Attachment Higher Ground - Repl

This document pretains to SES-LIC-20150616-00357 for License on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLIC2015061600357_1202436

Before the & FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS commssronAccepted / Filed Washington, D.C. 20554 MAR 21 2017 In the Matter of Communications Commission Office of the Secretary 57 Higher Ground LLC File No. SES—LIC—20150616—003 Application for a Blanket License to Call Sign E150095 Operate C—band Mobile Earth Terminals REPLY OF THE FIXED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS COALITION TO THE CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW OF HIGHER GROUND LLC Pursuant to Section 1.115(d) of the Commission‘s rules, the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc. (FWCC) replies to the Consolidated Opposition to Applications for Review filed by Higher Ground LLC (HG) on March 6, 2017 (Opposition). The challenged Order grants HG a waiver to deploy up to 50,000 mobile satellite earth stations—"SatPaqs"—transmitting in the 5925—6425 MHz band. Thesé frequencies are shared on a co—primary basis with the Fixed Service (FS), which operates approximately 58,000 point—to— point microwave links in the band. Some of these carry communications that are critical to safety of life and property. A waiver must accomplish the purpose of the rules it waives.‘ The purpose of the rules waived here is to protect the FS from harmful interference. As the proponent, HG has the burden of proof." The only evidence in the record that HG‘s system will prevent interference comes in HG‘s own statements, and those same statements as repeated in the Order and by Virginia Tech 1 WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir 1969). 2 HG incorrectly suggests otherwise: "The Petitioners offer up little in support of their claims that Higher Ground will interfere with C—band FS stations." Higher Ground Opposition at 4. This is backwards. HG has the burden of proving it will not cause interference.

Professor Jeffrey H. Reed, with no independent verification. HG describes at length its principles for choosing non—interfering frequencies, but these are merely design criteria: goals for the technology. Nothing in the record shows that HG has achieved them. No one has ever done what HG promises: unilateral coordination of mobile transmitters among fixed receivers. The stakes here warrant the Commission‘s asking for more in the way of assurance than a further repetition of HG‘s own claims. HG misquotes the FWCC as agreeing its operations will have negligible interference effects. (Opposition at 6.) We agree the interference threat should be negligible if HG‘s coordination methods were successful." The success of those methods is the point in dispute. HG claims to have conducted multiple "demonstrations" showing how its software identifies non—interfering frequencies. The one open to us was a staged presentation that offered no way to tell whether the software did what it was supposed to. At the presentation, HG conceded it would not protect the FS against adjacent channel interference, even though frequency coordinators routinely take that into account. We explained that HG‘s later response—a promise to comply with out—of—band emissions limits—has no bearing on this problem. Now HG argues instead that low signal strength and small likelihood of proximity to an FS station result in minimal risk of interference. This language comes from the Order;, but with no explanation, analysis, or other reason to think it is factually correct. 3 We said: "Higher Ground‘s stated aim is to limit interference caused by its transmitters to 6 dB below the thermal noise power level of affected fixed service receivers. IfHigher Ground‘s coordination methods are successful in achieving this goal, we agree the interference effects should be negligible." Letter from Cheng—yi Liu and Mitchell Lazarus, Counsel to FWCC, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, at 6 (June 8, 2016) (emphasis added) (citation footnote omitted). 2.

UTC‘s Application for Review properly raised concerns about reflections in the environment. HG responded that the SatPaq transmitters use directional antennas pointed toward the satellite "overhead," not toward the ground where reflections can occur. This is wrong several ways. Geosynchronous satellites are never "overhead" in the United States. In northern regions they are low in the sky. The SatPaq antennas‘ low directionality and wide patterns will direct energy toward the ground despite being aimed at the satellite. Even if HG were to fix these particular problems, its responses show it does not understand the principles of frequency coordination, creating a risk of badly designed algorithms that will cause interference to the FS. HG could resolve that concern with public testing. It baffles us that HG would offer—and the Bureaus would approve—a potentially interfering system involving tens of thousands of transmitters that rely on a novel, untried technology in a band that carries critical communications, without a comprehensive, public field test. Although HG claims to have tested its system, it disclosed neither the conditions of the test nor the results. The Commission should find this unacceptable. HG relies on a claim that its own internal testing produced no interference complaints. Even if HG in fact had caused extensive interference, it still would have received no complaints. FS operators experiencing the interference would have had no way to suspect HG as the cause. HG dismisses our citing public tests of the TV white space coordination system by saying its system is far simpler and manages a limited number of devices within the same network. HG‘s 50,000 devices is hardly a "limited number." The TV white space system tracks just 7,157 TV stations—one—eighth the number of fixed links HG must protect; and the TV stations have

simpler antenna patterns.* A two—second interruption to TV service is annoying but not serious; a two—second interruption to a public safety FS backhaul link can shut down first responders‘ radios for fifteen minutes, leaving them deaf to 911 calls. If the TV white space system needed public testing under realistic conditions, the HG system certainly does. HG continues to insist that an FS operator experiencing interruption can approach Higher Ground and seek information from its log. This would increase the FS operator‘s workload solely to accommodate HG, and only because HG has not shown ahead of time that it will protect the FS. Even if HG‘s reporting mechanism found its system did cause interference, it cannot prevent further interference in the future, as would arise from faulty coordination algorithms. We argued from the start that a novel, widely—deployed, mobile technology having the potential to cause interference should have been evaluated through a rulemaking. HG‘s offer of closed meetings to a small subset of interested parties is no substitute. Of the two precedents that HG cites for authorization by waiver, one concerned a single earth station (not 50,000) operating under conditions similar to those proposed in a then—pending rulemaking; the other allowed operation on ships at sea—but only more than 100 km from land, unless the licensee had successfully completed conventional frequency coordination with all existing fixed service stations along its particular route." HG‘s waiver, which authorized tens of thousands of mobile devices using an untested coordination technology, is completely unprecedented. 4 Computed from Broadcast Station Totals as ofDecember 31, 2016 (released Jan. 5, 2017) (no release number). TV white space devices also protect other facilities in much smaller numbers. 5 L—3 Communications Titan Corp., 24 FCC Red 3047, T« 26, 6 (IB & OET 2009); Crescomm Transmission Services, 11 FCC Red 10944, 11 (IB & OET 1996). 4

The International Bureau buried the only public notice of HG‘s waiver request in a weekly listing of satellite applications. One applicant for review having a major interest in the outcome—a sophisticated party that appears often before the Commission— reports having been unaware of the proceeding until release of the Order.° Although HG claims the Bureaus also published a notice in the Federal Register (Opposition at 18 n.66), we cannot find that notice. HG failed to satisfy the minimum requirements for a waiver. The Commission should reverse the Order, revoke the waiver, and rescind the authorization. In the alternative, the Commission can set aside the waiver grant, return Higher Ground‘s application to pending status, and open a rulemaking that includes public testing of Higher Ground‘s system. Respectfully submitted, %V Cheng—yi Liu Mitchell Lazarus FLETCHER, HEALD— & HILDRETH, P.L.C. 1300 North 17Street, 11*" Floor Arlington, VA 22209 703—812—0400 Counsel for the Fixed Wireless March 21, 2017 Communications Coalition 6 Application for Review of APCO International at 2 (filed Feb. 17, 2017). 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Deborah N. Lunt, a secretary with the law firm of Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC, hereby state that true copies of the foregoing REPLY OF THE FIXED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS COALITION were sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, March 21, 2017, to the following service list. Deborah N. Lunt

SERVICE LIST Adam Krinsky, Esq. Attn: Dale Shaw Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP TOPAZ Regional Wireless Cooperative 1800 M Street, NW c/o City of Mesa Communications Dept Suite 800N PO Box 1466 Washington, DC 20036 Mesa, AZ 85211—1466 Counsel for Higher Ground LLC Jeffrey L. Sheldon, Esq. Michele C. Farqubar Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP Hogan Lovells US LLP 2001 L Street, NW, Suite 900 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Washington, DC 20004 Counsel for Southern Services, Inc. Counsel to AAR Randy Thompson Robert S. Reis Communications Administrator President City of Mesa Arizona Higher Ground, LLC PO Box 1466 2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200 Mesa AZ 85211—1466 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Vince Krog AJ Burton State Radio Engineer Director, Federal Regulatory Affairs Office of Enterprise Technology Services Frontier Communications 1177 Alakea Street, Room 201 1800 M Street, NW Honolulu, HI 96813 Suite 800N Washington, DC 20036 George Kizer President Robert S. Koppel National Spectrum Management Association Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP PO Box 528 7300 Greensboro Drive Englewood, NJ 07631 Suite 1200 McLean, VA 22102 Brett Kilbourne Counsel to Mimosa, Inc. Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Utilities Technology Council Pamila Gist 1129 10th Street, NW, Suite 350 Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP Washington, DC 20036 7300 Greensboro Drive Suite 1200 Susan H. Crandall McLean, VA 22102 Associate General Counsel Counsel to Pioneer Cellular Intelsat Corporation 7900 Tysons One Place Nebraska Public Power District McLean, VA 22101 PO Box 608 York, NE 68467

Tiffany West Smink Jeffrey S. Cohen CenturyLink Mark S. Reddish 1801 California, 10th Floor APCO INTERNATIONAL Denver, CO 80202 1426 Prince Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Elizabeth R. Sachs Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP David A. Felix, Executive Director 8300 Greensboro Drive City of Phoenix Suite 1200 Regional Wireless Cooperative McLean, VA 22102 200 West Washington Street Counsel to Enterprise Wireless Alliance Phoenix, Arizona 85003—1611 Jonathan Morgan Ralph A. Haller, Chairman GMRS — Radio System Manager National Public Safety Telecommunications City of Garland Council 1639 Commerce Street 8191 Southpark Lane, Suite 205 Garland, TX 75040 Littleton, Colorado 80120—4641 Scott Gentry Manager of Technical Services Kenergy P.0. Box 18 6402 Old Corydon Road Henderson, Kentucky 42419—0018 11


Document Created: 2017-03-22 16:02:10
Document Modified: 2017-03-22 16:02:10
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC