Attachment Reply to Opposition

Reply to Opposition

REPLY submitted by Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC

Reply to Opposition

2007-02-01

This document pretains to SES-STA-20061221-02207 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2006122102207_552399

RECEIVED 0 FEB 0 2 2007 Before the FILED/RAJ(QJMDA L Federal Communications Commission 2 eatass. Washington, D.C. 20584 FEB 1 2007 Fidon Gonmenessrs cinmiue In the matter of ) OfeedtPeSerty ) Amtech Systems LLC ) File No. SES—STA—20061221—02206 ) Amtech Systems LLC ) File No. SES—STA—20061221—02207 REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS To PETITION To HOLD IN ABEYANCE Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (*MSV") herebyfiles this Reply to the Oppositions ofAmtech Systems LLC ("Amtech") and Inmarsat Ventures Limited ("Inmarsat") to MSV*s Petition to Hold in Abeyance the above—referenced application." n its application, Amtech seeks to operate mobile earth terminals (‘METs") with the uncoordinated Inmarsat 3F4 satelite, which has recently been relocated to 142°W, in the event that MSV*s MSAT—2 satellite suffers an outage. On December 22, 2006, MSV filed a Petition to hold the Amtech application in abeyance until after () the Bureau requires Amtech to disclose which frequencies it will use on the Inmarsat 3F4 satellte and precludes Amtech from using "loaned" L band frequencies or any other frequencies coordinated for MSV or MSV Canada; (i) Inmarsat coordinates the operation of the Inmarsat 34 satellite at 142°W with MSV and other L band operators to ‘ See Amtech Systems LLC, File No. SES—STA—20061221—02206 etal (December 21, 2006) (*Amtech Application"); Amtech Systems LLC, Opposition, File No. SES—STA—20061221—02206 et al (January 3, 2007) (*Amtech Opposition"); Inmarsat Ventures Limited, Opposition, File No. SES—STA—20061221—02206 t al (January 5, 2007) (*Inmarsat Opposition"). The parties agreed to an extension ofthe deadline for MSV tofile its Reply. See Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File No. SES—STA—20061221—02206 et al (January 10, 2007) MSV welcomes further discussions with Amtech concerning possible ways of testing Inmarsat‘s ability to provide backeup without causing harmfulinterference to MSV‘s operations, but urges the necessity ofthese discussions concluding with MSV‘s interference concerns fully resolved before any such testing occurs.

mitigate the significant risk of intererence from its uncoordinated operations; and (ii) Amtech secks a waiver of the Commission‘s longitudinal station keeping rule." As an inital matter, MSV takes issue with Amtech‘s assertion that the goal of MSV‘s opposition is to gain leverage in a pending dispute with Inmarsat. Amtech Opposition at 1. In fact, MSV‘s objection here is based solely on its desire to protect ts customers from harmful interference resulting from Inmarsat‘s use of "loaned" frequencies and its continued operation of uncoordinated satellites. While MSV believes that its satellites will be capable ofreliable service for many years to come, it does not seek to undermine Amtech‘s efforts to establish a bacleup arrangement, provided the arrangement does not result in harmful interference to MSV‘s other customers. In this case, Amtech is secking to operate with an uncoordinated Inmarsat satellt, the operation ofwhich presents a significant risk of intererence to the MSS operations of MSV and MSV Canada, including safety communications, absent prior coordination (as MSV explained in its Petition and which Inmarsat and Amtech fail to refute in their Oppositions‘). By failing to coordinate the Inmarsat 3F4 satellite at 142°W with MSV and MSV Canada, it is Inmarsat — not MSV — that is preventing Amtech from establishing its desired back— up arrangement. Inmarsat claims that "it is difficultto imagine" how MSV could be impacted by Amtech‘s operations with Inmarsat 3F4 because Amtech will operate with this Inmarsat satellite only in the event ofa failure of MSV‘s MSAT—2 satellite. Znmarsat Opposition at 2. In fact, " See Mobile Satellte Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Petition to Hold in Abeyance, File No. SES— STA—20061221—02206 et al (December 22, 2006) (*MSV Periion"). * MSV Petition at 5—6. Although they make bare assertions as to the feasibility of operating on a non—harmful—interference basis, neither Amtech nor Inmarsatoffer any evidence to demonstrate how they can operate on a non—harmful iterference basis with the Inmarsat 3F4 satellte at 142°W. See Anitech Opposition at 3; Inmarsat Opposition at 2.

MSV provides service in the United States using the MSAT—2 satellite as well as the MSAT—1 satellte censed by Industry Canada to MSV Canada, which will continue to operate in the unlikely event that MSAT—2 were to suffer a falure. Moreover, any operations with an uncoordinated Inmarsatsatellte would threaten interference to customers of MSV‘s next— generation satellites, the frst of which is expected to be Iaunched in June 2009. Inmarsatalso incorrectly claims that the Commission‘s policies do not require Amtech to precisely specify which L. band frequencies it wll use on Inmarsat 3F4. /nmarsar Opposition at 2. In fact, in order to ensure that harmfulinterference will not result to MSV and other L band operators, the Commission has limited earth stations operating with Inmarsat satellites to those portions ofthe L Band "coordinatedfor the Inmarsatsatellte system in the most recent annual L—Band operator—to—operator agreement,"which refers to the 1999 Spectrum Sharing Arrangement ("SSA"):‘ Thus, the Commission has precluded earth stations authorized to use Inmarsatsatellites from using those L band frequencies that have not been "coordinated for" Inmarsat in the 1999 $SA, including frequencies that may have been temporarily loaned to Inmarsat on a bilateral basis but subsequently recalled by the lender.® While Amtech concedes * See Comsat Corporation et al, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 16 ECC Red 21661, 1 115(c) (2001) (*COMSAT Order"). MSV incorporates the following flings by reference, which demonstrate that the Commission has precluded earth stations authorized to use Inmarsatsatelites from using any L band frequencies that have not been "coordinated for" Inmarsatin the 1999 SSA. See Letter from Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Mr. John Giusti and Mr. Julius Knapp, FCC (June 20, 2006); Letter from Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, File No. SES—MEFS—20051122—01614 (Call Sign £000180) etal (June 20, 2006); Letter from Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Mr. John Giusti and Mr, Julius Knapp, FCC (uly 18, 2006); Letter from Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, File No. SES— MFS—20051122—01614 (Call Sign EO0O180) et al (Fuly 18, 2006). * The Bureau has defined these frequencies as "loaned" and described them as "those bandwidth segments that were loaned to Inmarsat by MSV and [Mobile Satellite Ventures (Canada) Inc.}, cither as part ofthe Revised 1999 Spectrum Sharing Arrangement (October 4, 1999), or later as

that any grant of STA it receives should preclude it from using "loaned."frequencies (Amiech Opposition at2—3), the Commission‘s policies also requirethat the Bureau preclude Amtech from using any L band frequencies on Inmarsat satellitesthat have been coordinated for MSV or MSV Canada. Inmarsatincorporates by reference previous filings it has made regarding the uncoordinated status of the Inmarsat 3F4 satellte. See /umarsat Opposition at1 n.1. MSV hereby incorporates by reference its response to those filings, which demonstrate that (i) Inmarsat has never reached a coordination agreement with MSV or MSV Canada with respect to the 142°W orbital location;(i) Inmarsat‘s licensing Administration (the United Kingdom) has never notified the United States that it deems the Inmarsat 3F4 satelliteat 142°W to be coordinated; and (ii) grant of an application to operate in the L band with the Inmarsat 3F4 satellite t 142°W would support Inmarsat‘s uniateral coordination strategy and would countenance circumvention of the formal TTU coordination process Amtech claims that Commission precedent holds that Inmarsat‘s failure to coordinate the Inmarsat 3F4 satellite at 142°W with MSV, MSV Canada, and other L band operators does not preclude the Bureau from authorizing operation of the satellite using L band frequencies. Amtech Opposition at 3. In fact, Commission precedent holds that the Bureau will not license an bilateral arrangements between Inmarsat and MSV and Inmarsat and MSV Canada." See, e.g., Telenor STA Grant, File No. SES—STA—200601 1800055 et al (January 18, 2006), at 3. 5 See Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiary, Reply, File Nos. SES—MFS—20060725—01253, SES— AMD—20060804—01310 (October 3, 2006) (MSV‘s Reply to Inmarsat‘s Opposition to MSV‘s Petition to Hold in Abeyance an application filed by Telenor Satellite Inc. to communicate with Inmarsat 3F4).

uncoordinated satelliteifthere is evidence that harmful interference will result." Such is the case with the Inmarsat 3F4 satellite at 142°W, which presents a significant risk of interference to the MSS operations of MSV and MSV Canada. MSY Periion at 5—6." Amtech contends thatit was not required to seek a waiver regarding the proposed £0.1° East—West station—keeping tolerance of the Inmarsat 3F4 satellite because there is not a * See Letter from Thomas S. Tyez, FCC, to Joseph A. Godles, Counsel for PanAmSat, File No: SAT—STA—19980902—00057 (September 15, 1998)(refusing to permit PanAmSat to operate C band payload untl after coordinating with affected Administrations); Loral Orion Services, Inc., Order and Authorization, DA 99—2222, 14 FCC Red 17665, § 10 (October 18, 1999) (refusing to permit Loral to provide commercialservice because coordination had not yet been completed and harmful interference would occur absent coordination); A7 North America Inc., Order, DA 00—162, 15 FCC Red 15602 (February 1, 2000) (granting earth station applications to operate with foreign—licensed satellite only after foreign—licensed satellite operator reached a coordination agreement with affected U.S—licensed operator};see also AfriSpace, Prc. Order and Authorization, DA 06—4, 4 12 (Chic, Intemational Bureau, January 3, 2006) (‘(TJhe Commission will not authorize new systems that would cause interference to licensed U.8. systems."); Mobile Satellite Ventures SubsidiaryLLC, Order and Authorization, DA 05—50 (January 10, 2005),at § 8 (stating that the Commission "will not consider applications for new systems where the new system‘s operations would cause interference to licensed systems"). * The SatCom Systems case Amtech cites presents far different facts than those presented here. See Amtech Opposition at 3 (citing SatCom Systems, Inc., 14 FCC Red 20798 (1999)), In that case, it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude that operation on a non—harmful interference basis was possible because the satelltes atissue had been coordinated, the operators had committed to using specific frequencies, and the terms ofthe earth station licenses limited the operators to those frequencies. By contrast, in this case, Inmarsatis proposing to operate a satelite (}) at an orbital location thatis not covered by any coordination agreement(i) with technical parameters that are different than those of the satellite previously operating atthe proposed orbitallocation; and (ii) that has never been analyzed by MSV and MSV Canada at the orbital location requested. Thus, the proposed operation of the Inmarsat 3F4 satellite at 142°W presents a far different question than that presented in the SatCom Systems case. The 2 GHz MSS Report and Order Amtech cites simply affirms the unremarkable proposition that the Commission does not always requireinternational coordination as a prerequisite to authorization of new satellites and services. This only applies, however, when there is a reasonable basis for the Commission to conclude that harmful interference will not occur in the absence ofinternational coordination. Amiech Opposition at 3 n.6 (citing The Establishment of Policles and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2GHz Band, Report and Order, 15 FCC Red 16127 (2000)). Given the unrebutted evidence that operation with the uncoordinated Inmarsat 3F4 satellte will cause harmfulinterference, the Commission cannot make such a conclusion here. See MSYPerition at 5—6.

Commission rule requiring MSS satellites to comply with +0.05° East—West station—keeping tolerance. Amtech Opposition at 3. In fact, in authorizing MSV to launch and operate a next— generation MSS satellite, the Bureau held that MSV was required to satisfy the standard for a waiver in secking authority to operate ts MSS satellite with +0.1° East—West station keeping." MSV has sought reconsideration ofthis decision, asking the Bureau to clarify that the rule requiring satellites to operate with +0.05° East—West station keeping does not apply to MSS satellites."" MSV‘s concem here is only that the Bureau apply the Commission‘s rules consistently. Thus, to the extent the Bureau authorizes the Inmarsat 3F4 satellte for service in the United States with +0.1° East—West station keeping without requiring Amtech to demonstrate "good cause"for a waiver, the Bureau must afford similar treatment to other MSS satellites proposing to serve the U.S. market, such as MSV‘s satellite."" Conversely, if the Bureau on reconsideration of the MSY—/ Order upholds is decision that MSS satellites are subject to the rule mandating £0.05° East—West station keeping, the Amtech application must be dismissed for failing to demonstrate "good cause" for a waiver."" ° See MSV—1, Order, DA 05—1492 (May 23, 2005), at 9 21. ‘ See MSV, Petition for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration, File Nos. SAT—LOA— 19980702—00066 et al (June 22, 2005). "‘ See Melody Music, Inc. v. FCC , 345 F.2d 730, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1965). "" See Leter from Thomas S. Tyez, FCC, to John K. Hane, Pegasus Development Corporation, DA 03—3665 (November 19, 2003) (dismissing application for failing to seek waiver of Commission‘s East—West station keeping rule). While Amtech states in its Opposition that it requests a waiver, it offers no reasons demonstrating "good cause" for the waiver. Amtech Opposition at ; see 417 CER§ 13.

Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Bureau should hold the Amtech application in abeyance. Respectfully submitted, naskae Bruce D. Jacobé / Ckuy ennifer 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—3000 (703) 390—2700 Dated: February 1, 2007

Technical Certification T, Richard 0. Evans, Senior Engineer of Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, certify under penalty ofpegjury that: 1 am the technically qualified person with overall responsibilty for te technical information contained in tis Reply. I am familier with the Commission‘s rules, and the information contained in the Reply is true and corzect to the best of my knowledge and belie. frubedD. Richard 0. Evens &7‘ Dated: February 1, 2007

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Sylvia A. Davis, a secretary with the law firm ofPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, hereby certify that on this 1st day ofFebruary 2007, I served a true copy of the foregoing by first—class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: DianeJ. Comell John P. Janka Vice President, Govermment Affairs Jeffiey A. Marks Inmarsat, Ic. Latham & Watkins LLP 1101 Connectiout Avenue NW 555 Eleventh Street, NW. Suite 1200 Sute 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20004 Counsel for Inmarsat Carl R. Frank Jennifer D. Hindin Colleen King Wiley Rein & Ficlding LLP 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 stt


Document Created: 2007-02-28 15:49:10
Document Modified: 2007-02-28 15:49:10
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC