Attachment Comments

Comments

COMMENT submitted by Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC

Comments

2006-09-07

This document pretains to SES-STA-20060905-01667 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2006090501667_526235

                                         Before the
                            Federal Communications Commission
                                       Washington, D.C. 20554

In the matter of                   )

Stratos Communications, Inc.       ;     File No. SES—STA—20060906—01674 (Call Sign EO50249)

Telenor Satellite, Inc.            ;     File No. SES—STA—20060830—01 580 (Call Sign EO50276)

FTMSC US LLC                       %     File No. SES—STA—20060905—01667 (Call Sign EO50284)

BT Americas, Inc.                  ;     File No. SES—STA—20060907—01679 (Call Sign EO60076)

MVS USA Inc.                       ;     File No. SES—STA—20060905—01673 (Call Sign EO50348)

         COMMENTS OF MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES SUBSIDIARY LLC

        Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV") urges the International Bureau

("Bureau") in acting on the above—captioned requests for renewal of Special Temporary

Authority ("STA") to operate 25,000 Broadband Global Area Network ("BGAN") terminals

using an uncoordinated Inmarsat satellite, Inmarsat 4F2 at 52.75°W, to revise the conditions

attached to the STAs 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 operations.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


\ 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.
2 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).


Inc., MVS USA, Inc., and Stratos Communications, Inc. (collectively, the "BGAN Distributors")

filed a Joint Opposition to MSV‘s Petition." MSV filed a Reply to this Opposition on June 29,

2006. See Exhibit B.‘ Beginning on August 30, 2006 and continuing to September 7, 2006, the

BGAN Distributors filed the above—referenced requests for a second 60—day renewal of their

STA grants. The current STAs expire on September 9, 2006.

       MSV urges the Bureau in acting on the renewal requests 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 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.
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.


       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

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

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‘).
" See Comments of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, EB Docket No. 06—119 (August
7, 2006).


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 STAs is critical to reduce this threat."

                                      Respectfully submitted,




          e/       QZ fi       i                                 J /Z«V\-Q_AprKk

 Bruce D. Jacobs _                                    énnifer 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                                      (7O3) 390—2700

Dated: September 7, 2006




* Moreover, in acting on these renewal requests, the Bureau should provide notice to the
applicants that STAs for BGAN operations will not be extended beyond November 30, 2006. In
their requests for STA, the BGAN Distributors asserted that the key public interest justification
for the STAs was that BGAN terminals would be needed during hurricane season. See
Consolidated Joint Opposition, File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 et al (April 6, 2006), at 4;
Opposition of Stratos; File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (April 7, 2006), at 1. The above—
captioned renewals, if granted, will expire on November 8, 2006. The official end of hurricane
season is November 30, 2006. As such, given that the purported justification for these STAs will
no longer apply beyond November 30, 2006, there will be no "extraordinary circumstances"
justifying continued temporary authority for BGAN operations beyond this date. 47 U.S.C. §
309(f); 47 C.F.R. § 25.120(b)(1). Accordingly, in acting on these renewal requests, the Bureau
should provide the BGAN distributors with notice that STAs for BGAN operations will not be
extended beyond November 30, 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 COPY
                               Federal Communications Commission                   RECE‘VED
                                       Washington, D.C. 20554                         o0
                                                                                     JUN 1 J 2006
  In the matter of                   )
        f
                                     )                                         Federal Communications Commission

  Stratos Communications, Inc.       )     File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (Call$£080249)
                                      )
  Telenor Satellite, Inc.             )    File No. SES—STA—20060313—00430 (Call Sign E050276)
                                      )
—— FTMSCUSLLC                        )     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~20060316700454 (Call S‘ign £E050348)


                                PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION

            Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV"), pursuant to Section 1 106 of the

  Corfim1351on 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 BGAN‘

  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.FE.R. § 1.106. A copy of this Petition has been served on the parties to the _

above—referenced proceedings. I4.


                                     Respectfully submitted,




 Bruce D. Jacobs                                  BAennifer 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 12, 2006


Exhibit A


r*»




                       MSV RECEIPT COPY                                                    SRHunoywe
      |      cAnll
      G ““n l“
                 ?
                                                                                        — PHONE: 703 39027230




                                  <
                      W


                             =
                             8.
                 9.
                 6




                                           wh
",'




                                                  o
                                                                                           FAX: 0 793 390—2770 _




                                            d
                                            ®
                          wb




                                            [«4

                                            t
                                       =I
                                      ©®
                               ®©
                        BJ
             0




                                                                                           EMAIL:     jnaqner@msdpcom



                                                               May 26, 2006
                     Via Hand Delivery
                     Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
                     Secretary _                      n    |        |   ‘          RECE}VED
                     Federal Communications Commission

                     Washington, D.C. 20554                                          .        —        C
                                                                              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 £0O50284)
                                    File No. SES—STA—20060315—00445 (Call Sign £060076)
                                    File No. SES—STA—20060316—00454 (Call Sign £O050348)

                      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 applyto Inmarsat as well. In Condition 2, the Bureau specified that
   BGAN operations are permitted— only on a strictly unprotectcd basis. Because MSV has no
   means of determining which of the Inmarsat BGAN service providers may be responsible for
   causing interference to MSYV‘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 urgesthe 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 12“‘ decisions proh1b1t the STA holders from operatmg 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 ofthe 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 edgesof 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 .
   limit interference 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 explam that
   grant of the STA (i) isnot 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 before it can make a definitive determination that operation of the
      Inmarsat 4F2 satellite will not result in unacceptable interference and before it can, grantthe
      pending applications for permanent authority.

              Please contact the undemgned with any questions. °

                                                     Very truly yours,



                                                      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 Commission.                Federal Communications Commxssxon
      445 12 Street, S.W.                               445 12 Street, S.W.
    . Washington, DC 20554                             —Washington, DC 20554

      James Ball*                                        Cassandra ;I'homas*
      International Bureau                             . InternationalBureau
      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 Commxssxon
      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 12Street, 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 Commxssmn
      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.
  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 PiperRudnick Gray Cary US LLP    Stephen L. Goodman
  1200 Nineteenth Street, NW.           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

                                        Courisel for MVS USA, Inc.




  *By hand delivery


                                 _ Technical Certification _
      1, Richard O. Evans,'Scnior Engineer of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC,
cemfy under penalty of perjury that:

       I am the technically qualified person with overall rmponsxbxhty for the technical
information contained in the foregoing. 1 am familiar with the Commission‘s rules, and the
mformatxon contained in the foregomgis true and correct to the best of my knowledge and



                                                   Wfi&%
                                                   Richard O. Evans


                                                   Dated: June 12, 2006


                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

          1, 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 Commxssnon
 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.Comrmssmn                   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 Comxmssxon
  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. Cormnell
  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, 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.



                                      o tikbier A _{/.        //?—»\
                                     Sylvia A. Davis     0    /
*By hand delivery


                     Exhibit B

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


                                                                            "EREELRRY
                            Federal Comn?:li;(i)::t:g;s Commission                JUN % 9 2006
                                       Washington, D.C. 20554               Federal %O;nfi‘::g;?;gmmmmm

In the matterof                    )                                                          j

Stratos Communications, Inc.       ;     File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (Call Sign E050249)

Telenor Satellite, Iné.            ;     File No. SES—STA—20060313—00430 (Call Sign E050276)

FTMSC US LLC                       ;     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 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 ("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.

        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 interferefice that will result to

MSV‘s customers from Inmarsat‘s uncoordinated BGAN opera‘tions.1 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) ("MSYPetfition") (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 linfiting 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 ét 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 Ininarsat 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 dismrbing

misunderstanding of the condition imposed by the Bureau, which warrants further clatification;

The Bureau‘s intent in establishing anv “aggregate” downlink EIRP density limit is to cafi 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 §S4°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


 2 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. MSVPetition, Exhibit Aat 1.

Inmarsat avoids this issue by stating that the STAs pertain only to BGAN service and oniy to the

Inmarsat 4F2 satellite. Thus, according to Inmarsat, there is no basis for extending limits to

satellites that are not the subject of the STA requests. Inmarsat et al Opposition at 3. This

clarification, however, 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 satellités *

        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 Petfition, Exhibit A at 2. Inaddition, 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. 70. 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 limiton 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.


‘kInmbarsat 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 takébimmediate

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 assignban‘y unauthorized

 frequencigs 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 Sate}lite Service ("FSS") earth station that does not conform

 with the Commissiofi’s rules must submfi 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 reqtiirement, 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 bafid 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 bafid 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 MSVfrom interference. MSYVPetition, Exhibit A at 2. While

real world experiénce 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. MSY 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 préviously coordinated, thus makmg 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. Znmarsat 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 éf 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 thatharmful

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. Inmarsat 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 EO60076) (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 carriers, 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)
("MSV—1 Order"), at 79; Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Order and Authorization, DA 05—50
(January 10, 2005) ("MSV—SA Order"), at 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,




      4J
     Bruce D. Jacobs          '
                                                         JY C /4s
                                                     /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 under penalty
ofperjury 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.


                                                       MJO&,.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*                                    Alffed 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.




                                     Sylvia A. Davis

*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 78 day of September 2006, I served a true copy
of the foregoing by first—class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following:
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.

Alfred M. Mamlet
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Counsel for Stratos Communications, Inc.




                                                  inA.mix    _Mir—
                                                                           1


                                                 SylviaDavis



Document Created: 2006-09-07 16:07:32
Document Modified: 2006-09-07 16:07:32

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