Attachment MSV Reply

MSV Reply

REPLY submitted by Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC

MSV Reply

2007-06-04

This document pretains to SES-STA-20070514-00648 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2007051400648_571840

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the matter of Newe Ns Nss Nume! Ne Nee Neue! Nuue! Nume! Nued! SNwer Ne un Neue! New! SNuwt! Naat! Nust! SkyWave Mobile Communications, SES—STA—20070516—00666 (Call Sign EO30055) Inc. — Stratos Communications, Inc. SES—STA—20070514—00648 (Call Sign EO0O0180) SES—STA—20070514—00649 (Call Sign E010047) SES—STA—20070514—00650 (Call Sign E0O10048) SES—STA—20070514—00652 (Call Sign EO10049) SES—STA—20070514—00653 (Call Sign EO10050) Telenor Satellite Inc. SES—STA—20070509—00587 (Call Sign EO00285) SES—STA—20070509—00591 (Call Sign EO0O0283) SES—STA—20070509—00592 (Call Sign EO00282) SES—STA—20070509—00595 (Call Sign E000280) SES—STA—20070509—00597 (Call Sign KA313) SES—STA—20070509—00600 (Call Sign EO0O0284) SES—STA—20070509—00601 (Call Sign WB36) REPLY OF MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES SUBSIDIARY LLC Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV") hereby files this Reply to the Joint Response of SkyWave Mobile Communications, Inc. ("SkyWave"), Stratos Communications, Inc. ("Stratos"), Telenor Satellite Inc. ("Telenor"), and Inmarsat Ventures Limited ("Inmarsat") to MSV‘s Comments on the above—captioned requests for an eighth 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.‘ 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 ‘ See Joint Response of SkyWave Mobile Communications, Inc., Stratos Communications Inc., Telenor Satellite Inc., and Inmarsat Ventures Limited (May 31, 2007) ("Joint Response"); see also Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Comments (May 18, 2007) ("MSY Comments").

of thé loaned frequencies and (i1) 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 Response, Inmarsat and its distributors claim that use of the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite for earlier—generation services has not resulted in interference. J;int Response at 1—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. MSF Comments, Attachment at 2—4. This harm is occurring today by precluding MSV from using these frequencies to sfipport 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 impaired. Id. at 2. As MSV noted in its Comments, public safety > In the Joint Response, Inmarsat and its distributors incorporate various pleadings by reference. Joint Response at 1—2. MSV hereby incorporates by reference the following pleadings. See Letter from Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, File No. SES—MFS— 20051122—01614 (Call Sign E000180) et al. (June 20, 2006); 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 (1i) harmful interference will likely occur, (ii) grant of the applications prior to a coordination agreement is inconsistent with precedent, (iii) 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 Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Mr. John Giusti and Mr. Julius Knapp, FCC (June 20, 2006); Letter from Ms. Jennifer A. Manner, MSV, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, Call Signs EQO10011 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); Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Petition to Hold in Abeyance, File No. SES—MFS—20060118—00050 et al. (March 3, 2006); 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).

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 uncoordinatéd 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."" 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 or any other 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, Attachment at 4—6. In response, Inmarsat and its distributors cite previous filings in which Inmarsat claimed that rebanding should be resolved during the L band coordination process. Joint Response at 2. MSV agrees and once again invites Inmarsat to engage in coordination discussions. Commission action to facilitate rebanding, however, will in no way > 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, Attachment at 4; Comments of MSV, File No. SES—STA—20060710—01131 et al. (July 17, 2006), at 3—4.

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 explained is the Commission‘s top priority." If, however, the Bureau continues to grant and renew STAs fo;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, %/Z& M%««// Br9z€ .Ja;oo‘fis rA Manner Tony Lin Vlce 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 4, 2007 ° 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 4°" day of June 2007, 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 1101 Connecticut Avenue NW 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 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 SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp. _ 1145 Innovation Drive, Unit 288 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2K 3G8 ltz ie /{ /g—— " Sflvia A. Davis


Document Created: 2007-06-05 11:19:26
Document Modified: 2007-06-05 11:19:26
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC