Attachment Opposition

This document pretains to SES-LFS-20050930-01352 for License to use Foreign Satellite (earth) on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLFS2005093001352_472112

OR\G\NAL RECEIVED — FCC Before the DEC — rEpERAL CommMUnNtcaTrons commsston EC 1e Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) TELENOR SATELLITE, INC. ) File No. SES—LES—20050930—01352 ) File No. SES—AMD—20051111—0156¢ Application for Title IHI Blanket License ) to Operate BGAN Mobile Earth Terminals ) with Inmarsat4F2 at 52.75° W.L. ) ) TELENOR SATELLITE, INC. ) File No. TTC—214—20051005—00398 ) Application for Section 214 Authorization ) to Provide BGAN Mobile Satelite Service ) via Inmarsat 42 at $2.75° W.L ) To: International Bureau OPPosITION Telenor Satellite,Inc.("Telenor") hereby opposes the Petition to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions ("Petiion‘) iled by Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (MSV®) in this proceeding." . INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The Applications atissue in this proceeding seck authority for Telenor to offer Inmarsat Broadband Global Area Network (BGAN®) services in the United States through the Inmarsat 4F2 satelite, which was launched on November 8, 2005, and will be deployed at the 52.75° W.Lorbital location.* Grant ofTelenor‘s Applications is in the public interest because it will ‘ See MSV Petiton to Holin Abeyanceorto Grant with Condiions (Nov. 23, 2005). Concurenty with hi OppesitionTelsnois filinga Moton to Svike porionsofthe MSV Peon. As sefrk in that Motin, the MSV Pertion should be ticken becausitcontain edicted materilthat MSV refisesto diselostTelenor even under a protectveorder, thisdepriingTelenor ofa full opportnityto respond. Ata minimum, th Bureaushould not rely on any ofthisredacted materain making ts decision. *Telenor has Ailed bth a Tite 1appleation, ile No SES:L.FS—20050020.01952 (AledSept. 30, 2009), seckinga banket lcens for up to 20.000 BGAN mobile earth trminals (‘MESTX‘) and a Tite Ifapplcain,File NoTTC: 214—20051005—03395 (Rled Oct 5,2005) secking to ofer BGAN servic on a commoncarierbasis

give U.S. customers access t a next—generation Mobile Satellite Services (MSS") offering, including e—mail, LAN, Internet, videoconferencing and voice communications. BGAN offers transmission speeds of up to 492 kbps, which is several imes faster than current MSS offerings, including those ofMSV. Moreover, the BGAN METs for which Telenor seeks blanket licensing are one—third the price, size and weight ofthose in use today with the Inmarsat system. BGAN will facilitat the extension ofbroadband communications to parts ofthe United States that are currently unserved or underserved by terrestrial networks. In addition, it will restore broadband connectivity when natural disasters or other events disrupt terrestrial networks, and thus will be an invaluable tool in the effort to promote U.S. homeland security. Customers in Europe, Afica, the Middle East and Asia will have access to Inmarsat‘s BGAN services by the end of this year. TFits Applications are approved prompily, Telenor will provide U.S. customers with the same opportunity to enjoy high—speed MSS by early 2006, when testing of the Inmarsat 4E2 satelliteis complete. MSV, in accordance with ts longstanding practice of using the regulatory process to forestall competition, secks to delay the introduction ofBGAN services in the U.S. ather than compete with those offerings in the marketplace.. Tn addition (and again true to form), MSV secks to use this proceeding as leverage in it ongoing dispute with Inmarsat over the use ofL~ band frequencies. That dispute, however, should be resoived through the coordination mechanism established by the Mexico City Memorandum of Understanding ("Mexico City MOU*). Contrary to MSV‘ clims, a new international L—band coordination agreement is not needed before Telenor‘s Applications can be granted. Indeed, two MSV satelite applications were granted this year on a non—interference basis and in the absence of a new coordination agreement. There is no reason totreat the Telenor Applications differently.

Moreover,the Telenor Applications do not contain the alleged additional deficiencies identified by MSV. First, Inmarsat 4F2 is properly considered a replacement satelite for the Inmarsat 3 satellite at 54° W.L. because it will cover the same geographic area in the U.S.asthat satelite and will not use any additional L—band frequencies beyond those currently authorized. Second, the station—keeping rules relied on by MSV do not apply to MSS satelites, and MSV has not alleged any grounds for examining this issue on an ad hoc basis. Third, the Applications do not raise national security orlew enforcement concemns, because Telenor has a valid National Security Agreement on file with the Commission, and has agreed with the Excentive Branch on an amended implementation plan that includes BGAN services. 11. MSV‘s SPECTRUMDISPUTE WITH INMARSAT DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR DELAYING OR CONDITIONING TELENOR‘S APPLICATIONS. MSV‘s Petition seeks to use this proceeding as additional leverage in ts ongoing dispute with Inmarsat over L—band spectrum. The Bureau should not accede to MSV‘s request to delay or condition these Applications because that would be inconsistent with the Commission‘s treatment ofprevious L—band applications, including those ofMSV itself. Tn addition, granting MSV‘s Petition would violate DISCO—If principles governing the treatment of foreign satelltes Hieensed to WTO member countries, and would deny U.S. consumers access to needed MSS services that will soon be available in other parts ofthe world. Accordingly, the Bureau should reject MSV‘s tired arguments and act promptly to grant Telenor‘s Applications, A. A New L—band Coordination Agreement Is Not a Prerequisite to a Grant of Telenor‘s Applications. MSV asserts that action on Telenor‘s Applications should be delayed "until the conclusion of a coordination agreement that results in a more effient assignment of L—band

spectrum among the existing operators:"" However, the absence of such an agreement is no bar to action on pending L—band applications, as MSV*s own experience demonstrates, In the past twelve months, the Bureau has granted two MSV applications to operate in the L—band — one for a replacement satelit at 101° W.L., and the other for a new satellite (not contemplated by the Mexico City MOU) at 63.5 ° W.L.* Rather than delay action on cither application, the Bureau granted both on a non=interference basis.® Telenor merely asks that the Burcau treat its Applications in a similar manner. Inmarsat 4F2 is licensed by the United Kingdom, a WTO Member. Therefore, the Commission must afford the same treatment to Inmarsat service providers such as Telenor that t does to MSV. To do otherwise would be a violation ofU.S. market access commitmentin the WTO Agreement. In 1999 and again in 2001, the Commission declined to exact coordination concessions fivorable to MSV as the price for U.S. market access,because to do so would violate U.S. WTO commitments.® The same principle applies with equal foree today. MSV ascerts that Inmarsat 4F2 presents spectrum management issues that are "fundamentally different" from those considered in previous proceedings." In particular, it claims that Inmarsat 4F2 has higher power and wider carriersthat will make it more likely both to cause interference to and to suffer interference from other L—band systems. Once again, MSV ? Reiton at ; see aso d at7—14 * Mobil Saelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC,DA 05— (el Jn, 10,200%) CMSY 101° Order"); Mobile Sarette Ventires Subsidary LLC, DA 08—1492 (red, May23, 2005) CMSY 63.5° Orter) * MGV 101° Onderat 595 MSY 63.5° Order339. * See SarcomSytems,Inc, t l, 14 ECC Red 20798, 20813 (1999) (TMMarke Aecess Order®); COMSAT Corp htCOMSAT Mabile Communicatons etel, 16 FCC Red. 21661,21669(rl. Oct.9, 2001)(‘hmerset Morter Aecess Order), Seealso Anendent ofthe Conmision‘s Regulatory Plicies o Alow Non—US, Licensed setelitesto ProvideDomesti and Internriona Setlite Servcen the Unied Sute, 12 ECC Red. 24094, 24104 (omCpiscoum. "Periton t9.

is asking the Bureau to apply a double standard. The MSV satellites authorized carler tis year also have higher power and (much) wider carriers than MSV‘s existing satellies, and one of them will be deployed at an entirely new orbital Tocation. Nevertheless,the Bureau id not hold those applications in sbeyance; it simply required MSV to operate on a non—harmful interference basis until coordination is completed. The Bureau should apply the same standard here. In any event, MSV‘sallegations about potentialinterference are unsubstantiated and wrong. The higher available spacecraft power on Inmarsat 4R2 (relative to Inmarsat 3) is used to support additional MSS users, and to support the provision of BGAN service in addition to the Inmarsat services being provided today on Inmarsat 3. Significantly, the EIRP spectral density ofthe BGAN carriers on Inmarsat4E2 will be nohigher than that of the carriers on Inmarsat 3 with the highest EIRP spectral density. Thus, Inmarsatwill be able to ensure that the interference from Inmarsat 4F2 is no greater than that from Inmarsat 3F4. Likewise, the interference to Inmarsat 4F2 should be no greater than the interference to Inmarsat 3. The global beams on both setelltes have the same receive sensitivity, and the spot beams on Inmarsat 4F2 have better receive performance, as well as better side—lobe roll—off, than those on Inmarsat 3. Forall these reasons, Inmarsat is confident that it can provide service over Inmarsat 4F2 that is no more susceptible to interference than service over Inmarsat 3. B. Telenor Should Be Allowed to Use All Available Inmarsat Spectrum on a Non— Interference Basis. MSV suggests thatif the Telenor Applications are granted, there should be a condition preventing Telenor‘s BGAN METs from accessing Inmarsat 4F2 via frequencics that were allegedly "Toaned" by MSV to Inmarsat.® Telenor opposes any such condition. The BGAN METs should be free to use all othe frequencies available to Inmarsat, on a non—harmful * Peidon at 117.

interference bsis, subject to the outcome of anyinternational coordination. MSV‘s reliance on the Mexico City MOU is unavailing. While the precise terms ofthat MOU are confidentia, itis public knowledge that the MOU did not assign any L—band frequency to any nation or any operator. Rether, it contemplated a series of one—year operating agreements that assigned frequencies toindividual operators only for that discrete period of ime, and the most recent of those agreements expired in 1999." Given that set ofcircumstances, both the Commission and the courts have consistently held thatall MSS operators and service providers may use the entire range of L—band frequencies on a non—harmful interference basis® The Bureau should not treat Telenor differently now. Ifa new intemational agreement changes the spectrum available to Inmareat, Telenor will modify the operation ofits BGAN METs. In the absence of such an agreement, however, there is no reason to condition these Applications. 111. Msy‘s ADDITIONAL ISSUES ARE WITHOUT MERIT A.—— The Inmarsat 4F2 Is Properly Regarded as a Replacement Satellte, MSV supgests that there is insullicient evidence in the record to support Telenor‘s assertion that the Inmarsat 4F2 should be treated as a replacement satellie."" As a threshold mater, the "bond posting" rule that MSV cites in support of this argument, 47 CER. § 25.165(e)is inapplicable because the Inmarsat 4F2 has already been launched. In any event, Telenor will use the Inmarsat 4F2 to serve CONUS, Puerto Rico and the U.8. Virgin Islands. These are the seme areas that Telenor currently serves via the Inmarsat 3B4 satellite at 54°W.L., and even if they were not, the Commission has previously treated MSV‘s satelltes as *.TMMI Mrket deces Order, 14 ECC Red at 20614,offd sub nom. AMSC Subsidlry Corp v. PCG, 216 F3d 1184, 1155.60(D.C. C200 (MC»: RCC),. "* TAMarkes dccess Order, 14 ECC Red at 20814 AMC v. FCC, 216 F3 at1199—40; umarsot Market Aecess Order, 16 ECC Red t 21698—21699; SV 63.5¢ Order t 23; MSY 101° Order ar 34. "Pestionat 17.

replacements even though they proposed to serve additional areas,"* so MSV is once again asking the Commission to reat a competitor more stringentlythan MSV itself. The Inmarsat 4F2 wil also use the same service link frequencies as the Inmarsat 3F4, and will be located only 1.25° from the current location of the Inmarsat 3F4. Thus, Inmarsat 4F2 will serve as an operational substitute to, and will operate within the umbrella of the technical parameters previously coordinated for, ts predecessor, Inmarsat 3F4. Moreover, contrary to MSV‘s claim,"" there is no inconsistencybetween Telenor‘s applications and Inmarsat‘s recent SEC filings regarding the future deployment ofthe Inmarsat 35; Telenor‘s application merely stated that the Inmarsat3 at 54° W.L. would be retred from service at that location, not that it would be entirely decommissioned. For all these reasons, the Inmarsat 4F2 can properly be considered as a replacement satelite under the Commission‘s Rules. B. The Station—Keeping Rule Cited byMSV Does Not Apply to MSS Satellites Despite MSV‘s assertions to the contrary,""the Commission has now made clear thats +/ 0.05 east—west station—keeping rule,47 C.FR. § 25.210(), does nor apply to MSS satelites. Specifically, n its 2004 decision on orbital debris mitigation, the Commission "declinefd, at this time, t adopt changes to Section 25.210G) to specify a longitudinal tolerance of+/—0.05° for all space stations, including MSS and remote sensing stations.""". Accordingly, Telenor is not required to seck a waiver ofthis rule. And while the Commission reserved the right to impose station—keeping conditions on a case—by—case basis,"® MSV has not asserted any reason why these * wP 10090E Order se 3—44. " Peiton at 17.18. " Peition t 149. "Afiigation ofOrbialDetris, 19 FCC Red 11567,11586 2004 " latist7.

conditions would be appropriate at 52.75°WX..(as opposed to, for example, 101° W.L.,the much more congested area where MSV operates). In any event, Inmarsat has coordinated the operation ofInmarsat 4F2 with adjacent operators and has ensured that the station—keeping boxes do not overlap. In short, the Telenor Applications do not raisany station—keeping concems. £. Telenor Has Met Its National Security and Law Enforeement Obligations to the Satisfaction of the Executive Branch. MSV supgests that Telenor‘s Applications should be subjected to further serutiny because "while Telenor states thatit has reached a revised agreement with the Executive Branch to address the admitted national security and law enforcement concemns presented by operation of the BGAN terminals, it has not filed this agreement in the record," thus "depriv[ing} interested parties ofvitainformation needed to assess whether grant of the application will serve the public interest.""" MSV‘s assertion both misreads Telenor‘s Applications and misconstrucs MSV‘s role with respect with the national security aspects ofthose Applications. Telenor‘s national security agreement with the Exccutive Branch was filed with the Commission when Telenor aequired COMSAT Mobile Communications in 2001. That agreementis applicable to BGAN and has not changed. What has changed to incorporate BGAN, following negotistions with the Exeeutive Branch, is Telenor‘s implementation plan pursuant to that agreement."* For obvious reasons, that implementation plan is not publicly available,so MSV would not have an opportunity to comment upon it in any event. Simply stated, Telenor‘s arrangements with the Exeeutive Branch are not a matter for public comment by competiive MSS providers. petidon at 19.20. " See BGAN MET Aplication, AdditonalResponseto em 43 at 67.

The Bureau should also reject MSV‘s attemptto delay processing of these applications because ofalleged concems about BGAN‘s abilityto comply with E911 requirements." As MSV knows, MSS providers are not now subject to these requirements.. When and ifthat situation changes, Telenor will take immediate action to address the Commission‘s concerns. Iv... CoNCLUsION Telenor‘s proposed BGAN service promises to bring about a new era in MSS communications, With BGAN, U.S. customers will have access t a wide array ofbroadband offerings that are not currently available in the United States from any MSS provider.. The Bureau should not counterance MSV‘s effortsto forestall competiion from this exciting new service. Rather, for the reasons stated sbove,the Bureau should dismiss or deny the MSV Petiion and should prompily grant the Telenor Applications. Respectfully submitted, TELENOR SATELLITE, INC By, Keith H. Fogen 1001 Wootton Parkway Rockville, MD 20852 (301) 838—7860 Ts Artomey December 7, 2008 !* Pettion t 20.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Keith H. Fagan, hercby certify that on this 7° day of December, 2008, I served a copy of the foregoing "Opposition" by first class mail, postage prepsid, upon the following: Bruce D. Jacobs Jennifer A. Manner David S. Konczal Vice President, Government Affairs Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC 2300 N Street, N.W. 1002 Park Ridge Boulevard Washington, D.C. 20037 Reston, VA 20191 John P. Janka Diane J. Comell Jeffiey A. Marks Vice President, Govemment Afairs Latham & Watkins LLP Inmarsat, Inc. 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. 1100 Wilson Boulevard Suite 1000 Suite 1425 Washington, D.C. 2004 Arlington, VA 22209 woanl D‘,(’*—* Keit [ Fagn


Document Created: 2005-12-14 11:43:18
Document Modified: 2005-12-14 11:43:18
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC