Attachment Comments

Comments

COMMENT submitted by Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC

Comments

2006-08-23

This document pretains to SES-STA-20060822-01424 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2006082201424_523483

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the matter of Thrane & Thrane Airtime Ltd. File No. SES—STA—20060822—01424 COMMENTS OF MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES SUBSIDIARY LLC Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV") urges the International Bureau ("Bureau") in acting on the above—captioned request for renewal of Special Temporary Authority ("STA") to operate 5000 Broadband Global Area Network ("BGAN‘) terminals using an uncoordinated Inmarsat satellite, Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W, to revise the conditions attached to the STA as MSV has requested in a pending Petition for Clarification.‘ On May 12, 2006, the Bureau granted STA requests to operate BGAN terminals subject to a number of very important and appropriate conditions that are essential to help mitigate the harmful interference to customers of other L band Mobile Satellite Service ("MSS") operators from Inmarsat‘s uncoordinated BGAN opc:rations.2 On June 12, 2006, MSV filed the attached Petition for Clarification asking the Bureau to clarify certain of these conditions. See Exhibit A. On June 19, 2006, Inmarsat, along with Telenor Satellite Inc., FTMSC US, LLC, BT Americas Inc., MVS USA, Inc., and Stratos Communications, Inc. (collectively, the "BGAN Distributors") \ See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Petition for Clarification, File No. SES—STA— 20060310—00419 et al (June 12, 2006) (attaching Letter from Ms. Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 et al. (May 26, 2006)). This Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit A. * See, e.g., Stratos Communications, Inc., Request for Special Temporary Authority, File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (filed March 10, 2006; granted with conditions on May 12, 2006).

filed a Joint Opposition to MSV‘s Petition." MSV filed a Reply to this Opposition on June 29, 2006. See Exhibit B.‘ On June 30, 2006, the Bureau granted Thrane & Thrane‘s request for an STA to operate 5000 BGAN MET‘s subject to the same conditions imposed on the STAs issued to the BGAN distributors." On August 22, 2006, Thrane & Thrane filed the above—referenced request to renew this STA grant. MSV urges the Bureau in acting on this renewal request to clarify the conditions imposed on the operations, consistent with MSV‘s pending Petition for Clarification attached hereto as Exhibit A. These clarifications will reduce the potential for harmful interference to MSV and its customers. These customers include important public safety users equipped with MSV terminals for essential communications during hurricane season, including terminals that provide interoperable communications for key government agencies in the hurricane region. Indeed, numerous public safety users have filed letters with the Commission expressing concern with potential interference caused by Inmarsat‘s uncoordinated operations and expressing support for rebanding of L band spectrum into more contiguous frequency blocks, which will reduce the potential for harmful interference and promote efficient use of spectrum.© * See Inmarsat Ventures Limited et al., Joint Opposition to Petition for Clarification, File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 et al (June 19, 2006). * See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Reply, File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 et al (June 29, 2006). * See Thrane & Thrane Airtime Ltd., Application for STA, File No. SES—STA—20060522—00857 (granted June 30, 2006). ° See Letter from Commonwealth of Kentucky‘s Division of Emergency Management to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (July 24, 2006); Letter from Southwest Texas Regional Advisory Council for Trauma to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (July 17, 2006); Letter from Mississippi Senator Merle Flowers to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (May 24, 2006); Letter from Bolivar County (MS) Emergency Management Agency to Chairman Kevin J.

Moreover, as MSV recently explained in Comments filed on the Commission‘s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM‘) seeking input on the recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks ("‘Katrina Panel"),‘ MSV currently offers the only satellite—based push—to—talk ("PTT") service in the country today." This product allows point—to—point or point—to—multipoint voice communications among users in a customer—defined group using a PTT handset. Using a customer—defined calling group, a public safety user can communicate with one or up to 10,000 users simultaneously. With this technology, all users within the call group receive the same information simultaneously. During emergencies when terrestrial infrastructure is impaired, MSV‘s PTT service can be of critical importance in keeping first responders informed. In Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (May 24, 2006); Letter from City of Orlando Emergency Management to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS— 20050826—01175 et al (May 24, 2006); Letter from Collier (FL) County Government to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (May 26, 2006); Letter from Alliance to Save Florida‘s Trauma Care to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (May 24, 2006); Letter from Hernando County (FL) Emergency Management to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (June 12, 2006); Letter from Santa Rosa County (FL) Division of Emergency Management to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (June 15, 2006); Letter from Charles Barbour, Supervisor, Hinds County (MS) to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (May 26, 2006); Letter from Blue Cross and Blue Field of Florida to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (May 23, 2006); Letter from Hinds County (MS) Sheriff‘s Department to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (May 23, 2006); Letter from Community Development Leagues of America, Inc. to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS— 20050826—01175 et al (May 25, 2006); Letter from Seminole County (FL) Department of Information Technologies to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826— 01175 et al (June 8, 2006); Letter from Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, FCC, File No. SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al (May 24, 2006). " See Recommendations ofthe Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact ofHurricane Katrina on Communications Networks, Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, EB Docket No. 06—119, FCC 06—83 (June 16, 2006) ("NPRM"). 8 See Comments of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, EB Docket No. 06—119 (August 7, 2006).

addition, MSV‘s PTT service can be interfaced with existing terrestrial—based public safety radios ("LMRs") or commercial Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radios ("ESMR"), and thus serve as a satellite repeater to both technologies. This enables the radios to continue to function even when the terrestrial infrastructure supporting the LMRs or ESMRs is destroyed. It is precisely this type of critical, interoperable public safety service that is being threatened by Inmarsat‘s continued operation of uncoordinated satellites and services. Clarification of the conditions imposed on the above—referenced BGAN STA is critical to reduce this threat. Respectfully submitted, »rax Bruce D. Jacobs Kennifer A. Manner David S. Konczal Vice President, Regulatory Affairs PILLSBURY WINTHROP MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES SHAW PITTMAN LLP SUBSIDIARY LLC 2300 N Street, NW 10802 Parkridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20037—1128 Reston, Virginia 20191 (202) 663—8000 (703) 390—2700 Dated: August 23, 2006

Exhibit A Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Petition for Clarification, File No. SES—STA— 20060310—00419 et al (June 12, 2006)

Before the RECEIPT CQPY Federal Communications Commission RECE'VED Washington, D.C. 20554 _ ol | | JUN 1 2 2006 In the matter of g Federal Com;nunications (}ommissiofi Stratos Communications, j . Inc. )) File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 | } (CallSign£050249) Telenor Satellite, Inc. ) File No. SES—STA—20060313—00430 (Call Sign EO50276) ) —— FTMSCUSLLC ) —File No. SES—STA—20060314—00438 (Call Sign EO50284) BT Americas, Inc. ) File No. SES—STA—20060315—00445 (Céll Sign E060076) ) MVS USA Inc. ) File No. SES—STA—200603 16—00454 (Call Sign EO50348) PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV"), pursuant to Section 1 106 of the | Coxfimlssmn’s rules, 47 C.F.R.‘ § 1.106, hereby files this Petition for Clarification of the International Bureau‘s ("Bureau") May 12, 2006 decision granting the above—referenced requests for Special Temporary Authority ("STA") to operate Broadband Global Area Network ("BGAN") terminals using an uncoordinated Inmarsat satellite, Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W. The Bureau‘s decision contains a number of very important and appropriate conditions that are essential to help mitigate the harmful interference that will result to customers of other L band Mobile Satellite Service ("MSS") operators once Inmarsat begins its uncoordinated BGANk operations. On May 26, 2006, prior to the deadline fér filing Petitions for Clarification or | Reconsideration of the decisions granting the BGAN STAs,‘ MSV filed the attached letter asking that the Bureau clarify certain of these conditions to improve their effectiveness. See Exhibit A. MSV hereby requests that the Bureau treat the attached letter and the clarifications requested therein as a Petition for Clarification of the Bureau‘s decisions granting the above—referenced ‘ The deadline for filing Petitions for Clarification or Reconsideration of the grant of the BGAN STAs is today, June 12, 2006. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).

STA requests. 47 C.F.R. § 1.106. A copy of this Petition has been servéd on the parties to the above—referenced proceedings. I¢d. Respectfully submitted, ; l o‘*z/ % W }Z“/ /‘ /(Z"‘-\ ors Bruce D. Jacobs BenniferA. Manner David S. Konczal Vice President, Regulatory Affairs PILLSBURY WINTHROP MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES _ SHAW PITTMAN LLP SUBSIDIARY LLC — _ 2300 N Street, NW 10802 Parkridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20037—1128 Reston, Virginia 20191 (202) 663—8000 (703) 390—2700 Dated: June 12, 2006

Exhibit A

x® RECE‘PT COPY Jenniler &. Manner 0.i ‘i }i ! l x I 1 Mob ile Satellite VenturesLP — w . Vice PresicienL Regulatory Affairs ONEO PHONE: 792 3906.97 703 300—27 30 FAX: 703 390—2770 EMAIL: jmanner@msvip.com May 26, 2006 Via Hand Delivery _ Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary to 2o RECE,VED Federal Communications Commission ' | 445 12th Street, S.W. . MAY 2 6:20086 Washington, D.C. 20554 . — Federal Communications Commission Re: Mobile Satellite Ventures LP Office of Secretary Ex Parte Presentation File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (Call Sign E050249) File No. SES—STA—20060313—00430 (Call Sign £050276) File No. SES—STA—20060314—00438 (Call Sign £050284) File No. SES—STA—20060315—00445 (Call Sign E£060076) File No. SES—STA—20060316—00454 (Call Sign £050348) Dear Ms. Dortch: The May 12, 2006 decisions granting the above—captioned requests for Special Temporary Authority ("STA") to operate Broadband Global Area Network ("BGAN") terminals using an uncoordinated Inmarsat satellite, Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W, contain a number of very important and appropriate conditions that are essential to help mitigate the harmful interference that will result to customers of other L band Mobile Satellite Service ("MSS") operators once Inmarsat begins its uncoordinated BGAN operations. Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV") requests that the International Bureau clarify certain of theseconditions to improve their effectiveness. ' Condition 1. The May 12"" decisions require the "downlink EIRP densities" at any geographical point within the United States to not exceed the levels previously authorized in connection with operations of the Inmarsat 3F4 satellite. As it did in limitingthe aggregate uplink EIRP density, the Bureau should specify that the downlink EIRP limit is an aggregate limit. The Bureau should also clarifythat the aggregate uplink and aggregate downlink EIRP density limits specified in Condition 1 apply in the aggregate to all Inmarsat satellites visible over North America. The condition as written appears to address only the emissions contributed by Inmarsat 4F2 to the aggregate emissions from all of Inmarsat satellites operating over North America. At least some of the frequencies used on the Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W, however, are reused by Inmarsat on its other satellites visible over North America, which operate at 15.5°W, 98°W, 142°W, 143°E, and 178°E. The Bureau should make clear that the aggregate uplink and aggregate downlink EIRP densities from all Inmarsat satellites, including Inmarsat 4F2, must not _ exceed the level that existed before launch of Inmarsat 4F2.

Ms. Marlene H. Dortch _ _ — | May 26, 2006 ' » Page 2 Conditions 2 and 5. The May 12"" decisions impose conditions on Inmarsat‘s service providers which should apply to Inmarsat as well. In Condition 2, the Bureau specified that BGAN operations are permittedonly on a strictly unprotected basis. Because MSV has no means of determining whichof the Inmarsat BGAN service providers may be responsible for causing interference to MSV‘s operations, we urge the Bureau to make clear that upon MSV‘s notice to Inmarsat of interference, Inmarsat and its service providers are jointly and severally responsible for taking immediate action to rectify any interference. In Condition5, the Bureau _ _ explained that any action taken or expense incurred as a result of operations pursuant to this STA ~ by a BGAN service provider is solely at the service provider‘s own risk. MSV urges ‘the Bureau > to similarly explain that any action taken or expense incurred by Inmarsat as a result of operations pursuant to this STA is solely at its own risk. Condition 3. The May 12tll decisions prohxblt the STA holders from operating on certain disputed frequencies. The STA holders, however, do not have access to the specific frequencies. covered by this condition. To ensure that the STA holders comply with this condition, MSV urges the Bureau to require each of the STA holders to submit a certification from Inmarsat declaring that Inmarsat has not and will not assign any unauthorized frequencies for operation of the earth stations covered by the STA. Condition 4. The May 12" decisions require "adequate guard bands" to be provided between the band edges of the carriers used by the BGAN service provider and the band edges of MSV‘s operations to preclude the possibility of unacceptable interference to MSV‘s operations. Rather than relying on Inmarsat to determine what constitutes an "adequate guard band," the Bureau should specify a guard band of at least 50 kHz between the band edges of the carriers . used bythe BGAN service provider and the band edges of MSV‘s coordinated frequencies. This specification is essential because MSV has already suffered interference from Inmarsat‘s assignment of inadequate guard bands on other Inmarsat wideband carriers. Based on MSV‘s initial observation of experimental BGAN signals, a guard band of at least 50 kHz is needed to . limitinterference to MSV‘s narrowband carriers to the levels accepted under the Operators‘ Agreements developed pursuant to the Mexico City MOU. While MSV may discover during the course of coordination or from operations pursuant to these STAs that a different guard band is required to protect MSV, specification of a 50 kHz minimum guard band now in advance of coordination will reduce the material risk of harmful interference to MSV‘s customers while still enabling BGAN service. Moreover, because BGAN operations are permitted only on a strictly unprotected basis, the Bureau should also clarify that the 50 MHz guard band must lie entirely within Inmarsat‘s coordinated frequency assignments and may not lie within the frequencies coordinated for MSV or MSV Canada. Conditions 6, 7, and 10. In Conditions 6, 7, and 10, the May 12"" decisions explain that grant of the STA (i) is not based on a finding, and is without prejudice to any future determination the Commission may make, that Inmarsat‘s L band operations are consistent with operation on a non—interference basis, and (ii) is without prejudice to disposition of the pending applications for permanent authority to operate BGAN terminals. Consistent with these conditions, the Bureau should also explain that it expects Inmarsat to diligently conclude coordination of its Inmarsat 4F2 satellite with respect to the current and planned operations of

Ms. Marlene H. Dortch _ May 26, 2006 _ Page 3 MSV and MSV Canada béefore it can make a definitive determination that operation of kthe Inmarsat 4F2 satellite will not result in unacceptable interference and before it can, grantthe pending applications for permanent authority. Please contact the undersxgned with any questions. ° Very truly yours, 18 /C ennifer A. Manner —

* CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sylvia A. Davis, a secretary with the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, hereby certify that on this 26th day of May 2006, I served a true copy of the foregomg by first—class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Roderick Porter*® . _ Gardner Foster* International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commxssxon, Federal Communications Commission 445 12"" Street, S.W. 445 12"" Street, S.W. ._ Washington, DC 20554 —Washington, DC 20554 James Ball* Cassandra 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 Karl Kensinger* Fern Jarmulnek* International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Comxmssxon 445 12"" Street, S.W. 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Robert Nelson* Howard Griboff* 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 Andrea Kelly* 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 Stephen Duall* Alfred M. Mamlet International Bureau Steptoe & Johnson LLP Federal Communications Commission 1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W. 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, DC 20554 Counsel for Stratos Communications, Inc. Keith H. Fagan Diane J. Cornell Telenor Satellite, Inc. Vice President, Government Affalrs 1101 Wootton Parkway _ Inmarsat, Inc. 10" Floor 1100 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1425 Rockville, MD 20852 Arlington, VA 22209

—John P. Janka Linda J. Cicco Jeffrey A. Marks — BT Americas Inc. 11440 Commerce Park Drive Latham & Watkins LLP —Reston, VA 20191 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washmgton, DC 20004 — William K. Coulter Lawrence J. Movshin Stephen L. Goodman DLA PiperRudnick Gray Cary US LLP 1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W. Lee J. Rosen . _ . Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP Washington, DC 20036—2412 _ 2300 N St. NW, Suite 700 Counsel for FTMSC US, LLC Washington, DC 20037 Counisel for MVS USA, Inc. yWia A. Davis *By hand delivery

Technical Certification 1, Richard 0. Evans, Senior Engineer of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, cemfy under penalty of perjury that: I am the technically qualified person with overall responsxblhty for the technical information contained in the foregoing. I am familiar with the Commission‘s rules, and the information contained in the foregomgis true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. /QJ._/& &NQ Richard O. Evans Dated: June 12, 2006

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sylvia A. Davis, a secretary with the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, hereby certify that on this 12th day of June 2006, I served a true copy of the foregoing by first—class United States mail, postage prepaid, 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 > —James Ball* Cassandra Thomas* International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commlss:on 445 12©" Street, S.W. 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 > Karl Kensinger*® Fern Jarmulnek* International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications.Commlssxon Federal Communications Commission 445 12"" Street, S.W. 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Robert Nelson* Howard Griboff* . 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 Andrea Kelly* 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 Stephen Duall* Alfred M. Mamlet International Bureau Steptoe & Johnson LLP Federal Communications Commission 1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W. 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 ' Washington, DC 20554 Counsel for Stratos Communications, Inc. Keith H. Fagan Diane J. Cornell Telenor Satellite, Inc. Vice President, Government Affairs 1101 Wootton Parkway Inmarsat, Inc. 10 Floor 1100 Wilson Blyvd, Suite 1425 Rockville, MD 20852 Arlington, VA 22209

John P. Janka Linda J. Cicco Jeffrey A. Marks BT Americas Inc. Latham & Watkins LLP 11440 Commerce Park Drive 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Reston, VA 20191 Suite 1000— Washington, DC 20004 William K. Coulter Lawrence J. Movshin DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP Stephen L. Goodman 1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W. Lee J. Rosen Washington, DC 20036—2412 Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP 2300 N St. NW, Suite 700 Counsel for FTMSC US, LLC Washington, DC 20037 ©Counsel for MVS USA, Inc. ], _ 4 7 Q//é/ Te 2L / 74,/ L——= Sylvia A. Davis *By hand delivery

Exhibit B Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Reply, File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 et al (June 29, 2006)

"EREEERARY Federal Communications Commission . JUN 2 9 2006 Washington, D.C. 20554 Federal Communications Commissio 2 n In the matter of ) Office of Secretaiy Stratos Communications, Inc. ; File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (Call Sign E050249) Telenor Satellite, Iné. g File No. SES—STA—20060313—00430 (Call Sign EO50276) FTMSC US LLC ; File No. SES—STA—20060314—00438 (Call Sign EO50284) BT Americas, Inc. ; File No. SES—STA—20060315—00445 (Call Sign E0O60076) MVS USA Inc. _ ; File No. SES-STA-20060316-00454 (Call Sign EO50348) REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV") hereby submits this Reply to the Opposition to its Petition for Clarification of the International Bureau‘s (“Bu:eaix”) May 12, 2006 decision granting the above—referenced requests for Special Temporary Authority ("STA") to operate Broadband Global Area Network ("BGAN") terminals using an uncodrdinated Inmarsat satellite, Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W. In its Petition, MSV asked the Bureau to clarify some of the conditions imposed on the grants of the STA requests intended to help mitigate the harmful interference that will result to MSV‘s customers from Inmarsat‘s uncoordinated BGAN operations.‘ On June 19, 2006, Inmarsat Ventures Limited ("Inmarsat"), along with Telenor Satellite Inc., FTMSC US, LLC, BT Americas Inc., MVS USA, Inc., and Stratos Communications, Inc. (collectively, the "BGAN ‘ See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Petition for Clarification, File No. SES—STA—20060310— 00419 et al (June 12, 2006) ("MSY Petition") (attaching Letter from Ms. Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 et al. (May 26, 2006) at Exhibit A).

Distributors") filed a Joint Opposition to MSV‘s Petition." As discussed herein, theirobjections to MSV‘s requested clarifications are baseless. | Condition 1. MSV requested that the Commission clarify that the condition limiting the "downlink EIRP densities" to a certain level is an aggregate limit. MSY Petition, Exhibit A at 1. Inmarsat concedes that this is an aggregate limit. Inmarsat et al Opposition at 2. As such, the Bureau should clarify this condition as requested. MSV, however, is concerned by Inmarsat‘s statement that an aggregéte downlink EIRP limit is not necessary because Inmarsat will not illuminate a given geographic area with more than one co—frequency carrier as this would cause self—interference. Id. This statement demonstrates a fundamental and dismbmg misunderstanding of the condition imposed by the Bureau, which warrants further clarification; The Bureau‘s intent in establishing an “aggregate” downlink EIRP density limit is to cai) the EIRP coming down from a beam or beams used on Inmarsat 4F2, regardless of whether the beams cover the United States or whether the energy is transmitted via the skirt of the main lobe or the sidelobes of a number of beams that spill energy over the United States. Our understanding of the Bureau‘s condition is that it is intended to ensure that the narrow spot beams on Inmarsat 4F2 that reuse the frequencies coordinated for MSAT—1 and MSAT—2 outside of North America limit their aggregate co—channel reuse interference toward the coverage area of MSAT—1 and MSAT—2 to the levels coordinated for the Inmarsat 3F4 satellite at 54°W. The Bureau should promptly correct Inmarsat‘s misunderstanding to avoid interference to the operations of other L band MSS operators. MSV also requested that the Bureau clarify that the aggregate uplink and aggregate downlink EIRP densities from all of Inmarsat‘s satellites, including Inmarsat 4F2, must not > See Inmarsat Ventures Limited et al., Joint Opposition to Petition for Clarification, File No. SES—STA— 20060310—00419 et al (June 19, 2006) ("Inmarsat et al Opposition").

exceed the level that existed before the launch of Inmarsat 4F2. MSY Petition, Exhibit Aat 1. Inmarsat avoids this issue by stating that the STAs pertain only to BGAN service and only to the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite. Thus, according to Inmarsat, there is no bésis for extending limits to satellites that are not the subject of the STA requests. Inmarsat et al Opposition af 3. This clarification, howe\;er, is essential to ensure that operation of the uncoordinated Inmarsat 4F2 satellite does not result in interference to other L band operators. Inmarsat has proceeded to operate its new Inmarsat 4F2 satellite as well as other satellites in the United States without coordinating those satellites first with other L band operators‘.3 Had Inmarsat coordinated these satellites with MSV, agreements would have been made to ensure that MSV would be protected from emissions from Inmarsat 4F2 as well as from the aggregate emissions from all of Inmarsat‘s other satellites operating over North America. Having failed to coordinate its satellites, Inmarsat cannot complain now if the Bureau attaches a condition intended to ensure that MSV is protected from interference from aggregate emissions of all of Inmarsat‘s coordinated and uncoordinated satelliteéA Conditions 2 and 5. MSV asked the Bureau to make clear that Inmarsat and the BGAN Distributors are jointly and severally responsible for immediately rectifying any interference caused by BGAN operations. MSY Petition, Exhibit A at 2. In addition, MSV asked the Bureau to explain that any action taken or expense incurred by Inmarsat as a result of operations pursuant to this STA is solely at Inmarsat‘s own risk. 14. In response, Inmarsat states that it has "ample incentive" to ensure that the BGAN Distributors comply with the STA conditions. * Inmarsat is operating uncoordinated satellites at 52.75°W, 98°W, 142°W, and 143.5°E. * While Inmarsat complains that the Bureau never imposed an aggregate EIRP density limit on the operations of MSV—1 and MSV—SA, Inmarsat never requested such a limit. In fact, Inmarsat never raised any objections to MSV‘s applications to operate MSV—1 and MSV—SA. The Bureau cannot be faulted for failing to adopt an interference limit when there was no record evidence to support such a limit. In any event, MSV has since surrendered its license for the MSV—SA satellite.

Inmarsat et al Opposition at 3—4. As the operator of the satellite used for BGAN service, Inmarsat‘s own compliance with the STA conditions, especially the obligation to také‘immediate action to rectify any interference, is essential to help mitigate the harmful interference from uncoordinated BGAN operations. Given that Inmarsat has "ample incentive" to help the BGAN Distributors comply with these conditions, it will not be burdened should the Bureau clarify that Conditions 2 and 5 apply to Inmarsat as well. Condition 3. MSV urged the Bureafi to require each of the BGAN Distributors to submit a certification from Inmarsat declaring that Inmarsat has not and will not assignkan‘y unauthorized frequencies for operation of the earth stations covered by the STA. MSY Petition, Exhibit A at 2. Once again, Inmarsat claims that it has "every incentive" to ensure that the BGAN Distributors comply with this condition. Inmarsat et al Opposition at 4. As such, Inmarsat should have no concern with providing the BGAN Distributors with such a certification. Requiring such a certification will provide needed assurance to the Bureau, MSV, and the BGAN Distributors that Inmarsat is complying with this condition. There is precedent for such a requirement. For example, an applicant for a Fixed Satellite Service ("FSS") earth station that does not conform with the Commissiofi’s rules must submif with its application certifications from the operators of the satellites with which it intends to communicate demonstrating that all affected satellite operators have taken the non—routine operations into account in their coordination negotiations. 47 C.F.R. § 25.220. In adopting this requirement, the Commission explained that "since the earth station operator will be a customer of the target satellite operator, the target satellite operator has an incentive to obtain the certifications."" 5 See Fifth Report and Order, 20 FCC Red 5666, [ 50 (March 15, 2005).

Condition 4. MSV requested that the Bureau specify a guard band of at least 50 kHz between the band edges of the carriers used by the BGAN service provider and the band edges of MSV‘s coordinated frequencies to mitigate harmful interference to MSV. MSY Petition, Exhibit A at 2. Inmarsat claims that this condition is unwarranted because it is unclear that 50 kHz is the appropriate guard band size. Inmarsat et al Opposition at 4—5. The fact is that BGAN operations are permitted only on a strictly non—interference and unprotected basis. As MSV explained in its Petition, its initial observation of experimental BGAN signals revealed that a minimum 50 kHz guard band is needed to protect MSV from interference. MSV Petition, Exhibit A at 2. While real world experience may demonstrate that a larger guard band is needed, specification of a 50 kHz guard band now in advance of coordination is a reasonable means to help mitigate harmful interference to MSV‘s customers. Inmarsat also complains that MSV is trying to "shift the entire operational burden of coordination to Inmarsat." Inmarsat et al Opposition at 5. Of course, MSV‘s request is not a substitute for coordination. The conditions attached to the STAs are temporary measures to minimize interference in the absence of a coordination agreement. Once Inmarsat takes the necessary steps to complete coordination of its satellite with MSV, the size and location of any guardbands can be determined more precisely. Conditions 6, 7, and 10. MSV also urged the Bureau to explain that it expects Inmarsat to diligently conclude coordination of its Inmarsat 4F2 satellite with respect to the current and planned operations of MSV and MSV Canada before it can make a definitive determination that operation of the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite will not result in unacceptable interference and before it can grant the pending applications for full BGAN authority. MSV Petition, Exhibit A at 2—3. In response, Inmarsat claims that this condition is inappropriate because Inmarsat 4F2 is operating within the technical envelope coordinated with MSV. Inmarsat et al Opposition at 6. In fact,

this "technical envelope" simply does not exist because Inmarsat has not diligently codrdinated all of its operations in order to establish such an envelope. The fact is that the key technical parameters of Inmarsat 4F2 used to support BGAN services, such as its proposeduse of loaned frequencies, increased number of co—channel reuse beams, higher aggregate EIRP, and wideband carriers, have not been previously coordinated, thus making operation of Inmarsat 4F2 on a non— harmful interference basis relative to other L band systems unlikely.© Inmarsat also contends that this condition is unféir because it provides MSV with "sole control" over whether the Commission will ever grant full authority for BGAN service. Inmarsat et al Opposition at 6. MSV, however, has been and continues to be ready and willing to coordinate with Inmarsat. If the parties commit to making a good faith effort to complete a comprehensive regional coordination agreement, MSV‘s view is that coordination can be completed in a matter bf a few months. Inmarsat next argues that completion of coordination is not a condition precedent to issuance of an authorization to provide MSS. Inmarsat et al Opposition at 6. In fact, the Bureau requires prior coordination unless there is a reasonable basis to conclude that harmful | interference will not occur in the absence of international coordination. The Bureau will not authorize uncoordinated satellites or services when there is evidence that harmful interference might occur, as in the case of Inmarsat 4F2.‘ Inmarsat also claims that such a condition is inconsistent with how the Bureau treated MSV in granting it licenses for its next—generation satellites. Immarsat et al Opposition at 6. In those cases, however, no entity claimed that these satellites would cause harmful interference. It was thus entirely reasonable for the Bureau to See, e.g., Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Petition to Hold in Abeyance, File No. SES—LFS— 20060303—00343, File No. SES—AMD—20060316—00448 (Call Sign E060076) (April 14, 2006), at 14—19. MSV incorporates this filing by reference. ? See Letter from Thomas S. Tycz, FCC, to Joseph A. Godles, Counsel for PanAmSat, File No. SAT— STA—19980902—00057 (September 15, 1998); Loral Orion Services, Inc., Order and Authorization, DA 99—2222, 14 FCC Red 17665, « 10 (October 18, 1999); BT North America Inc., Order, DA 00—162, 15 FCC Red 15602 (February 1, 2000).

license these satellites in advance of coordination. Conversely, in the case of the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite, its proposed use of loaned frequencies, as well as its wider bandwidth carrieré, higher aggregate EIRP, and greater number of co—channel reuse beams relative to any satellite Inmarsat has operated previously means that harmful interference will occur absent prior coordination. In addition, MSV‘s next-géneration satellite is years away from launch, making it reasonable for the Bureau to conclude that any interference issues will be resolved through coordination prior to actual operation. Converéely, an earth station application such as that presented here is fundamentally different because it means that operation of the uncoordinated Inmarsat 4F2 satellite and the resulting harmful interference are imminent. Moreover, in granting the MSV—1 and MSV—SA licenses, the Bureau specifically stated that an authorization for which coordination has not been completed may be subject to additional terms and conditions as required to effect coordination with other Administrations.® 8 See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Order and Authorization, DA 05—1492 (May 23, 2005) ("MSY—1 Order"), at 79; Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Order and Authorization, DA 05—50 (January 10, 2005) ("MSPY—SA Order"), at 4 58. MSV has since surrendered its license for the MSV—SA satellite.

Conclusion MSV requests that the Bureau adopt MSV‘s requested clarifications to the conditions imposed on the STAs granted for BGAN operations in the United States to improve their effectiveness in mitigating harmful interference to other L band operators. Respectfully submitted, 4Mfi | [ 4 (4os x Bruce D. Jacobs ' /fennifer A. Manner | David S. Konczal Vice President, Regulatory Affairs PILLSBURY WINTHROP MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES SHAW PITTMAN LLP SUBSIDIARY LLC 2300 N Street, NW 10802 Parkridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20037—1128 Reston, Virginia 20191 (202) 663—8000 (703) 390—2700 Dated: June 29, 2006

Technical Certification 1, Richard 0. Evans of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, certify undfir penalty of perjury that: I am the technically qualified person with overall responsibility for the technical information contained in this Reply. I am familiar with theCommission‘s rules, and the information contained in the Reply is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. WO&M Richard O. Evans Dated: June 29, 2006 —

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sylvia A. Davis, a secretary with the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, hereby certify that on this 29th day of June 2006, I served a true copy of the foregoing by first—class United States mail, postage prepaid, 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 James Ball* Cassandra 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 Karl Kensinger* Fern Jarmulnek* 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* Howard Griboff* 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 Andrea Kelly* 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 Stephen Duall* Alfred M. Mamlet International Bureau Steptoe & Johnson LLP Federal Communications Commission 1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W. 445 12"" Street, S.W. — Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, DC 20554 Counsel for Stratos Communications, Inc. Keith H. Fagan Diane J. Cornell Telenor Satellite, Inc. Vice President, Government Affairs 1101 Wootton Parkway Inmarsat, Inc. 10 Floor 1100 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1425 Rockville, MD 20852 Arlington, VA 22209

John P. Janka Linda J. Cicco Jeffrey A. Marks BT Americas Inc. Latham & Watkins LLP 11440 Commerce Park Drive 555 Eleventh Street, NW. Reston, VA 20191 Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 William K. Coulter Lawrence J. Movshin DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP Stephen L. Goodman 1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W. Lee J. Rosen Washington, DC 20036—2412 Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP 2300 N St. NW, Suite 700 Counsel for FTMSC US, LLC Washington, DC 20037 Counsel for MVS USA, Inc. *By electronic mail

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sylvia A. Davis, a secretary with the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, hereby certify that on this 23"" day of August 2006, I served a true copy of the foregoing by first—class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Henrik Norrelykke Eric Fishman Thrane & Thrane Airtime Ltd. Holland & Knight LLP 509 Viking Drive 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suites K, L & M Suite 100 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 Washington, DC 20006 Counsel for Thrane & Thrane Airtime Ltd. Sylvia A. Davis


Document Created: 2006-08-23 19:07:07
Document Modified: 2006-08-23 19:07:07
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC