Attachment Response

Response

REPLY submitted by Inmarsat Ventures Limited

Response

2007-04-30

This document pretains to SES-MFS-20051202-01665 for Modification w/ Foreign Satellite (earth station) on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESMFS2005120201665_563945

‘ ses tivern Sree n ue ooo Haegen 00. mooe rsoe Tecssessraimracsarmemr zn LATHAMeWATKIN S« rounsmuncomees sn Secdom Bonan newvon RECEIVED cvage fervenvigna Fanin Gungetony fartug res May 0 1 2007 foros hm ; se deriage Suaia Aviien adt. Satelte Dnision ww Intormationa Buree mas Stesnvate wan srpme Public Version—Redacted lmeme tage en vimegen e By HAND DELIVERY FILED/ACCEPTED Ms. Marlene H. Dortch APR 30 2007 Secretary FitenlConmuntates Connies Federal Communications Commission seamandy* 445 12th Street, SW, TW—B204 Washington, DC 20554 Re: Response of Inmarsat Ventures Limited to Supplement to Petitions to Hold in Abeyance and Comments of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC File Nos. Listed on Exhibit A to the Attached Pleading Dear Ms. Dortch: Pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Protective Order issued by the Commission in these proceedings (DA 07—737, rl. Feb. 16, 2007),Inmarsat Ventures Limited submitsthe redacted, public version of ts Response to the Supplement submitted by Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC. A nor—redacted, confidential version of the Response is being filed under separate cover. Please direct any inquiries regarding this submission to the undersigned. Respectfully submited, foffA Mb John P. Janka Jeffrey A. Marks Counselfor Inmarsat Ventures Limited e: See attached service ist Enclosure posson

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONs commission FILED/ACCEPTED Washington, D.C. APR 30 2007 In the matter of )) FiteaOonmsnistes Conninin Oe e in Telenor Satellite, Inc. ) File Nos.included on Exhibit A Stratos Communications, Inc. ) Satamatics, Inc. ) SkyWave Mobile Communications Corp. ) FTMSC US, LLC ) MVS USA, Inc. ) BT Americas Inc. ) Thrane and Thrane Airtime Ltd. ) Horizon Mobile Communications Inc. ) RESPONSE OF INMARSAT VENTURES LinITED Inmarsat Ventures Limited (*Inmarsat") responds to the April 18, 2007 Supplement to Petitions to Hold in Abeyance and Comments ("Supplement") ofMobie Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (MSV®). A. Background On January 18, 2006, the Commission granted special temporary authority ("STA®) to certain Inmarsat distributors (the "Licensees") to enable the continued provision of services over the then—recently—launched Inmarsat 4F2 spacecraft." In those STAs, the Commission requested that a report be submitted explaining why "given the increased capacity ofthe Inmarsat 4F2 satellitereative to the (predecessor} Inmarsat 3F4 satellte, there would be any discontinuance of, or degradation ofthe reliability of, existing operations""if the Licensees did not have continued access to certain segments ofthe L—band. Each ofthe Licensees complied by the February 17, 2006 deadline, and Inmarsat also submitted a report to provide the ! See, e4. Stratos Communications, Inc., SES—STA—2005 1216—01760 (granted Jan. 18, 2006). * 1d. (Condition 3)

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED Commission with confidentialinformation known only to Inmarsat (the "Report‘). On February 23, 2007, Inmarsat provided MSV with access to the Report pursuant to a Protective Order adopted one week eartierMSV filed its Supplement almost two months later. As has been the case historically, the Inmarsat satellite network, including the 1—4 spacecraft at 53° W.L. and the 1—3 spacecraft at 98° W.L. and 142° W.L. is used to provide essentialservices to the United States Government ("USG"), among others. The USG users include the Department ofHomeland Security (including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)), the U.S. Army, U.S. Army Special Operations, U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Intelligence Community, United States Special Operations Command, and U.S. Executive Branch and Congressional officials. Moreover, a number ofU.S. military ales rely on access to these spacecraft. Demand from USG users has grown steadily since February 2006, when the Report was prepared.. As Inmarsat explained in the Report, USG users, as well as commercial users, would be adversely affected if Inmarsatdid not have continued access to all of the spectrum it currently is, and historically has been, using. B..— The Report Was Accurate and Responsive In its Supplement, MSV comments on the information provided in the Report and repeats ts request that the Commission preclude use of portions ofthe L—band that are the subject of a Tongstanding dispute between Inmarsat, MSV, and MSV Canada (the "Disputed Spectrum"). As in the past with similar MSV filings, Inmarsat fundamentally disagrees with MSVs characterization of () the Inmarsat Report, (i)the history of and circumstances surrounding the Disputed Spectrum,(ii) MSV‘s spectrum needs, (i) the service demands of existing Inmarsat customers (which alone establish the need forall of the L—band spectrum * See Protective Order, DA 07—737 (rel. Feb. 16, 2007).

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED Inmarsat currently is using), and (v)the authority for Inmarsat distributors to use all of the frequencies they currently are using under existing Commission licenses. Inmarsat will not address most of those issues further as they have been briefed multiple times before.* In the Report, Inmarsat provided responsive information based on data about the Inmarsat—4 satellite over which the STA services are being provided. Because those services were transitioned to the Inmarsat—4 spacecraft on January 22, 2006, the February 17, 2006 Report provided measured data about the first few weeks of the commercial operation ofthat spacecraft." The Report demonstrates that the Disputed Spectrum is both currently used and needed by Inmarsat, and explains the impact of the Janary 2006 transition of service from Inmarsat—3 to Inmarsat—4. Although Inmarsat had concemns about providing such information outside the context of intemational spectrum coordination," Inmarsatdid so in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation. Moreover, Inmarsatoffered to answer any questions that the Commission mayhave regarding the scope or content of the Report. Inmarsatdisagrees with MSV‘s mischaracterization of the content and relevance of certain aspects ofthe Report, including the following issues that MSV raises: 1. MSVattempts t con—», AR@R@RiRiRpppppppee * For the sake ofadministrative efficiency, Inmarsatincorporates byreference the following pleadings: Opposition of Inmarsat Ventures Limited, File No. SES—MFS—20060118—00050 er al. (filed Mar. 16, 2006); Joint Opposition of Inmarsat and Others to MSV Request to Exclude Disputed Spectrum, Call Sign E010011 er al. (filed Jul. 6, 2006). 5 CJ MSV Supplement at 9 (noting Inmarsat‘s provision of data only for the period after January 22, 2007). ® See Robert J. Butler, 6 RCC Red 5414 (1991) (*Butler®). Inmarsat therefore submitted the Report along with a request for confidentialty.

PUBLIC VERSIO REDACTED Sssm ioin conce, ind withou omitinc key words (as MSV does},the cited statements are correct and fully consistent.. BR uOA— contrast,the Report addressed the spccifics or IR@N@i@iiinnnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmg Specifically, Inmarsatindicored «hAR@R@pippppppppppppppppzzzz Inmarsat then cxplained that becous@R@@iRgiiiiiiiiiinnnnppzin [° That remains truc today. n C:—, BRRiRiiipppppppp 2 MSV speculates that the [RWRRRRRRRRRRI that Inmarsat has reported on Aftachment A to the Report could reflectissues other than spectrum constraints." That is simply wrong. Those figures were compiled in a way to exclude [WWWWRBRBB due to other reasons Specifically,the figures in Attachment A include on\ A@iiiimmmmmmmmnmmmmn EN in ohc: won«~.«: Ee t\ 0c issc c<clocc B "‘— MSVSupplement at $—9.

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED 3. MSVwrongly claims Inmarsat has asserted that because W# !* Rather, Inmarsat expresslyindicated:. [RWBJ MSVpostulates without any basis +.; IZ,°RUINrirmmmmmmmg > y $ m &&

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED Moreover, while MSV may voicedissatisfaction with the data provided in Inmarsat‘s Report,"® whether Inmarsat has provided the data that ASY would like to see simply has no bearing on whether Inmarsat actually needs or uses the Disputed Spectrum. As detailed below, that data is properly provided on a multilateral basis in the context of the Mexico City Memorandum of Understanding (the "Mexico City MOU® or the "MOU®). And while MSV claims the needs of other Inmarsat satellites should not be considered, " it bears noting that, applying MSV‘s arguments to itself,() MSV*s next—generation spacecraft are "uncoordinated.,""" and (ii) MSV‘s fature spectrum need for that "uncoordinated" network is wholly irrelevant."" C.— The Additional Information MSV Secks Should Be Mutually Provided in the Context of the Mexico City MOU Contrary to what MSV asserts,"" Commission precedent and policy are clear that the additional data (and the reassignment of L—band frequencics) that MSV now seeks in the Supplement are appropriately addressed in the context of international coordination pursuant to the 1996 Mexico City MOU. In this respect, it is significant that the MOU does not assign specific frequencies to any L—band operator (or to any nation). Rather, L—band spectrum assignments to individual operators are to be *reviewed anmually on the basis ofactual usage 5* MSV Supplement at 9—10. _ See MSV Supplement at11. * MSV Sub. LLC, 20 FCC Red 9752, 9765 4 34 (2005). *‘ CJ MSV Supplement at 13. Before the Commission considers MSV‘s assertions about the spectrum needs of its existing spacecraft, MSV Supplement at 12—13, MSV should be required, in the contextofthe MOU, to both (1) quantify and substantiate its existing need for L—band spectrum, and (i) address the extent to which recent technical anomalies on its spacecraft have actually reduced customer demand for MSV services and thus have reduced MSVs short—term spectrum needs. * MSV Supplement at 14 (referring to the Disputed Spectrum as a "domestic licensing matter®).

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED and short—term projections offuture need.""" The most recent annual spectrum sharing agreement ("SSA"), covering the twelve months ended December 1999, expired by its own terms when MSV unilaterally declined to extend it. That SSA is no longer is in effect, and it has not been replaced."" As the Commission has acknowledged, MSV therefore is in no position to complain about the continued absence of an $SA, o MSV‘s failure to have had any specific L~ band frequeney assignments for the past eight years."" Thus, the Commission has appropriately recognized that, under the MOU, no L~ band operator has the exclusive, permanent right o any particular frequency,"" and "no operator can assert any claim with respect to a specific piece of spectrum."" Because no operator "ouns" any L—band frequency, and because there is no SSA in effect assigning any specific frequency o any operator, () no operator today has any spectrum assignment thatit ean "loan‘" to another,and (ii) no operator has any spectrum loan today for which it can "demand"the retur."". Even ®— Public Notice, FCC Hails Historic Agreement on International Satellite Coordination, Report No. IN 96—16 (rel. June 25, 1996) See, eg., pleadings cited supra note 4. *5. See Brief for Appellee (FCC), AMSC Subsidiary Corporation v. FCC, Case No. 99—1513, p. 34—35 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 2000) (Public Copy) ("One is reminded ofthe man who killed his parents and asked for merey because he was an orphan. As AMSC acknowledges in its brief ... it was AMSC that vetoed the proposed extension ofthe operating agreement, despite the absence of any immediate interference problem, ‘believing it was better strategically to force the issue ofhow to deal with the spectrum shortage."") (emphasis supplied). As with any contract, the automatic December 31, 1999 expiration ofthe 1999 SSA could not have been modified withoutthe express written consent of each party thereto, including MSV‘s predecessor, AMSC. * See Flexibilip for Delivery of Communications by MSS Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L~ Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, 20 FCC Red 4616, 4629 n.91 (2005) ("In the L—Band., all Hicensees have equal ights to all channels in the band."); COMSAT Corporation er al, 16 FCC Red 21661, 21670 4 6 (2001) (°COMSAT Order®") (the MOU creates a "unique framework to facilitate annual spectrum assignment agreements among the operators"). * COMSAT Order, 16 FCC Red at 21699 4 73. * Cf MSV Supplement at 23.

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED MSV!s predecessor (AMSC) recognized that, since the expiration ofthe 1999 SSA, "no country and no system have their own unique L—band frequencies.""" Therefore, the continued use ofthe L—band to provide Inmarsat services to, from, and within,the United States not only is proper, but also is fully consistent with Commission precedent that allows such operations on a non— harmfulinterference basis in the absence of an SSA."" Despite Inmarsat‘s urging on many occasions,"" the MOU process has not been reinitiated, and the international stalemate that has existed since 1999 has continued. In the meantime, Inmarsat‘s licensing administration, the U.K., has sought to reinitiate the annual meetings of all L—Band operators, and continues to make appropriate ITU filings for the various orbital locations used bythe spacecraft in the Inmarsat feet In the meantime, as well,Inmarsat has taken all reasonable steps to continue coordination of is fleet with MSV. But international spectrum coordination is a two—way street, based on an information exchange between coordinating parties. Unless and until MSV ®* See Final Reply Brief for Appellant (AMSC), AMSC Subsidiary Corporation v. FCC, Case No. 99—1513, p. 2 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 2000) (Public Copy); o MSV Supplement at 13. ®: See, eg., COMSAT Order, 16 FCC Red at 21699, 5 73 (operations "will be on a non— interference basis untl a future operator—to—operator agreement is concluded"); see also Mobile Satellie Ventures Subsidiary LLC, 19 FCC Red 4672, 4675 3 8 (2004) (in the absence ofa continuing annual operator—to—operator coordination agreement ... operation ... will be on a non—harmful interference basis.; see also excerpts of eight additional cases cited in Exhibit A to Opposition of Inmarsat Ventures Limited, File No. SES—MFS—20051207— 01709 et al. (filed Feb, 2, 2006). *‘ See, eComments ofInmarsat Ventures, TB Docket No. 01—185, at 23 (filed Oct. 22, 2001); Joint Reply, File No. File No. SES—8TA—20060710—01131 er al. at 3 (filed Aug. 26, 2006); see also,eg., Consolidated Response of Inmarsat Ventures Limited, File No. SES—STA— 20051216—01756 eral. (filed Jan. 6, 2006) (describing the repeated efforts ofInmarsat and the U.K. government have made since 1999 to re—engagein the MOU process and, separately, that Inmarsat has made to coordinate on a bilateral basis with MSV). * See Opposition ofInmarsat Ventures Limited, File No. SES—MEFS—200601 18—00050 et al (filed Mar. 16, 2006); Consolidated Response of Inmarsat Ventures Limited, File No. SES— STA—20051216—01756 et al. (filed Jan. 6, 2006); cf MSV Supplement at2.

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED provides data to substantiate MSV‘s own short—term need for the Disputed Spectrum, in accordance with Commission policy and the MOU, it is not reasonable for MSV to seek access to further confidential data about Inmarsat‘s business. Commission precedent recognizes that the provision of data that typically would be provided only on a bilateral basis in the context of a coordination could substantilly harm an operator, such as Inmarsat."" For these reasons, Inmarsat renews ts call for the Mexico City MOU process to be reinstituted again through a full Operator Review Mecting, in accordance with longstanding principles underlying that process—each party comes to the table with a demonstration of ts existing usage and short term need."" That is the proper forum for L—Band operators to demonstrate their spectrum needs, and to resolve outstanding coordination disputes, including the one at issue here. D. Conclusion In sum, MSVs protestations provide no basis to constrain the continued provision of new and innovative Inmarsat services to the American public. Commission policy and precedent wisely provide that achieving mutually acceptable spectrum coordination among competing operators is not a condition precedent to providing MSS in the United States."" In fact, MSV‘s request that the Commission foreclose the use ofthe Disputed Spectrum for ". See Butler, 6 RCC Red at 5414. * See supra note 28 (citing prior requests to re—engagein the MOU process). * Establishment ofPolicies and Service Rules for MSS in the 2 GHz Band, 15 FCC Red 16127, 161924 148—49 (2000); SarCom Systems, Inc., 14 FCC Red 20708, 20813 4 30 (1999); Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to MSS in the 1610—1626.5/2483.5—2500 MHz Frequency Bands, 9 FCC Red 5936, 6018 % 211 (1994); AMSC Sub. Corp., 8 FCC Red 4040, 4043 % 17 (1993).

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED Inmarsat services and "not defer resolution of this issue to international coordination"" is fatly inconsistent with Commission policy and precedent. For these reasons, the Commission should grant the pending applications without delay, and should not preclude use of the Disputed Spectrum to provide Inmarsat services, as MSV requests. Moreover, the Commission should, consistent with ts longstanding policy, require MSV to fully participate in the Mexico City MOU process. Respectfully submitted, Diane J. Comell JohofP. Jarika Vice President, Govermment Affairs Jeffrey A. Marks Inarsat,Inc. Lamian & Wankins LLP 1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW. 555 Eleventh Street, NW. Suite 1200 Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 248—5155 Telephone: (202) 637—2200 Counselfor Inmarsat Ventures Limited April 30, 2007 * MSV Supplement at 14. 10

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED Exhibit A Pending Applications to Provide Earlier Generation Services with Inmarsat 4F2 Applicant File Number Stratos Communications Inc. SES—MFS—20051 122—01614 (Call Sign E000180) SES—MFS—20081122—01615 (Call Sign E010050) SES—MFS—20051 122—01616 (Call Sign E010048) SES—MFS—20051 122—01617 (Call Sign E010049) SES—MPS—20051122—01618 (Call Sign E010047) SES—STA—20070309—00327 (Call Sign £010050) SES—STA—20070309—00328 (Call Sign EO10049) SES—STA—20070309—00329 (Call Sign EO10048) SES—STA—20070309—00330 (Call Sign EO10047) SES—STA—20070309—00331 (Call Sign EO0O180) Telenor Satellit, Inc. SES—MFS—20051123—01626 (Call Sign KA312) SES—MFS—20081 123—01627 (Call Sign KA313) SES—MFS—20051 123—01629 (Call Sign WA28) SES—MFS—20081 123—01630 (Call Sign WB36) SES—MFS—20060118—00050 (Call Sign EO00280) SES—MFS—200601 18—00051 (Call Sign E000282) SES—MFS—200601 18—00052 (Cll Sign E00283 SES—MFS—20060118—00053 (Call Sign E000283) SES—LIC—20060130—00175 (Call Sign EO60025) SES—STA—20070220—00253 (Cal Sign WB36) SES—STA—20070220—00250 (Call Sign KA313) SES—STA—20070220—00249 (Call Sign EO00280) SES—STA—20070220—00247 (Call Sign EO00283) SES—S TA—20070220—00246 (Call Sign EO00285) SES—$TA—20070220—00252 (Call Sign E000284) SES—STA—20070220—00248 (Call Sign EO00282) SkyWave Mobile Communications SES—MFS—20051207—01709 (Call Sign EO3005S) Corp. SES—STA—20070309—00326 (Call Sign E03005S) Satamatics, Inc. SES—MES—2005120—01665 (Call Sign EO20074) SES—STA—20061221—02209 (Call Sign E020074 Pending Applications to Provide BGAN Services with Inmarsat 4F2 Applicant File Number Stratos Communications Inc. | SES—LFS—20050826—01 175 eral. (Call Sign EO50240) Telenor Satellite, Inc. SES—LFS—20050030—01352 eral. (Call Sign E050270) Epvsc us, LLC SES—LFS—20051011—01396 eral (Call Sign EOS028) MVS USA, Inc. SES—LFS—20051123—01634 eral. (Call Sign EOS0348) BT Americas Inc. SES—LFS—20060303—00343 er al. (Call Sign EO60076) Thrane and Thrane Airtime Lid. SES—LFS—20060522—00852 (Call Sign EO60179) Horizon Mobile Communications, Inc. SES—LFS—20070109—00042 (Call Sign E070006) peosise

PUBLIC VERSION—REDACTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Jeffrey A. Marks, hereby certify that on this 30th day of April 2007, 1 caused to be served a true copy of the foregoing by first class mail, postage pre—paid (or as othervise indicated) upon the following: Robert Nelson® Jennifer A. Manner Chief, Satellite Division Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Interational Bureau Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC Federal Communications Commission 1002 Park Ridge Boulevard 445 12" Street, S.W. Reston, Virginia 20191 Washington, DC 20554 David S. Konezal® Linda J. Cicco Tony Lin BT Avericas Inc. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 11440 CommercePark Drive 2300 N Street, N.W. Reston, VA 20191 Washington, DC 20037—1128 Peter Rohrbach Eic Fishman Karis Hestings Holland & Knight LLP Hogan & Hartson LL.P. 2009 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 555 13" Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Washington, D.C. 20004 Counsel to Thrane & Thrane Airtime Lid. Counsel to FTMSC US, LLC Keith H. Fagan Lawrence J. Movshin Senior Counsel Robert G. Morse Tecmnor Sareture, Inc. Wiukmison Barker Knaver, LLP 1101 Wootton Parkway 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 700 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20037 Rockville, MD 20852 Counsel to MVS USA, Inc. Alfred M. Mamlet E. Ashton Johnston Mare A. Paul Lampert & O‘Connor, P.C. Brendan Kasper 1776 K Street, NW, Suite 700 Srepros & Jornson tir Washington, DC 20006 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Counselfor Horizon Mobile Communication Washington, D.C. 20036 Inc Counsel to Satamatics, Inc., StyWave Mobile Communications Corp., and Stratos Communications, Inc *By Hand Tel . Marks


Document Created: 2007-05-02 10:20:58
Document Modified: 2007-05-02 10:20:58
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC