Consolidated Opposition OPPOSITION by SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC SES-MOD-20090429-00536 07-23-09 SkyTerra Co

07-23-09 SkyTerra Co

OPPOSITION submitted by SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC

Consolidated Opposition

2009-07-23

This document pretains to SES-MOD-20090429-00536 for Modification on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESMOD2009042900536_725576

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC )
)
Application for Minor Modification of Space ) File No. SAT-MOD-20090429-00047
Station License (AMSC-1) )
)
Application for Minor Modification of Space ) File No. SAT-MOD-20090429-00046
Station License (MSV-1) )
)
Application for Minor Modification of Blanket ) File No. SES-MOD-20090429-00536
License to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals )
(MSAT-1) )

Consolidated Opposition

Gary M. Epstein
Executive Vice President for Law and Regulation

Jeffrey J. Carlisle
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC
10802 Park Ridge Boulevard
Reston, VA 20191
703-390-2700

Bruce D. Jacobs
Tony Lin
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
202-663-8000
Counsel for SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC

Dated: July 23, 2009

Summary

This proceeding is about SkyTerra’s request to implement a ground-breaking agreement

with Inmarsat that will provide SkyTerra the flexibility it needs to deploy its already-licensed

satellite-terrestrial system. SkyTerra’s satellites are nearing completion. When fully deployed,

the SkyTerra system will provide truly nationwide and highly-reliable two-way mobile

broadband service to tens of millions of Americans, including public safety workers and those in

rural and remote areas, using affordable, cellphone-size handsets and laptop cards.

The only opposition to this application comes from two entities: Amtech in a Petition to

Deny and SkyWave in Comments.1 Although it is not clear whether Amtech has any actual

customers, Amtech and SkyWave claim to provide low-data-rate land mobile satellite service

using satellites licensed to SkyTerra and Inmarsat. In almost identical filings, they express

concern that SkyTerra’s operation of Ancillary Terrestrial Component base stations, pursuant to

its agreement with Inmarsat, will cause an unacceptable increase in interference to their

customers in urban and suburban areas.

The Commission should dismiss these objections and approve SkyTerra’s request

because these objections are based on incorrect and exaggerated technical assumptions,

Commission rules defer to coordination agreements between operators, and a correct balance of

public policy considerations requires approval.

The technical case presented by Amtech and SkyWave is flawed and ignores mitigating

facts. The first flaw in their analysis is that it overstates the power at which the base stations will

1
Comments were also filed by the GPS Council, requesting that SkyTerra agree to new out-of-
band emission limits with respect to the operation of any indoor, residential femtocells.
SkyTerra and the GPS Council have begun discussions concerning the matter and have
requested and received an extension of applicable filing deadlines with respect to these
Comments. SkyTerra is optimistic that this matter will be resolved successfully.

operate. In reality, SkyTerra’s ATC base stations will operate at a power level that is no more

than the Commission has already authorized for other MSS systems with an Ancillary Terrestrial

Component or for other terrestrial wireless providers such as PCS and AWS licensees.

Moreover, their analysis radically understates the likely attenuation ATC will experience in

urban and suburban environments, in some cases by a hundredfold. Accordingly, they have

assumed a far greater level of interference than indicated by an analysis that models actual

conditions. SkyTerra’s own analysis uses correct power levels, a more reasonable propagation

model, and a deployment planning tool that incorporates SkyTerra’s drive test data. This

analysis shows that the interference environment will remain substantially what it was in the

Commission’s assessment when it established its ATC rules. Overload presents a risk of

interference in less than one-tenth of a percent of the area covered by base stations. In the case

of intermodulation, the risk of interference is less than two percent of the area covered by base

stations.

In addition to using incorrect assumptions regarding power and attenuation, the Amtech

and SkyWave analysis ignores several key facts that further mitigate any concerns regarding

potential interference from ATC base stations: (i) land mobile satellite service outages in urban

and suburban areas due to building blockage of the satellite signal are likely to be far worse than

any interference from ATC base stations; (ii) the store-and-forward services provided by Amtech

and SkyWave are designed to tolerate brief outages; and (iii) Amtech and SkyWave themselves

could reduce the potential for interference by deploying more resilient receivers, as the

Commission’s policies have long recognized.

While the Commission should reject the opposition of Amtech and SkyWave for the

above reasons, an additional basis for doing so is that the Commission’s rules clearly defer to

ii

coordination agreements to establish reasonable operating parameters and resolve any

interference concerns. By bringing their interference arguments to the Commission, Amtech and

SkyWave ignore this deference and assume a role not given to them by the rules. Certainly, the

filings of Amtech and SkyWave run directly contrary to the policy direction the Commission

already struck by authorizing ATC and encouraging its accommodation by system operators such

as Inmarsat. SkyTerra, working with Inmarsat, found a way to facilitate the substantial benefits

of a highly efficient, mobile ATC system by striking a careful balance between accommodating

the new system and avoiding any harmful interference to existing users. This is exactly how the

Commission wanted operators to proceed, and the result it wanted.

Even if the SkyTerra coordination agreement with Inmarsat were not due such deference,

SkyTerra’s request nonetheless would merit Commission approval. SkyTerra’s next-generation

MSS/ATC system drives spectrum efficiency, provides rural and public safety communications,

and creates jobs. MSS/ATC deployment thus brings significant public interest benefits. Amtech

and SkyWave would have the Commission ignore these benefits in favor of providing

unnecessary additional protection to a small number of mobile satellite service users in urban and

suburban areas who have other service options. Indeed, it appears that SkyWave itself offers a

data terminal that operates in both the L-band for satellite service and in four other bands for

terrestrial service, presumably using the terrestrial service when the satellite signal is blocked. A

correct balancing of the public interest benefits clearly weighs in favor of MSS/ATC

deployment. As such, the Commission should deny the requests of Amtech and SkyWave and

grant SkyTerra’s application expeditiously.

iii

Table of Contents

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... i
I. Background ............................................................................................................................... 2
II. Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 7
A. Implementation of the Cooperation Agreement Will Not Result in Any Harmful
Interference to Amtech or SkyWave Services .................................................................... 7
B. SkyTerra’s Coordination Agreement with Inmarsat is Entitled to Deference.................. 11
1. The Commission’s Rules Establish a Right to Such Deference ........................... 11
2. Deference to Coordination Agreements is Good Policy....................................... 15
C. A Balance of Public Interest Considerations Weighs Strongly in Favor of Approving
SkyTerra’s Request........................................................................................................... 16
III. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 17
Technical Certification
Technical Appendix

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC )
)
Application for Minor Modification of Space ) File No. SAT-MOD-20090429-00047
Station License (AMSC-1) )
)
Application for Minor Modification of Space ) File No. SAT-MOD-20090429-00046
Station License (MSV-1) )
)
Application for Minor Modification of Blanket ) File No. SES-MOD-20090429-00536
License to Operate Mobile Earth Terminals )
(MSAT-1) )

Consolidated Opposition

SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC (“SkyTerra”) hereby submits this consolidated opposition to

the Petition to Deny submitted by Amtech Systems LLC (“Amtech”) and the Comments filed by

SkyWave Mobile Communications, Inc. and SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp.

(collectively “SkyWave”).1

I. Background

SkyTerra’s Modification Application. On April 29, 2009, SkyTerra filed an application

to modify its license to operate an Ancillary Terrestrial Component (“ATC”) as part of its next-

generation Mobile Satellite Service (“MSS”) system (the “Modification Application”).

SkyTerra’s next-generation system will provide a platform for advanced voice and data services

using devices that are virtually identical to cell phone handsets in terms of aesthetics, cost, and

functionality. Consistent with the Commission’s goals of allowing MSS providers to incorporate

1
See Petition to Deny of Amtech Systems LLC (July 10, 2009) (“Amtech Petition”); Comments
of SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp. and SkyWave Mobile Communications, Inc.
(July 10, 2009) (“SkyWave Comments”).

ATC into their MSS systems, the new system will extend broadband access to rural areas,

enhance reliable public safety communications, increase wireless competition and spectrum

efficiency, extend United States technology leadership, and stimulate job creation.2 The benefits

of the new system are highlighted by a comment in support of the application filed by the

Mississippi Highway Patrol, a division of the Mississippi Department of Public Safety.3 The

Highway Patrol, which currently operates thirty of SkyTerra’s satellite units, cites the value of

satellite service in the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina, and urges the speedy grant of

this application based on its expectation that the new system will offer “smaller, less expensive

user devices and enable our access to mobile Internet applications.”4

SkyTerra has made tremendous progress in the development of its next-generation

system. The new satellites, which will be two of the largest and most powerful communications

satellites ever built, are scheduled to launch next year. SkyTerra has also made significant

progress with other elements of the next-generation system. In September 2008, SkyTerra and

Qualcomm signed an agreement pursuant to which Qualcomm will integrate SkyTerra’s satellite

2
See Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2
GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1962, at
¶¶ 1-32 (2003) (“ATC Order”); see also Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile
Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands,
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 4616, at
¶ 9 (2005) (“ATC Reconsideration Order”).
3
See Letter from J. Delaine Stacy, Division Director, MHP Law Enforcement Operations and
Emergency Communications Coordinator, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (July 2,
2009).
4
Id. at p. 2.

3

protocol into tens of millions of its chipsets for a wide variety of next-generation user devices.5

More recently, SkyTerra signed agreements with Infineon, another leading semiconductor

manufacturer, for the development of a software-defined radio MSS/ATC chipset,6 and with

Alcatel-Lucent, for development of ATC base station technology.7 Four ground facilities for the

satellite network, each costing tens of millions of dollars, are under construction and nearing

completion. Thus, SkyTerra continues to deliver on the promise of its ATC authorization,

investing hundreds of millions of dollars and driving the development of innovative technology.

The Modification Application seeks waiver of certain ATC technical rules to reflect the

greater spectrum efficiency and operating flexibility that SkyTerra and its Canadian partner,

SkyTerra (Canada) Inc., negotiated in December 2007 in a ground-breaking coordination

agreement with Inmarsat Global Limited (“Inmarsat”) (the “Cooperation Agreement”). Inmarsat

is the primary MSS operator that shares L-band spectrum over North America with SkyTerra and

its partner. In addition to providing much needed stability to facilitate investment in SkyTerra’s

next-generation system and coordinating Inmarsat’s fleet of satellites with SkyTerra’s current-

generation and next-generation systems, the Cooperation Agreement represents an enormous

improvement in spectrum efficiency for both operators. From SkyTerra’s perspective, the

5
See SkyTerra Press Release, SkyTerra’s Mobile Satellite Ventures, ICO Global
Communications, and Qualcomm Sign Groundbreaking Technology Agreement Enabling
First-Ever Integration of Satellite Communications into Mass Market Cellular Handsets and
Devices (September 22, 2008), available at http://www.skyterra.com/media/press-releases-
view.cfm?id=187&yr=2008 (last visited July 1, 2009).
6
See SkyTerra Press Release, Infineon, SkyTerra and TerreStar Announce Agreement to
Develop the World’s First Satellite-Cellular Mobile Platform Based on SDR Technology
(April 1, 2009), available at http://www.skyterra.com/media/press-releases-
view.cfm?id=204&yr=2009 (last visited July 1, 2009).
7
See SkyTerra Press Release, Alcatel-Lucent to Develop Satellite Base Station Sub-Systems for
SkyTerra and TerreStar to Support 3G Satellite Communications (April 1, 2009), available at
http://www.skyterra.com/media/press-releases-view.cfm?id=205&yr=2009 (last visited July 1,
2009).

4

agreement allows it to provide more customers with more capacity, faster speeds, and better

coverage. From Inmarsat’s perspective, as SkyTerra understands it, the agreement provides for

increased spectrum re-use, thus increasing Inmarsat’s system capacity. One of the key

assumptions underlying the Cooperation Agreement is that more resilient user devices will be

deployed to facilitate this improved spectrum sharing by further reducing the potential for

interference in the vicinity of base stations.8

The Modification Application essentially seeks waivers of seven rules: one related to the

use of additional air interface protocols; five related to ATC base station operations; and one

regarding ATC user devices. See Modification Application, at pp. 8-15. These ATC rules focus

on operational limits designed to protect the L-band MSS operations of Inmarsat. These default

limits were established at a time prior to the Cooperation Agreement and in the face of

Inmarsat’s former opposition to such operations.

Opposition to the Modification Application. Amtech and Skywave filed pleadings

requesting denial of the Modification Application.9 In its Petition to Deny, Amtech states that it

holds two non-common carrier Mobile Earth Terminal (“MET”) licenses and it “uses these

METs for remote and mobile asset tracking, monitoring and control solutions, primarily for the

transportation industry.” Amtech Petition, at pp. 2. According to Amtech, the METs are

authorized to communicate with either SkyTerra or Inmarsat satellites (Amtech Petition, at p. 2),

8
See Modification Application, at pp. 10 n. 27, 11 nn. 29-30, 12 n. 33, and 13 n. 35.
9
See supra note 1. Comments were also filed by the U.S. GPS Industry Council (the “GPS
Council”), requesting that SkyTerra agree to new out-of-band emission limits with respect to
the operation of any indoor, residential femtocells. SkyTerra and the GPS Council have begun
discussions concerning the matter, pursuant to which the parties have requested and received
an extension of applicable filing deadlines with respect to these Comments. See Stamp Grant,
SkyTerra and GPS Council, Consent Motion for Extension of Time (July 23, 2009). SkyTerra
is optimistic that those discussions will lead to an agreement.

5

and “[b]y design the low loss receive front-end of Amtech’s METs is open to all frequencies in

the L-band (1525-1559 MHz) making them susceptible to interference” from ATC base stations.

Amtech Technical Annex, at p. 3. The Petition is supported by a declaration from Kelly

Gravelle, the Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer of Transcore, L.P.

(“Transcore”) and asserts that Amtech and Transcore are subsidiaries of Roper Industries and

that the declarant is qualified to speak on behalf of Amtech. See Gravelle Declaration, at p. 1,

attached to Petition.

In its Comments, SkyWave states that, using SkyTerra and Inmarsat satellites, SkyWave

provides tracking, monitoring and control functions via approximately 55,000 land mobile METs

to end-users that include government agencies and commercial entities.10 SkyWave states that it

recently acquired various assets, including customers and employees, from Transcore, which it

describes as an affiliate of Amtech.

For the most part, the Amtech and SkyWave pleadings raise the same issues. Amtech

and SkyWave challenge SkyTerra’s requests to increase base station EIRP limits, use any air

interface protocol conforming to the parameters in the Cooperation Agreement, and relax out-of-

channel emission limits for base stations, presenting a technical analysis that purports to show

that the new limits do not protect land mobile terminals from substantial increased interference to

their METs.11

Additionally, Amtech and SkyWave request that the Commission confirm that 47 C.F.R.

§ 25.255 imposes an obligation on SkyTerra to resolve ATC interference complaints by users or

10
SkyWave Comments, at pp. i, 3.
11
Amtech Petition, at pp. 4-9 and Technical Annex; SkyWave Comments, at pp. 4-9 and
Technical Annex.

6

wholesale customers of Inmarsat’s system, even if such operations are fully consistent with

coordination agreements.12

II. Discussion

A. Implementation of the Cooperation Agreement Will Not Result in Any
Harmful Interference to Amtech or SkyWave Services

The technical appendices filed by Amtech and SkyWave combine misleading statements

about the Cooperation Agreement with mistaken assumptions about the deployment of terrestrial

networks, all of which result in speculative and unfounded interference scenarios. In reality,

these scenarios are easily addressed when one makes reasonable assumptions regarding the

power levels and propagation models for ATC base stations and corrects for three other key

factors.

The technical analysis submitted by Amtech and SkyWave radically overstates the

potential for interference from SkyTerra’s ATC base station deployments. The errors are

attributable largely to a misunderstanding of the power levels at which SkyTerra proposes to

operate its base stations and the use of propagation models that substantially understate the signal

attenuation that is characteristic of an urban or suburban environment. When these corrections

12
Amtech Petition, at pp. 9-10; SkyWave Comments, at p. 10. Section 25.255 provides as
follows:
If harmful interference is caused to other services by ancillary MSS ATC
operations, either from ATC base stations or mobile terminals, the MSS ATC
operator must resolve any such interference. If the MSS ATC operator claims to
have resolved the interference and other operators claim that interference has not
been resolved, then the parties to the dispute may petition the Commission for a
resolution of their claims.

SkyWave also argues that SkyTerra was “curiously silent on the legal standard for
granting the requested waivers.” SkyWave Comments, at p. 4. In fact, the
Modification Application (at pp. 18-21) contains a section captioned “Good Cause
Exists for Grant of the Requested Waivers” that correctly identifies the relevant
Commission rule regarding waivers, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3, as well as the leading decisions
interpreting the standard for granting waivers.

7

suburban service may be reliable today only because it is in fact terrestrial service.16 SkyTerra

understands that other service providers have similar offerings.17

Second, part of the reason SkyWave may characterize its existing service as “reliable” is

that, as SkyTerra understands it, the service it offers is primarily a store-and-forward service.

Store-and-forward service anticipates that there may not be constant signal availability and is

designed to resend data until the signal returns and there is a confirmation of receipt. In other

words, the service is inherently tolerant of transient interference. For example, when a user

drives by a building that blocks the user’s line of sight to the satellite, the user would not

experience any significant service interruption as the store-and-forward message would be sent

only a moment later, when the satellite signal was reacquired. Clearly, store-and-forward service

would also tolerate the transient interference of driving near an ATC base station.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Amtech and SkyWave ignore the extent to which

they can solve any overload problems themselves by their choice of equipment. Amtech

concedes that it operates equipment with a wide-open front end, which increases its

susceptibility to interference.18 The ATC rulemaking has been a matter of public record since

2001 and the Cooperation Agreement since late 2007. Commission precedent is clear that any

desire to operate MSS receivers in the immediate vicinity of ATC base stations is best achieved

16
See http://www.skywave.com/images/stories/Datasheets/SureLinx/
surelinx8100cdatasheeteng.pdf (last visited July 23, 2009).
17
See, e.g., http://www.wirelessmatrix.com/products/hardware.php (last visited July 23, 2009).
18
Amtech Technical Appendix, at p. 3.

9

by deploying more resilient receivers.19 Thus, it has been and continues to be well within the

control of Amtech and SkyWave to provide more protection to their customers, if they consider

the situation to be sufficiently important to do so. Notably, no other Inmarsat or SkyTerra

wholesale customers or users opposed this application. Presumably, they assessed the

interference issue differently, transitioned to more resilient receivers, or switched to other

satellite or terrestrial networks depending on their area of operation. They may also plan to

transition their services to SkyTerra’s next generation system.

In short, Amtech and SkyWave have failed to make any case proving that they will suffer

harmful interference warranting action by the Commission. As shown by the Technical

Appendix, they made unreasonable assumptions that exaggerate the possibility of interference

and ignored several factors that put their claims in a more proper perspective, showing that any

interference caused by SkyTerra is either relatively inconsequential or could be mitigated by

deploying better receivers.

19
ATC Reconsideration Order, at ¶ 56 (“Generally, we do not regulate the susceptibility of
receivers to interference from transmissions on nearby frequencies. Rather, we rely on the
marketplace . . . . [I]t is clear from our testing and our knowledge of receiver design that
Inmarsat can deploy receivers in the future that can be less susceptible to interference from
transmissions on nearby frequencies.”).

10

B. SkyTerra’s Coordination Agreement with Inmarsat is Entitled to Deference

1. The Commission’s Rules Establish a Right to Such Deference

While Amtech and SkyWave argue that the ATC orders and rules separately protect their

operations as users of such systems,20 they provide no cites to the ATC orders or rules to support

their conclusory statements.21 Indeed, the Commission’s rules for ATC and its statements when

it created these rules show that the FCC relies on MSS operators to resolve interference issues

through coordination discussions, rather than inviting an unworkable regulatory resolution.

When the Commission established its rules for L-band ATC operations, it expressly

encouraged and empowered L-band MSS satellite operators to negotiate and agree to less

restrictive L-band ATC operational limits, in order to promote more efficient use of the

spectrum. In the 2003 ATC Order, the Commission said:

While we adopt rules to prevent harmful interference, we do not intend to prohibit L-
Band MSS operators from agreeing to less restrictive limitations on MSS ATC. We
support and encourage private negotiations among interested parties in the band and will
consider waiver requests of these rules based on negotiated agreements.

20
SkyTerra has a satellite capacity agreement with Amtech, which expires in September 2009,
and Amtech recently declined to renew that agreement. SkyTerra is aware of no contractual
relationship with SkyWave (other than through the Amtech satellite capacity agreement).
Accordingly, neither Amtech nor SkyWave will provide services over SkyTerra satellites by
the time ATC is deployed. Additionally, because neither Amtech or SkyWave elaborates on
its relationship with Inmarsat, SkyTerra has assumed, based on the pleadings, that they are
wholesale customers of Inmarsat. Thus, for purposes of this pleading, SkyTerra has assumed
that the concerns of potential interference in a future MSS/ATC environment, expressed by
Amtech and SkyWave, pertain to their services provided over Inmarsat satellites and not to
any services provided over SkyTerra satellites.
21
See Amtech Petition, at p. 2; SkyWave Comments, at pp. 3-4, 6-7. Amtech also asserts
without explanation that it is an “MSS operator.” Amtech Petition, at 4. To the extent that
Amtech and SkyWave mean to argue that users should have new rights, such a request is
untimely and should be dismissed. See 47 C.F.R. §§1.106(f), 1.115(d) (petitions for
reconsideration or applications for review must be filed within 30 days of public notice of an
order); see also In Re Application of Patterson Brothers. Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 7595, at ¶ 6 (1993)
(an application proceeding is not the appropriate forum in which to reconsider FCC rules).

11

ATC Order, at ¶ 143. Similarly, in the ATC Reconsideration Order, the Commission provided

for intermodulation problems to be resolved between satellite system operators:

[W]e require any MSS/ATC operator to notify the affected MSS operator in any case
where a single base station or multiple base stations will transmit on frequencies that can
produce third-order intermodulation products that overlap a frequency assigned to the
affected MSS operator in the 1525-1559 MHz band.

ATC Reconsideration Order, at ¶ 59 (emphasis added). The rules themselves mirror these

statements. Sections 25.253(a)(2) and (3) provide that any future coordination agreement

regarding an applicant’s MSS system and “another MSS operator” will supersede the

Commission’s default levels of permissible interference. 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.253(a)(2) and (3).

Indeed, as a general matter, the L-band regulatory regime places considerable deference

on coordination agreements executed between L-band MSS operators. For example, as an

express license condition, L-band MET licensees, including Amtech and SkyWave, “must

comply with the terms of any L-band operator-to-operator coordination agreement.”22

This reliance on and deference given to coordination mirrors that for other services. For

example, a Fixed Satellite Service earth station operator seeking to operate a non-conforming

transmit/receive earth station with interference protection from other satellite networks must

submit in its application proof that the satellite operator, not the earth station operator, has and

will continue to coordinate the operation of the non-conforming earth station with those other

satellite networks. 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.220(d)(1)(i)-(iii). The earth station operator must certify

separately that “it will comply with all coordination agreements reached by the satellite

operator(s).”23 In other satellite coordinations, satellite operators have wide discretion to adjust

22
See, e.g., Amtech Systems LLC, File Nos. SES-MFS-20080303-01358 (Call Sign E030120),
SES-MFS-20080303-01359 (Call Sign E990316); SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp.,
File No. SES-MFS-20080303-01362 (Call Sign E030055).
23
47 C.F.R. § 25.220(d)(1)(iv).

12

Because the Commission does not permit parties like SkyWave and Amtech to pursue

their objections with the Commission directly, their filings fail to show the minimum

requirements for standing.25 With respect to Amtech specifically, it is unclear the extent to

which it actually serves any customers, further undermining its claim to standing. A Transcore

officer provided the technical certification for the Amtech Petition, and according to the Petition

and the Comments, even Transcore has sold its assets, including its customers, to SkyWave.26

Thus, absent further evidence, it would appear that Amtech is simply a holder of two bare mobile

earth station licenses, and may or may not have plans to serve customers in the future. This is

yet another reason to dismiss its Petition.27

For all the same reasons stated above, Amtech and SkyWave do not have a legitimate

reason to review the Cooperation Agreement.28 Any request for additional information is a

matter for them to address with Inmarsat, as users of its system.

25
See 47 C.F.R. § 25.154(a) (all parties filing “[p]etitions to deny, petitions for other forms of
relief, and other objections or comments” regarding an application must demonstrate that they
are parties-in-interest); see also 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1); Hispanic Information
Telecommunications Network, 18 FCC Rcd 23872, at ¶ 19 (2003); Application of Alaska
Native Wireless L.L.C., 18 FCC Rcd 11640, 11644, at ¶ 10 (2003).
26
See Gravelle Declaration, at p. 1; SkyWave Comments, at p. 6 n. 10. Presumably, the Amtech
“customers” discussed in the Petition are the same users that have been transferred from
Transcore to SkyWave. See SkyWave Comments, at p. 3.
27
In the alternative, the Petition should be treated as an informal objection. 47 C.F.R. §
25.154(b).
28
Amtech Technical Annex, at pp. 19-21; SkyWave Comments, at p. 7 n. 11. As the
Commission has long recognized, information pertaining to international L-band frequency
coordination is confidential to the parties to the agreement. See Robert J. Butler, 6 FCC Rcd
5414, at ¶¶ 12-14 (1991); Comsat Corporation d/b/a Comsat Mobile Communications, et al.,
16 FCC Rcd 21661, at ¶¶ 110-11 (2001); In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission’s
Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Non-Voice, Non-Geostationary Mobile
Satellite Service, 8 FCC Rcd 8450, at ¶ 10 (1993).

14

2. Deference to Coordination Agreements is Good Policy

That this deference should be the general rule follows from the appropriate and logical

policy considerations underlying it. System operators are the only entities with the ability to

make the necessary decisions regarding system trade-offs and compromises, such as the benefit

of the increased spectrum reuse enabled by the Cooperation Agreement, and they are in the best

position to balance and protect the interests of their users. SkyWave acknowledges that the

“agreement [between SkyTerra and Inmarsat] necessarily involves numerous trade-offs.”29

Some services and equipment are more sensitive to interference than others; operations in some

areas may be more protected than in other areas; and some users may experience improved

service as they receive access to more capacity. All of this is part of the reasonable give-and-

take of coordination negotiations that the Commission routinely encourages and limits to satellite

operators. Allowing operators the ability and incentive to engage in coordination negotiations

also avoids the patently unworkable process of inviting potentially dozens of users to undermine

agreements sometimes reached only after the operators have devoted considerable time and

resources.

The appropriate course for Amtech or SkyWave, if in fact either has any genuine concern

about the quality of its service in the immediate vicinity of ATC base stations, is to pursue

private discussions with Inmarsat in the context of any satellite capacity or other applicable

agreement. Amtech and SkyWave certainly have had ample opportunity to raise this issue with

Inmarsat both before the Cooperation Agreement was negotiated (since the ATC rulemaking

began in 2001) or in the year and a half after it was signed. SkyTerra is unaware of whether

Amtech or SkyWave has made any such effort, but as was shown above in discussion of their

29
SkyWave Comments, at p. 3.

15

technical analysis, it appears that they have not made any serious effort to understand the nature

of the coordinated ATC operations or Inmarsat’s own interference analysis of those operations.

Certainly, and as SkyTerra has shown above, this is the kind of process the Commission

anticipated when it established the rules for ATC. Negotiations between users and operators

would result in a far more efficient use of the Commission’s time and resources than entertaining

multiple user comments and complaints already resolved by the operators. The Commission set

up this process to allow operators an opportunity to undertake the difficult task of

accommodating a new service that promises to bring advanced wireless services to multiple

customer segments. SkyTerra and Inmarsat were able to do so, and bring the benefits of ATC

one more step closer to fruition. The Commission should not now reverse the process it

established and implicitly undermine the promise of ATC by entertaining objections that Amtech

and SkyWave easily could have raised with Inmarsat in discussions.

C. A Balance of Public Interest Considerations Weighs Strongly in Favor of Approving
SkyTerra’s Request

Not only do policy considerations weigh in favor of deferring to coordination between

Inmarsat and SkyTerra, overall they clearly weigh in favor of granting SkyTerra’s request.

When it first allowed MSS operators to obtain authorization for ATC, the Commission

exhaustively considered and approved of the public interest benefits posed by ATC – benefits

such as increasing spectrum efficiency, enhancing the value and flexibility of MSS, and

providing additional communications options to protect the public.30 All of these public interest

benefits still apply. Moreover, SkyTerra made a huge investment of time and resources to make

ATC a reality, and will launch its first next-generation satellite in 2010. Investment by SkyTerra

of hundreds of millions of dollars to develop its next-generation system created and maintained

30
See generally ATC Order, at ¶¶ 19-45.

16

jobs in the United States, and helped ensure that the United States remains the world’s foremost

developer of advanced satellite technology for commercial use. The objections of Amtech and

SkyWave would have the Commission render this investment worthless for no clear reason that

benefits the public interest. As explained above and in the Technical Appendix, their relatively

small number of users will not suffer any harmful interference. If the Commission were to

accept these arguments and deny SkyTerra’s request, it would send a clear signal to the satellite

industry that it has reversed course, chilling investment in valuable technology. Clearly, the

public interest weighs in favor of allowing SkyTerra to proceed, in accordance with the

Commission’s rules and its established policies favoring ATC deployment.

III. Conclusion

SkyTerra seeks to implement its ground-breaking coordination agreement with Inmarsat

to facilitate the deployment of a robust next-generation, integrated satellite-terrestrial network.

In addition to the benefits the agreement provides to Inmarsat and the vast majority of its

customers, the agreement facilitates the deployment of a SkyTerra system that will provide

significant public interest benefits in the form of more affordable service to smaller, less

expensive handsets, improved access to mobile broadband service in rural areas, more resilient

public safety and national security communications, greater spectrum efficiency, and enhanced

competition. SkyTerra has shown that there is no merit to the interference objections raised by

Amtech and SkyWave and that the Commission’s regulatory regime for ATC gives great

deference to coordination agreements in setting interference limits. Moreover, SkyTerra’s

request merits Commission approval in light of the significant public interest benefits that its

next-generation system presents.

17

Accordingly, the Commission should deny the pleadings filed by Amtech and SkyWave

and expeditiously grant the Modification Application.

SKYTERRA SUBSIDIARY LLC

By: /s/
Gary M. Epstein
Executive Vice President for Law and Regulation

Jeffrey J. Carlisle
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC
10802 Park Ridge Boulevard
Reston, VA 20191
703-390-2700

Bruce D. Jacobs
Tony Lin
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
202-663-8000
Counsel for SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC

Dated: July 23, 2009

18

Technical Certification

I, Gustavo Nader, Ph.D, Program Director of SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC, certify that I am

the technically qualified person with overall responsibility for preparation of the technical

information contained in this application. I am familiar with the requirements of Part 25 of the

Commission’s rules, and the information contained in the application is true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief.

/s/
Gustavo Nader, Ph.D
Program Director
SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC
Dated: July 23, 2009

Technical Appendix

The Technical Annexes filed by Amtech and SkyWave focus on two sets of technical

arguments. The first set is that the waivers proposed by SkyTerra pursuant to its agreement with

Inmarsat are too vague; the second set is that grant of the waivers will cause a substantial

increase in potential interference to their receivers in urban and suburban environments. This

response will clarify any of the confusion regarding SkyTerra’s proposal and demonstrate that, in

fact, using appropriate assumptions, the increase in potential interference is in all cases

insubstantial and far less than the analysis presented by Amtech and SkyWave.

The difference between the SkyTerra analysis and that done by Amtech and SkyWave is

primarily the result of (i) a misunderstanding regarding the maximum power at which SkyTerra

is proposing to operate its base stations and (ii) the choice of propagation models. The

maximum power at which SkyTerra proposes to operate is no more than 42 dBW EIRP, which is

3 dB lower (or half) the power used in the Amtech/SkyWave analysis1 and, as discussed further

below, is no more than the Commission has authorized for PCS and AWS licensees and

Globalstar and ICO, the two entities licensed to operate ATC in other MSS bands.2 With respect

to appropriate propagation models, as discussed further below, the choices made by Amtech and

Skywave are inappropriate for modeling land mobile systems, particularly their use of free space

models. In addition, in the case of their intermodulation analysis, Amtech and SkyWave

mischaracterize the impact of broadband operations.

Amtech and SkyWave also fail to present any showing regarding a number of factors that

are relevant to any technical analysis, including the current quality of their service in urban and

1
See generally Amtech Technical Annex, at pp. 5-14; SkyWave Technical Annex, at pp. 4-14.
2
See In the Matter of Globalstar LLC, 23 FCC Rcd 15975 (2008); In the Matter of New ICO
Satellite Services G.P., 24 FCC Rcd 171 (2009).

suburban environments, the ability of a low-date-rate store-and-forward service to overcome

occasional outages, and their ability to deploy receivers that are more immune to overload.

SkyTerra would expect that users of Inmarsat service today experience frequent outages in urban

and suburban environments, particularly at low elevation angles to the satellite and as the result

of building blockage. It is also SkyTerra’s understanding that many of the services that Amtech

and SkyWave describe are designed for non-real-time data transfer and will accommodate

outages by resending data at a later time if the signal is blocked. Finally, Amtech’s receivers, by

its own admission, are designed with wide-band front ends that maximize their sensitivity to

overload, which strongly suggests that Amtech could significantly reduce its exposure

unilaterally, simply by deploying better-designed receivers. Amtech Technical Annex, at p. 3.

Clarifications. Amtech and SkyWave express concern with the lack of specificity in

SkyTerra’s waiver requests regarding the use of averaging and the request to operate using any

air interface or modulation.3 SkyTerra is happy to clarify that the nature of the averaging it

proposes is over the following: (i) a solid angle at the base station antenna output with azimuth

angle of +/- 60 degree; (ii) an elevation angle of +/- 4.5 degree formed at the base station antenna

output; (iii) a carrier bandwidth that is nominally +/- 5 MHz and actually +/- 4.5 MHz from the

carrier center frequency; and (iv) any one second during busy hour. Moreover, regardless of air

interface or modulation, the peak-to-average ratio of the base station carrier will be no more than

5.5 dB with 1% probability. In other words, no more than one percent of the time in any one

second will the signal power be more than 5.5 dB higher than the specified average power. Such

short, transient spurs should be inconsequential from an interference perspective.

3
See Amtech Technical Annex, at p. 3; SkyWave Technical Annex, at p. 2; SkyWave
Comments, at pp. 8-9.

2

Some clarification of SkyTerra’s proposed base station power level also may be

appropriate. Section 25.253(d)(1) establishes the current EIRP limit as 31.9-10*log(number of

carriers), in dBW per sector. SkyTerra’s application requests that the limit be changed to 32

dBW/MHz, citing the use of two 10 MHz or four 5 MHz carriers. With these values, the EIRP

theoretically could be as high as 32+10*log(20)= 45 dBW, as noted by the Amtech and

SkyWave filings. The Cooperation Agreement, however, limits the base station EIRP per sector

to 42 dBW, regardless of the number of carriers or the bandwidth per carrier. Thus, the peak

base station EIRP increase SkyTerra proposes is 10.1 dB and not 13.1 dB, or 3 dB less than the

EIRP level Amtech and SkyWave used in their analysis.

Amtech and SkyWave also question whether SkyTerra is requesting an unlimited waiver

of the out-of-channel emission (“OOCE”) limits for any base stations not located near airports or

waterways. Amtech Technical Annex, at p. 18-19; SkyWave Technical Annex, at p. 16-17. In

fact, SkyTerra is proposing to operate all base stations within the same OOCE limits.

Revised Analysis. To better estimate the potential interference from overload and

intermodulation in the vicinity of an ATC base station, SkyTerra has redone the

Amtech/SkyWave interference analysis with a set of corrections and also undertaken a more

sophisticated analysis for a representative market (Baltimore-Washington) using a terrestrial

wireless network planning tool that has been calibrated with drive-test data that SkyTerra has

collected in connection with its own extensive ATC deployment planning effort. The drive-test

data was produced using a continuous wave (CW) L-band transmitter connected to an omni-

directional antenna placed 30 meters above ground level, in a variety of representative locations

in the Baltimore-Washington area, depicted in Figure 1 below.

3

the WI-NLOS model and to the WI-LOS model that Amtech and SkyWave used in their

analysis.

L-band Path Loss Measured versus Predicted Models

180

160

140
Path Loss (dB)

120

100

80

60
201
289
434
515
624
744
919
1,018
1,150
1,291
1,447
1,587
1,768
1,939
2,109
2,289
2,421
2,549
2,626
2,691
2,751
2,831
2,908
3,005
3,080
3,208
3,349
3,384
3,454
3,535
3,590
Distance (meters)

Measured pathloss WI-LOS Predicted Path Loss WI-NLOS Log. (Measured pathloss)

Figure 2. Drive-test data for the Baltimore-Washington suburban area, compared with the WI-
LOS and WI-NLOS propagation models.

Figure 2 shows the WI-NLOS model to be the most accurate predictor and as much as 20

dB difference between the WI-NLOS and WI-LOS models. The WI-NLOS model parameters

are as follows: ATC BTS signal frequency of 1545 MHz, base station height of 30 meters, MET

height of 2.5 meters, building height of 20 meters, building separation of 40 m, street width of 20

m and incident wave angle of 28 degrees. Finally, for the example market, which combines both

urban and suburban areas, SkyTerra chose a representative deployment, with a variety of base

station power levels, typical of any mobile wireless network. SkyTerra’s analysis accounts for

polarization isolation consistent with Amtech’s analysis. See Amtech Petition, at p. 6. The

following table shows the results of SkyTerra’s analysis, in comparison to those of Amtech and

SkyWave, with respect to the potential for overload interference.

5

Table 1. Area of potential overload interference
(at separations of more than 2 MHz/less than 2 MHz)
Amtech/SkyWave SkyTerra analysis SkyTerra analysis
analysis using prop model using cell planning
(per 42 dBW base tool
station) (Baltimore-
Washington area)
Urban 0.04 Km^2/ 0.03 Km^2 (0.5%)/ 3 Km^2 (0.05%)/
0.11 Km^2 0.08 Km^2 (1.4%) negligible
Suburban 2.4 Km^2/ 0.08 Km^2 (0.5%)/
9.5 Km^2 0.2 Km^2 (1.3%)

This analysis shows that the potential for overload interference in an urban environment

regardless of whether the signal is less than 2 MHz from the band edge is practically non-existent

and for suburban areas only slightly worse. Overall, as shown by the Baltimore-Washington

analysis, only 3 square kilometers, or 0.05% of the entire area, is potentially affected.

The corrected analysis of intermodulation interference was similar to that for overload, in

terms of the power levels and models. In addition, SkyTerra corrected for the fact that Amtech

and SkyWave base their analysis on a calculated intermodulation interference level of -63.6 dBm

for two 10 MHz signals. This level was calculated using a linear equation derived from the

measurements performed by the FCC in the ATC Reconsideration Order.4 The problem with the

Amtech/SkyWave equation is that it attempts to establish a relationship between the bandwidth

of the interfering signals and their amplitude; but, while intermodulation is a phenomenon

closely related to the interfering signals’ amplitude, it is unaffected by their bandwidth. ATC

Reconsideration Order, at Section 3.7 of Appendix A. Amtech and SkyWave seem to

acknowledge this when they say that “[t]he FCC’s measurements of intermodulation interference

4
See generally ATC Reconsideration Order, at Appendix A.

6

showed very little impact of signal bandwidth on interfering signal level.”5 So, instead of using

the intermodulation interference level of -63.6 dBm for two 10 MHz signals, SkyTerra chose an

even more conservative intermodulation interference level of -70 dBm for two 10 MHz signals,

as recommended by the FCC in the ATC Reconsideration Order.6 The results are shown in

Table 2.

Table 2. Area of potential intermodulation interference

Amtech/SkyWave SkyTerra analysis SkyTerra analysis using cell
analysis using prop model planning tool (BaWa area)
Urban 0.18 Km^2 0.28 Km^2 104 Km^2
(3.3%) (5.1%) (2%)
Suburban 18.6 Km^2 0.67 Km^2
(100%) (4.2%)

Here again, a conservative analysis shows only a small potentially affected area of no more than

two percent of the entire metro area. Amtech and SkyWave are wrong when they suggest that

the deployment of broadband carriers eliminates the ability to coordinate effectively to reduce

the effects of intermodulation.7 In fact, SkyTerra has successfully coordinated with Inmarsat.

Parity. As shown in Table 3 below, the power levels requested in the Application would

provide SkyTerra with no more power, when normalized over a 10 MHz bandwidth, than other

operators, including ICO and Globalstar, and PCS and AWS licensees.

5
Amtech Technical Annex, at p. 13; SkyWave Technical Annex, at p. 11.
6
ATC Reconsideration Order, at ¶¶ 58-59.
7
See Amtech Technical Annex, at pp. 12-17; SkyWave Technical Annex, at pp. 10-14.

7

Table 3. Authorized Base Station Power Levels

Band Per FCC Rules Per Current Authorizations (after
any waivers)
EIRP Limit Normalized for EIRP Limit Normalized for 10
10 MHz wide (dBW/MHz) MHz wide
channels (dBW) channels (dBW)
Big 31 dBW/MHz 41 31 41
LEO
2 GHz 26.1 dBW/MHz 36.1 32 42

24.3 dBW/MHz (toward 34.3 32 42
the horizon)
PCS 32 dBW/MHz 42 32 42

AWS 32 dBW/MHz 42 32 42

L-band 31.9 x 10log (no. of 31.9 32 42
carriers)/sector
26.9 x 10log (no. of 26.9 32 42
carriers)/sector (toward
the horizon)

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Tony Lin, an attorney with the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,

hereby certify that on this 23rd day of July 2009, I served a true copy of the foregoing by first-

class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following:

Tom Houtman Jennifer D. Hindin
Director, Product Development Carl R. Frank
SkyWave Mobile Communications, Inc. Colleen King
SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp. Wiley Rein LLP
1145 Innovation Drive, Suite 288 1776 K Street NW
Ottawa, Ontario Washington, DC 20006
Canada K2K 3G8 Counsel for Amtech Systems LLC

Raul R. Rodriguez Diane J. Cornell
David S. Keir Inmarsat, Inc.
Lerman Senter PLLC 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
2000 K Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006-1809 Washington, DC 20036
Counsel for the U.S. GPS Industry Council

John P. Janka
Latham & Watkins LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Counsel for Inmarsat, Inc.

/s/
Tony Lin

Document Created: 2009-07-23 18:33:53
Document Modified: 2009-07-23 18:33:53

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