10-27-09 Ex Parte Le

Ex PARTE PRESENTATION NOTIFICATION LETTER submitted by SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC

Ex Parte Letter

2009-10-28

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

IBFS_SESMOD2009042900536_773266

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW | Washington, DC 20037-1122 | tel 202.663.8000 | fax 202.663.8007 Tony Lin Phone: 202.663.8452 tony.lin@pillsburylaw.com October 27, 2009 By Electronic Filing (IBFS) Marlene H. Dortch Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC Ex Parte Letter File Nos.: SES-MOD-20090429-00536 SAT-MOD-20090429-00047 SAT-MOD-20090429-00046 Dear Ms. Dortch: On October 27, 2009, Jeff Carlisle and Gustavo Nader of SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC (“SkyTerra”) and Bruce Jacobs and Tony Lin, counsel for SkyTerra, met with William Bell, Stephen Duall, Karl Kensinger, Sylvia Lam, Hsing Liu, Kathyrn Medley, Robert Nelson, and Frank Peace, all of the Satellite Division, to discuss the above-referenced applications. At the meeting, SkyTerra discussed the importance of grant of the applications and provided the attached handout. Very truly yours, /s/ Tony Lin Attachment www.pillsburylaw.com

cc: (via email) William Bell Stephen Duall Karl Kensinger Sylvia Lam Hsing Liu Kathyrn Medley Robert Nelson Frank Peace www.pillsburylaw.com 401530297v1

ATC Modification Application Presentation to Satellite Division International Bureau October 27, 2009 SkyTerra Confidential

Application The application contains 7 waivers reflecting the coordination agreement with Inmarsat: – one that is general to ATC operations related to air interface protocols; – five that relate to ATC base station operations; – one that seeks additional flexibility for ATC user devices; Better addresses real-world operating conditions, increases spectrum efficiency, and better controls and mitigates interference; Is consistent with FCC policy encouraging and empowering L-band MSS operators to negotiate more flexible operating parameters; Does not change the protection limits with respect to any operators other than Inmarsat or any services in in adjacent frequencies; increases the coordination distance re SARSAT in order to maintain the same protection.

Filings Party Description Pleading Type Summary Mississippi, Public safety entity Letter SkyTerra service is instrumental in furthering mission Department of protecting public safety; of Public Grant of the application will serve the public interest by Safety accelerating the offering of innovative and potentially life-saving services to the public safety community. Inmarsat MSS Operator Opposition to Interference concerns are addressed by SkyTerra’s Petition to Deny filings; Inmarsat is committed to work with its customers to resolve potential interference concerns; Coordination Agreement also permits Inmarsat’s reuse of certain, scarce satellite spectrum, allows Inmarsat’s new I-4 satellites to operate at full potential, completes coordination of Inmarsat’s entire fleet of satellites, and resolves long-standing spectrum dispute. U.S. GPS Organization of GPS stakeholders Comments Use of L-band femtocells indoors may cause Industry interference to indoor operation of GPS devices; Council Pleading withdrawn after agreement reached with SkyTerra re indoor use of femotocells. SkyWave Reseller of Inmarsat capacity Comments Proposed ATC base station operations may cause unacceptable increase in interference to its land mobile customers. Amtech Reseller of Inmarsat capacity Petition to Deny Proposed ATC base station operations may cause unacceptable increase in interference to its land mobile customers.

Details Waiver Request/Issue Amtech/SkyWave SkyTerra position position General 1. Use of any air interface protocol that conforms to the parameters agreed to in the New air interface Peak-to-average ratio of the base station carrier will be Coordination Agreement, rather than use of only those protocols in compliance protocols may have peak- no more than 5.5 dB with 1% probability; such short, with the Commission’s L-band specific ATC technical rules. to-average ratios that transient spurs will be inconsequential from an cause harmful interference perspective.* interference. Mobile Terminals 2. Deployment of mobile terminals operating 1) in compliance with agreed Delta None T/T limits specified in the coordination agreement, 2) with an OOCE limit of -58 dBW/4kHz, and 3) with a maximum power of 6 dBW, rather than a peak EIRP limit of 0 dBW and an OOCE limit of -67 dBW/4kHz as specified in 47 C.F.R. § 25.253(g)(1). Base Stations 3. a) Total PFD from BTS emissions in the 1.5 GHz band that is calculated to be None receivable at an AES receiver at an altitude of at least 100 meters from the Earth’s surface shall not exceed -26.8 dBW/ m2. b) Total PFD from any single ATC BTS sector within 1300 meters of an airport that is calculated to be receivable at an AES receiver, when on the ground on a runway or aircraft stand area at such airport, shall not exceed -26.8 dBW/ m2, rather than -56.8 dBW/m2/200 kHz at the edge of all airport runways and aircraft stand areas as specified in 47 C.F.R. § 25.253(d)(5). c) Total PFD from any single ATC BTS sector within 1300 meters of a navigable waterway shall not exceed -34.6 dBW/ m2, rather than -56.6 dBW/m2/200kHz at the water’s edge of any navigable waterway from all carriers operating in the 1525-1541.5 MHz and 1547-1559 MHz frequency bands as specified in 47 C.F.R. § 25.253(d)(6) and -64.6 dBW/m2/200kHz at the water’s edge of any navigable waterway from all carriers operating in the 1541.5-1547.5 MHz frequency band as specified in 47 C.F.R. § 25.253(d)(7). 4. Use of more precise and flexible operating metrics specified in the coordination None agreement, rather than compliance with the left-hand circular polarization, 16 dBi maximum antenna gain, and overhead gain suppression requirements specified in 25.253(d)(8) and (e). 5. Protection of SARSAT receivers through coordination of base stations within 80 None km or radio horizon of SARSAT receivers, rather than 27 km or radio horizon as specified in 47 C.F.R. § 25.253(f)(1). *This is uncontested in the Amtech/SkyWave Replies.

Details (con’t) Waiver Request/Issue Amtech/SkyWave SkyTerra position position 6. Rather than the general OOCE restriction of -57.9 dBW/MHz specified in 47 Amtech/SkyWave oppose Amtech/SkyWave concerns are moot; the application C.F.R. § 25.253(b), the limit on OOCE will be based on total PFSD from base any request to replace the proposes to operate all base stations within the same station emissions in the 1.5 GHz band, as follows: general requirements with OOCE limits.* a) -187.27 dBW/m2-Hz at a spectral offset of 2 MHz from the nominal edge of a new set of limits that spectrum at the input of the AES receiver; would apply only to the b) -181.27 dBW/m2-Hz within 1300 meters of an airport at a spectral offset of 2 protection for aeronautical MHz from the nominal edge of spectrum; and and maritime terminals. c) -181.27 dBW/m2-Hz within 1300 meters of a navigable waterway at a spectral offset of 1 MHz from the nominal edge of spectrum. 7. Rather than the peak EIRP limits established in 47 C.F.R. § 25.253(d)(1)-(4), SkyTerra’s proposed base Amtech/SkyWave have misunderstood and overstated base stations shall not exceed a maximum average EIRP of 42 dBW per BTS station operations at a the proposed base station power levels;* sector in the 1.5 GHz band, and the total EIRP in any 1 MHz segment shall not maximum EIRP of 45 exceed 32 dBW/MHz regardless of the number of carriers and bandwidth of each dBW per BTS sector will Proposed base stations will operate at levels no higher carrier. generate added front-end than levels already authorized for other MSS systems overload interference and with ATC or for other terrestrial wireless providers;* intermodulation interference to Amtech/SkyWave use an unrealistic propagation model Amtech/SkyWave; that overstates overload and intermodulation interference; SkyTerra’s interference model is a best case Amtech/SkyWave could significantly reduce overload analysis that understates exposure by deploying better-designed receivers. real world interference. *This is uncontested in the Amtech/SkyWave Replies.

Interference Analysis • Amtech/SkyWave’s interference calculations are based on an unrealistic LOS propagation model that exaggerates potential interference • SkyTerra estimates that, for a typical market, the area of potential overload interference will be less than 0.05% and the area of potential intermodulation interference will be less than 2% of the entire market • Amtech/SkyWave are wrong in their speculation about possible deficiencies in testing procedures and assumptions regarding the drive test –the study was conducted by a professional, independent company (Bechtel) primarily to provide information for ATC network deployment plans –the routes were selected to be statistically representative of the overall urban/suburban environment; –the receivers were mounted on the exterior of the vehicles; –the base station antennas were placed at typical heights for cellular installations (i.e. building rooftops and other high structures); • Amtech/SkyWave can also alleviate interference by installing filters; redesigning equipment; or making use of hybrid terminals and terrestrial frequencies in urban areas

Deference due Coordination Agreement o Consistent with L-band regulatory regime, ATC orders and rules expressly encourage and empower L-band MSS operators to negotiate and agree to less restrictive L-band ATC operational limits, in order to promote more efficient use of the spectrum. o FCC rules and policies as a general matter support deference to operator coordination. See, e.g., In the Matter of Row 44, Inc., DA 09-1752 (August 4, 2009); 47 C.F.R. 25.220(d). o Any interpretation requiring coordination with resellers or individual users would be unworkable and undermine the FCC’s grant of ATC authority to MSS operators. o Deference to the Coordination Agreement is good policy. o System operators are the only entities with the ability to make the necessary decisions regarding system trade-offs and compromises; and o The appropriate course for Amtech/SkyWave is to pursue private discussions with Inmarsat in the context of any satellite capacity or other applicable agreement.

Additional support for grant o A balance of public interest considerations weighs strongly in favor of approving SkyTerra’s request. o ATC will increase availability of broadband, improve spectrum efficiency, enhance the value and flexibility of MSS, provide additional communications options to protect the public, facilitate U.S. technological innovation, and create new high-paying jobs. o In contrast, Amtech/SkyWave seek additional, unnecessary protection involving a relatively small number of users for the provision of legacy, narrowband services. o Amtech is the only party to file a formal petition to deny, and there are questions regarding whether it actually has any


Document Created: 2009-10-28 11:03:50
Document Modified: 2009-10-28 11:03:50
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC