Attachment Reply

Reply

REPLY submitted by MSV

Reply

2007-12-03

This document pretains to SES-STA-20071102-01514 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2007110201514_609922

ORIGINAL Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the matter of SkyWave Mobile Communications, ) SES-STA-20071 109-01554 (Call Sign E030055) Inc. 1 1 Stratos Communications, Inc. ) SES-STA-20071101-01489 (Call Sign EO00 180) ) SES-STA-20071101-01490 (Call Sign E010047) ) SES-STA-20071101-01491 (Call Sign E010048) ) SES-STA-20071101-01492 (Call Sign E010049) ) SES-STA-20071101-01493 (Call Sign E010050) 1 Vizada Satellite, Inc. ) SES-STA-20071101-01519 (Call Sign E000285) ) SES-STA-20071101-01514 (Call Sign E000283) ) SES-STA-20071101-01513 (Call Sign E000282) ) SES-STA-20071101-01516 (Call Sign E000280) ) SES-STA-20071101-015 17 (Call Sign KA3 13) ) SES-STA-20071101-01515 (Call Sign E000284) ) SES-STA-20071101-01518 (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”), Vizada Satellite, Inc. (“Telenor”), and Inmarsat Ventures Limited (“Inmarsat”) to MSV’s Comments on the above-captioned requests for 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 ’ See Joint Response of SkyWave Mobile Communications, Inc., Stratos Communications Inc., Telenor Satellite Inc., and Inmarsat Ventures Limited (November 28, 2007) (“Joint Respon~e”); see also Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Comments (November 14,2007) (“MSV Comments”). 12-03-07 Reply eleventh existing services renewal - November 2007.doc

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 Response, Inmarsat and its distributors claim that use of the Inmarsat 4F2 satellite for earlier-generation services has not resulted in interference. Joint Response at 1-2.2 In fact, the opposite is true. Inmarsat and its distributors continue to refuse to relinquish the loaned frequencies despite the harm that is being caused to MSV and its customers. MSV Comments, Attachment 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 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- 2005 1122-01614 (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-2005 1122-01614 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, (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 EO1001 1 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-200607 10-01 131 et al. (July 17,2006); Response of MSV, File No. SES-STA- 200607 10-01131 et al. (August 1I , 2006); Comments of MSV, File No. SES-STA-200605 11- 00788 et al. (May 15,2006). 2

terrestrial infrastructure is impaired. Id. 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 or any other proceeding to support Inmarsat’s alleged need for the loaned freq~encies.~ 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. MSV 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 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 MSV Comments, Attachment at 4; Comments of MSV, File No. SES-STA-20060710-01131 et al. (July 17,2006), at 3-4. 3

coordination discussions. Commission action to 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 explained is the Commission’s top p r i ~ r i t y .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, i&$$ie- Tony Lin PILLSBURY WINTHROP Vyce President, Regulatory Affairs MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES SHAW PITTMAN LLP SUBSIDIARY LLC 2300 N Street, NW 10802 Parkridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20037-1 128 Reston, Virginia 20 191 (202) 663-8000 (703) 390-2700 Dated: December 3,2007 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.”). 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Renee Williams, a secretary with the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, hereby certify that on this 3rd day of December 2007, served a true copy of the foregoing by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Keith H. Fagan Alfred M. Mamlet Vizada Satellite, Inc. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1101 Wootton Parkway 1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W. lofhFloor Washington, D.C. 20036 Rockville, MD 20852 Counselfor Stratos Communications, Inc., and Sky Wave Mobile Communications, Corp. John P. Janka Ani Tourian Jeffrey A. Marks SkyWave Mobile Communications, Corp. Latham & Watkins LLP 1145 Innovation Drive, Unit 288 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Ottawa, ON Canada K2K 3G8 Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Counselfor Inmarsat, Inc. Diane J. Cornel1 Vice President, Government Affairs Inmarsat, Inc. 1 101 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036 Re'nee Williams


Document Created: 2007-12-06 13:20:23
Document Modified: 2007-12-06 13:20:23
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC