Attachment Reply

Reply

REPLY submitted by Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC

Reply

2006-10-10

This document pretains to SES-STA-20060912-01706 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2006091201706_531174

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the matter of um Neuue! Numae! SNunt! Suwr! Nt Nune! Nust!) Nuwe! Nus!) Nua! Sust! Nunt! Srumt! ut NNuat! Nunt! N) Sune! Nes SkyWave Mobile Communications, File No. SES—STA—20060912—01708 (Call Sign EO30055) Inc. Stratos Communications, Inc. File No. SES—STA—20060912—01703 (Call Sign EO10047) File No. SES—STA—20060912—01704 (Call Sign EO10048) File No. SES—STA—20060912—01705 (Call Sign E0O0O0180) File No. SES—STA—20060912—01706 (Call Sign E010049) File No. SES—STA—20060912—01707 (Call Sign E0O10050) Satamatics, Inc. File No. SES—STA—20060912—01709 (Call Sign E020074) Telenor Satellite Inc. File No. SES—STA—20060830—01583 (Call Sign EO00280) File No. SES—STA—20060830—01 584 (Call Sign EOO0O0282) File No. SES—STA—20060830—01586 (Call Sign E0O00285) File No. SES—STA—20060830—01587 (Call Sign E000284) File No. SES—STA—20060830—01609 (Call Sign E0O00283) File No. SES—STA—20060830—01612 (Call Sign WB36) File No. SES—STA—20060830—01611 (Call Sign KA313) RESPONSE OF MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES SUBSIDIARY LLC Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV") hereby files this Response to the Joint Reply of SkyWave Mobile Communications, Inc. ("SkyWave"), Stratos Communications, Inc. ("Stratos"), Satamatics, Inc. ("Satamatics"), Telenor Satellite Inc. ("Telenor"), and Inmarsat Ventures Limited ("Inmarsat") to MSV‘s Comments on the above—captioned request for a fourth 60—day renewal of existing grants of Special Temporary Authority ("STA") to operate earlier— generation mobile earth terminals using the uncoordinated Inmarsat 4F2 satellite at 52.75° W.L.‘ \ See Joint Reply of SkyWave Mobile Communications, Inc., Stratos Communications Inc., Satamatics, Inc., Telenor Satellite Inc., and Inmarsat Ventures Limited, File No. SES—STA— 20060912—01708 (Call Sign E030055) et al. (September 27, 2006) ("Joint Reply"); see also Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Comments, File No. SES—STA—20060912—01708 (Call Sign EO30055) et al (September 14, 2006) ("MSY Comments").

As MSV explained in its Comments, the Bureau should continue to apply the conditions imposed on the original STA grants for earlier—generation services as well as (i) immediately require Inmarsat to cease its use of the loaned frequencies and (ii) establish a firm expiration date for these STAs without Inmarsat having completed coordination of the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite with the United States. In the Joint Reply, Inmarsat and its distributors claim that use of the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite for earlier—generation services has not resulted in interference. Joint Reply at 2." In fact, the opposite is true. Inmarsat and its distributors continue to refuse to relinguish the loaned frequencies despite the harm that is being caused to MSV and its customers. MSY Comments at 2—4. This harm is occurring today by precluding MSV from using these frequencies to support existing customers, including MSV‘s unique satellite—based push—to—talk ("PTT") service which offers critical communications capabilities to first responders when terrestrial infrastructure is > In the Joint Reply, Inmarsat and its distributors incorporate various pleadings by reference. Joint Reply at 2—3. MSV hereby incorporates by reference the following pleadings. See Letter from Ms. Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, File No. SES—MFS— 20051122—01614 et al. (July 18, 2006) (responding to the Opposition of Inmarsat and its distributors to MSV‘s request that, to the extent the Commission grants the pending applications to operate with the uncoordinated Inmarsat 4F2 satellite despite the facts that (i) harmful interference will likely occur, (ii) grant of the applications prior to a coordination agreement is inconsistent with precedent, (ii1i) grant will condone Inmarsat‘s usurpation of spectrum coordinated by the United States and Canada as well as Inmarsat‘s continued abdication of its obligation to coordinate its satellites internationally, and (iv) grant would endorse the current inefficient, non—contiguous assignment of L band frequencies, then the Commission should attach certain conditions intended to mitigate some of this harm); Letter from Ms. Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, Call Signs E010011 et al. (July 18, 2006) (responding to the Opposition of Inmarsat and its distributors to MSV‘s request that the Commission preclude Inmarsat from using frequencies licensed to and coordinated for MSV and MSV Canada); Reply of MSV, File No. SES—MFS—20060118—00050 et al. (March 28, 2006) (responding to Inmarsat‘s Opposition to MSV‘s Petition to Hold in Abeyance Telenor Satellite Inc.‘s application to provide non—BGAN Inmarsat service over Inmarsat 4F2); Comments of MSV, File No. SES—STA—20060710—01131 et al. (July 17, 2006); Response of MSV, File No. SES—STA—20060710—01131 et al. (August 11, 2006); Comments of MSV, File No. SES—STA— 20060511—00788 et al. (May 15, 2006).

impaired. 14. at 2. As MSV noted in its Comments, public safety users have been particularly harmed by Inmarsat‘s refusal to return the loaned frequencies. Id. at 2. For example, the Commonwealth of Kentucky‘s Division of Emergency Management, an MSV user, has informed the Commission that there is a significant risk that Inmarsat‘s uncoordinated operations will "interfere with our existing critical public safety operations" and that the loaned frequencies are "required for MSV to develop new and innovative service for public safety users, including additional services that further improve interoperable communications. *3 Inmarsat and its distributors do not refute the impact their usurpation of L band frequencies is having on MSV and MSV Canada and their customers. Moreover, as MSV explained previously, there is no analytical, statistical, or other evidence in the record of this proceeding to support Inmarsat‘s alleged need for the loaned frequencies.* As such, Inmarsat‘s refusal to return these frequencies is causing harm to MSV and MSV Canada and their customers without any apparent benefit for Inmarsat‘s users. In its Comments, MSV requested that the Bureau provide a clear expiration date for these STAs unless Inmarsat has completed coordination of its new and relocated Inmarsat satellites, including rebanding of L band spectrum into more contiguous frequency blocks, which will reduce the potential for harmful interference and promote efficient use of spectrum. MSY Comments at 4—6. In response, Inmarsat cites previous filings in which it claimed that rebanding should be resolved during the L band coordination process. Joint Reply at 3. MSV agrees and once again invites Inmarsat to engage in coordination discussions. Commission action to 3 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); see also 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). * See MSY Comments at 4; Comments of MSV, File No. SES—STA—20060710—01131 et al. (July 17, 2006), at 3—4.

facilitate rebanding, however, will in no way trump the international coordination process. Rather, such action will establish that the Commission expects L band operators to seek to maximize the potential of the L band for offering broadband services, which Chairman Martin recently explained is the Commission‘s top priority." If, however, the Bureau continues to grant and renew STAs for use of Inmarsat‘s uncoordinated satellites and services without insisting that it first complete coordination, there are no reasonable prospects that such coordination will ever be successfully completed. Respectfully submitted, fi«‘/ J, p %fl/ . /Z‘\ 214 Bruce D. Jacobs Aennifer 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: October 10, 2006 ° See Remarks of FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, Imagining the Digital Healthcare Future in the Rural West, Montana State University — Bozeman (July 7, 2006) ("Since becoming Chairman about 16 months ago, I have made broadband deployment the Commission‘s top priority. .. Broadband technology is a key driver of economic growth. The ability to share increasing amounts of information, at greater and greater speeds, increases productivity, facilitates interstate commerce, and helps drive innovation. But perhaps most important, broadband has the potential to affect almost every aspect of our lives.").

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sylvia A. Davis, a secretary with the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, hereby certify that on this 10th day of October 2006, served a true copy of the foregoing by first—class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Diane J. Cornell John P. Janka Vice President, Government Affairs Jeffrey A. Marks Inmarsat, Inc. Latham & Watkins LLP 1100 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1425 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Arlington, VA 22209 Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Alfred M. Mamlet Keith H. Fagan Steptoe & Johnson LLP Telenor Satellite, Inc. 1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W. 1101 Wootton Parkway Washington, D.C. 20036 10 Floor Rockville, MD 20852 Counsel for Stratos Communications, Inc., SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp., and Satamatics, Inc. Ani Tourian Brian Hester SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp. Satamatics, Inc. 1145 Innovation Drive, Unit 288 P.O. Box 393 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2K 3G8 Buckeystown, MD 21717 vitt{via &A. f/a——— Sylvia A. Davis /


Document Created: 2006-10-10 20:11:50
Document Modified: 2006-10-10 20:11:50
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC