Attachment Opposition

Opposition

OPPOSITION submitted by Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC

Opposition

2006-01-13

This document pretains to SES-MOD-20051110-01561 for Modification on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESMOD2005111001561_476293

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION RECEIVED Before the JAN 1 3 2006 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS commMIssiON o j¢ j Washington, DC 20584 fdon enutgten pmnini * C o m u n i c a t o n In the matter of Application of Mobile Satellte Ventures File Nos. SAT—MOD—20051 104—00212 Subsidiary LLC for Modification of License SAT—MOD—20051 104—0021 1 to Operate an Ancillary Terrestrial SES—MOD—20051104—02556 Component CoNsoLIDATED OPPOSITION OF INMARSAT VENTURES LIMITED DianJ. Comell John P. Janka Vice President, Government Affairs Elizabeth R. Park INMARSAT, INC. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1425 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Arlington, VA 22209 Suite 1000 Telephone: (703) 647—4767 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 637—2200 Counselfor Inmarsat Ventures Linited Jonuary 13, 2006

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Summary . 11. Application ofthe New ATC Rules to MSV‘s Modification Application . A..—— Status of L—Band Coordination and Current MSOperations. B. The Last Spectrum Coordination Agreement Expired in 1999 C. Deficiencies in MSV‘s Showings 1. MSV Has Not Identified All Affected L—Band Satellites 2. MSV Has Not Identified All Co—Channel L—Band Segments 3. MSV Has Not Shown It Will Protect All Co—Channel MSS Systems From Interference .. 1. Other Issues A. MSV Has Not Demonstrated That TDD—Based Operations Would Produce No More Interference Than the ATC Rules Permit B. Increased Co—Channel Reuse Based on Average ATC Terminal Gain . €. Increased ATC Base Station Power. IV. Conclusion.

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the matter of Application of Mobile Satellite Ventures File Nos. SAT—MOD—20051104—00212 Subsidiary LLC for Modification of License SAT—MOD—20051 10400211 to Operate an Ancillary Terrestrial SES—MOD—20051104—02556 Component CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION OF INMARSAT VENTURES LIMITED Inmarsat Ventures Limited (¢Inmarsat") opposes the above—referenced applications of Mobile Satellte Ventures Subsidiary LLC (*MSV") to modify is lienses to operate an ancillary terrestrial component ("ATC®) in the L—Band. 1. Introduction and Summary In order to take advantage of the operational flexibility provided by the new ATC rules, and to obtain authority to use a number of emerging technical protocols that MSV currently is not authorized to use for ATC, MSV seeks to modify ts authorizations to provide ATC over its U.S—licensed satelltes, AMSC—1 and MSV—1, and the Canadian—licensed MSAT—L." As set forth below, MSV*s Modification Appliation cannot be granted because MSV has failed to make the demonstrations required by the new ATC rules that are designed to protectall other L—Band MSS systems from ATC—generated intererence. In its Modification Application, MSV seeks both to () take advantage ofthe relaxation ofvarious technical limits provided by the new ATC rules, and (i) obtain authority to use various terrestrial protocols beyond the GSM, edma2000 and W—CDMA protocols specified ‘ Applications ofMobile Satellte Ventures Subsidiary LLCfor Modification ofLicense to Operate an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, File Nos. SAT—MOD—20051104—00212; SAT— MOD—20051 1040021 1; SES—MOD—20051 104—02556 (filed Nov. 4, 2005) (collectively, the "Modification Application).

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION in MSV‘s current ATC authorization. Specifically, MSV seeks authority to also provide Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) and Time Division Duplex (TDD) based ATC, using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) and Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) packet data protocols, such as WiMAX. Unfortunately, MSV has failed to make the factual showings that are preconditions to obtaining modified ATC authority to use these new technologies. Specifically, in order to ensure that MSV‘s ATC operations do not cause interference to other L—Band MSS systems, the new ATC rules require that MSV: (} identify all other L—Band MSS setellites operating at orbital locations visible from any part ofthe United States, (1)identify the band segments used by those satelltes on which MSV wishes to provide ATC, and, most importantly, (ii) demonstrate the level ofinterference that MSV*s MSS system is entiled to generate in each such band segment used by each such L—Band satellte (Le, the level ointerference that the other MSS system has accepted as not adversely affecting its operations). First, MSV has not even attempted to identify the L—Band satelltes operating in the portions ofthe orbital are that are visible from any part ofthe United States..Inmarsat alone has seven such spacecraft in operation in those parts of the are." By Inmarsat‘s account, there are at least ten other such satellites, operated by five entities(and using portions ofthe L—Band in which MSV desires to provide ATC). This demonstration is the predicate for the second required showing. Second, MSV overstates by a factor ofmore than nine times the amount of spectrum that it uses on an "exclusive"(non—co—channel) basis. By Inmarsat‘s calculation, almost all of the L—Band spectrum that MSV claims it may use also is used by other L—Band systems at orbital * Inmarsat intends to deorbit one of these seven satellites as soon as possible.

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Tocations that can "see" all or part ofthe United States. Thus, more than 90% of MSV‘s proposed ATC spectrum is subject to rules that constrain MSV‘s ATC deployment in those band segments, compared to MSV‘s claim that only approximately 21% is subject to such rules. This showing, which MSV has failed to make, is the starting point for te third required showing. Third, MSV has failed to establish the necessary interference protection criteria that apply to the "shared" portions ofthe L—Band that MSV seeks to use for ATC, which also are used by other MSS operators at orbital locations visible from parts of the United States. And MSV certainly has not proposed interference criteri that would adequately ensure that MSV‘s ATC deployment does not cause more than the maximum level ofinterference permitted by the new ATC rules. Finally, MSV has not adequately substantiated its proposed use ofTDD technology. TDD technology results in a band being used in both directions, and therefore raises two new interference dymamics not addressed by the new ATC rules: (}) nterference from the ATC transmitting base stations into the sidelobes of MSS satellite beams serving areas outside of the United States; and (1) overload/intermodulation interference from the ATC mobile terminals operating in the proximity of mobile MSS earth terminal receivers in the United States. The new ATC rules permit the use ofa "non—forward—band" mode ofoperation, such as TDD, as long as the applicant demonstrates that TDD will produce no greater potential interference than the level otherwise permitted by the ATC rules. MSV has not made that showing. For these reasons, MSV‘s ATC Modification Application cannot be granted unless and until MSV makes the required demonstrations that will ensure, under the terms of the new ATC rules, that all orher L—Band MSS systems, including the newly—launched Inmarsat—4

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION spacceraft, are protected from ATC:generated interference. Other aspects ofMSV‘s modification request, that do not present these fundamental problems, are addressed below. 11. Application of the New ATC Rules to MSV‘s Modification Application In the 2005 ATC Order, the Commission adopted a framework for authorizing ATC operations that is based on () the extent to which other MSS systems in certain parts of the orbital arc use the same band segments that are proposed for ATC, and (i) the interference protection criteria that apply to MSS use ofthose band segments." Under these rules, different band segments proposed for ATC can be subject to different technical imits. Specifically, the rules provide four different categories of imits: * Category 1: In spectrum that is "coordinated for the exclusive use of an MSS Applicant within the land area ofthe U.S., where there is no other L—Band MSS satellite making use ofthat band segment within the visible portion ofthe geostationary are as seen from the ATC coverage area," the main limits on ATC deployment are the emission limitations specified in the Commission‘s rules.* * Category 2: In band segments coordinated for shared use between the ATC applicant and another MSS operator,and where the agreement existed prior to Pebruary 10, 2005, and permits a level ofinterference of6% AT/T or greater, ATC operations may increase system noise to the other system by up to an additional 1% ATT. * Category 3: In band segments coordinated for shared use between the ATC applicant and another MSS operator, and where the agreement existed prior to February 10, 2005, and permits a level of nterference of less than 6% AT/T, the Applicant‘s combined MSS and ATC operations may not increase system noise to the other system over 6% ATT.® * See Flexibiliyfor Delivery ofCommunications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHBand, the L—Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Red 4616, Appendix B, § 25.253 (2008) 2005 ATC Order®). Certain aspects of this decision are subject to Inmarsat‘s Petition for Reconsideration. Any modified ATC authority provided under the 2005 ATC Order should be conditioned upon the outcome of the pending Petition for Reconsideration. 147 CBR. 5252530000 5 1d. at § 25.253@)G). * 1d. t § 25.253(@)0).

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION * Category 4: In band segments in which the Applicant has no rights under a coordination agreement, he rules prohibit ATC implementation." Thus, the critical factual predicates that MSV must establish, as a condition to receiving modified ATC authority, are () whether there are any other L—Band MSS satelltes at an orbital location visible from any part ofthe United States, (i) whether there are any band segments used by those other L—Band systems in which MSV also proposes to provide ATC, and (i) the level of interference that MSV‘s MSS system is entitled to generate in each such band segment used by another L—Band satelite. MSV alleges that most of the spectrum in which it proposes to provide ATC falls into Category 1, and that there are virtually no constraints on the extent to which it can provide ATC in those band segments. MSV alleges that the remainder of ts spectrum fills into Category 3, and that the relevant "AT/T"interference limit that constrains its ATC deployment on those bands is a 58.6% value that MSV alleges applies with respect to Inmarsat. MSV is wrong on both counts. Right before filing this ATC Modification Application, MSV asserted, in another context, that [REDACTED]." Thus, there simply is no agreement designating specific band segments for MSV‘s exclusive use over the land mass ofthe United States. In the absence of such an agreement, the five parties to the Mexico City MoU have continued to coordinate their " 14. at § 25.253(@)@). * Petition of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC to Hold in Abeyance or to Grant with Conditions, Stratos Communications Inc., Application for Tite II! Blanket License to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W, File Nos, SES—LFS—20050826—01 175; SES—AMD—20050922—01313; Stratos Communications, Inc. Application for Section 214 Authorization to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals with Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W, FCC File No. ITC—214—20050826—00351, at 4 (filed Oct. 28, 2005) ("October 2005 MSV Petition to Hold In Abeyance") (confidential version).

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION operations informally and have been operating interference—free." Because Category 1 does not apply to MSV‘s Modification Application in such circumstances, MSV is wrong that there are no limits on its proposed ATC operations in certain band segments. Moreoer, by Inmarsat‘s calculations, almostall ofthe L—Band spectrum that MSV claims the right to use on an "exclusive basis® actually is used by other L—Band systems at orbital locations that can "see" the United States. Thus, more than 90% of MSV‘s proposed ATC spectrum is subject t rules that constrain MSV‘s ATC deployment in those band segments. Furthermore, Inmarsat has never agreed to accept the level ofinterference from MSV‘s co—channel operations that MSV asserts is relevant for ascertaining the limits on MSV‘s ATC deployment that apply to L—Band frequencies that might fall into Category 2 or 3. Nor does MSV otherwise establish that the 58.6% ATT interference limit it cites is the appropriate level ofco—channel interference for MSV to generate into other MSS spacecraft operating at orbital Tocations that are visible from the United States. Below, Inmarsat provides background on the current state of the L—Band, and then addresses in further detail the deficiencies in MSV‘s showings. A. Status of L—Band Coordination and Current MSS Operations As a general matter, use of the L—Band by certain satellte networks of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia and Mexico, is governed by the 1996 Mexico City Memorandum of Understanding (the "Mexico City MoU® or ©1996 MoU®). The 1996 MoU does not assign specific frequencies to any L—Band operator,or any satellte network, but rather provides that frequeney assignments are to be made through mutually negotiated coordination * See, e.g, Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, DA 05—1492, at 1 34 (rel. May 23, 2005) ("MSV 101° Order"); Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, DA 05—50, at1 23 (rel. Jan. 10, 2005) ("MSY63.5° Order"); Kitcomm Satellie Communications Lid., 19 FCC Red 6069 4 9 (2004) ("Kitcomm")

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION agreements, of limited duration, and based on actual usage and short term projections of need by each system."" The Commission has confirmed that under the 1996 MoU, [REDACTEDJ—"" In practice, there have been four operating agreements, assigning specific frequencies to specific operators to be used in specific geographic regions, each one expiring at the end of the calendar year that it governed. As the Commission has recognized on several occasions, the last such operating agreement expired by its own terms on December 31, 1999 and therefore is no longer effective."" In another context, MSV itself asserted just a few weeks before filing these very ATC Modification Applications, that [REDACTED]."" This is consistent with the interpretation MSV*s predecessor, AMSC, had in 1999 "[REDACTEDJ.""* Because the 1999 Operating Agreement has expired, there is no specific assignment of L—Band frequencies to any of the L— Band systems whose spectrum rights derive from the Mexico City MoU. The Commission has repeatedly acknowledged that while there has been no L— Band spectrum coordination agreement in existence since 1999, "the five parties have continued ®PCC Halls Historic Agreement on International Satellte Coordination, Report No. IN 96—16 (re. Jun. 25, 1996) (‘Spectrum allocations to individual operators will be reviewed annually on the basis of actual usage and short—term projections of future need.") ‘"See [REDACTED]. ‘"See Comsat Corporation db/a Comsat Mobile Communications, et al., 16 FCC Red 21661, 4 6 (2001) (‘No operator—to—operator agreement has been in effect since year—end 1999") ("Comear Order", SatCom Systems, Inc.,14 FCC Red 20798, 4 34 (1999) ("SatCom Order") (recognizing that without a new operating agreement,the 1999 Agreement would expire atthe end ofthe year; "The operator—to—operator agreement expires on December 31 each year."); see also MSY 101° Order at § 34; MSV 63.5° Order at § 23; Kitcomm at19. "October 2005 MSV Petition to Hold In Absyance at 4 (confidential version). "[REDACTED}; see also Letter to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC, from Lon C. Levin, Vie President and Regulatory Counsel for American Mobile (Oct. 19, 1999)(cited in SarCom Order, 14 FCC Red at n.87); see also AMSC Subs. Corp. v. FCC, 216 F3d 1154, 1159—1160 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (recognizing AMSC‘s statement that the last coordination agreement expired on December 31, 1999).

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION to coordinate their operations informally and have been operating interference—fiee.""" The Commission also has recognized that all operators have equal rights o all channels in the band."* In the case of satellite operations, the Commission has not required successful negotiation of an intemational coordination agreement as a prerequiste to commencing or continuing service in the L—Band."""In the absence of a currently effective L—Band coordination agreement,the Commission has a clear policy to promote new L—Band services, provided that new operations are conducted on a non—harmful iterference basis. As the Commission has recognized, L—Band operators have informally coordinated their MSS systems in the absence of a coordination agreement designating specific band segments for the use ofspecific operators and have operated free from harmful interference since1999."" Just last year,the Commission authorized MSV to operate two next—generation L—Band spacecraft whose operations had not yet been coordinated, acknowledging that no coordination agreement was in place, but simply requiring that MSV operate on a non—harmful intererence basis."" Recently, a number of Inmarsat‘s distributors have filed applications secking to utllze the recently—launched Inmarsat—4 spaceeraft at 53° W.L. to both i) support the continued provision of services that have been provided for years over the Inmarsat—3 spacecraft that has successfully co—existed with MSV since the 1999 Operating Agreement expired, and (i) allow the provision of new and innovative MSS broadband services. Even though Inmarsat has "MSV 101° Order at § 34; MSV 63.5° Order t § 23; Kitcomm at 1 9 (2004). "See 2005 ATC Order at n.91. ‘"See, e,g, Comsat Order; MSV 101° Order at 1 34; MSY 63.5° Order at1 23. "MSV 101° Order at 134; MSV 63.5° Order at 1 23. "MSV 101° Order at 1 34; MSV 63.5° Order t 123; see also OuterLink, Inc., Applicationfor a Blanket Authorization to Operate 20,000 Mobile Earth Terminals in the 1530—1559 MFz and 1638.5—1642 MHz Prequency Bands (E980203), 17 FCC Red 12757, 4 7 (2002).

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION committed to operating the Inmarsat—4 spacecraft in a monner that will not adversely affect the basis under which MSV currently uses the L—Band on its MSS spacecraft, MSV has urged that the Commission not authorize Inmarsat—to provide service to the United States in the absence of a new coordination agreement" B. The Last Spectrum Coordination Agreement Expired in 1999 The Commission‘s ATC rules expressly provide: "In a band segment in which the [ATC] Applicant has no rights under a coordination agreement, the Applicant may not implement ATC in that band.""" Thus, it is incumbent on MSV to demonstrate the basis on which it claims rights to use particular spectrum segments under a coordination agreement, the terms and conditions under which those rights were established, and the extent those rights stll exist. MSV, however, does not even indicate the basis on which it asserts that various band segments are coordinated for its exclusive use, or ts shared use."" As noted above, the last coordination agreement that Inmarsat entered into with MSV, assigning specific band segments to specific operators, expired over six years ago. In Inmarsat‘s view, the absence since December 31, 1999 of an operators‘ agreement under the Mexico City MoU, need not,under the Commission‘s ATC rules, be a barrier to MSV providing ATC. In faet, it should no more be a barrier to MSV being able to obtain an ATC authorization under the Commission‘s new rules than it should be a barrier to Inmarsat obtaining authority to use its new Inmarsat—4 satellte to serve the United States. However, applying the logic MSV has articulated in opposing the applications t use the *See, e., October 2005 MSV Petition to Hold In Abeyance at 1 (public copy; redacted). "47 C.RR. $252530)0). ""See Modification Application at3, n. 6.

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Inmarsat—4 satellite for United States service,"" the provisions of47 C.F.R. § 25.253(2)(4) should lead to immediate dismissal ofMSV‘s ATC Modification Application. As a conceptual matter, and notwithstanding the strictterms of 47 C.E.R. § 25.253(a)(4), ATC should be allowed in the L—Band as long its provision in any given band seament does not adversely affect the L—Band MSS spacecraft that are using those same band segments, o the more advanced L—Band MSS spacecraft that are being placed into service or are expected to be launched in the near future. Thus, Inmarsat believes that the Commission can consider MSV‘s modification application, but only at such time as: (i) MSV fully addresses the extent to which Inmarsat and other MSS operators are using, on a co—channel basis, the portions ofthe L—Band in which MSV wishes to provide ATC, and (i) MSV identifies objective and appropriate criteria pursuant to which co—channel protection will be afforded to all MSS systems using, at orbital locations visible from any part ofthe United States, any of the band segments in which MSV wishes to provide ATC. C._ Deficiencies in MSV‘s Showings As noted above, to determine the ATC reuse limitations that apply to MSV, MSV must first identify () all other L—Band MSS satellites operating at orbital locations visible from the United States, and (1) the band segments used by those satellites on which MSV wishes to provide ATC. Next, MSV must demonstrate the level of interference that MSV‘s MSS system is entitled to generate in each such band segment used by each such L—Band satellite. MSV has "‘See, eg, October 2005 MSV Petition to Hold In Abeyance; Comments of Mobile Satellte Ventures Subsidiary LLC to Telenor Satelite,Inc. Request for Special Temporary Authority, File No. SES—TA—20051216—01756, Stzatos Communications, Inc. Request for Special Temporary Authority, File No. SES—$TA—20051216—01760 et al, SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp., Request for Special Temporary Authority, File No. SES—STA— 20051222—01788, Satamaties, Inc. Request for Special Temporary Authority, File No. SES— STA—20051223—01790 (filed Dec. 28, 2005). 10

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION failed to make the requisite showings, and Inmarsatdisagrees with much ofthe limited data that MSV has provided. 1. MSV Has Not Identified All Affected L—Band Satellites MSV has failed toidentify all L—Band satelltes currently operating within the portion of the geostationary are with a view of any part of the United States. Inmarsat alone has seven such spacecraft, one of which is planned to be deorbited as soon as possible. Nor has MSV identified the similarly situated spacecraft of other MSS operators. By Inmarsat‘s calculation, there are at least ten such other spacecraft operated by five operators. To Inmarsat‘s knowledge, each of those spacecraft uses a portion ofthe L—Band that MSV seeks to use for ATC. 2. MSV Has Not Identified All Co—Channel L—Band Segments Table 1 of the Modification Application, which MSV filed on a confidental basis Hists the band segments in which MSV seeks to operate ATC and identifies such bands as either shared ("co—channel") or not shared ("non—co—channel") with other MSS satellites visible to the United States. That table appears to address only the co—channel uses being made by Inmarsat‘s MSS spacecraft, and it is not accurate even in that regard. Table I—1 of Exhibit A to this Opposition, filed under the Commission‘s confidentiality proceduzes, " lists the L—Band frequencies currently used by Inmarsat on certain of ts MSS systems operating in the portion of the geostationary are with a view ofthe United States. Exhibit A also () provides information of which Inmarsat is aware about certain ""Inmarsat submits Table I—1 of Exhibit A subject to a request for confidentil treatment. The table contains information relating to the 1996 MoU, the spectrum currently used by each L~ Band MSS provider, matters of international spectrum coordination, and other information of which the parties maintain confidentiality as a matter of course. 11

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION similarly situated MSS spacecraft operated by other MSS providers, and (i) identiies the inaccuracies that Inmarsat has identified in Table 1 of MSV‘s Modification Application."" By insccurately reflecting co—channel uses ofthe L—Band by other MSS systems operating in the portion ofthe geostationary are with a view ofthe United States, MSV overstates by a factor of more than nine times the amount of spectrum that it uses on an Sexclusive" (non—co—channel) basis. Thus, MSV is simply wrong about many ofthe spectrum bands in which it claims to be entitl to unlimited ATC use under Section 25.253(a)(1) ofthe ATC rules. 3. MSV Has Not Shown It Will Protect All Co—Channel MSS Systems From Interference In bands that MSV shares with other MSS systems on a co—channel basis, the ATC rules constrain MSV‘s ATC deployment to levels consistent with the interference limits that MSV has already coordinated to protect those other MSS systems. MSV does not identify the coordination agreements to which it is a party that allow the derivation ofthe 58.6% ATT interference limit that MSV assertsis applicable in all frequency bands it shares with other MSS systems on a co—channel basis."" More important, Inmarsat has not agreed to acceptthis level of interference from MSV‘s co—channel operations. Similarly, MSV has failed to provide any information about the appropriate interference limits that apply with respect to the other MSS ®"Inmarsat‘s analsis is based on the assumption, consistent with the service areas of the MSV spacecraft, hat ATC authority is sought in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. * Other than briefly citing to certain technical parameters assumed by the Commission in its February 2003 ATC Order, MSV does not reference any coordination agreement as the basis for this value. See Modification Application at 3. Nor is the genesis of that value apparent from the February 2003 ATC Order. See Flexibilityfor Delivery ofCommunications by MSS Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L—Rand, and the 1.6/2.4 GHe Rands, Report and Order, 18 FCC Red 1962, Appendix C2, Table 2.1.1.C. (2003) (‘Pebruary 2003 ATC Order®). 12

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION systems, operating at orbital locations that are visible from the United States, that use one or more ofthe band segments that MSV proposes for ATC. Nor does MSV‘s proposed interference limit take into account the advanced designs of new spot beam satelltes, such as Inmarsat—4 and MSV‘s own next—generation satellite that will be launched in as few as three years,"‘ which use multiple small spot beams, rather than the larger area—coverage beams, and which can provide service to smaller,lighter,and less expensive MSS user terminals than ever before. These new designs, which reflect a natural evolution in spacecraft design, provide much higher power, are much more spectrally efficient, support many new and innovative MSS services, and thereby enable MSS providers to better meet the requirements of the public. IHL. Other Issues A. MSV Has Not Demonstrated That TDD—Based Operations Would Produce No More Interference Than the ATC Rules Permit Inmarsat understands the desize of MSV to retain an option to implement an ATC system that uses a Time Division Duplex (TDD)transmission scheme. However, TDD technology results in a band being used in both directions, and therefore introduces two new interference signal paths, as noted by MSV: (© Interference from the ATC transmitting base stations into the sidelobes of MSS satellte beams serving areas outside ofthe United States; and (0) Overload/intermodulation interference from the ATC mobile terminals operating in the proximity of MSS mobile earth terminal receivers in the United States. The ATC rules allow such non—forward—band ATC uses as long as the applicant demonstrates that "the use ofa non—forward—band mode ofoperation in such a system *‘ Press Release, Bocing Announces Largest Satellte Contract in Nine Years with Mobile Satellite Ventures (Jan. 11, 2006) (available at wwwbocing.com/news/releases/2006/{q1/060111d_orhtml). 13

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION architecture will cause no greater interference to other MSS systems in the L—Band than the rules permit.""" MSV, however, has not shown how TDD would produce no greater interference than the ATC rules permit. First, as explained above, MSV has failed to establish the necessary interference protection criteria that apply to the "shared" portions ofthe L—Band which MSV secks to use for ATC, which also are used by other MSS operators at orbital locations visible from the United States. And MSV certainly has not proposed interference criteria that would adequately ensure that MSV‘s ATC deployment does not cause more than the maximum level ofinterference permited by the new ATC rules. Thus, MSV has not established the requisite technical "baseline" against which the impact ofa TDD scheme can be assessed. Regarding the firstinterference path identified above, MSV has not accurately calculated the discrimination of the ATC base station antenna in the direction of the Inmarsat satelltes. As an initial matter, MSV‘s assertion that the discrimination of the ATC base station antenna in the direction of the Inmarsat satelltes is 20 dB is based only on MSV measurements using the MSAT—2 satellt."" The elevation to this satellte from the test locations is approximately 38°, whereas the elevation to the various Inmarsat satellites from the ATC service area will be significantly lower than this. For example, for the Inmarsat AORE satelite at 15.5°W and the POR satellte at 178°W, the elevation angle is between 0° and approximately 15° from CONUS, and for the Inmarsat AORW satellite at 54/53°W,° the majority of CONUS sees the satelliteat an elevation angle in the range 10° to 35%, This will result n less discrimination "* 2005 ATC Order at 74. ®* See Modification Application, Technical Appendix, Supplement at 12. An Inmarsat—3 satellte currently located at 54° W.L.is scheduled to be replaced by an Inmarsat—4 spacecraft in late January, 2006. 14

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION than 20 dB, due to the direct signal path to the satellite being closer to the main beam ofthe base station antenna, as well as greater reflection from the ground atthe lower slant angles. Based on data provided by MSV in Figure 1 of its Supplement to the Technical Appendix, the sidelobe Hevels would be approximately 20 dB higher for 15° elevation angle, and this would impact both the direct and ground reflected signal paths. Hence, MSV‘s own data show that, rather than the 20 dB measured by MSV towards the higher elevation MSAT—2 satellte, there may be no discrimination at all towards the low elevation satelltes. Thus, MSV has not adequately identified the appropriate ATC base station re—use factor for MSV‘s TDD operation, in uplink band segments shared with Inmarsat. Because this is such a critical aspect of the TDD system design, further measurements should be taken with low elevation satellitesin order to confirm the actual base station discrimination values. Regarding the second interference path described above, MSV has not adequately addressed the increased risk ofoverload/intermodulation interference to Inmarsat‘s MSS mobile earth terminal receivers operating in the vicinity ofATC mobile terminals. Previously, when MSV was proposing only to use MSS frequencies for ts ATC system co—directionally with the MSS allocation, this type ofinterference would have occurred only in the vicinity offixed ATC base stations. Thus, the Commission concluded that the likelihood ofan Inmarsat mobile terminal actually experiencing overload interference was not great, because the likelihood of an Inmarsat mobile terminal operating in the vicinity of an ATC base station was low."" Moreover, the Commission decided to require ATC operators to notify affected MSS operators of any ATC *‘ 2005 ATC Order at 1 56. 15

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION base stations that could pose intermodulation problems, so the parties could seck a mutually acceptable solution."" With the introduction ofTDD operation by MSV‘s proposed ATC system, the possible locations where such interference may occur would increase dramatically, and these "no—£0" areas would constantly changeas a resultofthe mobility ofthe ATC mobile terminal. And it is not clear how intermodulation problems successfully could be resolved in such a scenario. For these reasons, MSV has not met its burden to demonstrate that TDD—based ATC operations would produce no greater interference than the ATC rules permit B. Increased Co—Channel Reuse Based on Average ATC Terminal Gain MSV *veserves the right," at a future date, to provide test data demonstrating that the spatially averaged gain of ts ATC terminals in directions associated with co—channel sutellites of other MSS operators is less than 0 dBi. MSV seeks to do this so that it may attempt to justify more intensive re—use of certain band segments for ATC."" Inmarsat does not object,in principle, with this concept. In such a case, however, it is important that all co—channel satellites of other MSS operators be accurately identified, and that such test data provide the spatially averaged gain in the direction of all such co—channel sutellites. Otherise, all satellite networks that share, on a co—channel basis, any of the band segments that MSV uses for ATC may not adequately be protected to the interference protection values specified in the ATC Rules. For these reasons, Inmarsat urges the Commission to place any such test data that MSV may submit on public noticeto allow all nterested parties an opportunity to comment. ""1d. ar 59. * See Modification Application t 8, Technical Appendix at 1, 2. 16

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION MSV has not accurately identiied in its application all such co—channel uses that existtoday, and, absent public notice and comment, the Commission may not otherwise become aware ofall such other uses. C._ Increased ATC Base Station Power MSV seeks a waiver to allow it to deploy base stations with more than the prescribed level of antenna gain,as long as the base station EIRP does not exceed prescribed Himits. In other words, MSV appears to seek flexibility to trade off lower input power into an anterna for the ability to use a higher gain anterna. Footnote 19 to MSV‘s Technical Appendix, however, notes that in certain areas where MSV may face difficulty acquiring ATC base station sites, the onlvisble solution for providing contiguous, uninterrupted ATC service in those areas may be to increase base station EIRP by increasing antenna gain."* Actually increasing base station EIRP in this manner does not appear to be the intent ofthe waiver that MSV seeks, and MSV should clarify that it is not actually seeking to increase base station EIRP. To the extent that MSV does seek authority to increase base station EIRP, by, for example, increasing the power transmitted into the base station antenna, the Commission should require MSV to make an appropriate prior technical showing to justify such higher EIRP levels. Doing so would be necessary to ensure that co—channel, as well as adjacent channel, MSS operations are adequately protected. * Modifiation Application, Technical Annex at 10 n.19. 17

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IV. Conclusion MSV has failed to make the demonstrations required by the new ATC rules, which are designed to protect other L—Band MSS systems from ATC—generated interference. The Commission should not grant MSV‘s Modification Application unless and until MSV makes the required demonstrations that will ensure that all orher L—Band MSS systems are protected from ATC—generated interference. Respectfully submitted, Diane J. Comell Vice President, Government Affairs INMARSAT, INC. A 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1425 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Arlington, VA 22209 Suite 1000 Telephone: (703) 647—4767 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 637—2200 Counselfor Inmarsat Ventures Limited January 13, 2006 18

