Attachment Joint Comment

Joint Comment

COMMENT submitted by Stratos, SkyWave, Satamatics

Joint Comment

2006-05-31

This document pretains to SES-STA-20060511-00790 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2006051100790_503219

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Stratos Communications, Inc. ) SES—STA—20060511—00790 ) SES—STA—20060511—00791 ) SES—STA—20060511—00792 ) SES—STA—20060511—00793 ) SES—STA—20060511—00794 ) SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp. ) SES—STA—20060511—00788 ) Satamatics, Inc. ) SES—STA—20060511—00795 ) To: International Bureau JOINT REPLY COMMENTS Stratos Communications, Inc. ("Stratos"), SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp. ("SkyWave") and Satamatics, Inc. ("Satamatics") (collectivelyreferred to as "Applicants") hereby submit these Joint Reply Comments in response to Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC‘s ("MSV‘s") Comments concerning the above—captioned requests for renewal of special temporary authority ("STA")l The International Bureau ("the Bureau") should renew the STAs currently held by the Applicants to ensure that existing Inmarsat services being provided to a wide—range of U.S. military, U.S. government and private sector end—users are not disrupted. The Applicants have filed applications to modify their existing authorizations to operate Inmarsat terminals to include the fourth—generation Inmarsat satellite located at 52.75° ‘ See MSV Comments (May 15. 2006) ("MSV Comments").

W.L. ("Inmarsat 4F2") as a point of communication.. Those modification applications remain pending and since January 18, 2006, the Applicants have been providing existing Inmarsat services using the Inmarsat 4F2 pursuant to STAs, which are scheduled to expire on May 19, 2006." The above—captioned applications seek renewal of these STAs for an additional 60 days. In its Comments, MSV suggests that: (1) Inmarsat be required to cease use of the disputed spectrum* for the existing Inmarsat services being provided pursuant to STA on the Inmarsat 4F2; and (2) establish an expiration date of June 30, 2006 for the Stratos, Sky Wave and Satamatics STAs for existing Inmarsat services unless Inmarsat has completed coordination of the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite." Both of MSV‘s suggestions should be rejected by the Bureau. * See File Nos. SES—MFS—20051122—01614, SES—MFS—20051122—01615, SES—MFS— 20051122—01616, SES—MFS—20051122—01617, SES—MFS—20051122—01618, SES—MEFS—2005, SES—MFS—20051202—01665, and SES—MFS—20051207—01709. * See File Nos. SES—STA—20051216—01760 (EO00180), SES—STA—20051216—01761 (EO10047), SES—STA—20051216—01762 (EO10048), SES—STA—20051216—01763 (E010049), SES—STA—20051216—01764 (EO10050), SES—STA—20051222—01788 (EO30055), SES—STA— 20051223—01790 (E020074), In March, Stratos, SkyWave and Satamatics filed for renewal of these STAs. See File Nos. SES—STA—20060307—00374, SES—STA—20060307—00375, SES—STA— 20060307—00376, SES—STA—20060307—00377, SES—STA—20060307—00378, SES—STA— 20060307—00373, SES—STA—20060307—00372. In addition, Stratos, Sky Wave and Satamatics hold STAs for the necessary Title II authority to offer Inmarsat services using the Inmarsat 4F2. See File Nos. ITC—STA—20060121—00029, ITC—STA—20060121—00027 and ITC—STA—20060121— 00028. Renewal applications were also filed in March for these STAs. See File Nos. ITC—STA— 20060307—00139, ITC—STA—20060307—00138, ITC—STA—20060307—00137. On May 11, 2006, STA renewal applications were filed for the Title II STAs (due to expire on May 23, 2006). MSV has not filed Comments with respect to these Title II STA renewal applications. * Stratos uses the neutral term, "disputed spectrum," in discussing certain bandwidth segments made available for Inmarsat‘s use "as part of the Revised 1999 Spectrum Sharing Arrangement (October 4, 1999), or later as bilateral arrangements between Inmarsat and MSV and Inmarsat and MSV Canada," which are nowthe subject of a dispute with MSVand MSV Canada. See STAs (Condition 3) at File Nos. SES—STA—20051216—01760; SES—STA—20051216— 01761; SES—STA—20051216—01762; SES—STA—20051216—01763; SES—STA—20051216—01764 (Jan. 18, 2006). ° MSV Comments at 1—3.

As Stratos, SkyWave and Satamatics previously made clear, prohibiting the Inmarsat 4F2 from accessing the disputed spectrum would result in a substantial increase in call blockage probability, which would directly degrade the quality and reliability of the existing Inmarsat services provided by Stratos, SkyWave and Satamaties.© As explained by Stratos: [O]n demand users of Inmarsat services, including Stratos‘ customers, are allocated channels by Inmarsat from a pool of available channels when they initiate a call. For each on demand service covered by Stratos‘ licenses, the pool of channels could include the disputed spectrum. Accordingly, all of Stratos‘ users in the U.S. could operate in the disputed spectrum. If Inmarsat 4F2 access to the disputed spectrum were terminated, then all of Stratos‘ U.S. customers would have their service degraded.‘ While SkyWave and Satamatics do not currently use the disputed spectrum to provide the Inmarsat D+ service in the United States, terminating access to the disputed spectrum would still have an adverse effect. Specifically, terminating Inmarsat‘s access to the disputed spectrum would cause Inmarsat to reevaluate its entire frequency plan and force it to decide which services must get less spectrum. A loss of spectrum for use by SkyWave and Satamatics would significantly increase call—blockage probability and would compromise the ability of their customers to accurately track or monitor assets or to receive critical messages about the condition of sensitive facilities." ° See Letter (Public Version) from Alfred M. Mamlet to Marlene H. Dortch at 2—3 (Feb. 17, 2006) ("Stratos Report") (submitted in File Nos. SES—STA—20051216—01760; SES—STA— 20051216—01761; SES—STA—20051216—01762; SES—STA—20051216—01763; SES—STA— 20051216—01764; ITC—STA—20060121—00029); Letter from Alfred M. Mamlet to Marlene H. Dortch at 2 (Feb. 17, 2006) ("Satamatics Report") (submitted in File Nos. SES—STA—20051223— 01790, ITC—STA—20060121—00027); Letter from Alfred M. Mamlet to Marlene H. Dortch at 2 (Feb. 17, 2006) ("Sky Wave Report") (submitted in File Nos. SES—STA—20051222—0178, ITC— STA—20060121—00028). " Stratos Report at 2. ® SkyWave Report at 2; Satamatics Report at 2. 13.

As the Applicants have clearly set forth in their STA requests, the customers of Stratos, SkyWave and Satamatics rely heavily on the Inmarsat services to facilitate military communications, lawenforcement, homeland security and to protect, track and monitor sensitive assets throughout the United States." Any disruption to these services would jeopardize these essential activities and clearly would not be in the public interest. MSV suggests that terminating use of the disputed spectrum is appropriate because the Bureau has already done so with respect to the STAs issued for the BGAN service."" Significantly, however, BGAN is a new service whereas there are thousands of customers in United States using the existing Inmarsat services. Applying the spectrum limitation advocated by MSV would have a serious impact on services that many customers rely on today, including "First Responders" using Inmarsat as a communications tool in disasterrelief and as a back—up to terrestrial communications. MSV‘s suggestion to limit the spectrum used by Stratos, SkyWave and Satamatics should be rejected as a transparent attempt to use the Applicant‘s STA renewals (and their underlying modification applications) as leverage in its on—going spectrum dispute with Inmarsat. If MSV has a dispute over the current allocation of L—band spectrum, it should resolve this dispute with Inmarsat through international coordination, not by hijacking these STA renewals and the underlying modification applications in this proceeding. Stratos, SkyWave and Satamatics should be able to continue to use all frequencies that they are currently authorized to use in their licenses, subject to the outcome of any international coordination. Subject to a non— ° See Attachment A of File Nos. SES—STA—20060307—00374, SES—STA—20060307— 00375, SES—STA—20060307—00376, SES—STA—20060307—00377, SES—STA—20060307—00378, SES—STA—20060307—00372 and SES—STA—20060307—00373. MSV Comments at 2.

interference condition, the Commission has consistently held that MSV, TMI, Stratos and others can use the entire range of L—band frequencies in the absence of a coordination agreement.‘‘ There is no reason to treat Applicants differently now. Significantly, prohibiting the Inmarsat 4F2 from using the disputed spectrum, would not free up this spectrum for use by MSV. The disputed spectrum is used on a number of Inmarsat spacecraft covering North America, thereby precluding reuse of the disputed spectrum over North America by other MSS networks, like MSV, regardless of whether or not the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite uses the disputed spectrum or not. MSV‘s suggestion that the STAs be terminated by June 30, 2006 unless Inmarsat completes satellite coordination is inconsistent with the treatment of recent MSV applications for L—band services. Just last year, the Bureau granted two MSV applications to operate in the L— band —— one for a replacement satellite at 101° W.L. and one for a new satellite (/.e., a satellite not contemplated by the Mexico City MoU) at 63.5° W.L. In the absence of a coordination agreement, the Commission did not impose any deadline to complete a new L—band coordination agreement, and granted both applications on a "non—harmful interference basis to other mobile— satellite service systems operating in the L—band.""" Applicants request that the Bureau treat the existing STAs similarly. Indeed, since the UK (the administration licensing the Inmarsat system and the home of Satamatics‘s ultimate corporate parent) and Canada (home of the ultimate U See MSV 101° W.L. Order at 4 34; See MSV 63.5° W.L. Order at § 23; Inmarsat Market Access Order, 16 FCC Red. at 21712; See SatCom Systems, Inc. et al., 14 FCC Red. 20798, 20814 (1999) ("TMI Market Access Order"). 2 See MSV 63.5° W.L. Order and MSV 101° W.L. Order. B See MSV 63.5°W.L. Order at § 39; MSY 101° W.L. Order at § 59. 15.

corporate parents of Stratos and SkyWave) are WTO Members, the U.S. has an obligation to do SO.M Prompt renewal of the STAs held by Stratos, SkyWave and Satamatics (without any conditions proposed by MSV) will ensure continued service to the Stratos, SkyWave and Satamatics customers while the Bureau resolves the issues associated with the underlying modification applications and the on—going Inmarsat/MSV spectrum dispute. Respecifully submitted, Stratos Communications, Inc. SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp. Satamatics, Inc. {f;27f ,//’\‘1 |———A_A t Alfred M. Mamlet Marc A. Paul Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 429—3000 Counsel to Stratos Communications, Inc., SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp. and Satamatics, Inc. May 31, 2006 " See TMI Market Access Order, 14 FCC Red. at 20813 (rejecting the attempt of AMSC to preclude other L—band systems from serving the U.S. until AMSC had completed coordination of 20 MHz of spectrum because doing so "would be inconsistent with U.S. market access commitments in the WTO Agreement"); Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Regulatory Policies to Allow Non—U.S. Licensed Satellites Providing Domestic and International Service in the United States, 12 FCC Red. 24094, 24104(1997) ("DISCO II") (recognizing the US commitment "to provide market access to all basic telecommunications services and national treatment to service suppliers of WTO members").

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marc A. Paul, an attorney with the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, hereby certify that on this 31st day of May, 2006, I served a true copy of the foregoing Reply Comments by first class mail, postage pre—paid (or as otherwise indicated) upon the following: Roderick Porter® Gardner Foster®* 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 Richard Engelman* Andrea Kelly* 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 Robert Nelson* Scott Kotler*® 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 Cassandra Thomas* Karl Kensinger* 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 Howard Griboff* John Martin* 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 Fern Jarmulnek* Jennifer A. Manner International Bureau Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Federal Communications Commission Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC 445 12"" Street, S.W. 1002 Park Ridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20554 Reston, Virginia 20191 Stephen Duall* Bruce D. Jacobs International Bureau David S. Konczal Federal Communications Commission Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 445 12"" Street, S.W. 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20037—1128

James Ball* Diane J. Cornell International Bureau Vice President, Government Affairs Federal Communications Commission Inmarsat, Inc. 445 12"" Street, S.W. 1100 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1425 Washington, DC 20554 Arlington, VA 22209 John P. Janka Jeffrey A. Marks Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004 * By electronic mail Marc A. Paul


Document Created: 2006-05-31 15:56:38
Document Modified: 2006-05-31 15:56:38
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC