Attachment Opposition

This document pretains to SES-LFS-20051011-01396 for License to use Foreign Satellite (earth) on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLFS2005101101396_472124

PiPERRupNICK onevesmemettin. 00— GRAYCARY Wastingion,D.C. 20038—2412 RECE|VED :g&z;g;% RECE'VED n€C — 8 2005 W wi dlipercom VIA HAND DELIVERY DEC 1 3 2005 Feden commnicatontconnision Satelte Diision December 8, 2005 dwest ow Weumkconter her M roedanceon IntormationalBureau T on ast—a00s £ (202) ooos4c0 Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20054 Re:— FTMSC US, LLC; Application for TitleIII Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75 degrees W and Application for Section 214 Authorization to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75 degrees WFile Nos. SES—LFS—2005 101 1—01396; SES—AMD—20051 118—01602; and ITC—214—20051012—00406 Dear Ms Dortch: By its undersigned. counsel, enclosed for filing please find FIMSC US, LLCs (FTMSC‘s®) Opposition to Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC‘s(‘MSV‘s") Petition to 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, _ w—— To.0;,,) k loll William K. Coulter Counsel for FTMSC US, LLC WKCicle Enclosure in order to consolidatethis Opposition to MSV‘s Pettion regarding both the Titl 11 and Titl 1 applications,this Opposition is being iled today, December 8 2005..To the extent that a motion to acceptlatefiled pleading is requiredas pertaiing to the Section 214 Application, such a motion is ereby made.

RECEIVEp Before the DEC — g 2005 Federal Communications Commission Iusic Washington, D.C. 20554 m”,‘[c"::;‘sfl'w Comisson in the matter of § ETMSC US, LLC ) Application for Titl 111 Blanket License ) File No. SES—LFS—20081011—01396 to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with ) File No. SES—AMD—20051118—01602 Inmarsat 4B2 at 52.75°W ) ) esc us, Lc ) File No. MTC—214—20051012—00406 Application for Section 214 Authorization ) to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with ) Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W > orrostrion Pursuant to Sections 25.154(c) and 63.20(d)of the Commission‘s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.154(c) and 63.20(d), FTMSC US, LLC (°FTMSC®), by its undersigned counsel, hercby opposes Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC‘s (°MSV*s") Pettion to Hold in Absyance or to Grant with Conditions (MSV Petiton®) the above—captioned. applications of FTMSC (collectively "FTMSC BGAN Applications"),". Because the MSV Petition does not demonstrate that grant ofthe above—referenced applications is primafuele nconsistent with the public iterest as required by the Commision‘s Rules," the Bureau must dismiss or deny the MSV Petition and prompily grant the FTMSC BGAN Applications. L. INTRODUCTION AND sumMmaRy FTMSC is secking Commission authority to provide new Broadband Global. Area Network (‘BGAN®) services in the United States,. At least two other carriers, icluding Stratos Communications, Inc. (‘Stratos") and Telenor Satellte, Inc. (*Telenor®), have also filed 1 Re MSV Petition to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions (Nov. 23, 2005). 47 C.F.R. 5§ 25.154 and 63.20

applications to provide BGAN services in the United States." MSV, a competing mobile satelite service provider in the United States, has sought to delay the grant of all pending BGAN applications with almost identical pleadings." The MSV pleadings are clearly designed to delay as much as possible the entry ofnew competitive services into the mobile satellte services ("MSS®) market, as well as to pressure Inmarsat to settle an unrelated dispute between itself and MSV related to the international coordination of L—band 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 t on this basis, the Bureau must dismiss or deny the MSV Periion. 11. GRaNT OPTHE PrMSC APPLICATIONS IS IN TE PUBLIC INTEREST The FTMSC BGAN Applications satisty the Commission‘s rules and grant of such applications is in the public interest. As explained below, the MSV Pei n does. not demonstrate otherwisut See Stratos Communications, Inc. Application for Titl IlI Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W.L; File Nos. SES—LFS—20050826— 001175 and SES—AMD—20050922—01313, and Application for Section 214 Authorization to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at52.75° W.L., File No. TTC—214—20050826— 00351; and Telenor Application for Titl III Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W.L., File Nos. SES—LFS—20050930—01352, SES—AMD—2005111 1— 01564, and Application for Section 214 Authorization to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75° W.L., ile No. ITC—214—20051005—00305. See Petition of Mobile Satelites Ventures Subsidiary LLC to Hold in Absyance or to Grant with Conditions Application of Stratos Communications, Inc., dated Oct. 28, 2008; and Petition of Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions Application of Telenor, dated Nov. 23, 205. Because the MSV Petition is practically identical to the MSV Pettion to Hold. in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions in the Strtos proceeding, in order to avoid duplicative arguments before the Commission, FTMSC is incorporating by reference arguments contained in the responses fled by Inmarsat and Stratos t the MSV pleading in that case. ‘The Resporse of (oototecontinued to rext page)

Firs, MSV argues that grant of the FTMSC BGAN Applications should be delayed pending the conclusion of an international coordination agreement in the I—band.". However,the absence of an I—band coordination agreement does not justify postponement of a grant of the FTMSC BGAN Applications.".In fact,the FCC has recently granted two MSV applications to operate in the L—band despite the fact that no I—band coordination agreement exists." Further,it appears that MSV*s predecessor is the entity responsible for the expiration of the last T—band coordination agreement in 1999. Next, MSV argues that the Inmarsat 4F2 satelfte will result in increased risk of harmful interference to other L—band operators.‘ This allegation is both unfounded and technically incorrect. The Inmarsat 4F2 satelite does not use wide band carviers as alleged by MSV, and the Inmarsat 4F2 satelite will in fact not increase interference when compared to the Inmarsat 3 satelite (by using narrower spot beams with steeper antenna side otnote contnuedfrom previouspage) 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—01313, and ITG—214—20050922—01313, 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®). MSV Petition at 7. FTMSC hereby incorporates by reference the arguments raised by the Inmasat Response, Inmarsat Opposition and Stratos Opposition on this issue.. Inmarsat Response at 69, Inmarsat Opposition at 5—11 and Stratos Opposition at 5—7. In Re Mobile Satellte Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Order and Authorization, DA 05—1492, (rel. May 23, 2005); /n Re Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary, Order and Authorization, 20 FCC Red. 479 (2005) MSV Petition at 10.

lobes}." Further, interference should not be an issue because FTMSC is requesting that the Commission grant the FTMSC BGAN Applications on a norharmfulinterfrence basis. Sccond, MSV argues that FTMSC should not beallowed to use certain frequencies which were "loaned" by MSV to Inmarsat." FTMSC opposes this condi n." MSV has no legal right to keep FIMSC from using frequencies thatat 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 ofthe L—band frequencies, subject to a noreharmful nterference con Third, MSV argues that the Inmarsat 4F2 satellte is not a "replacement satelite" under the Commission‘s Rules."". FTMSC dissgrees this contention.. Inmarsat 4E2‘s orbital location is the functional equivalent ofthe orbital location of Inmarsat 3, and FTMSC will use the Inmarsat 4F2 satelite to provide service only in U.S. regions currently served. by the °_ FTMSC hereby incorporates by reference the arguments raised by the Inmarsat Response, Inmarsat Opposition and Stratos Opposition on this isue.. Inmarsat Response at 67, Inmarsat Oppositon at19—25 and Stratos Opposition at 6—7. MSV Perition at 14—17. " 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 Strts Opposition at 7—8. In Re SatCom Systems, Inc., Order and Authorization, ECC 99—344, 14 FCC Red. at 20814 (rl. Nov. 30, 1999). MSV Petiion at 8. 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 ats—9