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION EXHIBIT A Identification of Shared Bands Table 1—1 attached hereto summarizes the current uses of each band segment in the L—Band uplink frequency range by Inmarsat, MSV, and other L—Band operators authorized by the Administrations of Mexico, Russia, Tapan, Australia, and Indonesia. As demonstrated by the table, MSV overstates the amount of spectrum on Table 1 ofthe Modification Appliation that is not shared on a co—channel basis with L—Band satellites operating in the geostationary are visible to the ATC service area that MSV proposes to serve. The L—Band uplink frequencies are shown as a series of contiguous band segments in each row of the table. The downlink frequencies used by each operator are assumed to match its uplink frequencies, except in a very small number of cases where an operator is operating only in the uplink orin the downlink direction. The cross—hatches in the columns of the table indicate certain cases where an operator is making use of a band segment in one or more beams of its satellite network. The table includes uses by the following L—Band satelites, which are some of the L—Band stellites that are visible to the ATC service area: Inmarsat—3 satellites: POR (178°W), AORW (54°W) and AORE (15.5°W)" MSV satelites: U.S.lcensed (101°W) and Canadian licensed (106.5°W) Mexican satellte: 113°W Russian satellites: 170°W, 14°W, 140°E, 128°E and 145°E Japanese satellite: MT—SAT (140°E) Australion satellites: AUSSAT (156°E and 160°E) Indonesion satellite: AceS (123°E) A small number of eross—hatches with a gray shaded background indicate [REDACTEDJ. The spectrum segments being used by MSV (both United States and Canadian networks) are categorized as "NCC" (non—co—channel)or "Shared" in the right hand columns of the table. A band segment is "Shared"ifthe segmentis being used on a co—channel basis by MSV and another satellite visible to the ATC service area. On the other hand, a band segment is "NCC" if the segment is used by MSV and is not used by any other satelite visible to the ATC service area. The column entiled "Actual MSV Spectrum Availability" indicates the category ofthe band segment used by MSV based on current operations ofthe L—Band operators. The column entitled "Claimed MSV Spectrum Availability" indicates the category ofthe band segment asserted by MSV in Table 1 of its Modification Application. * Inmarsat—4 is being brought into service at 53° W.L. later this month.

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION The amount of spectrum in each of the two categories appears as a summation at bottom of the "Actual MSV Spectrum Availability® and "Claimed MSV Spectrum Availabil columns. According to MSV, there is [REDACTED] MHz in the "NCC"category and only [REDACTED] MHz in the "Shared" category. However, Inmarsat‘s analysis demonstrates that the "NCC" band segments consist of [REDACTED] MHz, and the "Shared" category consists of [REDACTED] MHz. Therefore, under the ATC rules, MSV‘s proposed ATC system is subject to interference limits in a much larger proportion ofthe spectrum than MSV indicated in its Modification Application.

REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION TABLE L [REDACTED]

ENGINEERING INFORMATION CERTIEICATION Ihereby certify that I am the technically qualiied person responsible for reviewing the engineering information contained in the foregoing submission, thatI am familiar with Part 25 of the Commission‘srules, that I have either prepared or reviewed the engineering information submittd in thispleading, and that it is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and beliet Peulad fs Richard J. Bamett, PhD, BSc Telecomm Strategies,Inc. 6404 Highland Drive Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 (301) ese—2969 Dated: January 13, 2006

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Olivia D. Freeman, hereby certify that on this 13° day of January 2006, served a true copy of the foregoing Consolidated Opposition of Inmarsat Ventures Limited by first class mail, postage pre—paid (or as otherwise indicated) upon the following: Roderick Porter® Andrea Kelly* International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12° Street, SW 445 12° Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Cassandra Thomas* Robert Nelson® International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12° Street, SW 445 12" Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Scott Kotler® William Bell* International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Bruce D. Jacobs Jennifer A. Manner David S. Konezal Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Pillsbary Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC 2300 N Street, N.W. 10802 Parkridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20037—1128 Reston, Virginia 20191 Howard Griboft® Karl Kessinger® International Bureau Interational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. 445 12" Strect, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Kathryn Medley® Sean O‘More* Intemnational Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12® Street, S.W. 445 12" Strect, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554

Gardner Foster® Intemational Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, SW. Washington, DC 20554 *by E—mail


Document Created: 2006-01-18 14:51:35
Document Modified: 2006-01-18 14:51:35
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC