 Opposition at 3.

of the world."? This claim also is a non sequitur, because Iridium‘s Petition does not address signals emanating from "other parts of the world." Rather, Iridium‘s Petition seeks reconsideration or clarification of the portion of the Order that implements the Commission‘s band plan. This band plan establishes terms under which FCC—licensed terrestrial stations, GSO FSS earth stations, and NGSO MSS earth stations share spectrum in the United States. Inmarsat‘s claims based on earth stations that are located in other parts of the world, therefore, are irrelevant to Iridium‘s Petition. Conclusion For the reasons stated herein and in Iridium‘s Petition, the Bureau should either clarify or determine on reconsideration that the interference—related restrictions on Inmarsat‘s operations in the 29.1—29.25 GHz band apply to future Iridium U.S. feeder link earth stations. The Bureau also should either clarify or determine on 7 Opposition at 3.

reconsideration that Inmarsat‘s inability to claim interference protection from U.S. NGSO MSS feeder links in the 29.1—29.25 GHz band applies to the receivers on Inmarsat—5 F2. Respectfully submitted, IRIDIUM SATELLITE LLC By: /s/ Joseph A. Godles Joseph A. Godles GOLDBERG, GODLES, WIENER & WRIGHT LLP 1229 19 Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Its Attorneys May 18, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION was sent electronically this 184 day of May, 2015, to each of the following: Inmarsat Hawaii Inc. Chris Murphy Chris murphy@inmarsat.com Latham & Watkins John P. Janka john.janka@lw.com Latham & Watkins Elizabeth R. Park Elizabeth.park@lw.com Globe Wireless LLC David B. Kagan President & CEO David.Kagan@globewireless.com Chris Gray Vice President of Marketing and Business Development Chris.Gray@globewireless.com Gogo LLC William J. Gordon Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Bgordon@gogoair.com American Airlines Robert A. Wirick Managing Director, Regulatory and International Affairs Robert.Wirick@aa.com Will Ris Will:Ris@aa.com

Honeywell Chris Benich Vice President, Aerospace Regulatory Affairs Chris.Benich@honeywell.com Encompass Digital Media, Inc. Chris Weissinger cweissinger@encompass—m.com VT iDirect, Inc. Kevin Steen VP Corporate Development Ksteen@idirect.net Cynthia Harty Vice President of Contracts charty@idirect.net Skyware Global Gopi Sundaram Vice President, Product Strategy GopiSundaram@skywareglobal.com The Boeing Company Audrey L. Allison Director, Frequency Management Services Audrey.Allison@boeing.com And Its Attorneys, Bruce A. Olcott Jones Day bolcott@jonesday.com TracStar Systems Inc., dba Cobham SATCOM Mike Gregg Mike.Gregg@cobham.com

ARINC Incorporated John C. Smith Pompano Beach Vice President—Law, Secretary and General Counsel [Gmith@arine.com And Its Attorneys, Edward A. Yorkgitis, Jr. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP CYorkgitis@KellyDrye.com GMPCES Personal Communications, Inc.* 1501 Green Road, Suite A—B Pompano Beach, FL 33064 Attention: Timothy R. Young [/s/] Deborah Wiggins Deborah Wiggins *via U.S. mail, first class


Document Created: 2019-04-12 16:42:52
Document Modified: 2019-04-12 16:42:52
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC