# Before the

# Federal Communications Commission

# Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matters of )

)

STRATOS MOBILE NETWORKS (USA), LLC )

Application for Authority to Provide U.S.- )

Originated Fixed-to-Mobile and Mobile-to-Fixed ) File No.
ITC-214-19970924-00580

Inmarsat-B and-M Services via U.S. Land Earth ) (Previous File No.
ITC-97-594)

Stations )

)

and )

)

)

STRATOS MOBILE NETWORKS (USA), LLC )

Application for Authority to Provide U.S.- ) File No.
ITC-214-19980130-00053

Originated Fixed-to-Mobile Inmarsat-B and ) (Previous File No.
ITC-98-103)

-M Services via Foreign Land Earth Stations )

)

)

STRATOS MOBILE NETWORKS (USA), LLC )

Petition for Reconsideration of Grant )

of Special Temporary Authority to Provide ) File No.
ITC-TAO-19980701-00916

U.S.-Originated Fixed-to-Mobile Inmarsat-B )

and Inmarsat-M services with )

Secure Telephone Unit (STU-III) Capabilities to the )

U.S. Department of Defense via Foreign )

Land Earth Stations )

> **MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION**

**Adopted: September 29, 1999 Released: September 30, 1999**

By the Chief, International Bureau:

**I. Introduction**

1 In this Order we consider two applications filed by Stratos Mobile
Networks (USA), LLC (Stratos), for authority pursuant to Section 214 of
the Communications Act, as amended (Communications Act).[^1] The first
application will be referred to as the \"US LES application.\" It was
originally filed by IDB Mobile Communications, Inc. (IDB Mobile) on
September 24, 1997, and later transferred to Stratos.[^2] The US LES
application requests authority to provide mobile-to-fixed and
fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat Standard-B, Standard-M, and Mini-M, mobile
satellite services, except for land mobile satellite services involving
terminals in North America, using its U.S. land earth stations (LESs) in
Niles Canyon, California, and Staten Island, New York.[^3] The second
application will be referred to as the \"foreign LES application.\" It
requests authority to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-B and Inmarsat-M
(including Mini-M) mobile satellite services, except for land mobile
satellite services involving terminals in North America, using foreign
LESs, including those located at Laurentides, Canada, and Perth
Australia.[^4]

2 We also consider Comsat Corporation\'s (Comsat) petition for
reconsideration of the International Bureau\'s grant, in File No.
ITC-TAO-19980701-00916, to Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC, of
special temporary authority to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-B and
Inmarsat-M services with Secure Telephone Unit (STU-III) capabilities to
the U.S. Department of Defense via the foreign land earth stations at
Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia.[^5]

3 For the reasons discussed below, we: (1) grant in part Stratos\' US
LES application, subject to certain conditions and limitations; (2)
grant Stratos\' foreign LES application, subject to certain limitations;
and (3) defer consideration of Stratos\' US LES application to the
extent it requests authority to provide Inmarsat services involving
Mini-M terminals being used in the United States. We also deny Comsat\'s
petition for reconsideration of the International Bureau\'s grant to
Stratos of special temporary authority to provide fixed to mobile
Inmarsat-B and Inmarsat-M services with STU-III capabilities to the U.S.
Department of Defense via the foreign land earth stations at
Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia. These grants do not include
authority to provide land mobile satellite services involving terminals
located in North America and any aeronautical services.[^6]

**II. Background**

4 Stratos, a Delaware corporation, is authorized under Section 214 to
provide international maritime, aeronautical, and land mobile satellite
services, and international basic switched and private line services to
various points on both facilities and resale bases.[^7] In its
Application, Stratos asserts that it is: (1) affiliated with Stratos
Mobile Networks, Inc. (Stratos Mobile), a Canadian carrier that is the
wholly-owned telecommunications operating subsidiary of Stratos
Wireless, Inc. (Stratos Wireless) and authorized within Canada to
provide international telecommunications services;[^8] (2) wholly-owned
by Stratos Wireless through two U.S. subsidiaries;[^9] and (3)
affiliated with Teleglobe Canada (TCG), a Canadian carrier that is the
wholly-owned operating subsidiary of Teleglobe, Inc. (Teleglobe) through
Teleglobe's 29.17 percent interest in Stratos Wireless.[^10] We note,
however, that since the applications were filed, Teleglobe sold its
interest in Stratos.[^11] Stratos Wireless now is an indirect subsidiary
of AtlanticCo, the dominant provider of local services in Newfoundland,
Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island,
Canada.[^12]

5 The applicants state that the requested authorizations are in the
public interest because they will result in competition to Comsat for
provision of AOR and POR Inmarsat B and Inmarsat-M services, thus
significantly lowering the prices for such services.[^13] Stratos
pledges that, if authorized, it will begin providing U.S.
fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-B and -M services at \$2.50 per minute \--
allegedly an \$.80 reduction from Comsat's current \$3.30 per minute
price.[^14] In support of its contention that a price decrease will
result if its applications are granted, Stratos refers to the price
decrease that occurred as a result of the Commission's elimination of
Comsat's bottleneck control over facilities for provision of Inmarsat-A
services.[^15] Stratos asserts that the Commission has the authority to
grant authorizations to entities other than Comsat to provide
fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat services, and has done so in the past.[^16]
Stratos asserts further that the Commission also frequently has
authorized entities other than Comsat to provide Inmarsat services that
terminate in the United States via foreign LESs.[^17] Stratos asserts
that neither the Maritime Satellite Act[^18] nor Commission precedent
require Stratos to acquire Inmarsat space segment from Comsat.[^19] In
addition, in a letter dated April 29, 1999, Stratos urges the Commission
to grant its applications immediately, particularly given that Inmarsat
was fully privatized in April 1999, extinguishing any claim that Comsat
may have had to be the exclusive provider of Inmarsat space segment in
the United States.[^20]

6 Comsat opposes Stratos' application to use foreign LESs. First Comsat
argues that both the Maritime Satellite Act (which Comsat argues gives
it the exclusive right to provide space segment for U.S.-originated
traffic) and Commission precedent (which Comsat states has long
acknowledged Comsat's statutory right to be the exclusive provider of
Inmarsat space segment in the United States) bar Stratos' request.[^21]
Second, Comsat argues that granting Stratos' request would be counter to
the public interest. According to Comsat, Stratos' application does not
provide sufficient information to permit a public interest
determination.[^22] Comsat also argues that a grant of Stratos'
application would permit cross subsidies and predatory market behavior
by foreign carriers.[^23] Comsat further argues that it does not have,
and is not abusing market power, and that Stratos misrepresents Comsat's
lawful Inmarsat-M and Inmarsat-B rates.[^24] Third, Comsat argues that
Stratos' provision of the services in question would violate the terms
of the Intercarrier contract between Stratos' affiliate, IDB Mobile, and
Comsat.[^25]

7 AT&T Corp. (AT&T) filed comments in support of Stratos' application to
provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-B and -M services via foreign LESs,
arguing that prompt Commission grant of Stratos' application is in the
public interest.[^26] Comsat questions the credibility of AT&T's
comments, which, according to Comsat, merely repeat Stratos\'
arguments.[^27] Comsat also argues that AT&T attacks Comsat's Inmarsat-M
and Inmarsat-B rate solely because it would like to receive a lower
rate.[^28]

8 Comsat does not oppose Stratos' request, in its US LES application,
for authority to provide mobile-to-fixed services.[^29] With respect to
Stratos' request for authorization to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat
-B, -M, and Mini-M services, however, Comsat asserts that IDB Mobile is
bound by an intercarrier agreement to utilize Comsat's LES services
through September 1, 1999.[^30] Therefore, Comsat requests that the
Commission condition the grant of Stratos' application to provide
fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-M and --B services via its U.S. LESs on: (1)
expiration of the IDB Mobile-Comsat Intercarrier contract; and (2)
Stratos' acquisition of Inmarsat space segment from Comsat.[^31] Comsat
asserts that it does not object to Section 214 authorization for such
services, if the effective date of the authorization is September 2,
1999.[^32]

9 Finally, Comsat urges the Commission to defer any grants of the
applications until it has acted on Comsat\'s pending complaint against
Stratos\' affiliate, IDB Mobile, and to refuse to grant the applications
if, in that proceeding, the Commission determines that IDB Mobile
violated U.S. law.[^33]

**III. Discussion**

10 We conclude, for the reasons discussed below, that the public
interest is served by grant of Stratos\' applications, subject to
certain conditions and limitations. We grant Stratos authority, as
requested in its US LES application, subject to the condition that
Stratos file, and receive authority for, a modification of its existing
Title III authority for those LESs. That authority currently is limited
to services involving Inmarsat A terminals.[^34] In addition, our grant
of Section 214 authority to Stratos to provide service involving
Inmarsat Mini-M terminals is limited to services involving Inmarsat
Mini-M terminals located outside the United States. We also grant
Stratos authority under Section 214, as requested in its foreign LES
application, subject to the same limitation regarding Inmarsat Mini-M
terminals. We have not authorized any Mini-M terminals to operate in the
United States on a permanent basis, and would need to consider in
connection with any request for such an authorization a number of
potential public interest concerns. Such potential concerns, include,
for example: the impact of additional spectrum usage of L-Band
frequencies on other licensed services; potential law enforcement and
national security concerns; impacts on safety services; and questions
regarding out-of-band emissions from such terminals. A full and adequate
record on these issues is not present here.

11 We find Comsat's arguments in opposing Stratos\' applications
unpersuasive in three respects. First, Stratos\' applications do not
pose a very high risk of anticompetitive behavior. Comsat has not
demonstrated that Stratos' foreign affiliations give Stratos the
incentive or ability to engage in anticompetitive practices. Second, the
privatization of Inmarsat in April 1999 has eliminated Comsat\'s claim
to be the exclusive provider of Inmarsat space segment in the United
States. Accordingly, Comsat's arguments in that regard are now moot.
Third, we believe that Comsat's contract claims are not relevant to this
proceeding, but rather are best left for the courts to resolve. The
courts in fact have ruled in Stratos\' favor on this issue.[^35]

**A. Standard of Review**

12 We review the applications under the standards set forth in the
*Foreign Participation Order*.[^36] In the *Foreign Participation
Order*, the Commission adopted an open entry standard for Section 214
applications from service suppliers of World Trade Organization (WTO)
Members, such as Canada. The Commission adopted a presumption that a
carrier's affiliation with a carrier in a WTO

Member country does not pose competitive concerns.[^37] Under these
standards, the Commission will grant an application absent a
demonstration that it poses a very high risk to competition in the U.S.
market that cannot be addressed by imposing additional conditions on the
authorizations.[^38]

**B. Competitive Issues**

13 Comsat argues that authorizing Stratos to provide services involving
Inmarsat-B and -M terminals via foreign LESs would: (1) raise the risk
that Stratos, and its foreign monopoly owners, would engage in
anticompetitive practices; and (2) discourage investment in U.S.
facilities and subsidize foreign carriers.[^39] First, we note that
Comsat's arguments are based on Stratos' past affiliation with
Teleglobe. Because Teleglobe is no longer affiliated with Stratos,
Comsat's concerns with anticompetitive conduct based on that affiliation
are no longer relevant, and we need not address them.[^40] We therefore
address Comsat's concerns in the context of Stratos' current affiliation
with AtlanticCo. We have concluded with respect to NewTel, currently
affiliated with AtlantiCo, that, even if NewTel were the provider of
monopoly telecommunications services in Newfoundland and Labrador, the
status of NewTel as a monopoly in these markets, by itself, does not
pose a high risk to competition.[^41] We continue to believe that, given
NewTel/AtlantiCo\'s size, Stratos\' affiliation with NewTel/AtlantiCo
will not give the applicants the ability to raise prices in the U.S.
market unilaterally or to otherwise possess the ability to present a
high risk to competition in the U.S. market for international maritime
mobile satellite services.[^42] The Bureau has previously noted, with
respect to the provision of mobile satellite services, that a carrier\'s
affiliation with a foreign carrier possessing market power would not
necessarily present it with an opportunity to discriminate. [^43] The
Bureau noted that, unlike with international message telephone service
(IMTS), with mobile satellite services, distribution in foreign markets
will not necessarily be accomplished through a monopoly carrier. The
Bureau referred to an authorization granted to Cruisephone in which the
Bureau stated that the company\'s affiliation with the monopoly carrier
did not provide it with an opportunity to discriminate against other
U.S. carriers because it was not using any of the facilities of the
foreign monopoly carrier.[^44]

14 Regarding predatory behavior, Comsat alleges that, if we grant
Stratos\' application to route Inmarsat traffic through foreign LESs
using foreign space segment, Stratos would be able to secure space
segment at subsidized, transit rates that Comsat likely cannot
match.[^45] Thus, Comsat argues that Stratos could price its services
too low, rather than too high. Comsat provides no evidence, however,
that Stratos' per minute price would be below cost. In addition, Comsat
fails to demonstrate that Stratos would even have the incentive or
ability to engage in predatory pricing. Moreover, Stratos states that
its proposed price includes a healthy margin over the Space Segment
Utilization Charge that Inmarsat charges for space segment, thus
allowing Stratos to cover not only its average variable costs, but its
fixed costs as well.[^46] We agree with AT&T that Stratos' proposed
price will instead be pro-competitive, because it will bring substantial
(and non-predatory) price reductions.[^47] We conclude, therefore, as we
have before, that there is no evidence that Stratos could engage in
predatory pricing.[^48] Additionally, we note that Canada, in February
1998, liberalized the routing of mobile satellite services between
points within Canada, and between Canada and points in the United
States.[^49] Thus, Comsat, as well as any other provider of Inmarsat
services, is able to route traffic from Canada through its U.S. LESs, if
there is a cost advantage to be gained from such routing. Moreover, as a
result of the recent Inmarsat privatization, Stratos is able to purchase
space segment capacity under the LES Agreement directly from Inmarsat
rather than former Inmarsat signatories, potentially resulting in
additional cost savings that can be passed on to the consumer.

15 In addition, as noted above, Comsat urges the Commission to defer any
grants of applications until it has acted on Comsat's pending complaint
against Stratos\' affiliate, IDB Mobile, and to refuse to grant the
applications if, in that proceeding, the Commission determines that IDB
Mobile violated U.S. law.[^50] We take very seriously any allegations
that U.S. laws and our rules are being violated, but allegations of
impropriety do not by themselves necessarily create a very high risk to
competition, nor do they provide a basis for withholding action on an
application. The Commission will resolve Comsat's allegations \-- which
IDB Mobile has opposed \-- in the relevant proceeding now before
it.[^51]

16 Finally, we note that Stratos is -- and will continue to be --
regulated as dominant on the U.S.-Canada route.[^52] If we detect any
anticompetitive behavior on that route to the benefit of Stratos, we can
take appropriate action. Therefore, we conclude that the applications do
not pose a very high risk to competition.[^53]

**C. Statutory Issues**

17 Comsat asserts that the 1978 Maritime Satellite Act designates Comsat
as the exclusive provider of Inmarsat space segment in the United
States. Accordingly, Comsat argues that the Commission cannot grant
Stratos the authority to provide Inmarsat services via foreign
LESs.[^54] With respect to Stratos\' US LES application, Comsat argues
that the Commission must condition any grant on a requirement that
applicants utilize Comsat space segment in providing the services.[^55]
Stratos responds that the Maritime Satellite Act does nothing more than
designate Comsat as the sole U.S. Signatory to Inmarsat, a role that
does not confer a space segment monopoly on Comsat.[^56]

18 Comsat's arguments that the Maritime Satellite Act does not permit
authorization of Stratos to provide the requested services are now moot
in view of the recent privatization of Inmarsat.[^57] Comsat\'s claims
to exclusivity are based upon the signatory role granted to it under the
Maritime Satellite Act for participation in Inmarsat as an
intergovernmental organization. The provisions of the Maritime Satellite
Act are inapplicable to distribution of services by the privatized
Inmarsat. Distribution of services of a privatized Inmarsat is pursuant
to an agreement under which Stratos may acquire capacity directly from
Inmarsat or through foreign LES operations for delivery of
U.S.-originated services.[^58] Moreover, as we recently pointed out,
Stratos' proposed services involving Inmarsat-B and --M terminals
include Secure Telephone Unit (STU-III) capabilities that Comsat is
itself currently unable to provide.[^59] As we said in granting Stratos
special temporary authority (STA) to provide these services to the U.S.
Department of Defense (which Comsat itself has applied for authority to
resell),[^60] the Commission has routinely issued authorizations for the
provision of Inmarsat services, including Inmarsat-B and --M, from
foreign LESs when alternative U.S. facilities have not been
available.[^61]

19 Under the same reasoning, we deny Comsat\'s petition for
reconsideration of the International Bureau\'s grant to Stratos of
special temporary authority to provide fixed to mobile Inmarsat-B and
Inmarsat-M services with STU-III capabilities to the U.S. Department of
Defense via the foreign land earth stations at Laurentides, Canada, and
Perth, Australia.[^62] Comsat\'s petition, and subsequent filings are
based on the same legal and statutory arguments raised in its comments
on the foreign and US LES applications and rejected above.

**D. Contractual Issues**

20 Comsat also argues that the requested authorizations would violate
contractual obligations between Comsat and Stratos' affiliate, IDB
Mobile.[^63] We agree with Stratos that Comsat's arguments are outside
the scope of issues we should consider in this proceeding.[^64] Whether
Stratos is barred from providing the services in question due to a
contractual agreement between IDB Mobile and Comsat is a matter best
left to the courts to decide because the Commission is not the proper
forum for

the adjudication of private contractual disputes.[^65] Indeed, as
Stratos points out, the decision of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Maryland granting Stratos\' motion to dismiss a
Comsat suit against IDB Mobile/Stratos for breach of contract has been
affirmed on appeal.[^66]

**IV.** **Conclusion**

21 For the reasons described above, we: (1) grant in part Stratos\' US
LES application, subject to certain conditions and limitations; (2)
grant Stratos\' foreign LES application, subject to certain limitations;
and (3) defer consideration of Stratos\' US LES application to the
extent it requests authority to provide Inmarsat service involving
Mini-M terminals in the United States. We also deny Comsat\'s petition
for reconsideration of the International Bureau\'s grant to Stratos of
special temporary authority to provide fixed to mobile Inmarsat-B and
Inmarsat-M services with STU-Secure Telephone Unit (STU-III)
capabilities to the U.S. Department of Defense via the foreign land
earth stations at Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia. In
addition, we impose dominant carrier regulation on these authorizations
for service on the U.S.-Canada route only.

**V. Ordering Clauses**

22 Upon consideration of the applications and in view of the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the present and future public interest,
convenience, and necessity require the grant, in part, of the present
applications.

23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to section 214 of the
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 214, that application FCC File No.
ITC-214-19970924-00580 IS GRANTED IN PART. Stratos Mobile Networks (USA)
LLC, is given authority to provide fixed-to-mobile and mobile-to-fixed
Inmarsat Standard-B and Inmarsat Standard -M mobile satellite services
using its U.S. land earth stations in Niles Canyon, California, and
Staten Island, New York, and Inmarsat Mini-M international service using
the same U.S. land earth stations. This grant is subject to the
condition that Stratos file, and receive authority for, a modification
of its existing Title III authority for those land earth stations. The
grant of Section 214 authority to Stratos to provide service involving
Inmarsat Mini-M terminals is limited to services involving Inmarsat
Mini-M terminals located outside the United States. The application is
DEFERRED IN PART, to the extent Stratos requests authority to provide
any Inmarsat service involving Mini-M terminals being used in the United
States. This grant does not include authority to provide land mobile
satellite services involving terminals located in North America and any
aeronautical services.

24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 214 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
§ 214, that application FCC File No. ITC-214-19980130-00053 IS GRANTED,
and Stratos Mobile Networks (USA) LLC, is given authority to provide
fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat Standard-B Inmarsat Standard-M mobile satellite
services using foreign land earth stations, including those located at
Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia, and Inmarsat Mini-M
international services using the same foreign land earth stations. The
grant of Section 214 authority to Stratos to provide service involving
Inmarsat Mini-M terminals is limited to services involving Inmarsat
Mini-M terminals located outside the United States. This grant does not
include authority to provide land mobile satellite services involving
terminals located in North America and any aeronautical services.

25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the applicants shall comply with the
dominant carrier regulations under Section 63.10 of the Commission\'s
rules for their provision of service on the U.S.-Canada route.

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Comsat Corporation\'s petition for
reconsideration of the International Bureau\'s grant, in FCC File No.
ITC-TAO-19980701-00916, to Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC of special
temporary authority to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-B and Inmarsat-M
services with Secure Telephone Unit (STU-III) capabilities to the U.S.
Department of Defense via the foreign land earth stations at
Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia, IS DENIED

27 This Order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. § 0.261, and is effective upon adoption. Petitions for
reconsideration under Section 1.106 or applications for review under
Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.115 may
be filed within 30 days of the date of the public notice of this Order.
*See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(2). In addition, under Section 1.110 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.110, this action shall be considered
as a grant of the applications unless applicants, within 30 days of the
date of the public notice of this Order, file a written request
rejecting the grant as made.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Donald Abelson

Chief, International Bureau

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 214.

[^2]: *See* IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., Application Pursuant to
    Section 214 for Authority to Provide Mobile-to-Fixed and
    Fixed-To-Mobile Inmarsat Standard M, Mini-M and Standard B Mobile
    Satellite Service via the Inmarsat System in the Atlantic and
    Pacific Ocean Regions, FCC File No. ITC-214-19970924-00580 (filed
    Sept. 24, 1997) (US LES Application). IDB Mobile\'s application was
    transferred to Stratos through a *pro forma* transfer of control.
    *See* *Overseas Common Carrier Section 214 Applications Actions
    Taken*, Report No. I-8273, Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd 19542 (1997)
    (announcing 10/31/97 grant of Pro Forma Assignment/Transfer of
    Control, FCC File No. ITC-97-647-TC).

[^3]: *See* US LES Application at 2. IDB Mobile's application seeks
    authority to provide services via the Inmarsat system in the
    Atlantic Ocean Region-East (AOR-E) and the Pacific Ocean Region
    (POR). *See id*. at 2. Hereinafter, when we refer to Inmarsat-B or
    Inmarsat-M services, we are referring to Standard-B and Standard-M
    services. Applicants describe \"fixed to mobile\" as encompassing
    \"outbound,\" \"base-to-mobile,\" and \"shore to ship\" services.
    They describe \"mobile to fixed\" as encompassing \"inbound,\"
    \"mobile-to-base,\" and \"ship-to-shore\" services. *Id*. at n.1.

[^4]: *See* Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC Application Pursuant to
    Section 214 for Authority to Provide U.S.-Originated Fixed-To-Mobile
    Inmarsat Mobile Satellite Services via Foreign Land Earth Stations,
    Including those at Laurentides, Quebec, Canada, and Perth,
    Australia, FCC File No. ITC-214-19980130-0053 (filed Jan. 30, 1998)
    (Stratos Jan. 30, 1998 Application, or \"Foreign LES Application\")
    at 1-2. Stratos seeks authority to provide services via the Inmarsat
    system in the AOR-E, the Atlantic Ocean Region-West (AOR-W), and the
    POR. *See* *id* at 2. *See* *also Ex Parte* Letter from Alfred
    Mamlet and Colleen Sechrest, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, to Magalie
    Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (June 25,
    1999) (withdrawing request for Inmarsat A authority).

[^5]: *See* Petition for Reconsideration of Comsat Corporation, FCC File
    No. ITC-TAO-199807091-00916, filed Mar. 31, 1999 (Comsat Mar. 31,
    1999 Petition for Reconsideration); *Stratos Mobile Networks (USA),
    LLC, Application to Provide U.S.-Originated Fixed-to-Mobile
    Inmarsat-B and --M Services to the U.S. Department of Defense via
    Foreign Land Earth Stations at Laurentides, Quebec, Canada and
    Perth, Australia*, FCC File No. ITC-TAO-19980701-00916, Order, DA
    99-410 (rel. Mar. 1, 1999) (*Stratos DoD Authorization Order*).

[^6]: We recognize that Stratos has pending an application to provide
    aeronautical services. *See* IDB Mobile Communications, Inc.
    Application Pursuant to Section 214 for Authority to Provide
    Domestic Aeronautical Satellite Services via the Inmarsat System,
    FCC File No. ITC-214-19981214-00859; *Non-Streamlined International
    Section 214, Cable Landing License and Section 310(B)(4)
    Applications Accepted For Filing (Formal Section 63.18 And 1.767),
    Report No. Tel-00044NS*, Public Notice (rel. Dec. 18, 1998).

[^7]: *See* *Stratos Mobile Networks (USA) LLC, IDB Mobile
    Communications, Inc., Stratos Global Corporation, and Newtel
    Enterprises Limited*, FCC File No. ITC-98-287-TC, *Marinesat
    Communications Network, Inc., Maritime Telecommunications Network,
    Inc., ICG Satellite Services, Inc., Stratos Holdings, Inc., And
    Stratos Acquisition Corporation*, FCC File No. ITC-98-288-TC,
    *Applications Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of
    1934, as Amended, to Transfer Control of Section 214
    Authorizations*, *Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. and
    Stratos Acquisition Corporation*, 9713587, Application for Consent
    to Assignment of Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Station License,
    *Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. And Stratos Acquisition
    Corporation*, 807-DSE-AL-98, *Application to Assign Earth Station
    Authorizations*, Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 14040 at para.
    2 (1998) (*Stratos/Marine Order and Authorization*); *see* *also*
    Stratos Jan. 30, 1998 Application at 12.

[^8]: *See* Stratos Jan. 30, 1998 Application at 13.

[^9]: *See* *id*. at n.34.

[^10]: *See* *id*. at 13. Stratos asserts that TCG is authorized to
    provide international telecommunications services to the public in
    Canada, but not authorized to provide service from Canada to the
    United States. *See* *id*.

[^11]: ^?^ *Stratos/Marine Order and Authorization*, 13 FCC Rcd 14040 at
    para. 8; *Ex Parte* Letter from Alfred M. Mamlet, Matthew S. Yeo,
    Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission (July 8, 1998).

[^12]: ^?^ *See Satellite Communications Services Information, Actions
    Taken,* Report No. SES-00069, Public Notice (Apr. 14, 1999) (listing
    Apr. 9, 1999 grant, *Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC, et al.,
    Application for Pro Forma Transfer of Control*,
    SES/TC-19990401-004101999).

[^13]: ^?^ *See* Stratos Jan. 30, 1998 Application at 3.

[^14]: *See* *id*. at 4.

[^15]: *See* *id*. at 4-6.

[^16]: *See* *id*. at 6-11.

[^17]: *See* *id*. at 7.

[^18]: International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act of 1978,
    Pub. L. 87-624, 92 Stat. 2392 (1978) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§
    751-757) (Maritime Satellite Act).

[^19]: ^?^ Stratos Jan. 30, 1998 Application at 6-11.

[^20]: *See* *Ex Parte* Letter from Alfred Mamlet and Colleen Sechrest,
    Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission (Apr. 29, 1999) (Mamlet/Sechrest Apr. 29,
    1999 *Ex Parte*); \"Inmarsat Shareholders Elect First Board of
    Directors,\" Inmarsat Press Release,
    http://www.inmarsat.org/newsroom/releases/board2.html; \"Inmarsat
    Makes World History this Month (Apr. 1999) When it Becomes the First
    International Treaty Organization to be Transformed into a
    Commercial Company,\" Via Inmarsat Magazine, Apr. 1999,
    http://www.inmarsat.org/magazine/issues/current/news2.html.

[^21]: *See* Comsat Mobile Communications Petition to Deny Stratos
    Application to Provide U.S.-originated Fixed-to-Mobile Inmarsat-B
    and --M Services via Foreign Land Earth Stations (Mar. 11, 1998)
    (Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny) at 8-17; Reply of Comsat
    Mobile Communications (Apr. 6, 1998) (Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply) at
    2-8.

[^22]: *See* Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 17-18; Comsat Apr.
    6, 1998 Reply at 16-8.

[^23]: *See* Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 17-23; Comsat Apr.
    6, 1998 Reply at 10-14.

[^24]: *See* Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 24-29; Comsat Apr.
    6, 1998 Reply at 9-10.

[^25]: *See* Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 29-30; Comsat Apr.
    6, 1998 Reply at 18-19.

[^26]: Comments of AT&T, FCC File No. ITC-214-19980130-00053 (filed Mar.
    11, 1998).

[^27]: *See* Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 15. *See also* Comsat
    Opposition to Comments of AT&T Corp. (filed Mar. 25, 1998) at 1.

[^28]: *See* Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 15; Mar. 25, 1998 Comsat
    Opposition to Comments of AT&T Corp. at 1-3.

[^29]: *See* Comsat Comments, FCC File No. ITC-214-1997-0924 at 2, 3
    (filed Nov. 7, 1997).

[^30]: *See* *id*. at 6-7.

[^31]: *See id*. at 6-8.

[^32]: *See* *id*. at 8-9.

[^33]: *See Ex Parte* Letter from Neal T. Kilminster and John E.
    Benedict to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission (May 21, 1999) (May 21, 1999 Comsat *Ex Parte*); *Ex
    Parte* Letter from Neal T. Kilminster and John E. Benedict to
    Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (June 7,
    1999) (June 7, 1999 Comsat *Ex Parte*); *Ex Parte Procedures
    Modified for Formal Complaint Filed by Comsat Corporation Against
    IDB Mobile Communications, Inc.*, File No. E-99-08, Public Notice,
    14 FCC Rcd 1047 (1999).

[^34]: ^?^ *See Satellite Communications Services Information, Actions
    Taken,* Report No. SES-00069, Public Notice (Apr. 14, 1999) (listing
    Apr. 9, 1999 grant, *Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC, et al.,
    Application for Pro Forma Transfer of Control*,
    SES/TC-19990401-00410; Stratos *Mobile Networks (USA)); see also
    Federal Communications Radio Station Authorization*, Call Sign KA76
    and File No. 1191-DSE-MP/L-97, Call Sign KA227 and File No.
    1193-DSE-MP/L-97.

[^35]: ^?^ *See* *Ex Parte* Letter from Alfred Mamlet and Colleen
    Sechrest, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission (May 6, 1998) (attaching *Comsat
    Corporation v. IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., et al.*, Civil
    Action No. AW 98-281, Memorandum Opinion and Order (S.D.M.D. Apr.
    30, 1998) (dismissing Comsat\'s complaint on the merits), *appeal
    dismissed sub. nom.*, *Comsat v. IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., et
    al.*, No. 98-2525 (4^th^ Cir. May 21, 1999)).

[^36]: *Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S.
    Telecommunications Market, Market Entry*, IB 97-142, *Market Entry
    and Regulation of Foreign Affiliated Entities*, IB 95-22, Report and
    Order and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 23891 (1997)
    (*Foreign Participation Order*), *recon. pending*.

[^37]: *See Foreign Participation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 23922, para. 69.
    Similarly, in the *DISCO II Order*, the Commission established an
    open entry standard for those earth station applicants seeking to
    access foreign satellite systems licensed by WTO members to provide
    services covered by the United States' commitments under the WTO
    Basic Telecom Agreement. *See* *Amendment of the Commission's
    Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S.-Licensed Space Stations to
    Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United
    States*, IB Docket 96-111, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 24094,
    24112, para. 39 (1997) (*DISCO-II Order*).

[^38]: *See Foreign Participation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 23913-914, para.
    51.

[^39]: *See* Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 17-23; Comsat Apr.
    6, 1998 Reply at 10-14.

[^40]: *See Stratos/Marine Order and Authorization*, 13 FCC Rcd 14040 at
    para. 8.

[^41]: *See id*.

[^42]: *See* *id*.; *Foreign Participation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 23914,
    para. 52. Under the same reasoning, we conclude that
    NewTel/AtlanticCo's control of the dominant local carriers in New
    Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, Canada do not raise
    significant competition concerns.

[^43]: *See* *WorldCom Inc., Transferor, and Stratos Wireless, Inc.,
    Transferee, Application for Authority, Pursuant to Section 214 of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Transfer Control of
    an Authorized International Carrier*, File No.
    ISP-PDR-19981002-00011 (Previous File No. ITC-97-234-TC), Memorandum
    Opinion and Order and Authorization, 12 FCC Rcd 8340 at para. 4.
    (*WorldCom/Stratos Conditions Order*); *WorldCom Inc., Transferor,
    and Stratos Wireless, Inc., Transferee, Application for Authority,
    Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    Amended, to Transfer Control of an Authorized International
    Carrier*, Order, DA No.99-1611, para. 2 (rel. Aug. 12, 1999)
    (removing conditions imposed on IDB Mobile\'s provision of
    non-mobile satellite services that had been imposed in the
    *WorldCom/Stratos Conditions Order* as a result of Teleglobe\'s
    indirect ownership of 30 percent of IDB Mobile\'s capital stock).

[^44]: *See WorldCom Stratos Conditions Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at para.4,
    n.2, *citing Cruisephone, Inc., Application for Authority, Pursuant
    to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to
    Provide Inmarsat Standard B and Standard M Mobile Satellite Services
    in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean Regions*, FCC File No.
    ITC-94-441, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Authorization, 9 FCC
    Rcd 6818 at para. 6 (1994).

[^45]: Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 19.

[^46]: *See* Stratos Mar. 25, 1998 Opposition to Comsat Petition to Deny
    at 8-9.

[^47]: AT&T Mar. 11, 1998 Comments at 2.

[^48]: *Stratos/Marine Order and Authorization,* 13 RCC Rcd 14040 at
    para. 9.

[^49]: *See* *Policy Framework for Provision of Mobile Satellite
    Services via Regional and Global Satellite Systems in the Canadian
    Market*, Industry Canada RP-007, Rev. 1 at 3 (Feb. 1998).

[^50]: *See* June 7, 1999 Comsat *Ex Parte*; May 21, 1999 Comsat *Ex
    Parte*.

[^51]: *See Ex Parte Procedures Modified for Formal Complaint Filed by
    Comsat Corporation Against IDB Mobile Communications, Inc.*, File
    No. E-99-08, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 1047 (1999).

[^52]: In a letter dated April 29, 1999, Stratos withdrew its request to
    be reclassified as a nondominant carrier for mobile satellite
    services on the United States-Canada route. *See* *Ex Parte* letter
    from Alfred Mamlet and Colleen Sechrest, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission
    (Apr. 29, 1999).

[^53]: *See Stratos/Marine Order and Authorization*, 13 FCC Rcd 14040 at
    para. 11.

[^54]: ^?^ *See* Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 8-10; Comsat
    Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 2-4.

[^55]: *See* Comsat Nov. 11, 1997 Comments at 8.

[^56]: *See* Stratos Mar. 25, 1998 Opposition to Comsat Petition to Deny
    at 8-17.

[^57]: *See* *Stratos DoD Authorization Order* at para. 6.

[^58]: The Bureau has authorized continued operation of both Comsat and
    Stratos earth stations located in the United States pursuant to the
    terms of this agreement, pending Congressional action on legislation
    to conform the Maritime Satellite Act to the Inmarsat privatization.
    Congressional action is necessary to authorize U.S. participation in
    the International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO) and to
    eliminate provisions of the Act no longer necessary or relevant to
    operation of Inmarsat in the United States. *See* *Requests for
    Special Temporary Authority of Comsat Corporation and Stratos (USA)
    Limited To Change Points of Communications from Inmarsat to Inmarsat
    Limited*, DA 99-679 (rel. Apr. 12, 1999).

[^59]: *See Stratos DoD Authorization Order* at para. 1.

[^60]: *Satellite Policy Branch Information, Applications Accepted for
    Filing*, Report No. SAT-00017 (May 11, 1999) (includes announcement
    of application of Comsat General Corporation,
    SAT-ITC-19990420-00044, to operate as an international resale
    carrier of space segment service under Section 214 of the
    Communications Act, as amended); Application of Comsat General
    Corporation, FCC File No. SAT-ITC-19990420-00044 (filed Apr. 19,
    1999).

[^61]: *See Stratos DoD Authorization Order* at para. 6 (*citing* *IDB
    Mobile Communications, Inc.*, *Application for Authority to Provide
    Inmarsat Standard A Mobile Satellite Services via the Inmarsat
    System in the Indian Ocean Region*, FCC File No. ITC-95-565,
    *Application for Authority to Provide Inmarsat Standard B and
    Standard M Mobile Satellite Services via the Inmarsat System in the
    Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean Regions*, FCC File No.
    ITC-95-569, 11 FCC Rcd 2913 (1996) (authorizing IDB Mobile to
    provide Inmarsat-B and --M service in the Indian Ocean Region via
    the Telstra LES at Perth, Australia); *The Application of IDB
    Aero-Nautical Communications, Inc. for Authority Pursuant To
    Sections 503 and 504(C) of the International Maritime Satellite
    Telecommunications Act and Section 214 of The Communications Act of
    1934, as Amended, to Provide Inmarsat-C Mobile Satellite Services
    Via The Inmarsat System in the Indian Ocean Region, and the
    Application of IDB Aero-Nautical Communications, Inc. for Authority
    Pursuant to Sections 503 and 504(C) of the International Maritime
    Satellite Telecommunications Act And Section 214 Of The
    Communications Act Of 1934, as amended, to Provide Inmarsat-C Mobile
    Satellite Services Via The Inmarsat System in the Atlantic and
    Pacific Ocean Regions*, FCC File No. ITC-93-013, FCC File No.
    ITC-93-014, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Authorization, 8 FCC
    Rcd 807 (1993); *The Application of IDB Aero-Nautical
    Communications, Inc. for Authority Pursuant to the International
    Maritime Satellite Communications Act of 1978 and Section 214 of The
    Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Maritime Mobile
    Satellite Service in the Indian Ocean Region via the Inmarsat
    System*, FCC File No. ITC-91-012, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
    Authorization, 6 FCC Rcd 5962 (1991)).

[^62]: *See* Comsat Mar. 31, 1999 Petition for Reconsideration.

[^63]: Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 29-30; Comsat Nov. 7,
    1997 Comments at 6-7.

[^64]: Stratos Mar. 25, 1998 Opposition to Comsat Petition to Deny at
    21-22.

[^65]: *See* *Listeners' Guild, Inc. v. FCC*, 813 F.2d 465, 469 (D.C.
    Cir. 1987) (referring with approval to the "Commission's
    longstanding policy of refusing to adjudicate private contract law
    questions for which a forum exists in the state courts"); *Stratos
    DoD Authorization Order,* FCC File No. ITC-TAO-19980701-00916 at
    para. 7; *Applications of Stockholders of Renaissance Communications
    Corporation (Transferor) and Tribune Company (Transferee) for
    Transfer of Control of Renaissance Communications Corporation,
    Parent of: 61 Licensee, Inc., Licensee of WTIC-TV, Hartford, CT,
    Channel 43 Licensee, Inc. Licensee of WPMT(TV), York, PA,, Channel
    40 Licensee, Inc. Licensee of KTXL(TV), Sacramento, CA, Channel 39
    Licensee, Inc. Licensee of WDZL(TV), Miami, FL, 59 Licensee, Inc.
    Licensee of WXIN(TV), Indianapolis, IN, 33 Licensee, Inc. Licensee
    of KDAF(TV), Dallas, TX, and Channel 43 Licensee, Inc.
    BPCT-960724KK*, File Nos. BTCCT-960801LG, BTCCT-960801LH,
    BTCCT-960801LI, BTCCT-960801LJ, BTCCT-960801LK, BTCCT-960801LL,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 11866, para. 6 (1997)
    (stating that the Commission is not the proper forum for the
    adjudication of private contractual disputes); *Application Of MCI
    Communications Corp., Transferor and Southern Pacific
    Telecommunications Company, Transferee, for Consent to Transfer
    Control of QWEST Communications, Inc.*, File No. ENF-94-006, File
    No. 9413177, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 7790, para. 19
    (1997).

[^66]: ^?^ *See* Mamlet/Sechrest May 6, 1998 *Ex Parte* (attaching
    *Comsat Corporation v. IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., et al.*,
    Civil Action No. AW 98-281, Memorandum Opinion and Order (S.D.M.D.
    Apr. 30, 1998) (dismissing Comsat\'s complaint on the merits),
    *appeal dismissed sub. nom.*, *Comsat v. IDB Mobile Communications,
    Inc., et al.*, No. 98-2525 (4^th^ Cir. May 21, 1999).