Inmarsat 3 satelite. Further, the Commission has allowed a replacement satelte to cover addiional areas beyond those of the spacecraft being replaced. " Fourth MSV argues that the Commission‘s rule requiring FSS satelites to operate with +0.05° East—West station should be applied to Inmarsat MSS satelites.".. FTMSC again disagrees with this statement." In 2004, the Commission specifically refected a proposal to modify Section 25.210() of ts Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(), to such MSS space stations."" Fifth, MSV argues that there is a public safety issue raised by FTMSC‘s Application related to E911. Currenty, the Commission‘s E911 regulations do not apply to MSS."" Tfand when MSS is subject to E911 requirements, FTMSC will make the necessary modifications to its network to ensure compliance with the Commission‘s regulations atthat time. Lastly, MSV argues that FTMSC has not setisfed nationalsecurity and law enforcement concerns raised by operation ofthe proposed BGAN services."" Once again, MSV is incorrect FTMSC has a current agreement in place with the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau ‘See Stratos Opposition at 9, 20. MSV Peritionat 18 "— FTMSC incorporates by reference the arguments contained in the Inmarsat Response and Stratos Opposition on this ssue. Inmarsat Response at 13—14 and Stratos Opposition at 9—10. 1 Re Mitigation of Orbital Debris,19 FCC Red. 11567 (2004). MSV Petiion at20. * FTMSC hereby incorporates by reference the arguments contained in the Inmarsat Response and Stratos Opposition on this issue. Inmarsat Response at 15 and Stratos Oppositon atti—12. MSV Petiion at 19.

of Investigation."_ As requested by U.S. law enforcement, FTMSC submitted for review by the 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 securty reasons.. If legitimate security concems exist, then it is the responsibilty of the Executive Branch to raise this issue with the Commission, and not MSV. 1. PORTIONS OF THE MSV PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED For the reasons set forth in the Stzatos Motion to Strike Portions of the MSV Pettion in that proceeding, incorporated herein by reference, FTMSC also specifically moves that the Commission dismiss those portions of the MSV Petiion which are redacted and have not been 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 hercby reserves itsrightto amend this Opposition in order torespond to such information. Agreement of France Télécom S.A., Atlas Telecommunications S.A., Equant N.V. and Equant U.S., Inc. the U.S. Department of Justce, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dated June 11, 2001. 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—01313, filed Nov. 10, 2005.

1v. concLusioN For the reasons stated above, FTMSC respectfully requests that the Bureau dismiss or deny the MSV Petition and prompily grant the FTMSC BGAN Applications asset forth therein. Respectfully submited, FTMSC US, LLC Woultion,‘ L. touldo Willam K. Couter DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP 1200 19th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) g61—3043 Fax: (202) 689—8460 william.coulter@dlapiper.com Counsel to FMSC US, LLC December 7, 2008

ceeneicamon 1, Danille Aguto, am an authorized representative of FTMSC US, LLC. I have read the foregoing Opposition of FTMSC US, LLC to Mobile Sitelte Ventures Subsidiary LLC‘s Petion to Hold in Abeyance orto Grant with Conditions (‘Opposiion‘). T have personal knowledge of the facts stated in the Opposition.. The fiets set forh in the Opposition, other thin those of which offcial noties may be taken, are im and conect to the best of my knowledge, nformation, and belie. 1 dectare under penalty of perjury thattheforgoing is tra and cortect. elle Aguro, Authoci@ Repressntive Dated: Dec.7, 2005

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Christine L. Zepka, hereby certify that on this 7th day of December, 2005, I caused to be served a true copy ofthe foregoing "Opposition of FTMSC US, LLC" by first class mail, postage pre—paid (or as otherwise indicated) upon the following: James Ball Andrea Kelly Interational Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12" 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 12" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street,S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 By Hand By Hand Howard Gribof® Karl Kensinger International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 By Hand By Hand Roderick Porter Gardner Foster International Bureau Interational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 By Hand By Hand Fem Jarmulnck Jennifer A. Manner Interational Bureau Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Federal Communications Commission Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC 445 12" Street, S.W. 1002 Park Ridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20554 Reston, Virginia 20191 By Hand By Hand

Robert Nelson Bruce D. Jacobs Interational Bureau David S. Konezal Federal Communications Commission Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 445 12" Street, S.W. 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20037—1 128 By Hand Counsel for: Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC JoAnn Ekblad John P. Janka Interational Bureau Jeffrey A. Marks Federal Communications Commission Latham & Watkins LLP 445 12" Street, S.W. 555 11" Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20004 By Hand Counsel for: Inmarsat Ventures Limited


Document Created: 2005-12-14 12:24:16
Document Modified: 2005-12-14 12:24:16
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC