Response to Ligado e

Ex PARTE PRESENTATION NOTIFICATION LETTER submitted by Iridium Carrier Services LLC

Iridium reponse to Ligado ex parte

2018-01-09

This document pretains to SES-AMD-20170726-00813 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESAMD2017072600813_1325546

                                               LAW OFFICES
                           GOLDBERG, GODLES, WIENER & WRIGHT LLP
                                      1025 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.
                                                SUITE 1000
                                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036


HENRY GOLDBERG                                                                           (202) 429-4900
JOSEPH A. GODLES                                                                         TELECOPIER:
JONATHAN L. WIENER                                                                       (202) 429-4912
DEVENDRA (“DAVE”) KUMAR                                                                      e-mail:
     ________
                                                                                    general@g2w2.com
HENRIETTA WRIGHT                                                                 website: www.g2w2.com
THOMAS G. GHERARDI, P.C.
COUNSEL
    ________

THOMAS S. TYCZ*
SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR
*NOT AN ATTORNEY
                                           January 9, 2017

    FILED ELECTRONICALLY VIA IBFS
    Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
    Secretary
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12th Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20554


                Re: Iridium Satellite LLC, FCC Call Sign E960132,
                    File Nos. SES-MOD-20170413-00388, SES-AMD-20170726-00812
                    Iridium Carrier Services LLC, FCC Call Sign E960622,
                    File Nos. SES-MOD-20170413-00389, SES-AMD-20170726-00813
                    Ligado Networks Subsidiary LLC, RM-11681; IB Docket No. 11-109;
                    File Nos. SES-MOD-20151231-00981, SAT-MOD-20151231-00090,
                    and SAT-MOD-20151231-00091


    Dear Ms. Dortch:
           Iridium Satellite LLC and Iridium Carrier Services LLC (collectively, “Iridium”)
    have filed the above-referenced applications (the “Applications”) seeking authority to
    operate a new terminal that will provide Iridium CertusSM service via Iridium NEXT,
    Iridium’s second-generation satellite system. Iridium Certus terminals will offer
    innovative voice and data capabilities to Iridium’s commercial, civilian, and military
    users and, as shown in the Applications, the terminals fully comply with the
    Commission’s requirements.


                                                     -2-


        On December 18, 2017, Ligado Networks Subsidiary LLC (“Ligado”) filed an ex
parte letter (the “Ligado Letter”)1 reflecting arguments it made concerning the
Applications in a meeting with the International Bureau. Ligado’s arguments are yet
another misguided attempt to drag the dispute over its proposed terrestrial services
into an unrelated proceeding. Those arguments are not germane to this proceeding and
should be categorically rejected as such, consistent with the Satellite Division’s rejection
of non-germane arguments raised by Ligado in its earlier attempt to delay the approval
of the Iridium NEXT satellite constellation.2 Nevertheless, Iridium hereby responds to
the Ligado Letter, and asks the Bureau promptly to dispatch those arguments and grant
the Iridium Certus Applications.

       Ligado incorrectly asserts that Iridium has taken one position in the proceedings
addressing the Iridium Certus Applications (the “Iridium Certus Proceeding”) and a
different position in the proceedings concerning Ligado’s modified proposals to
provide ancillary terrestrial service (“ATC”) via its Mobile Satellite Service (“MSS”)
space stations (the “Ligado ATC Proceeding”).3 In fact, Iridium has been completely
consistent.

       Iridium made plain in the Iridium Certus Proceeding that “[d]ifferent
considerations apply to out-of-band emissions from Ligado’s proposed ancillary
terrestrial component (‘ATC’) service,” because the ATC emissions have “a different
regulatory status and substantially different operational characteristics than Ligado’s
MSS service.”4 As Iridium said, it is “perfectly consistent … for Iridium to have


1 Ex Parte Letter in the above referenced proceedings, dated Dec 18, 2017, from John P. Janka and Jarrett S.
Taubman, Counsel to Ligado Networks Subsidiary LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC.
2 See Iridium Constellation LLC; Application for Modification of License to Authorize a Second-Generation NGSO

MSS Constellation, Order and Authorization, 31 FCC Rcd 8675, 8688 ¶ 43 (Intl. Bur. 2016) (rejecting Ligado
request to hold in abeyance Iridium’s application to modify its NGSO MSS license to operate a second-
generation satellite system because the “issues Ligado raises in this proceeding are derivative of claims
that Iridium has made in IB Dockets 11-109 and 12-340, and are better suited for treatment in those
separate proceedings.”). See generally Motient Services Inc. and TMI Communications and Company, LP
Assignors and Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC Assignee, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 20469,
20472, ¶ 9 n. 23 (Intl. Bur. 2001); Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal
Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding and Arrangements, 17 FCC Rcd 8903,
8933 ¶ 76 (2002).
3 Although the Ligado Letter focuses on the Commission’s disposition of the Iridium Certus Applications,

Ligado filed the letter in both the Iridium Certus Proceeding and the Ligado ATC Proceeding. Out of an
abundance of caution, Iridium is submitting this filing in both proceedings, too.
4 See e.g., Ex Parte Letter in the above referenced proceedings, dated Nov 13, 2017, from Maureen C.

McLaughlin, Vice President, Public Policy and Joseph A. Godles, Counsel to Iridium Satellite LLC and
Iridium Carrier Services LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (“Iridium November Ex Parte”) at n. 14. See also
id. at 5 (“Section 25.202(f) specifies limits for out-of-band MSS emissions in the bands adjacent to
Iridium’s Big LEO frequencies, and these limits establish the co-existence environment in which MSS
receivers in adjacent bands must operate.”) (emphasis supplied).


                                                  -3-


interference issues with some of Ligado’s ATC proposals but not to have interference
issues with Ligado’s MSS operations, assuming they comply with Section 25.202(f).”5

        There is, obviously, a fundamental distinction between out-of-band emissions
(“OOBE”) from MSS earth stations and OOBE from Ligado’s ATC devices. As Iridium
stated in the Ligado ATC Proceeding, “because satellite services have been allocated
spectrum in adjacent bands with established rules to ensure the coexistence of multiple
satellite providers, Iridium’s system is designed to receive and withstand some level of
interference from other satellite systems that share the band or reside in adjacent
bands.”6 On the other hand, “[w]hat Ligado is proposing—the deployment of
terrestrial 4G LTE and 5G operations using omnidirectional antennas with vastly
different uses and devices, and the potential for tens of millions of such devices, many
of which are virtually guaranteed to come into contact with Iridium terminals—is vastly
different from Iridium’s current operating environment.”7 Put simply, Ligado’s dense
ATC network would be much more likely to create harmful OOBE interference to
Iridium than would MSS earth stations.

       Remarkably for a company on its fifth name with bountiful discarded business
plans, Ligado next grasps at alleged inconsistencies in Iridium’s deployment plans.8
Here, too, Ligado’s claim should be rejected. In the Ligado ATC Proceeding, Iridium
discussed its broad deployment of all types of L-band terminals – which its nearly one
million subscribers now operate in both urban areas and suburban areas.
Unsurprisingly, in the Iridium Certus Proceeding, Iridium focused on the Iridium
Certus terminals covered by the Applications, which will be operated principally on
ships and airplanes.9 Accordingly, there is no inconsistency.

        Finally, one must wonder whether Ligado has any faith in its own arguments. In
the letter summarizing Ligado’s first meeting at the Bureau Chief level in this matter,
Ligado is silent as to all but one of the previous arguments it made. In the one
remaining argument – Ligado’s assertion its satellite receivers may be interfered with
by Iridium Certus terminals – Ligado fails even to attempt to address Iridium’s detailed
technical showing demonstrating that this is not a legitimate concern:10



5 Id. at n. 9.
6 Ex Parte Letter, dated Aug 3, 2017, from Bryan N. Tramont and Patrick R. Halley to Marlene H. Dortch
re Ligado Networks LLC, IB Docket Nos. 11-109, 12-340; IBFS File Nos. SES-MOD-20151231-00981, SAT-
MOD-20151231-00090, SAT-MOD-20151231-00091, at 3.
7 Id.
8 See Ligado Letter at 3.
9 See Consolidated Response of Iridium in the above-referenced Iridium Certus proceedings (Sept. 18,

2017) at 10.
10 See Iridium November Ex Parte at 2-4.


                                                    -4-


      •   Ligado’s own MSS signals are more than 4200 times more powerful than OOBE
          from Iridium Certus terminals, which fully comply with Section 25.202(f) OOBE
          limits. Put another way, it would take more than 4200 Iridium Certus terminals
          transmitting simultaneously to equal the interference to Ligado from another
          Ligado MSS terminal. Any suggestion that Ligado’s satellites cannot receive
          Ligado uplink transmissions because of Iridium Certus OOBE that are weaker
          than Ligado uplink signals by a factor in excess of 4200 is preposterous.

      •   The RF power Ligado’s satellites will receive from Iridium Certus transmissions,
          which fully comply with the FCC’s power limits, also pales in comparison to the
          RF power the satellites are subject to from other sources.11

              o Ligado’s satellite receivers already are functioning in the presence of
                Inmarsat signals that are 3.4 times more powerful than a maximum power
                Iridium Certus signal will be.

              o Ligado fails to take its proposed ATC terminals into account. There could
                be tens of millions of these terminals, and their omnidirectional antennas
                will direct RF power toward Ligado’s satellites 100% of the time the ATC
                terminals are transmitting.

       Given these facts, any claim that Ligado’s satellite receivers could be overloaded
by transmissions from Iridium Certus terminals lacks credibility.




11   Most of the signals transmitted by Iridium Certus terminals will be well below maximum power.


                                          -5-


                                    CONCLUSION
       For the reasons stated herein, Ligado’s consistency and interference arguments
should be rejected and the Iridium Certus Applications should be granted without
delay.

                                Respectfully submitted,

                            IRIDIUM SATELLITE LLC
                        IRIDIUM CARRIER SERVICES LLC



/s/                                             /s/
Maureen C. McLaughlin                           Joseph A. Godles
Vice President, Public Policy                   GOLDBERG GODLES WIENER & WRIGHT
IRIDIUM SATELLITE LLC                           1025 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
IRIDIUM CARRIER SERVICES LLC                    SUITE 1000
1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1400               Washington, DC 20036
McLean, VA 22102                                (202) 429-4900
(703) 287-7518                                  Its Attorney

cc: Thomas Sullivan
    Jose Albuquerque
    Anthony Asongwed
    Paul Blais
    Jennifer Gilsenan
    Karl Kensinger
    Kerry Murray
    Robert Nelson
    Sankar Persaud
    Cindy Spiers
    Troy Tanner



Document Created: 2018-01-09 18:13:52
Document Modified: 2018-01-09 18:13:52

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC