dortc001.PDF

LETTER submitted by Row 44 Inc.

Letter

2010-12-17

This document pretains to SES-LIC-20100805-00992 for License on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLIC2010080500992_857346

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Application of Panasonic Avionics ) File Nos. SES-LIC-20100805-00992 Corporation for Authority to Operate Up to ) SES-AMD-20100914-01163 15 Technically Identical Aeronautical ) SES-AMD-20101115-01432 Mobile-Satellite Service (“AMSS”) Aircraft ) Earth Stations (“AESs”) in the 14.0-14.4 ) Call Sign E100089 GHz and 11.7-12.2 GHz Frequency Bands ) REPLY TO “CONSOLIDATED REPLY” OF ROW 44, INC. Anita Kartic Carlos M. Nalda Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs Joshua T. Guyan and Strategic Partnerships Squire Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. Panasonic Avionics Corporation 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 26200 Enterprise Way Suite 500 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 626-6659 Counsel for Panasonic Avionics Corporation December 13, 2010

SUMMARY Panasonic Avionics Corporation (“Panasonic”) hereby submits its reply to the late-filed pleading of Row 44, Inc. regarding Panasonic’s application for blanket license authority to operate a limited number of aircraft earth stations (“AESs”) as part of the “eXConnect” Ku-band aeronautical mobile-satellite service (“AMSS”) system. It the pleading, Row 44 continues its spurious attacks on Panasonic’s straightforward AMSS application. From a technical standpoint, Panasonic proposes to combine a small number of previously licensed MELCO antennas with well-known modem technology operating at a lower maximum power spectral density to provide aeronautical connectivity to the same aircraft that operated in the United States under prior Commission authority. From a procedural standpoint, Panasonic’s application was filed under Section 25.220 with the required supporting technical documentation and its operations have been fully coordinated with potentially affected satellite operators, so the Commission need not address Row 44’s unsupported criticisms. Panasonic voluntarily provided supplemental technical data regarding MELCO antenna operations similar to that required for earth stations onboard vessels (“ESV”) and vehicle- mounted earth stations (“VMESs”) to further demonstrate compliance with the Commission’s two-degree spacing policies. However, Row 44 inappropriately seeks to bootstrap this additional technical information to require full compliance with the Commission’s ESV and VMES rules, even though its own AMSS application was considered under Section 25.220. Although the Commission need not substantively consider Row 44’s latest filing, Panasonic addresses the arguments set forth in that submission. Specifically, Panasonic (i) correctly and appropriately incorporated by reference technical information from the prior MELCO AMSS licensing proceeding; (ii) addressed the differences between the Connexion by

Boeing and eXConnect systems in detail in its AMSS application and its response to Row 44’s initial petition; (iii) submitted sufficient antenna gain and EIRP spectral density data; (iv) provided sufficient information regarding antenna pointing accuracy and pointing methodology; (v) confirmed the transmit bandwidth of the MELCO antenna; and (vi) adequately described the service area of the eXConnect System. Finally, Panasonic renews its objection to Row 44’s unilateral modification of the Commission’s filing deadlines and consideration of its late-filed pleading. Row 44’s baseless criticisms of Panasonic’s AMSS application fly in the face of clear Commission precedent – precedent established in Row 44’s own AMSS licensing order. In that proceeding, the Commission concluded that it need not address “arguments concerning adjacent satellite interference, because [applicant] has resolved these interference issues through coordination with all potentially affected satellite operators.” Row 44 ignores this explicit precedent, misreads the Commission’s rules and policies, and mischaracterizes Panasonic’s AMSS application in a single-minded effort to delay an impending AMSS competitor. The Commission should reject these efforts, substantively consider the Panasonic AMSS application and grant requested operating authority for the previously authorized MELCO antenna, as appropriately conditioned, at the earliest possible time. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2 II. ROW 44’S SPURIOUS ATTACKS DO NOT OBSCURE THE STRAIGHTFORWARD ISSUES IN THIS PROCEEDING ............................................ 3 A. Panasonic’s AMSS Application – The Facts ......................................................... 3 B. Panasonic’s AMSS Application – The Law .......................................................... 4 III. PANASONIC’S AMSS APPLICATION FULLY SATISFIES THE COMMISSION’S RULES................................................................................................. 7 A. Relevant Data From the Prior MELCO Application Proceeding Is Properly Considered in this Proceeding ............................................................................... 8 1. Data Incorporated by Reference Is Specifically Cited, and Current and Accurate in All Significant Respects .................................................. 8 2. Panasonic Has Fully Addressed Differences between Prior MELCO Operations and Operations with the eXConnect System............ 9 B. Panasonic’s Demonstration Regarding Off-Axis EIRP Spectral Density Along the GSO Arc Is Sufficient ......................................................................... 12 1. Panasonic Has Submitted More Antenna Data than Other Ku-band AMSS Licensees...................................................................................... 12 2. The Supplemental Information Submitted by Panasonic Is Based on Measured Antenna Data...................................................................... 14 C. Panasonic’s Demonstration Regarding Off-Axis EIRP Spectral Density at Maximum Skew Angle Is Sufficient.................................................................... 17 D. Panasonic’s Application Contains Sufficient Information Concerning Pointing Accuracy to Avoid Interference to Adjacent Satellites ......................... 18 E. Panasonic’s Application Confirms the MELCO Antenna’s Transmit Bandwidth ............................................................................................................ 21 F. Panasonic’s Application Confirms the Geographic Service Area of the MELCO Antenna ................................................................................................. 22 IV. THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE LATE-FILED DECEMBER 1 PLEADING ........................................................... 23 V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 25


Document Created: 2019-04-10 06:28:08
Document Modified: 2019-04-10 06:28:08
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC