Attachment Joint Opposition

Joint Opposition

OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION submitted by Telenor, FTMSC US, BT, MVS USA, Stratos

Joint Opposition

2006-06-19

This document pretains to SES-STA-20060314-00438 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2006031400438_506998

st6timenn Ste . ut roso Heumegono0. mever0 Tt aosiesraze ree gonesrazt mexivcn LATHAM&WATKINS« REcEiVED reunmureomnces x WY Eon Noteriigns a Oargecou 121 e medinemiaie hal Aa""RECEIVED mmunicatonsComnison Yontupw Smd Sintimains Piie 2 sf6 OferolSecy tm © Saga JUN 22 2008 on Argain Stonvaty m Sngumee Satelite Divisin Ms. Marlene Dortch Hercon To InternationalBcroau Seomics fiwJoney Wt00 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20554 Re: Thrane & ThranAirtime, Ltd. File No. SES—STA—20060522—00857 (Call Sign E060179) Dear Ms. Dortch: MSV attached to ts Petition to Deny in this proceeding an exparte presentation submitted in other proceedings requesting that the Commission substantially modify the conditions in previously granted special temporary authority ("STA") to provide Broadband Global Area Network (BGAN) service. MSV asks that the Commission take that request into account in granting Thrane & ThraneAirtime, Ltd.‘s STA.‘ On June 19, 2006, Inmarsat and the BGAN STA grantees submitted a Joint Opposition to MSV‘s request for elariication in those other proceedings. Inmarsat respectfully requests that the Commission aecept the Joint Opposition (attached), which responds to MSV‘s specific proposals, into the record of this proceeding. Please contact the tindersigned if you have any questions regarding the attached. Sincerely yours, TeffieyA. Marks Enclosure ‘ MSV has since converted thex parte presentation to a Petition for Clarification. MSV Petition for Clarification, File Nos. SES—STA—20060310—00419 er al.(fled June 12, 2006), attaching ex parte Letter from Jennifer Manner, Mobile Satellte Ventures LP, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (originally filed May 26, 2006). possura

STAMP AND Federal Cnm:fi?:!::s Commission REcEMEBVRN Washington, D.C. 20554 JuN 1 9 2006 Fedeal Communtatens Conmisson In the matter of ) Oftect Smb Stratos Communications, Inc. ; File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (Call Sign EO50249) Telenor Satellite, Inc. )) File No. SES—STA—20060313—00430 (Call Sign EO50276) Ensc us, LLe ; File No. SES—STA—20060314—00438 (Call Sign EO50284) BT Americas Inc. ; File No. SES—STA—20060315—00445 (Call Sign E060076) MVS USA, Inc. ; File No. SES—STA—20060316—00454 (Call Sign EOSO348) Joret OrPostmion o Perrmion ror Crarrication Telenor Satellte,Inc., FTMSC US, LLC, BT Americas Inc., MVS USA, Inc. and Stratos Communications, Inc. (collectively, the "Licensees"), ogether with Inmarsat Ventures Limited ("Inmarsat®), oppose the petition ofMobile Satellite Ventures LP ("MSV")! to "clarify" conditions applicable to the existing grants ofspecial temporary authority ("STA") to provide Broadband Global Area Network (BGAN) service over the Inmarsat—4 spacecraft (41—4"). Contrary to its label, MSV‘s petition goes beyond a request for mere "clarification‘"and actually seeks to add entirely new conditions to the STAs. In any event, there is no basis for granting MSV‘s reguest. By all accounts, each Licensee has complied with the conditions of its STA during the approximately one month since BGAN STA issued..Indeed, the Licensees have every incentive to comply with the STA conditions in order to maintain their BGAN authorizations, and Inmarsat has every incentive to ensure that the Licensees have the ‘— MSV Petition for Clarification, File Nos. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (filed June 12, 2006), attaching ex parte Letter from Jennifer Manner, Mobile Satellite Ventures LP, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (originally filed May 26, 2006).

wherewithal to comply. MSV has provided no evidence that the Licensees have not complied, and MSV has not demonstrated thatthe current conditions are inedequate to constrain the potential for interference. In short, MSV‘s request is the proverbial solution in search ofa problem, and there is no reason to modify the STA conditions. The following are more specific responses to each ofMSV‘s comments on the STA conditions. Condition 1. Condition 1 states that "{n}either the aggregate uplink EIRP densities in the direction of any other L—Band satellite serving the United States, nor the downlink EIRP densitics at any geographical point within the United States, shall be increased, above the levels previously authorized in connection with operations using the Inmarsat 3F4 satellite, asa result ofthe operations authorized by this STA."" MSV first requests that the Commission clarify that Condition 1 places an "aggregate" EIRP on the downlink as well as the wplink. As an inital matter, i is doubtfil whether an aggregate downlink EIRP limit is even necessary, given that Inmarsat‘s illuminating a given geographic area with more than one co— frequency carrier would cause selfinterference. But that issue is academic because Inmarsat and the Licensees already treat Condition 1 as limiting "aggregate" downlink EIRP from 1—4 at any geographic point within the United States. Thus, MSV‘s requested "clarification" would neither enhance the meaning of Condition 1 nor have any practical impact on the operations ofInmersat or the Licensees. Second, MSV requests that the Commission extend the application ofCondition 1 beyond the 1—4 satellte that is the subject ofthe STAs, and cover all other Inmarsat spacecraft "visible over North Americs," regardless whether those spacecraft are authorized to serve the United States. Specifically, MSV Seeks to constrain the operations ofInmarsat spacecraft that

are located over Australia and Affica, among other locations. There is no valid basis for MSV‘s requ . The STA covers only BGAN service, and only 1—4. Indeed, 1—4 is the only Inmarsat spacecraft with U.S. coverage thatis capable ofproviding BGAN service. Moreaver, Inmarsat and the Licensees have confirmed in the context of these BGAN STAs and the underlying BGAN applications that, until a new coordination agreement with MSV is reached, Inmarsat will operate within the technical envelope that Inmarsat has previously coordinated with MSV. MSV cites no precedent in support ofimposing these types of"Aeet—wide" limits on satellites thatare not even the subject ofthese STAs. The Commission imposed no such fleet—wide limit on MSV, when the Commission Hicensed MSV‘s two, uncoordinated, next—generation spacecraft". The Commission authorized new services on those spacecraft without reference to the technical parameters under which MSV operates today, subject only to the requirement tha service be provided on a non—interference basis, and in the complete absence of any indication that MSV actually could do so. MSV was allowed to provide new services, using new, high—powered, broadband carriers, and a new satellie located almost 40 degrees closer to Inmarsat, but had no spectrum coordinated to serve the primary service area of one of these two sptcecraft (South America)." Yet the Commission did not impose on MSV any ofthe conditions that MSV proposes here. There simply is no basis for the type ofpolicy change MSV urges, and no basis for treating Inmarsat differently than MSV. Conditions 2 and 5; Conditions 2 and 5 provide that operations pursuant to STA shall be on an "unprotected basis" and that any action taken or expense incurred pursuant to the STA are at the Licensees‘ "own ritk."" MSV seeks to extend this condition to Inmarsat. However, there is no reason to thitk the Licensees are not able to comply with Conditions 2 and * See MSY Sub. LLC, 20 FCC Red 9752 (2005); MSVSub, LLC, 20 FCC Red 479 (2005). 5. MSV recently surrendered its authorization forthe spacecraft slated to serve South America.

5, and MSV has not shown that these conditions are inadequate. Moreover, Inmarsatalready has ample incentive to ensure that the Licensees have the ability to comply with all STA conditions, and thereby maintain their authority to provide BGAN. Extending Conditions 2 and 5, as MSV proposes, thus is both unnecessary and unwarranted. Condition 3. Condition 3 to the STAs excludes the use of certain disputed L— Band spectrum segments for the provision of BGAN services. MSV requests that the Commission also require that the Licensees obtain and submit a certification from Inmarsat that Inmarsat will not assign these disputed frequencies to "earth stations covered by the STA." There is no need for consuming Commission resources with this additional "paperwork" requirement. The Licensees are complying with this condition, and MSV does not claim otherwise. And, s noted above, Inmarsat has every incentive to ensure that the Licensees comply with this condition in order to maintain their authorizations.. In any event,as a federal court of appeals recognized in an analogous context, Commission enforement powers are adequate to protect against MSV‘$ speculation about future non—compliance," making the proposed certification requirement superfluous. Condition 4. Condition 4 requires that "adequate guard bands shall be provided" in the provision of BGAN service, MSV requests that the Commission specify that an adequate guard band is "atlest 50 kHz betiween the band edges ofthe carriers used by the BGAN service provider and the band ediges ofMSV‘s coordinated frequencies," but MSV admits, in the same breath, that 50 kHz might not really be the appropriate value, and that value might need to be changed in the future. As an initidl matter, it makes Kitle sense to adopt a specific guard band requirement given MSV‘s uncertainty. More fundamentally, MSV fails to show that the current * AMSCv. FCC, 216 F3d 1154, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citing 47 U.S.C. § 312).

condition is inadequate.. MSV has not demonstrated that there have been any interference problems from BGAN service, which now has been provided to the United States for over a month. Nor has MSV demonstrated that 50 kz would be the appropriate size for a guard band. Moreover, all indications are that Condition 4, as written, provides ample protection to MSV, and that the Licensees are complying with this condition. And, practically speaking, Inmersat historically has worked cooperatively with MSV to routinely and promptly resolve operational issues in other contexts, consistent with Commission rules and policies." MSV provides no reason to think that will not continue to be the case. As a finl matter, there is no valid basis to shift the entire operational burden of ccordination to Inmarsat by requiing only Inmersat to use guard bands, as MSV advocates. To the contrary, Commission precedent recognizes that coordination is a "two—way street," and that each party is obligated to bear some of the associated burdens, and not simply raise barriers to the provision of new services* Conditions 6, 7, and 10. Conditions 6, 7 and 10 recognize that the Commission is expressly not making a determination whether BGAN can be provided on a non—interference ‘basis, and that STA grant is without prefudice to () any future Commission determination that operations are consistent with operation on a non—interference basis, and (ii) Commission consideration ofthe Licensees‘ underlying BGAN applications. MSV has no issue with the terms of these three conditions. Rther, MSV asks that the Commission require that Inmarsat "conclude coordination of [I—4 with respect to the current and planned operations ofMSV and MSV Canada before [the FCC] can make a definitive determination that operation of [+4) will 5. See, eg, 47 C.FR. § 25.274 (setting forth the procedures to be followed to resolve interference concems). ® See, eg., AMSC Sub. Corp., 8 FCC Red 4040, 4043 4 17 (1993) ("AMSCOrder®).

not result in unaceeptable interference and before it can grant the pending applications for permanent authority." First and foremost, such a condition is inappropriate because 1—4 is now operating within the technical envelope that has long been coordinated with MSV. Moreover, imposing such a condition would be fundamentally unfair,as it would provide MSV with sole control over whether "full" BGAN authority ever issues, and the record is clear that MSV has refused to coordinate further with Inmarsat unless and until other business issues between the companies are resolved. Fortunately, longstafiding Commission precedent prevents such competitive sbuses, providing that completion 6f coordination is not a condition precedent to (or a guidpro quo for) issuance of an authorization to provide MSS in the United States." Finally, for the reasons discussed sbove in the context of Condition 1, imposing such a condition would be inconsistent with the way the Commission treated MSV last year, when it fully licensed the operation ofMSV‘s two, uncoordinated, next—generation spacecraft, without any requirement that MSV effectuate coordination prioto launching or commencing new services. Ifthe Commission takes any action in response to MSV‘s request, it should be to require MSV to participate in the Mexico City MOU coordination process, demonstrate MSV‘s need for L—Band spectrum to provide MSS (based on current spectrum usage and short—term projections of fiture need), and thereby fulfll ts obligations under Commission policy." * Establishment ofPolicies and Service Rulesfor MSS in the 2 GHz Band, 15 FCC Red 16127, 16192 4 148—49 (2000); SarCom Systems, Inc. 14 FCC Red 20798, 20813 430 (1999) ("TMP);Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Rules to Establish Rules andPolicies Pertaining to MSS in the 1610—1626.5/2483.5—2500 MHz Frequency Bands, 9 FCC Red 5936, 6018 421 1 (1994);.AMSC Order, 8 FCC Re at 4043 9 17. * See TM, 14 FCC Red at 20813 § 30; FCC Hails Historic Agreement on International Satellite Coordination, Rep. No. IN 96—16 (tel. Jun. 25, 1996) ("Spectrum allocations to individual operators will be reviewed annully on the basis ofactual usage and short—term projections of future need.").

kx+k+ Forthe foregoing reasons, there is no need to "clarify" or add further conditions to the STAs, as MSV requests. Respectfully submitted, Ist ist Linda J. Cieco Alfred M. Mamict BT Amenicas Inc. Mare A. Paul 11440 Commerce Park Drive Brendan Kasper Reston, VA 20191 Srerros & Jomnson t 7os—7ss—5733 1330 Connectiout Avenve, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 429—3000 Counsel to Stratos Communications, Inc. is! is Keith H. Fagan Lawrence J. Movshin Senior Counsel Stephen L. Goodman Tevenor Sareturre, Inc. Lee J. Rosen 1101 Wootton Parkway Witximson Barkex KNaver, LLP 10th Floor 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 700 Rockville, MD 20852 Washington, D.C. 20037 (301) 838—7860 (202) res—ar41 Counsel to MYS USA, Inc. 6 Williem K. Coulter Diane J. Comell DLA Prrer Rupnick Gray Cary LLP Vice President, Government Affairs 1200 19th Street, N.W. Invarsat, Inc. Washington, DC 20036 1100 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1425 (202) so1—3043 Arlington, VA 22209 Counsel to FTMSC US, LLC (703) 647 «767 June 19, 2006

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Jeffrey A. Marks, hereby certify that on this 19" day ofJune, 2006, I caused to be served a true copy ofthe foregoing "Toint Response to Petition for Clarification," by first class mail, postage pre—psid (or as othenise indicated) upon the following: James Ball* Stephen Duall* International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 JoAnn Ekblad® Richerd Engelman* International Buresu International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Gardner Poster® Howard Gribofi® International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commistion Federal Communications Commission 445 12° Street, S.W. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Fem Jarmulnek*® Andrea Kelly® International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commistion Federal Communications Commission 445 12° Street, S.W. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Karl Kensinger® Scott Kotler® International Burcau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12° Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 John Martin® Robert Nelson* 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

Roderick Porter® Cassandra Thomas® International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commistion Federal Communications Commission 445 12° Street, SW. 445 12® Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Bruce D. Jacobs Jennifer A. Manner David S. Konczal Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC 2300 N Street, N.W. 1002 Park Ridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20037—1128 Reston, Virginia 20191 *Via Electronic Mail

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Jeftey A. Marks, hereby certify that on this 21" day ofJune, 2006, I caused to be served a true copy ofthe foregoiflg by first class mail, postage pre—paid (or as otherwise indicated) upon the following: James Ball® Stephen Duall® International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12° Street, SW. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 JoAnn Ekblad* Richard Engelman® International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Strect,SW. 445 12" Street,SW. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Gardner Foster® Howard Gribot® International Bureau Interational Bureau Federal Communications Commitsion Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street,SW. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Fem Jarmulnek® Andrea Kelly® International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commitsion Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Karl Kensinger® Scott Kotler® International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commitsion Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street, SW. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 John Martin® Robert Nelson® International Bureau Interational Bureau Federal Communications Commitsion Federal Communications Commission 445 12° Street,SW. 445 12" Street,SW. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 possin

Roderick Porter® Cassantra Thomas® 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. Konczal Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC 2300 N Street, N.W. 1002 Park Ridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20037—1128 Reston, Virginia 20191 Eric Fishman Holland & Knight LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avente, NW Washington, DC 20006 *Via Electronic Mail Jeffrey/A) Marks possuma


Document Created: 2006-06-23 11:15:40
Document Modified: 2006-06-23 11:15:40
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC