Attachment Opposition

Opposition

OPPOSITION submitted by Iridium Satellite LLC and Iridium Carrier Services LLC

Opposition

2006-02-16

This document pretains to SES-MOD-20050927-01329 for Modification on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESMOD2005092701329_485560

RECEIVED ORIGINAL FEB 2 2 2006 Before the RE Satalte Dvision FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS commiissION CEIVED Intonatonal Bureau Washington, D.C. 20584 FEB 18 ome FedralConmuntcaton Conm In the Matter of OfrceofSermiay isstn Iridium Satelite LLC and File Nos. SES—MOD—20050927—01329, Iridium Carrier Services LLC SES—MOD—20050927—1330, Mobile Earth Station Modification Applications SES—AMD—20051222—01791 & SES—AMD—20051222—01792 Special Temporary Authority File Nos. SES—$TA—20050930—01349 & SES—STA—20050930—01350 OPPOSITION TO SECOND PETITION TO DENY Pursuant to Section 25.154(c) ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.154(c), Iidium Satellte LLC and Iridium Carrier Services LLC (collectively, "Iridium") oppose the second petition ("Second Petition") of Globalstar LLC ("Globalstar®),fled on February 3, 2006, requesting denial ofthe above—captioned modification applications ("Applications") to add amplifier equipment to the mobile satellite service (MSS") handsets authorized under Iridium‘s existing blanket mobile earth terminal (*MET) licenses.\ The Commission should dismiss the Second Petition as procedurally defective.. Alternatively, the Commission should deny the Second Petition on its merits because the issues raised in the petition have been fully resolved by Iridium‘s prior filings in this proceeding. As an inital matter,the Second Petition is untimely fled and not permitted under the Commission‘s rules. Globalstar previously filed a petition to deny ("First Petition") the ‘ See Globalstar Second Petition at 1 (Feb. 3, 2006). dessios9

Applications on November 14, 2005," in response to the Commission‘s public notice ofthe filing of the Applications." Pursuant to the Commission‘s grant ofan extension request, ridium timely filed both an opposition tothe Fizst Petition and minor amendments (‘Minor Amendments®) to the Applications on December 22, 2005.* The Commission also extended the fling deadline for Globalstar‘s reply until January 20, 2006, but Globalstar chose not to fle a reply. Although the Commission, on January 4, 2006, issued a public notice accepting the filing of the Minor Amendments, the public notice did not establish an additional period for filing petitions to deny or comments:" Section 25.154(@)() ofthe Commission‘s rules requires petitions to deny and comments to be filed "within thity (30) days after the date of public notice announcing the acceptance forfling ofthe application or major amendment thereto."* As Iridium noted, the Minor Amendments are not "major amendments," as defined under Section 25.116(b) ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.1 16(b), because they do not seek any changes that would increase the potential for nterference, modify the proposed operating frequencies or orbital locations, or have a significant environmental effect." Globalstar does not dispute this and, in fact, acknowledges that the Minor Amendments "provide reduced power, * See Globalstar First Petition at 1 (Nov. 14, 2005). * See FCC Public Notice, Satellite Communications Services, Report No. SES—00756 (Oct. 12, 2003). * See Iridium Opposition to Petition to Deny (Dec. 22, 2005); Irdium Amendments (De. 22, 2003). * See FCC Public Notice, Satellite Communications Services, Report No. SES—00781 (Jan. 4, 2006). ©47 C.FR. § 25.154(@)Q) (emphasis added). " See Attachment to Iridium Carrier Amendment, at 1 ; Attachment to Iridium Satellte Amendment, at 1. de—asios9

antenna gain, and effective isotropic power ... levels."" Thus, because the Minor Amendments are not "major amendments," the Commission‘s rules do not permit Globalstar an additional period to file another petition to deny, and the Second Petition therefore should be dismissed on this ground alone. Should the Commission address this procedurally defective petition on its merits, the Second Petition should be denied because it merely rehashes issues that have been fully resolved. First, Globalstar continues to argue that the Applications "seek more extensive use of spectrum than is currently authorized,"" even though Iridium repeatedly has stated that "{t}he Applications do not seek any changes to the frequencies authorized under Iridium‘s existing MSS and MET Hicenses.""" As previously explained, Iridium‘s existing blanket MET license authorizes MSS handsets that are "capable of operating in the 1616—1626.5 MHz frequency band." . In granting this authority, the Commission distinguished between authorizing Iridium METs to transmit on certain frequencies and authorizing them to have the "capability oftransmitting across a broader spectrum segment, 1616—1626.5 MHz.""" The Commission concluded that the latter "comports with the terms of the space—segment license ® and is consistent with the Commission‘s declaration ... that liensees would [be] given authority to construct systems capable of operating across the entire band allocated for tpertinent system architecture.""" Thus, consistent with the terms of Irdium‘s existing blanket MET license,the proposed equipment will * See Globalstar Second Petitionat 2. * td ats. ‘° tridium Opposition to First Petition at 2. "" U.S Leo Services, Inc., 11 ECC Red 20474, § 17 (Int‘l Bur. 1996) (emphasis added). " 14 15. "t de—ssto89

be constructed to be capable of operating within the 1616—1626.5 Mz band, but wl re—transmit only on frequencies on which Iridium METs already are authorized to operate."" Second, Globalstar does not allege that operation of the proposed equipment will vilate any emission limits or technical rules, but rather claims that the equipment will cause harmful interference to Globalstar‘s MSS operations, based upon an interference analysis that has no support in the Commission‘s rules."" Globalstar does not dispute that the proposed equipment, as modified pursuant to the Minor Amendments, will operate ata peak effective isotropic radiated power ("EIRP") level lower than that of an ordinary Iridium handse, and therefore will be even more benign, from an interference perspective, than an ordinary Iridium handsct."* Despitethis lower risk of harmful interference, Globalstar offers no justification for imposing intererence standards that are more stringent than those that apply to existing Iidium handsets." Finally, Globalstar requests that the Commission deny any further requests for extension of Iridium‘s special temporary authority to operate the proposed equipment because the "* Although Globalstar contends that Iidium has failed to coordinate use of the 1618.25—1621.35 MHz band with Globalstar, this procceding is not the proper forum for addressing this claim. Because the proposed equipment merely re—transmits on frequencies on which the Iridium METs already are operating, Commission approval of the proposed equipment will have no impact on Iridium‘s existing or future use of the 1618.25—1621.35 MHz band. ‘* See Globalstar Second Petition at 4. ‘* See Iridium Opposition to First Petition at 3—5. ‘" Globalstar also claims that "[i}tis unclear from Iridium‘s applications whether or not the repeaters will repeat more than one carrier, and . . ifthe reported EIRP is per carrier orif it is the total EIRP for the device." Globalstar Second Petition at S. As Iridium stated in its Opposition to the Fizst Petition, "[{Jhe combination ofthese factors will reduce the maximum EIRP from the proposed equipment (spread evenly over one, two or three Iridium carriers), to a level no greater than +10.3 dBW.". Tridium Opposition to First Petition at 4—5, This makes it clear thatthe equipment may repeat more than one carrier, but tat the total EIRP of the equipment is 10.3 dBw. de—as1os9

underlying Applications, on their face, are not grantable."" As demonstrated above, however, Globalstar has provided no technical details that justify denial ofeither the Applications or requestsfor STA extensions.""" Moreover,Iidium successfully has been operating the proposed equipment under ts STA for more than a year without incident. A sudden discontinuance of the existing STA operations would disserve the public interest and cause unnecessary disruptions for Iridium customers that have come to rely upon the equipment for their communications needs. Commission action upon the Applications, filed more than a year ago, is long overduc. The Commission must not permit any further delay that would deprive Iridium customers, including U.S. militry and public safety organizations, ofinnovative equipment that serve to enhance MSS communications capabilities during critical military operations and public safety missions. Based upon the foregoing, Iidium urges the Commission to refect the Second Petition and to grant the Applications, Respectfully submitted, IRIDIUM SATELLITE LLC and IRIDIUM CARRIER SERVICES LLC By: /s‘ Jennifer Hi Jennifer D. Hindin Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP 1776K St, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 February 16, 2006 Their Attomey ‘* See Globalstar Second Petition at 5. ‘* Globalstar altematively requests that future STA grants should limit Iridium‘s operations to the 1621.35—1626.5 MHz band. 14. As discussed above, however, the proposed equipment re— transmits only on frequencies on which Iridium METs already are authorized to operate. Thus,it would be inappropriate to restriet operation ofthe proposed equipment o a narrower frequency band than is authorized under Iridium‘s existing blanket MET license doas1o

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Christopher E. Ryan, hereby certify that on February 16, 2006, a copy of the foregoing OPPOSITION was served by U.S. first class,postage pre—paid mail,or as otherwise indicated below, upon the following parties: William T. Lake Robert G. Nelson* Josh L. Roland Chief Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dore LLP Satellte Division, International Bureau 2445 M Street, NW Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20037 445 12th Street, SW Counsel for Globalstar LLC Washington, DC 20554 Email: robert.nelson@fec.gov Cassandra Thomas* Fem Jamulnek® Satellite Division, International Bureau Deputy Division Chief Federal Communications Commission Satellite Division, International Bureau 445 12th Street, SW Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 445 12th Street, SW Email: Cassandra Thomes@fee.gov Washington, DC 20554 Email: FemJarmulnck@fc.go Karl Kensinger® Scott Kotler® sion Chief Branch Chief, Systems Analysis Branch Satellte Division, International Bureau Satellite Division, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Email: Karl.Kensinger@fee.gov Email: seottkotler@fee.gov John Martin® Frank Peace® Senior Engineer, Satellite Division Satellte Division, International Bureau Interational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20584 Washington, DC 20554 Email: frankpeace@fee.gov Email: john.martin@fee.gov Hsing Lin® Satellite Division, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Email: hsing lin@fec.gov * By —mail delivery deastoss


Document Created: 2006-03-02 15:01:27
Document Modified: 2006-03-02 15:01:27
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC