Attachment Comment

Comment

COMMENT submitted by MSV

Comment

0000-00-00

This document pretains to SES-STA-20070905-01240 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2007090501240_592348

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the matter of ) Stratos Communications, Inc. ; File No. SES—STA—20070904—01221 (Call Sign EO50249) _BT Americas Inc. ; File No. SES—STA—20070910—01260 (Call Sign EO60076) MVS USA, Inc. ; File No. SES—STA—20070904—01216 (Call Sign E050348) Telenor Satellite Inc. ) File No. SES—STA—20070905—01240 (Call Sign EO50276) ) 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 Témporary Authority ("STA") to operate Broadband Global Area Network ("BGAN") terminals using the | uncoordinated Inmarsat 4F2 satellite at 52.75°W, to (i) establish a firm expiration date for these STAs and pfovide that no further extensions will be granted without Inmarsat first having | completed coordination of its now nearly two-yéar-old satellite with the North American L band operators; (ii) limit the use of BGAN terminals authorized under the STAs to "first responders"; and (iii) adopt conditions consistent with what MSV has requested in a pending Petition for Clarification.‘ The Bfireau cannot simply continue to renew these STAs with no firm end in sight. As Industry Canada has recognized in similar proceedings in its jurisdiction, the unrestricted operation of the uncoordinated Inmarsat 4F2 satellite has a negative impact on the L ‘ See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Petition for Clarification, File No. SES—STA— 20060310—00419 etal. (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, and the Reply is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

band coordination process and increases potential intérference to North American L band operators. For these reasons, Industry Canada has adopted a restricted approach to the temporary authorization of BGAN service by permitting the operation of only a very few number of terminals and for only critical operations. The Bureau‘s conclusibns should be no different here. Any other result, such as the FCC‘s continued renewal of the STAs for far more capacity than Inmarsat or its distributors can use in the foreseeable future or justify for STA operations, only disincentivizes Inmarsat from coordinating the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite and increases the risk of harmful interference to North American L band operators from Inmarsat‘s contifiued uncoordinated operations. Background On May 12, 2006, the Bureau granted STA requests to five entities to operate BGAN terminals subject to a number of very important and appropriate conditions that are essential to help mitigate the harmful interference to MSV‘s customers from Inmafsat’s uncoordinated BGAN operations." On June 123 2006, MSV filed the atfached 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., VIZADA Services, LLC. (“VIZADA”),3 BT Americas Inc., MVS USA, Inc., and Stratos Communications, Inc. (collectively, the "BGAN Distributors") filed a Joint Opposition to MSVs Petition.* MSV filed a Reply to this Opposition on June 29, 2006. See, eg., 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). > VIZADA was formerly FTMSC US, LLC ("FTMSC") and changed its name on June 7, 2007. iSee VIZADA Services, LLC, Request for Special Temporary Authority, File No. SES—STA— 20070619—00833, at Attachment 1. * See Inmarsat Ventures Limited et al., Joint Opposition to Petition for Clarification, File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 et al. (June 19, 2006).

iSee Exhibit B.‘5 Periodically, the BGAN Distributors have sought extensions of their original STA grants, and MSV has reiterated its comments expressing its concerns. The above—captioned STAs aré the most recent requests for four of the BGAN Distributors. Discussion I. The Bureau Should Establish a Firm Expiration Date fdr these STAs and Provide that No Further Extensions or Renewals Will Be Granted Absent Coordination of the Inmarsat 4F2 Satellite In acting on these applications, the Bureau should establish a firm expiration date for the above—referenced STAs (as well as the other BGAN STAs) and provide that no further extensions or renewals will be granted without Inmarsat having first completed coordination of its new satellite with the North American L band operators.© The Inmarsat 4F2 satellite is nearly two—years old, and for over a year the Inmarsat distributors have been providing BGAN service under STAs. Yet, coordination of the satellite still has not been completed. If the Bureau continues to grant new or renew or extend these and the other existing BGAN STAs without insisting that Inmarsat first complete coordination, there are no reasonable prospects that such coordination will ever be successfully completed. This is especially the case considering that only approximately 11,782 BGAN terminals have been activated worldwide.‘ Indeed, using Inmarsat‘s own estimate of 400 new BGAN activations worldwide per month, it will be several years before Inmarsat and its distributors ° See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Reply, File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 et al. (June 29, 2006). ° As with all STAs, the BGAN STAs expressly contain a condition that the STA may be modified at the Bureau‘s discretion at any time without a hearing. See, e.g., Stratos ’ Communications, Inc., Request for Special Temporary Authority (BGAN), File No. SES—STA— 20060310—00419 (filed March 10, 2006; granted with conditions on May 12, 2006), at Condition No. 8. . " See Inmarsat Group Limited, 2007 Form 6—K (August 7, 2007), at 2. 3

approach the use of 30,000 terminals.© Of course, given that the vast majority of BGAN terminals are used only outside of the United States, it will in fact take considerably longer to reach that limit for terminals operating in the United States." The authorization of far more BGAN terminals than Inmarsat and its distributors need in the\foreseeable future disserves the public interest by removing the incentive for Inmarsat to satisfy its obligation to coordinate itsb Inmarsat 4F2 satellite pursuant to the L band coordination process. Accordingly, the Bureau must establish a firm expiration date for the BGAN STAs. Recognizing this negative impact on the L band coordination process and the potential for interference resulting from operation of the uncoordinated Inmarsat 4F2 satellite, Industry Canada has taken a much more limiting approach to the temporary authorization of BGAN service by permitting the operation of only a very limited number of terminals and for only . critical operations.‘" In so restricting BGAN authority, Industry Canada has explained that "[sJuccessful completion of this coordination is essential in order to ensure an interference—free environment for the 6peration of all valuable satellite services."*‘ Not only will successful 8 See Inmarsat Ventures Limited et al., Joint Reply, File No. SES—STA—20061027—01898 et al. (November 22, 2006), at 1. ° While MSV is not aware of any publicly available figures on the number of BGAN terminals deployed in the United States (and Inmarsat has failed to provide any such figure in the record of this or any other proceeding), it is safe to assume that only a fraction of the 11,782 BGAN terminals activated worldwide today are used in the United States, a number far less than the 30,000 BGAN terminals authorized for use in the United States pursuant to STA. " See, e.g., Letter from Chantel Beaumieur, Director, Space and International Regulatory Activities, Industry Canada, to Lieutenant—Colonel J.J. F—La Boissonniére, Director Information Management Technologies, Products and Services 5, National Defence Headquarters (December 6, 2006)(authorizing the Canadian National Defence Headquarters to operate ten BGAN terminals). ~ 4 Id. at 1 ("Canada‘s policy for permitting the use of foreign satellites to serve the Canadian market requires that they be successfully coordinatedwith other satellites through the international coordination process. Successful completion of this coordination is essential in order to ensure an interference—free environment for the operation of all valuable satellite

coordination mitigate the harmful interference that would otherwise result from operation of Inmarsat‘s uncoordinated satellite, this coordination should also facilitate rebanding of L band spectrum into more contiguous frequency blocks that will increase efficient use of L band spectrum and maximize the potential for offering broadband services, which Chairman Martin has stated is a top priority. IL. The Bureau Should Lirfiit the Use of BGAN Terminals Authorized Under the STAs to "First Responders" Until coordination is completed, the Bureau should limit the BGAN tefininals authoriéed under these STAs to those issued to "first responders,""" based on sworn affidavits provided by the STA holders supporting their claims. The only plausible "extraordinary circumétance” that justified grant of the BGAN STAs was the claim that BGAN terminals would be used to support first responders, such as during hurricane season.‘* Neither Inmarsat nor its distributors have any basis to expect that their STA grants would support c_ontinuirig service to users other than first responders. services. At this time, Inmarsat has not completed this coordination for its Inmarsat 4F2 satellite located at the 52.75°W.L. orbital position. ... Accordingly, until the coordination status of the Inmarsat satellite has changed, Industry Canada will not authorize Canadian service providers to provide Inmarsat‘s BGAN service in Canada."). * See Remarks of FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, Imagining the Digital Healthcare Future in the Rural West, Montana State University— Bozeman (July 7, 2006). * The Bureau should define a "first responder" as a unit of the Federal Government or any entity that would qualify to hold a license under Section 90.523 of the Commission‘s rules. See 47 C.E.R. § 90.523 (providing that State or local government entities and certain nongovernmental organizations that provide services, the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property, as well as satisfy other criteria, may qualify to hold certain licenses). * See 47 U.S.C. § 309(A); 47 C.F.R. § 25.120(b)(1); Consolidated Joint Opposition, File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 et al. (April 6, 2006), at 4. Indeed, the Commission‘s rules specifically state that "[clonvenience to the applicant, such as marketing considerations or meeting scheduled customer in—service dates, will not be deemed sufficient" for grant of an STA. See 47 C.F.R. § 25.120(b)(1).

MSV‘s request is eminently reasonable. As discussed above, Industry Canada has authorized the temporary use of only a very limited number of BGAN terminals to meet the "critical" communications needs of entities such as the Canadian National Defence Headquarters."" There is no reason why the Bureau‘s conclusions here should be any different. III. The Bureau Should Impose the Conditions MSV Has Requested in Its Pending Petition for Clarification The conditions imposed by the Bureau in the STA grants to the BGAN Distributors are ‘insufficient to protect MSV and its customers from harmful interference. MSV urges the Bufeau in acting on these applications to adopt clarified conditions, 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. MSV‘s customers include important public safety users equipped with MSV terminals for essential communicationsl during hurricane season, including terminals that provide interoperable communicatic\m.s for key government agencies in the hurricane région. Indeed, numerous public safety users have filed letters with the Commission expres‘s‘ing 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."" 5 See supra note 10. 5 The following public safety entities or their representative filed such letters in a related proceeding (see file nos: SES—LFS—20050826—01175 et al.): Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida; Hinds County (MS) Sheriff‘s Department; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Bolivar County (MS) Emergency Management Agency; Alliance to Save Florida‘s Trauma Care; City of Orlando Emergency Management; Community Development Leagues of America, Inc.; Charles Barbour, Supervisor, Hinds County (MS); Collier (FL) County Government; Seminole County (FL) Department of Information Technologies; Hernando County (FL) Emergency Management; Santa Rosa County (FL) Division of Emergency Management;

Moreover, as MSV explained in Comments filed on the Commission‘s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seei(ing 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 c.ountry 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 cafi 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 canbe 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 thé 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 vpublic safety Southwest Texas Regional Advisory Council for Trauma; J. Bradley Reynolds, Commissioner Northeast Ward, Nacogdoches, Texas; John W. Jones, Executive Director, Virginia Sheriffs‘ Association; Commonwealth of Kentucky‘s Division of Emergency Management; Steve McCraw, Homeland Security Director, Office of Texas Governor Rick Perry; John Wood, Cameron County Commissioner, Precinet 2; Sheriff Bob Holder, Comal County (TX) Sheriff‘s Office; Kendell Poole, Director of Tennessee Governor‘s Office of Highway Safety; Mike Krusee, Chairman of the Committee on Transportation of the Texas House of Representatives; Dr. Daniel D. Canale, Department of Pathology, _ Baptist Hospital, Nashville, TN; Ron Harris, Collin County (TX) Judge; Kenneth W. Stolle, Member, Virginia Senate; David B. Albo, Member, Virginia House of Delegates; Scott Lingamfelter, Member, Virginia House of Delegates; and John M. O‘Bannon, III, MD, Delegate, 73"° District. ' " See Recommendations Oof the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact ofHurricane Katrina on Communications Networks, Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, EB Docket No. 06—119, FCC 06— 83 (June 16, 2006). } See Comments of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, EB Docket No. 06—119 (August 7, 2006).

service that is being threatened by Inmarsat‘s continued operation of uncoordinated satellites and services. Clarification of the conditions imposed on BGAN operations is critical to reduce this threat. —

Conclusion MSV urges the Bureau to protect the existing and reliable services MSV currently provides to its customers, including public safety users, by (i) establishing a firm expiration date for these STAs and provide that no further extensions or renewals will be granted without Inmarsat having first completed coordination of its new satellite with the North American L band operators; (i1i) limiting the use of BGAN terminals authorized under the STAs to "first | responders"; and (ii1) adopting conditions consistent with what MSV has requested in its pending Petition for Clarification. Respectfully submitted, Bpfic42 Tony Lin ZJacobs PILLSBURY WINTHROP Jeng%r A. Manner H. M 42 Vicé President, Regulatory Affairs 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: September 12, 2007

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

Before the RECEIFPT COPY Federal Communications Commission RECEEVED Washington, D.C. 20554 . JUN 1 J 2006 In the matter of ) . . J Federal Communications Commission Stratos Communications, Inc. ) File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (Calf§0249 | | ) . . Telenor Satellite, Inc. ) File No. SES—STA—20060313—00430 (Call Sign EO50276) o) . | FTMSC US LLC ) File No. SES—STA—20060314—00438 (Call Sign EO50284) . BT Americas, Inc. . ) File No. SES—STA—20060315—00445 (Call Sign EO60076) ) . ~ MVS USA Inc. ) File No. SES—STA—20060316—00454 (Call Sign EO50348) PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION Mobfle Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV"), pursuant to Section 1 106 of the Commission‘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 othér L band Mobile Satellite Service (“MSS.”)voperators'once Inmarsat begins its uncoo‘rdinatedlBGAN‘ operations. On May 26, 2006, prior to the deadline for 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 served on the parties to the above—referenced proceedings. I¢d. Respectfully submitted, ?5— «. f/ %// Cl / 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

Jennifer &A. Manner _ PY RECEIPT CQ ki Viee Presigent, Regulatory Affairs | In & EtiA | xfi & "C NS Q 1 TE < C &. a 9. & fas m m "C & 3 C =t & t ® 0 o May 26, 2006 Via Hand Delivery ‘ Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary _ ho | o ‘ PECE&VED Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. . . MAY 2 6 .:20'05 Washington, D.C. 20554 . . Fedaral Communications Commission Re: Mobile Satellite Ventures LP Office of Seor Ex Parte Presentation File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (Call Sign £050249) File No. SES—STA—20060313—00430 (Call Sign £050276) File No. SES—STA—20060314—00438 (Call Sign EO050284) File No. SES—STA—20060315—00445 (Call Sign £O60076) File No. SES—STA—20060316—00454 (Call Sign £050348) Dear Ms. Dortch: : The May 12, 2006 decisions g'rantmg the above—captloned requests for Specxal ' 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 Subs1d1ary LLC ("MSV") requests that the International Bureau clanfy certain of these conditions to improve their effectlveness ' 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 aggregateuplink 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 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 Condition 5, 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 12"" decisions prohibit 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 tothe 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) is not based on a finding, andis 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 (i1) is without prejudice to disposition of the pendlng 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 \_ Page3 — : MSV and MSV Canada béfore 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 forpermanent authority. Please contact the undersxgned 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 Comnussmn. 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 . 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 Comrmssmn 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 Comrmssmn Federal Communications Commission : 445 12" Street; S.W, 445 12"" Street, S.W. — f Washmgton DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Andrea Kelly* . Scott Kotler*® International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commlssmn 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 Affa1rs 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 Courisel for MVS USA, Inc. yWia A. Davis _ *By hand delivery

Technical Certification _ | I, Richard 0. Evans, Senior Enginecr of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, certify under penalty of perjury that: I am the technically qualified person with overall responSLblhty for the technical information contained in the foregoing. I am familiar with the Commission‘s rules, and the mformanon contained in the foregomgis true and correct to the best of my knowledge and /QJJLO M Richard 0. 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 Comxmssmn 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.Commlssmn 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. | 10Floor 1100 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1425 Rockyville, 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/\/d/%v/ M // 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)

Before the JV N : Federal Communications Commission 1 C 2 9 2006 Washington, D.C. 20554 Federal Comm;unications Co mmission Office of S j In the matter of ) ecretty P . Stratos Communications, Inc. ) —File No. SES—STA—20060310—00419 (Call Sign EO50249) ) . Telenor Satellite, Inc. ) File No. SES—STA—20060313—00430 (Call Sign EO50276) ) FTMSC US LLC ) File No. SES—STA—20060314—00438 (Call Sign EQO50284) ) BT Americas, Inc. ) File No. SES—STA—20060315—00445 (Call Sign £E060076) ) MVS USA Inc. ) File No. SES—STA—20060316—00454 (Call Sigfi EO050348) REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION MobileSatellite 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 uncoprdinated 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.l 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) ("MSYPetition") (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 JointOpposition to MSV’S Petition." As discussed herein, their objections 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,. MSYPetition, Exhibit Aat 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 aggregaté downlink EIRP limifc 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 disturbing 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 cap the EIRP coming down from a beam of 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. MSVPefition, Exhibit A at 1. Inmarsat avoids this issue by stating that the STAs fertain only to BGAN service and only 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 reqfiests. 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 interferénce 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 satellités first with other L band operators." 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 satellites.* 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. Id. In response, Inmarsat states that it has "ample incehtive” 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.

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 take 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 sfiould the Bureau clarify that Conditions 2 and 5 apply to Inmarsat as well. Condition 3. MSV urged the Bureau to require each of the BGAN Distributors to submit a certification from Inmarsat decla;ing that Inmarsat has not and will not assign any 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 Distributérs with such a cértification. 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 (“FS S") earth station that does not conform with the Commission‘s rules must submit 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."" * 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 Petfition, Exhibit A at 2. Inmarsat claims that this condition is unwarranted_bedause it is unclear thét 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 pr§tect MSV from interference. MSY 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: temporarymeasures to minimize interference in the absence of a coordination agreement. Once Inmarsat takes the necessary steps to complete coordination ofits satellite with MSV, the size and location of any guardbands can be determined more precisely. Conditions 6, 7, and 10. MSV also urggd the Bureau to explain that it expects Inmarsat to diligently concludé coordination of its Inmarsat 4F2 satellite with respect to the current and planned operations of MSV énd 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 Pefifion, Exhibif 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 cbordinated 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 proposed use of loaned frequencies, increased number of co—channel reuse beams, higher aggregate EIRP, and wideband carriers, have not been previously coordinated, thus mahng operation of Inmarsat 4F2 on a non— harmful interference basis relative to other L band systems unlikely.© Inmarsat also contends that this condition is unfair 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 of a few months. Inmarsat next argues that completion of coordination is not a condition precedent to . issuénce of an authorization to provide MSS. Inmarsat et al Opposition at 6. In fact, the Bureau requires prior coordination unleés there is a reasonable basis to conclude that harmful interference will not occur in the absenc-e 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 itlicenses 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. Tycez, 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 casé 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 willoccur absent prior coordination. In addition, MSVs next—generation 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.i.s fundamentally different because it means that operation of the uncoordinated Inmarsat 4F2 satellite qnd 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) ("MSY—S4 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 conditibns 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, oL Bruce D. Jacobs Iya/fils 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—8000 (703) 390—2700 Dated: June 29, 2006

Technical Certification 1, Richard O. Evans of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, certify under penalty ofperjury that: - > . I am the technically qualified persofi with overall responsibility for the technical information contained in this Reply. I am familiar with theCommission‘s rules, and the information contain_ed in the Reply is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. fReechh O .E _ 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. Comell 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. / ‘ / . Sylvia A. Davis *By electronic mail

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Renee Williams, a secretary with the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, hereby certify that on this 12th day of September 2007, I served a true copy of the foregoing by first—class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: John P. Janka Diane J. Cornell Jeffrey A. Marks Vice President, Government Affairs Latham & Watkins LLP Inmarsat, Inc. 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. 1101 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 1000 Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20004 . Washington, DC 20036 Counselfor Inmarsat, Inc. Linda J. Cicco Alfred M. Mamlet BT Americas Inc. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 11440 Commerce Park Drive 1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Reston, VA 20191 Washington, D.C. 20036 Counselfor Stratos Communications, Inc. Keith H. Fagan Lawrence J. Movshin Telenor Satellite, Inc. _ Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP 1101 Wootton Parkway 2300 N St. NW, Suite 700 10Floor Washington, DC 20037 Rockville, MD 20852 Counselfor MVS USA, Inc. Renet Williams


Document Created: 2007-09-13 07:15:51
Document Modified: 2007-09-13 07:15:51
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC