Iridium Reply REPLY by Iridium Satellite LLC SES-MFS-20091221-01618 Iridium_Reply_to_Glo

Iridium_Reply_to_Glo

REPLY submitted by Iridium Satellite LLC

Iridium Reply

2010-05-03

This document pretains to SES-MFS-20091221-01618 for Modification w/ Foreign Satellite (earth station) on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESMFS2009122101618_814121

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )
)
GLOBALSTAR LICENSEE LLC, GUSA )
LICENSEE LLC, AND GCL LICENSEE LLC )
)
Application for Modification of ) File No. SAT-AMD-20091221-00147
Nongeostationary Mobile Satellite Service )
System License (S2115) To Launch a Second- )
Generation System )
) File Nos. SES-AFS-20091221-01601
Application for Modification of Mobile ) SES-AFS-20091221-01607
Satellite Service Earth Station Licenses and ) SES-MFS-20091221-01602
Mobile Earth Terminal Licenses To Authorize ) SES-MFS-20091221-01603
Communications with Second-Generation ) SES-MFS-20091221-01604
System and To Incorporate Previously-Granted ) SES-MFS-20091221-01605
Ancillary Terrestrial Component Authority ) SES-MFS-20091221-01606
) SES-MFS-20091221-01608
) SES-MFS-20091221-01609
) SES-MFS-20091221-01610
) SES-MFS-20091221-01611
) SES-MFS-20091221-01612
) SES-MFS-20091221-01613
) SES-MFS-20091221-01614
) SES-MFS-20091221-01615
) SES-MFS-20091221-01616
) SES-MFS-20091221-01617
) SES-MFS-20091221-01618
)
)

REPLY OF IRIDIUM SATELLITE LLC

Donna Bethea Murphy R. Michael Senkowski
Vice President, Regulatory Engineering Peter D. Shields
Iridium Satellite LLC Jennifer D. Hindin
6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 500 Wiley Rein LLP
Bethesda, MD 20817 1776 K Street N.W.
(301) 571-6200 Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 719-7000
May 3, 2010 Counsel to Iridium Satellite LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .................................................................. 1
II. GLOBALSTAR’S OPPOSITION CONFIRMS THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF IMPOSING THE REQUESTED
CONDITIONS ON ANY GRANT OF ITS APPLICATION................................ 2
A. Globalstar Acknowledges That It Has Been and Continues to Be in
Violation of the Commission’s Rules ........................................................ 2
B. Globalstar Reveals For the First Time That It Applied for French
Space Station Authority Before the FCC Began to Accept
Comments on its Already Moot FCC Application and Waited
Eight Months to File the Required Section 1.65 Amendment. .................. 4
C. Globlastar’s Proposal Cannot Satisfy Both the FCC’s Licensing
Requirements and Its Policy Against Dual Licensing and Is
Unworkable................................................................................................ 5
D. Globalstar’s Proposal to Operate Its French-Licensed Satellites on
Iridium’s Spectrum Outside the United States is Inconsistent with
Adherence to the ITU Coordination Process. ............................................ 6
E. Globalstar Acknowledges That France Has Not Yet Provided
Iridium Full Landing Rights. ..................................................................... 7
III. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE, NECESSARY,
AND CONSISTENT WITH COMMISSION PRECEDENT ............................... 8
IV. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 12

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Iridium Satellite LLC (“Iridium”), by its attorneys and pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §

25.154, hereby replies to the opposition of Globalstar Licensee LLC, and GCL Licensee

LLC (“Globalstar”) to Iridium’s Petition to Deny the Amendment and Application1 in the

above-captioned matters.2 Globalstar’s Opposition confirms that any grant of its

Amendment and Application should be conditioned in order to ensure that the public

interest is served. First, Globalstar concedes that it operates outside of the terms of its

space station license and violates FCC rules. Second, Globalstar makes clear that its

proposal is unworkable and cannot satisfy both the FCC’s licensing requirements and its

policy against dual licensing. Third, Globalstar’s stated intention to operate its French-

licensed satellites outside the United States on spectrum that the FCC reassigned to

Iridium would be inconsistent with any possible outcome in the International

Telecommunication Union (“ITU”) coordination process pursuant to which the United
1
Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC, and GCL Licensee LLC,
Application for Modification of Nongeostationary Mobile Satellite Service System
License (S2115) To Launch a Second-Generation System; Application for Modification of
Mobile Satellite Service Earth Station Licenses and Mobile Earth Terminal Licenses To
Authorize Communications with Second-Generation System and To Incorporate
Previously-Granted Ancillary Terrestrial Component Authority, File Nos. SAT-MOD-
20080904-00165, SAT-AMD-20091221-00147, SES-AFS-20091221-01601, SES-AFS-
20091221-01607, SES-MFS-20091221-01602, SES-MFS-20091221-01603, SES-MFS-
20091221-01604, SES-MFS-20091221-01605, SES-MFS-20091221-01606, SES-MFS-
20091221-01608, SES-MFS-20091221-01609, SES-MFS-20091221-01610, SES-MFS-
20091221-01611, SES-MFS-20091221-01612, SES-MFS-20091221-01613, SES-MFS-
20091221-01614, SES-MFS-20091221-01615, SES-MFS-20091221-01616, SES-MFS-
20091221-01617, SES-MFS-20091221-01618 (filed Dec. 21, 2009) (“Globalstar
Amendment and Application”).
2
Iridium filed both an initial Opposition to Globalstar’s Amendment and
Application, Opposition of Iridium Satellite LLC (filed Dec. 31, 2009) (“Iridium
Opposition”), and a Petition to Deny, Petition to Deny of Iridium Satellite LLC (filed
Apr. 16, 2010) (“Iridium Petition”). In response to both pleadings, Globalstar filed an
Opposition. Opposition of Globalstar to Petition to Deny (filed Apr. 26, 2010)
(“Globalstar Opposition”).

States has unequivocal priority rights. Accordingly, the Commission should take all

necessary actions to maintain the effectiveness of its orders and rules. To the extent the

Commission grants Globalstar’s earth and space station applications, such grant should

include the conditions outlined in Iridium’s Petition and set forth in Section III below.

II. GLOBALSTAR’S OPPOSITION CONFIRMS THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF IMPOSING THE REQUESTED CONDITIONS ON ANY GRANT OF
ITS APPLICATION

In its Opposition, Globalstar admits to multiple violations of the Commission’s

rules and demonstrates a lack of respect for Commission authority. The Opposition also

makes clear that Globalstar’s existing proposal is inconsistent with the Commission’s

policy against dual licensing and with proper ITU coordination process. As the applicant

for a license modification, Globalstar bears the burden of demonstrating that granting its

applications would serve the public interest.3 It is difficult to imagine how Globalstar can

meet that burden where, absent conditions, violations of the Commission’s rules would

certainly continue upon grant.

A. Globalstar Acknowledges That It Has Been and Continues to Be in
Violation of the Commission’s Rules

Globalstar’s Opposition confirms that it has no intention of coming into

compliance with the spectrum limits or technical requirements of its existing U.S. space

station license.4 To the contrary, Globalstar admits that it has not “fully compl[ied]” with

3
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 308(a), (b), 309(a), (e); 47 C.F.R. § 25.117 (2009).
4
See Globalstar Opposition at 4; see also Globalstar Licensee LLC, Call Sign
S2115, Modification of Authority to Operate a Mobile Satellite Service System in the 1.6
GHz Frequency Band, Order of Modifications, 23 FCC Rcd 15207 (2008) (“Modification
Order”) (modifying Globalstar’s license according to the Commission’s MSS
Reallocation Order despite Globalstar’s objections); Spectrum and Service Rules for
Ancillary Terrestrial Components in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Big LEO Bands; Review of the
Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite

2

the Modification Order’s terms.5 And Globalstar concedes, yet again, that grant of its

pending waiver request would be necessary to condone its current use of the spectrum

between 1618.725 and 1621.35 MHz in Russia.6 Despite claiming that it has made “good

faith and transparent”7 efforts to comply, Globalstar makes no mention of how and

whether it responded to a letter sent by the International Bureau to Globalstar reminding

it to operate in full compliance with its licenses pending action on its waiver and STA

requests.8 Additionally, Globalstar’s statement that its “satellites receive in the L-band,

they do not transmit,”9 does not excuse its obligation to comply with all the frequency

requirements specified in the license, including those in the Earth-to-space direction.

Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Second Order on Reconsideration, Second
Report and Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 19733, ¶ 1 (2007)
(“MSS Reallocation Order”).
5
Globalstar Opposition at 4.
6
Globalstar Opposition at 3; Iridium has previously documented Globalstar’s
noncompliance on several occasions. See, e.g., Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA
Licensee LLC, Modification of Authority to Operate a Mobile Satellite System in the 1.6
GHz Frequency Band, Call Sign S2115, Call Sign E970381, File No. SAT-STA-
20081215-00231, Petition to Deny of Iridium Satellite LLC (filed Jan. 21, 2009);
Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC, Modification of Authority to Operate a
Mobile Satellite System in the 1.6 GHz Frequency Band, Call Sign S2115, Call Sign
E970381, File No. SAT-STA-20081215-00231, Reply of Iridium Satellite LLC (filed
Feb. 9, 2009); Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC, Application for
Modification of Nongeostationary Mobile Satellite Service System License (S2115) To
Launch a Second-Generation System, Call Sign S2115, File No. SAT-MOD-20080904-
00165, Petition to Deny of Iridium Satellite LLC (filed May 18, 2009).
7
Globalstar Opposition at 6.
8
Letter from Roderick K. Porter, Deputy Bureau Chief, International Bureau, FCC,
to William T. Lake, Counsel to Globalstar LLC, Call Sign S2115 (filed Dec. 17, 2008).
9
Globalstar Opposition at 9.

3

B. Globalstar Reveals For the First Time That It Applied for French
Space Station Authority Before the FCC Began to Accept Comments
on its Already Moot FCC Application and Waited Eight Months to
File the Required Section 1.65 Amendment.

Globalstar states for the first time that it filed for French space station authority

for the same satellites that were the subject of its pending FCC Second Generation

Application on May 15, 2009,10 several days before the Commission began to accept

comments on its pending application on May 18, 2009.11 Globalstar previously asserted

just the opposite: “Globalstar had not made a final decision to register its second-

generation satellites with France at the time Iridium filed its petition to deny and reply in

connection with Globalstar’s original application.”12 Therefore, aside from violating

Section 1.65 of the Commission’s rules—Globalstar’s amendment was due no later than

June 15, 2009—Globalstar’s failure to file a timely amendment also wasted Commission

resources.13 During the eight-month delay, the International Bureau staff continued their

review of the application for completeness, placed it on public notice, and accepted three

10
Globalstar Opposition at 10; see Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC,
Application for Modification of Nongeostationary Mobile Satellite Service System
License (S2115) To Launch a Second-Generation System, Call Sign S2115, Modification
Application of Globalstar Licensee LLC (filed Aug. 29, 2008) (“Second Generation
Application”).
11
Iridium filed its Petition to Deny Globalstar’s Second Generation Application on
May 18, 2009, and its reply in support of that petition on June 4, 2009. See Iridium
Petition to Deny Globalstar Second Generation Application; Globalstar Licensee LLC,
GUSA Licensee LLC, Application for Modification of Nongeostationary Mobile Satellite
Service System License (S2115) To Launch a Second-Generation System, Call Sign
S2115, File No. SAT-MOD-20080904-00165, Reply of Iridium Satellite LLC (filed June
4, 2009).
12
Globalstar Opposition to Iridium Motion to Hold Globalstar Applications in
Abeyance, File No. SAT-AMD-20091221-00147 at 8 (filed Jan. 11, 2010).
13
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.65 (“Whenever the information furnished in the pending
application is no longer substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects, the
applicant shall as promptly as possible and in any event within 30 days, unless good
cause is shown, amend or request the amendment of his application . . . .”).

4

rounds of comments on the moot application, all while Globalstar was masking its true

intentions.

C. Globlastar’s Proposal Cannot Satisfy Both the FCC’s Licensing
Requirements and Its Policy Against Dual Licensing and Is
Unworkable.

Globalstar argues that its U.S.-licensed satellites will comply with FCC

requirements because they will comply with the U.S. band plan.14 But if the U.S. and

French-licensed satellites are considered separately, then Globalstar’s plan to have only

eight U.S.-licensed satellites cannot meet the FCC’s MSS geographic coverage

requirements.15 Accordingly, it seems that Globalstar plans to consider its U.S. and

French-licensed satellites to be a single constellation for the purposes of meeting

applicable U.S. licensing criteria. If this is the case, then Globalstar’s plan violates the

FCC’s policy against dual licensing, which the Commission has explained raises “issues

of national comity” and “issues regarding international coordination responsibilities.”16

In addition, Globalstar’s proposal is unworkable. Under Globalstar’s proposal

there would be a constellation of satellites that are constantly changing their position

relative to the earth, but some of the satellites would be under US jurisdiction and others

would be under French jurisdiction. If an interference issue were to arise or there were
14
Globalstar Opposition at 8.
15
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.143, 25.149. Indeed, due to “degradation of the first
generation constellation cause by the S-band subsystem antenna anomalies,” many
satellites in Globalstar’s first generation constellation cannot meet these requirements.
See Amendment and Application at 29.
16
Amendment of the Commission’s Regulatory Policies To Allow Non-U.S. Licensed
Space Stations To Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United, 12
FCC Rcd 24094, 24106 (¶ 88) (1997) (“DISCO II”); see also Amendment of the
Commission’s Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to
Provided Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 18178, ¶¶ 13-14 (1996).

5

an orbital emergency, confusion inevitably would ensue. These circumstances are readily

distinguishable from cases in which different administrations have licensed separate

payloads on a satellite (e.g., a C-band payload and a Ku-band payload on a geostationary

satellite). Those payloads were operationally independent; Globalstar’s satellites are

inextricably intertwined.

D. Globalstar’s Proposal to Operate Its French-Licensed Satellites on
Iridium’s Spectrum Outside the United States is Inconsistent with
Adherence to the ITU Coordination Process.

As discussed in Iridium’s Petition, the Iridium and Globalstar systems have, up to

now, been U.S.-licensed.17 Therefore, coordination between the two systems has been

governed by the FCC’s rules and policies for coordination between U.S. operators. If

Globalstar operates a system licensed by France, however, these coordination rules and

policies would no longer apply. Instead, coordination would be governed by ITU

procedures, and these procedures provide that, after a satellite system has been registered

with the ITU, any subsequently-registered system must coordinate its operations with the

previously-registered system and show that its operations will not cause interference to

the previously-registered system.

Globalstar’s Opposition only raises additional questions about its intention to

comply with the ITU coordination process going forward and thus confirms that the FCC

should impose conditions that will protect U.S.-licensed space stations. In its Opposition,

Globalstar admits that France filed the registration for its constellation on July 1, 2009.18

This shows that Globalstar’s French-licensed system would be second in time to the

registration associated with Iridium’s U.S.-licensed system. As such, ITU procedures

17
See Iridium Petition at 12.
18
See Globalstar Opposition at 10.

6

require Globalstar to coordinate its operations with Iridium and to show that its

operations will not cause interference to Iridium’s system.

However, the Opposition does not make it clear that Globalstar is committed to

abiding by the ITU process in the future. On the one hand, Globalstar states that it has—

up to now—complied with proper ITU procedures,19 and Iridium appreciates Globalstar’s

willingness to do so. But in terms of its future compliance with the ITU’s first-in-time

requirement, Globalstar has not made a similar representation. Rather, Globalstar has

acknowledged that registering its satellites with France will enable access to the entire

portion of the L-band—including spectrum that is licensed exclusively to Iridium under

the FCC’s Modification Order—and that Globalstar would otherwise have inadequate L-

band capacity.20 At a minimum, then, there is a clear and yet to be reconciled tension

between these two positions. Either Globalstar intends to continue to comply with ITU

procedures and coordinate with Iridium or it intends to use its non-U.S. licensed satellites

to obtain access to spectrum that was previously-registered with the ITU for Iridium and

other U.S. licensed operators. If it is the latter, then this would be a violation of ITU

procedures.

E. Globalstar Acknowledges That France Has Not Yet Provided Iridium
Full Landing Rights.

As an initial matter, Iridium agrees with Globalstar that France, like all other

nations, has authority to regulate landing rights within its own jurisdiction.21 However,

Globalstar attempts to confuse the important issues involved in this proceeding by

19
See id. at 10-11.
20
See id. at 7; see also Amendment and Application at 6.
21
See Globalstar Opposition at 22.

7

contending that Iridium is asking the FCC unlawfully to interfere with the sovereign

decisions of the French licensing authority.22 This is not correct. What is at issue in this

proceeding is the FCC’s authority to regulate landing rights within its own jurisdiction—

that is, the ability of non-U.S. licensed satellites to access earth stations located within the

U.S. And the FCC’s decision in DISCO II recognizes that, consistent with these

principles of U.S. and international law, the FCC can condition the right of a foreign-

licensed satellite to enter the U.S. market on the foreign nation granting a U.S.-licensed

system reciprocal rights.23

To date, however, France has not granted Iridium landing rights to use the

spectrum the FCC reassigned to Iridium. And, as explained more fully in the Petition,

Iridium’s limited market access places it as a competitive disadvantage.24 Globalstar’s

Opposition only confirms these points.

III. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE, NECESSARY,
AND CONSISTENT WITH COMMISSION PRECEDENT

Given Globalstar’s lack of compliance with Commission rules and the critical

problems raised by its proposal, the Commission should impose the requested conditions

on any grant of the Amendment and Application. As an initial matter, the Commission

has ample authority to impose the requested conditions.25 In evaluating Globalstar’s

22
See id. at 22-23.
23
See Iridium Petition at 9-12; see also DISCO II, ¶¶ 39-44; cf. 47 C.F.R. § 25.137.
24
See Iridium Petition at 9-12.
25
The Act empowers the Commission to modify any license “if in the judgment of
the Commission such action will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
47 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 303(r); see also 47 U.S.C. § 4(i) (“The Commission
may perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not
inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions”).

8

request to access non-U.S. satellites licensed by a WTO member, U.S. law requires the

Commission to determine whether granting the application is in the public interest. 26 If it

is not, U.S. law requires the Commission to deny the application or impose the conditions

necessary to cure the public interest harms that would otherwise result.27

Specifically, as Iridium’s Petition discusses,28 the FCC will condition or deny an

application for market entry submitted by an applicant licensed in a WTO member nation

when there is “a very high risk to competition.”29 DISCO II is clear that an applicant’s

lack of compliance with FCC rules and policies is enough to warrant the denial or

conditional grant of an application.30 As part of the competition component of the public

interest analysis, the FCC stated that it was “concerned with the impact of granting an

authorization to an applicant that is unlikely to abide by the Commission’s rules and

policies.”31 The FCC determined that the “past behavior of an applicant may indicate

that it would fail to comply with the Commission’s rules and, as a result, could damage

competition in the U.S. market” and lead to other public interest harms.32 In light of

Globalstar’s track record of ignoring or otherwise violating FCC rules, orders, and license

26
See DISCO II, ¶ 29.
27
DISCO II, ¶¶ 41-42. The Act empowers the Commission to modify any license
“if in the judgment of the Commission such action will promote the public interest,
convenience, and necessity. 47 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. § 303(r); see also 47 U.S.C.
§ 4(i) (“The Commission may perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations,
and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the
execution of its functions”).
28
See Iridium Petition at 10-11.
29
DISCO II, ¶¶ 39-42.
30
See id.
31
Id.
32
Id.

9

conditions,33 it is not surprising that the company decided to omit any reference to this

important consideration. By choosing to say nothing on this point, Globalstar has left

Iridium’s showing un-rebutted.34 Therefore, Globalstar has not carried its burden of

showing that an unconditional grant of its Application would be in the public interest.

Indeed, the Commission routinely imposes conditions on licensees that have a

track record showing failure to comply with the Commission’s rules.35 And the

Commission regularly monitors compliance with conditions placed on licensees.36 As

33
Globalstar Licensee LLC, GUSA Licensee LLC, and GCL Licensee LLC,
Application for Modification of License for Operation of Ancillary Terrestrial
Component Facilities; Application for Modification of Nongeostationary Mobile Satellite
Service System License (S2115) To Launch a Second-Generation System; Application for
Modification of Mobile Satellite Service Earth Station Licenses and Mobile Earth
Terminal Licenses To Authorize Communications with Second-Generation System and To
Incorporate Previously-Granted Ancillary Terrestrial Component Authority, File Nos.
SAT-MOD-20080516-00106, SAT-MOD-20080904-00165, SAT-AMD-20091221-
00147, Motion to Hold Globalstar Applications in Abeyance (filed Dec. 31, 2009)
(“Iridium Motion to Hold in Abeyance”) (outlining Globalstar’s numerous violations).
34
In its Petition, Iridium established that an unconditional grant of Globalstar’s
Application would result in two primary forms of competitive harm within the meaning
of DISCO II. First, granting the Application would exacerbate the competitive
disadvantages Iridium is facing in certain European countries. Iridium Petition at 9-10.
Second, Iridium established that an unconditional grant of the Application would lead to
the types of competitive harms discussed in DISCO II because of Globalstar’s past
behavior and history of violating FCC rules, orders, and license conditions. Iridium
Petition at 10-11. Thus, under DISCO II, the presumption in favor of finding that there
will be no anticompetitive harms flowing from this proceeding has been rebutted, and the
burden is on Globalstar to make an affirmative showing that the competitive harms
component of the public interest inquiry has been met.
35
See, e.g., MobileMedia Corporation, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order,
FCC 97-197 (rel. June 6, 1997) (placing stays on and conditioning approval of numerous
licenses because of the involvement of key management officials in large-scale
wrongdoing).
36
See, e.g., GTE Corp., Transferor and Bell Atlantic Corp., Transferee,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 14032, ¶ 38 (2000) (requiring
independent auditor to ensure compliance with conditions); Ameritech Corp., Transferor,
and SBC Communications, Inc., Transferee, 14 FCC Rcd 14712, Attachment A, ¶ 65
(1999) (establishing compliance plan to monitor ongoing compliance with conditions);
Applications of Nextel Communications Inc. and Sprint Corp., Memorandum Opinion

10

outside the United States, and (b) all current and future in-orbit satellites
and earth stations will not operate in the future, absent Commission
authorization, on spectrum in the 1618.725-1621.35 MHz band, including
outside the United States.

2. Within one year of the effective date of this Order, (a) Globalstar
submits information sufficient to demonstrate authorization by the
Republic of France [and all members of the European Union] for Iridium
Satellite LLC to use all of its FCC-licensed spectrum and (b) the
Commission determines that grant of United States market access to
Globalstar satisfies the effective competitive opportunities (ECO-Sat)
standard such that any very high risk to competition is mitigated.

3. Within three months of the effective date of this Order and every
six months thereafter, Globalstar submits information sufficient to
demonstrate its compliance with its FCC space station and earth station
authorizations, as conditioned herein.

4. If France grants Globalstar the authority to operate its “second-
generation” constellation internationally in the spectrum allocated
exclusively to Iridium by the Commission, the Commission will grant
Iridium reciprocity and access to operate internationally in the 1610-
1617.775 MHz L-band spectrum currently allocated to Globalstar.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Iridium respectfully petitions to deny and seeks

conditions on any grant of Globalstar’s Amendment and Application.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jennifer D. Hindin
Donna Bethea Murphy R. Michael Senkowski
Vice President, Regulatory Engineering Peter D. Shields
Iridium Satellite LLC Jennifer D. Hindin
6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 500 Wiley Rein LLP
Bethesda, MD 20817 1776 K Street N.W.
(301) 571-6200 Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 719-7000

May 3, 2010 Counsel to Iridium Satellite LLC

12

AFFIDAVIT OF DONNA BETHEA-MURPHY

I, Donna Bethea-Murphy, am the Vice President of Regulatory Engineering for

Iridium Satellite LLC (“Iridium”). I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I am

qualified to speak on behalf of Iridium and that I have reviewed the preceding Reply

submitted on behalf of Iridium, and the factual statements therein are complete and

accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

__/s/ Donna Bethea Murphy___

Donna Bethea Murphy
Vice President – Regulatory Engineering
Iridium Satellite LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 3, 2010 I caused a true and correct copy of the

foregoing to be served by first-class mail, unless noted otherwise, on the following:

William F. Adler
Vice President – Legal and Regulatory
Affairs
Globalstar, Inc.
461 S. Milpitas Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035

Samir C. Jain*
Josh L. Roland*
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Counsel to Globalstar Inc.
samir.jain@wilmerhale.com
josh.roland@wilmerhale.com

Best Copy and Printing, Inc.**
fcc@bcpiweb.com

* By electronic mail
** By electronic mail only
_/s/ Jennifer D. Hindin___
Jennifer D. Hindin

Document Created: 2010-05-03 17:12:42
Document Modified: 2010-05-03 17:12:42

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC