Attachment 20140327161918.pdf

20140327161918.pdf

REPLY submitted by ARINC

Reply

1992-04-03

This document pretains to SES-LIC-19891220-00086 for License on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLIC1989122000086_1040288

ORIGINAL Before the RECEIVED FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 APR — 3 1992 In the Matter of the Applications ) Federal Communications Commission Office of the Secretary of ) ) AMERICAN MOBILE SATELLITE ) File No. 420—DSE—P/L—90 CORPORATION ) ) For Blanket License for 30,000 ) Mobile Earth Stations ) ) ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ) File No. 933—DSE—P/L—90 ) For Blanket License for 15,000 ) Mobile Earth Stations ) ) GEOSTAR MESSAGING CORPORATION ) File No. 2306—DSE—P/L—89 ) For Blanket License for 10,000 ) Mobile Earth Stations ) ) In the 1530—1544 MHz (downlink) ) and 1626.5—1645.5 (uplink) Bands ) ) COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ) File No. I—T—C—90—038 CORPORATION WORLD SYSTEMS DIVISION ) ) 7 For authority pursuant to Section ) 214 of the Communications Act of ) 1934 to establish and operate ) communications channels via the ) INMARSAT system using a MARISAT ) satellite and an earth station at ) Southbury, CT (WB—36) for interim ) use by the authorized domestic ) mobile satellite service (MSS) ) carrier in its provision of ) domestic MSS services ) In the Matter of N r n n n n n n n 2z r iz Aeronautical Radio, Inc. and the File No. I—S—P—90—002 Air Transport Association of America Provision of Aeronautical Services via the INMARSAT System Communications Satellite File No. I—T—C—90—085 Corporation

Application for Authority to NN N zn Provide Limited Aeronautical Services Within the U.S. via the INMARSAT System REPLY OF ARINC AND ATA TO COMMENTS FILED ON PETITIONS FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION Aeronautical Radio, Inc. ("ARINC"), and the Air Transport Association of America ("ATA") hereby submit their reply to comments filed on two petitions, submitted by AMSC subsidiary Corporation ("AMSC"), seeking partial reconsideration of the Commission‘s Order and Authorization‘! and Memorandum, Opinion and Order‘ in the above—captioned proceedings. Upon review of the comments on AMSC‘s petitions filed by Rockwell*® and Comsat,* it has become clear that AMSC‘s proposed technical and transition requirements are designed primarily to serve AMSC‘s private, as opposed to the public, interest. ARINC and ATA agree that, as shown by Comsat, terminals capable of operating only in the maritime and land 1 American Mobile Satellite Corporation, FCC 92—26 (released Feb. 4, 1992) (Order and Authorization) [hereinafter "AMSC Order"). 2 Aeronautical Radio, Inc. and the Air Transport Association of America, FCC 92—25 (released Feb. 6, 1992) [hereinafter "ARINC Order‘"j. 3 Comments of Rockwell International Corporation, filed March 24, 1992. 4 Opposition of Communications Satellite Corporation to Petitions for Partial Reconsideration, filed March 24, 1992 .

mobile spectrum need not meet those requirements. However, because of the potential for harmful interference to aviation safety services that might result from the continued use of non—type accepted land mobile terminals in aeronautical safety spectrum (1545—1559 MHz and 1646.5—1660.5 MHz), ARINC and ATA urge the Commission to ensure that interim as well as future MSS operations are suitably conditioned to protect aviation services. The other commenters join ARINC and ATA in questioning the underlying purposes of AMSC‘s petitions. The Commission has already determined that AMSC is not to be the sole interim MSS provider.‘ Yet, adoption of AMSC‘s proposals would effectively establish it as the gatekeeper for both interim and permanent MSS operations. By requiring conformance with its proposed technical standards for mobile terminals even in the absence of a comprehensive engineering specification for the AMSC system, and requesting that the Commission mandate that interim service providers coordinate their operations with AMSC from the start as well as complete the transition to the AMSC system within 60 days of AMSC‘s self—certification of operation, AMSC would effectively achieve veto power over the parameters of all MSS service. For all of the reasons previously considered by the 5 ARINC Order, q 22—23.

Commission, such a result would clearly be contrary to the public interest. Instead, as ARINC and ATA have explained, the Commission‘s central concern should be to ensure that interim MSS operations do not pose a threat of harmful interference to aviation safety services, particularly if the permanent domestic system employs shared spectrum. To accomplish this, MSS operations in aviation safety spectrum must be subject to the same type acceptance and other requirements as aeronautical mobiles. Such requirements would not pose an uflreasonable burden on MSS providers, but would ensure the successful and beneficial coexistence of land mobile and critical aviation safety services. Thus, authorizations for interim mobile terminals capable of operating in aviation safety spectrum should be conditioned on compliance with reasonable technical standards. The standards and type acceptance criteria previously identified by ARINC and ATA should ensure that aviation safety services will be protected from interference and receive priority and real time preemptive access to all system resources." A mechanism should also be adopted to remove from operation all non—compliant and non—type accepted land mobile terminals. The FCC properly imposed these 6 See ARINC/ATA Comments at 8—10.

requirements on the interim aircraft earth stations; it should impose the same conditions on land mobile earth stations operating in the same spectrunm. In addition, all commenters have demonstrated that AMSC‘s proposed 60—day transition schedule is completely unrealistic. As ARINC and ATA detailed in their Comments, that time span is too short a period to ensure a smooth and safe transition to the domestic MSS system. Most importantly, because aviation services are subject to FAA certification and approval prior to implementation, AMSC‘s self—certification is inadequate to authorize air traffic service operations on the domestic system. Additional testing and government review of both AMSC‘s satellite links and attendant systems (including such items as pilot operations manuals) must be completed before any transition can be accomplished. Moreover, given the lack of definitive information about the domestic MSS system, its procedures and capabilities for priority and preemptive access, and other variables, there is simply no way to predict how long the FAA approval process could take, or when the transition could be completed consistent with the terms established by the Commission. For example, it required substantial live operational testing and approximately eighteen months time to secure the requisite FAA certification for the offering of air traffic services over a known and proven satellite system —— Inmarsat —— by

experienced providers —— Comsat and ARINC. Clearly, the Commission‘s current requirement that interim users notify the Commission and AMSC of their transition plans within 90 days of the launch of AMSC‘s first satellite is more than sufficient to ensure a smooth transition to the permanent system. Respectfully submitted, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC. OF AMERICA By : Egn;zg~«dfl~b// By: James E. Landry”&é@g—— John L. tTlett Senior Vice President Robert Butler and General Counsel Nancy J. Victory 1709 New York Avenue, N.W. WILEY, REIN & FIELDING Washington, D.C. 20006 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 429—7000 April 3, 1992

Joel S. Winnik Gerald E. Oberst, Jr. Hogan & Hartson Columbia Square 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Raul R. Rodriquez Stephen D. Baruch Leventhal, Senter & Lerman Suite 600 2000 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Norman Jackson Head, Technical Department International Air Transport Association IATA Building 2000 Peel Street, Montreal Quebec, Canada H3A 2R4 Lloyd N. Cutler Sally Katzen Mitchell Lazarus Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037—1420 Thomas Sugrue Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room H4717 Washington, D.C. 20230 Jean Prewitt Chief Counsel National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room H4717 Washington, D.C. 20230 — iii —

Gregg Daffner Director, International Policy National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room H4701L Washington, D.C. 20230 John E. Turner Associate Administrator for Advanced Design and Management Control Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. ADM—1 Room 800W Washington, D.C. 20591 William H. Stine Manager, Plans and International Aviation National Business Aircraft Association, Inc. 1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036—2598 G. R. Strevey President Ball Communication Systems Division P.0. Box 1235 Broomfield, Colorado 80020—8235 Linda K. Snmith Crowell & Moring 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004—2505 Robert S. Koppel Director, Legal and Regulatory Affairs IDB Communications Group, Inc. 15245 Shady Grove Road suite 460 Rockville, Maryland 20850—3222 Peter Tannenwald Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 James G. Ennis Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth 1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036—2679 — iy —

SERVICELIST Bruce D. Jacobs, Esq. Glenn S. Richards, Esq. Fisher, Wayland, Cooper & Leader 1255 23rd Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20037 Lon C. Levin Vice President and Requlatory Counsel American Mobile Satellite Corporation 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Jill Abeshouse Stern, Esq. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Philip Schneider President Geostar Messaging Corporation 1001 22nd Street, N.W. suite 550 Washington, D.C. 20037 Neal T. Kilminster COMSAT Mobile Communications 950 L‘Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024 James E. Landry Senior Vice President and General Counsel Air Transport Association of America 1709 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Colin R. Green The Solicitor and Chief Legal Advisor The Solicitor‘s Office British Telecommunications ple 81 Newgate Street London ECIAT7AJ England United Kingdonm — i4 —

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Phyllis C. Hall, a legal secretary at the law offices of Wiley, Rein & Fielding, hereby certify that I have this 3rd day of April 1992 caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Reply of ARINC and ATA to Comments Filed on Petitions for Partial Reconsideration" to be served, by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the parties listed on the attached service list. (Rnc U / / {/ Phyllis C. Hall

Veronica M. Ahern Albert Schuldiner Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle One Thomas Circle, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 F. Thomas Tuttle 1300 Nineteenth Street, N.W. sSuite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036


Document Created: 2019-05-22 17:16:24
Document Modified: 2019-05-22 17:16:24
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC