Attachment Dismissal letter

This document pretains to SES-LIC-20051018-01425 for License on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLIC2005101801425_492056

Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 pa 06—775 March 31, 2006 Mr. Alfied Mamiet Steptoc & Johnson LLP 1330 Comnectient Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20036—1795 Re:=— Call Sign: EO5023 File No.: SES—LIC—20051018—01425 Dear Mr. Mamlet: On October 18, 2005, Ststos Offshore Services Company (Sizatos) fled the above—captioned application secking a license to operate a network of Ku—Band earth stations on board vessels (ESV) using a 13—meterfixed earh station‘ in Bristow, Virginia. Pursuant to Section 25.112(a¥(1) ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.1 12@@(1),we dismiss the application as defective. Specifill, foStratos‘s proposed one—meter ESV antennas (Remore Types #1 and #4),Stratos lissthe proposed Maximum EIRP per Carrir(tem E48) as 45.8 dBW for emission designator (item E47) 400KG7D This valueis greate than, and therefore inconsistent with, the Total EIRP for All Carriers (tem E40), which Stratosindicates is 43. dBW. Similarly for the 2.4 meter ESV antenna (Remote type #3),Sratoslists the proposed Maximum EIRP per Carricr (tem E48 of 52.2 dBW for the following emission designators (item E47): M90G7D, 2MBOG7D, 2M40G7D, and IMAOG7D. This greater than the Total EIRP for All Carrirs (tem E40), which Strtos indicates is 486 dBW. Likewise foth1.2 meter ESV antenna (Remote tpe #2), Stratos lists the proposed Maximum EIRP per Carie(tem E4) as 47.18 dBW for emission destenator (tem E47)512KG7D;the proposed Maximum EIRP per Carie(item E48) as 4894 dBW foremission designator (tem E47) 768KG7D, and the proposed Maximum EIRP per Carrir (tem E48) as 52.2 dBW for emission designator(tem E47)IM40G7D.. These areall greater thn the Total EIRP for All Carriers (tem 40), which Stratosindicates is 46.6 dBW. Given these inconsistencies, we cannot determine the proposed emission power. As a result, the application is defective, and is therefore dismissed While we dismissthe application on the above basis, we take the opportunity to apprise you of other concems we have should Stratos choose to re—ie the application Firs, in tems ES7 and ES9 ofthe Schedale B of the application, Strato iss the minimum antenna elevation angle as 0 degre. Section 25.205 of the Commission‘s riles, however, sttes that earth sttion antennas shall not be authorized for transmissionat an angle that is lss than 5 degrees measured from the horizantalplne to the direction of the maximum radiation. Call Sign E020071 lcensed to New Skies Networks, fc.

Federal Communications Commission Da 06775 Second, Stratos indicatesthat ts proposed 1.0 meter and 1.2 meteranternas meet the ofaxis EIRP density limits contained in Sections 25.222(a)(1) through (4) ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 CER. § 25.222(a)(1)through (4). Stratos appears to base this assertion on the assumption that the antennas also comply with the antenna radiation performance standards contained in Section 25209 of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.FR, § 25.209, The technical showings supplied in other applications folicenses for the same Sea‘Tel 1.0 and 1.2 meter antennas as Stratos proposes to utlize, indicate thatte antennas do not satisfy Section 25.209‘s anterna radiation performance standards between 1.25 and 1.5 degrees. Consequently, Stratos must include, in any rfiling, a demonstration of ts off—axis EIRP density levels beginning at 1.25 degrees off—axis with .1 degres increments outto 2.25 degrees of—axis. The demonstrtion should include a comparison oftauthorized offaxis EIRP density limits specified in Section 25222(a)(1)—)ofhe Commission‘s ules Finally, in Artachment C of the application, Stratosstates that.. the antenna controller can detect within 100 milliseconds a pointing errar that exceeds .5 degrees and ceasetransmissions immedistely...". Stratos must clarfy in any refling whether the antenna controller can automaticlly detectand cease transmissions within 100 milliseconds ofa pointing error that exceeds .5 degrees, in conformance with Section 25.222(@(7) ofhe Commission‘s rles, 47 CBR §2522200) Accordingly,pursuant to Section 25.112(a)(1)" ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.FR. § 25.112 (a)1),and Section 0.261 ofthe Commission‘s ules on delegations ofauthonty, 47 C.FR. § 0.261, we dismiss your application as defective without prejudiceto reiling Sincerely, Séot A. Kotler Chief, Systems Analysis Branch Satelite Division International Bureau 5. 47 CIRR. §28.112G)(0 See also Echostar Satelite LLC, Order on Reconsideration, DA 04—4056 (relesed December27, 2000)


Document Created: 2006-03-31 15:13:16
Document Modified: 2006-03-31 15:13:16
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC