Attachment Opposition

Opposition

OPPOSITION submitted by Inmarsat Ventures Ltd.

Opposition of Inmarsat Ventures Limited

2007-10-17

This document pretains to SES-STA-20070924-01310 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2007092401310_599381

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the matter of - NNN Deere & Company File No. SES—STA—20070924—01310 OPPOSITION OF INMARSAT VENTURES LIMITED Inmarsat Ventures Limited ("Inmarsat") opposes the Petition to Deny ("Petition") of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV"). This proceeding involves a request by Deere & Company ("Deere") for special temporary authority ("STA") to permit the provision of longstanding Inmarsat services using an additional point of communication — the Inmarsat—3 satellite at 142° W.L. ("I—3"). Deere has been authorized to provide the proposed service, known as the GreenStar precision farming system, in the United States over the Inmarsat—2 satellite at 98° W.L. since 2001. Last year, the Commission granted Deere an STA to test the GreenStar system over the I—3 satellite at 142° W.L., the same service Deere now seeks to provide on a commercial basis over that satellite.‘ MSV offers nothing new in its Petition, but rather repeats its concerns related to operation of the f-3 satellite, to which Inmarsat has fully responded on many prior occasions." Deere has shown that circumstances warrant STA. Furthermore, there is no basis to impose the additional conditions sought by MSV. For the reasons discussed herein, and in ‘ See Deere and Company, SES—STA—20060605—00922 (granted Aug. 7, 2006). * See, e.g., Reply of Inmarsat, File No. SES—STA—20060605—00922 (filed June 21, 2006); Opposition of Inmarsat, File Nos. SES—MFS—20060725—01253, et al. (filed Sept. 21, 2006) (opposing MSV‘s Petition to Hold in Abeyance Telenor application to use I—3 at 142° W.L.); Letter from Counsel for Inmarsat to FCC, File Nos. SES—MFS—20060725—01253, et al. (filed Oct. 17, 2006); see also pleadings cited, infra, note 11.

numerous prior pleadings filed in similar proceedings, the Commission should grant Deere‘s STA request without delay. Grant of Deere‘s STA application will provide substantial benéfits to the United States farming industry, as described in Deere‘s application. Specifically, grant of this authority will provide important in—orbit redundancy capabilities and improve the reliability of the GreenStar system. In contrast, there are no countervailing harms posed by Deere‘s STA application. Specifically, contrary to MSV‘s sugges’[ion,3 Deere‘s proposed operations using the I—3 satellite at 142° W.L. do not raise any interference issues. Inmarsat has been successfully operating that spacecraft at 142° W.L. for approximately 18 ménths, since the time Inmarsat decommissioned the Inmarsat—2 spacecraft that had been successfully operating at that location for the previous four years. Nowhere does MSV allege that Inmarsat‘s operations at 142° W.L. have caused harmful interference. Moreover, the proposed service to be provided at 142° W.L. is the same as the service that has been successfully provided over Inmarsat—2 at 98° W.L. for years. MSV does not claim that Deere‘s current operations using that spacecraft have caused harmful interference. Deere requests STA to provide the same type of L—Band éewice that the Commission has authorized Deere to provide since 2001, using the I—2 spaceéraft at 98° W.L, only three degrees from MSV‘s spacecraft at 101° W.L.* Deere does not seek to use different MET‘sor to increase the number of MET‘s for which it has been authorized for some time. In sum, Deere‘s STA proposing to provide the same type of L—Band service, over the same types of MET‘s, without an 3 MSV Petition at 1—4. * See File No. SES—LIC—20010112—00051 (authorizing Deere‘s provision of L—Band services over the Inmarsat—2 spacecraft at 98° W.L.).

increase in the number of MET‘s, using an Inmarsat satellite even further away from MSV compared to Deere‘s current operations, cannot reasonably be expected to have any adverse effect on MSV. MSV‘s assertion about coordination with regard to I—3 at 142° W.L. in no way should delay grant. As Inmarsat has detailed in prior‘pleadings, Inmarsat‘s efforts to coordinate the operations of that spacecraft with MSV date back to the early part of this decade." More fundamentally, Commission precedent is clear that achieving mutually agreeable coordination arrangements with another MSS competitor simply'is not a condition precedent to receiving authority to provide an MSS service to the United States.° Furthermore, grant of Deere‘s application to communicate with I—3 at 142° W.L. is fully consistent with the recent grant of MSV s application to operate a new and uncoordinated L—Band MSS spacecraft at 63.5° W.L.‘ The Commission granted that application without imposing any obligation on MSV to effectuate coordination with Inmarsat prior to launching or operating MSV‘s spacecraft. Here (as the Commission found in MSV‘s case)® no other L—Band system in the vicinity of the United States could use the L—Band spectrum currently used by Inmarsat to serve the United States." °* See, e.g., Inmarsat Consolidated Response, File No. SES—STA—20051216—01756 et al., at 9— 11 (Jan. 6, 2006). ' ° See Establishment ofPolicies and Service Rulesfor MSS in the 2 GHz Band, 15 FCC Red 16127, 16192 «| 148—49 (2000); SatCom Systems, Inc., 14 FCC Red 20798, 20813 « 30 (1999); Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to MSS in the 1610—1626.5/2483.5—2500 MHz Frequency Bands, 9 FCC Red 5936, 6018 « 211 (1994); AMSC Sub. Corp., 8 FCC Red 4040, 4043 «[ 17 (1993). " Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, 20 FCC Red 479 (2005). MSV has since surrendered this authorization. 8 1d. 48. The three cases that MSV cites for the proposition that coordination must be achieved "where harmful interference might occur" prior to receiving operating authority consider authority for C/Ku band FSS — not MSS — and are otherwise inapplicable. MSV Petition at 2 & n.3.

Moreover, Inmarsat has successfully operated on a non—harmful interference basis while it has sought to come to agreement with MSV. MSV also repeats its requests from earlier proceedings that the Commission impose conditions on the Deere STA beyond those applied to current STAs for longstanding Inmarsat services held by other providers, or beyond those applied to Deere‘s earlier granted STA to use I—3 satellite at 142° W.L.‘" Specifically, MSV asks the Commission to: (i) adopt conditions sought in MSV‘s May 26, 2006 Ex Parte Presentation; and (ii) establish a "firm expiration date" for the Deere STAs unless the parties complete coordination. These requests are Baseless and should not be granted. Because these issues have been fully briefed, and in the interest of conserving Commission resources, Inmarsat incorporates earlier pleadings by reference for inclusion in the record here."‘ *o weowe weove Inmarsat demonstrates above that MSV has provided no legitimate basis for how Deere‘s proposed operations will cause harmful interference. None of the cases cited by MSV involved the continuation of existing MSS services that had been provided interference free for years. 9 See, ce g., Stratos Communications, Inc., File No. SES—STA—20051216—01760 (granted Jan. 18, 2006); see Deere and Company, SES—STA—20060605—00922 (granted Aug. 7, 2006). ‘‘ See, e.g., Joint Opposition, File Nos. SES—STA—20060310—00419 et al. (filed June 19, 2006); Joint Letter from Inmarsat et al. to FCC, File Nos. SES—LFS—20050826—01175, et al. (filed Dec. 6, 2006); see also Joint Letter from Inmarsat et al. to FCC, File Nos. SES—MFS— 20051122—01614 et al. (filed Jul. 6, 2006); Joint Letter from Inmarsat et al. to FCC, File Nos. SES—MFS—20051122—01614 et al. (filed Jul. 6, 2006). .

For the reasons discussed above and in earlier pleadings, the Commission should grant the Deere application without delay. Respectfully submitted, Diane J. Cornell Jokh 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, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 637—2200 October 17, 2007

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeffrey A. Marks, hereby certify that on this 17th day of October, 2007, I caused to be served a true copy of the foregoing "Opposition of Inmarsat Ventures Limited," by first class mail, postage pre—paid (or as otherwise indicated) upon the following: James Ball* Stephen Duall* 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 JoAnn Ekblad* Chip Fleming* 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 Gardner Foster* 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 Fern Jarmulnek* Andrea Kelly* 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* 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 Robert Nelson* Roderick Porter* 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

Cassandra Thomas* Jennifer A. Manner International Bureau Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Federal Communications Commission Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC 445 12"" Street, S.W. 1002 Park Ridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20554 Reston, Virginia 20191 Bruce D. Jacobs Eliot J. Greenwald Tony Lin Bingham McCutchen LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2020 K Street, N.W. 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006—1806 Washington, DC 20037—1128 Counselfor Deere & Company *Via Electronic Mail


Document Created: 2007-10-19 07:36:13
Document Modified: 2007-10-19 07:36:13
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC