**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | File No.                     |
|                                  | *) | SAT-MOD-20031118-00333       |
| **Mobile Satellite Ventures      | ** |                              |
| Subsidiary LLC**                 |    | File No.                     |
|                                  | *  | SAT-AMD-20031118-00332       |
| Application for Minor            | *) |                              |
| Modification of Space Station    | ** | File No.                     |
| License for AMSC-1               |    | SES-MOD-20031118-01879       |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Minor Amendment to Application   | *) |                              |
| for Authority to Launch and      | ** |                              |
| Operate a Next-Generation        |    |                              |
| Replacement MSS Satellite        | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Application for Minor            | ** |                              |
| Modification of Blanket License  |    |                              |
| for Authority to Operate Mobile  | *  |                              |
| Earth Terminals with MSAT-1      | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
|                                  |    |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION**

**Adopted: November 8, 2004 Released: November 8, 2004**

By the Chief, International Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In Number range level0Number range level1Number range level2Number
    range level3Number range level4Number range level5Number range
    level6Number range level7this Order, we grant authority for Mobile
    Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSV"), which provides Mobile
    Satellite Service ("MSS") in the United States via
    geostationary-orbit satellites, to operate Ancillary Terrestrial
    Component ("ATC") facilities providing voice and data communication
    for users equipped with dual-mode MSS-ATC handsets, using L-band
    frequencies for ATC operation that MSV is already authorized to use
    for MSS transmission.[^1] This authorization -- the first ever
    granted for ATC operation -- will enable MSV to offer high-quality,
    affordable mobile services to users inside buildings and in urban
    areas, in addition to providing MSS in rural areas. We also grant
    conditional waivers of several rule provisions pertaining to ATC
    operation to afford MSV flexibility to operate more efficiently
    without causing additional interference.

# Background

## The Commission's ATC Policy and Licensing Procedure

2.  In the *ATC Report and Order* released last year, the Commission
    adopted rules under which MSS operators can obtain authority to
    integrate ATCs into their MSS networks. This would enable the
    operators to provide high-capacity mobile services by re-using
    spectrum already assigned to them.[^2] The Commission concluded that
    implementation of ATC, pursuant to these rules, would increase
    network capacity and efficiency of spectrum use, extend coverage for
    handset operation in places where MSS operators have previously been
    unable to offer reliable service, make possible substantial
    economies of scale, improve emergency communications, and enhance
    competition.[^3]

3.  In the interest of minimizing cost and delay and affording
    flexibility for dynamic, market-driven adjustments, the Commission
    established a "blanket" authorization process for ATC base stations,
    with limited exceptions.[^4] An FCC-licensed MSS operator may
    request blanket authority for operation of ATC base stations in the
    United States by filing an application for modification of its
    space-station license.[^5] Similarly, blanket authority for
    operation of ATC base stations in the United States in connection
    with provision of MSS in the United States via a foreign-licensed
    satellite may be requested in an application for modification of an
    FCC reservation of spectrum or blanket license for U.S. operation of
    mobile earth stations.[^6]

4.  MSV and several other parties filed petitions for reconsideration of
    various aspects of the *ATC Report and Order*. The petitions for
    reconsideration remain pending before the Commission.[^7]

## MSV's MSS Operations 

5.  MSV provides land, maritime, and aeronautical MSS in the United
    States via two geostationary satellites: AMSC-1, located at 101°
    W.L., which was launched in 1995, and MSAT-1, located at 106.5°
    W.L., launched in 1996. MSV operates AMSC-1 pursuant to a
    space-station license issued by the FCC that authorizes use of up to
    20 MHz of internationally-coordinated L-Band spectrum for MSS
    transmission in both directions between AMSC-1 and mobile earth
    stations in the United States.[^8] MSAT-1 is operated by a
    separately-owned company, MSV Canada, under a space-station license
    issued by Industry Canada, the Canadian regulatory agency. MSV
    provides service via MSAT-1 under authority of an FCC blanket
    license for operation of mobile earth stations in the United States
    in L-Band spectrum internationally coordinated by Canada for the
    MSAT-1 system. MSV acquired these authorizations for provision of
    MSS in the United States through assignment with the Commission's
    approval pursuant to a merger of the former licensees.[^9]

6.  MSV has applied for authority to launch and operate a
    next-generation L-Band MSS satellite, "MSV-1", at 101° W.L. which
    would supercede AMSC-1.[^10] The application has been accepted for
    filing and is currently under consideration. As proposed, MSV-1
    would have a larger service-link antenna than AMSC-1 and would
    transmit with higher power, hence reducing the power requirements
    for mobile earth-station terminals accessing the second-generation
    system, which would enable use of smaller, lighter terminals. MSV-1
    would also have more feeder-link spectrum and deploy more spot beams
    than AMSC-1, which would enable greater re-use of service-link
    spectrum. The second-generation satellite would also be designed to
    enable use of different air interface protocols in different
    geographic areas to satisfy varying customer needs and preferences.
    MSV reports that MSV Canada likewise plans to upgrade its MSS system
    and has applied to Industry Canada for authority to launch and
    operate a second-generation L-Band satellite at 107.3° W.L. that
    would supercede MSAT-1.

## ATC Application

7.  On November 18, 2003, MSV filed its current application for ATC
    authority in conjunction with its provision of MSS in United States
    via AMSC-1 and MSAT-1 and via the proposed next-generation
    satellites.[^11] MSV requested waiver of many of the Commission's
    technical rules for L-Band ATC operation, arguing that the
    flexibility afforded by such waivers would permit it to operate more
    efficiently without impairing its own MSS operations or causing
    harmful interference to other MSS systems.[^12] MSV contended that
    grant of the application and the associated waiver requests would
    enable it, for the first time, to offer a ubiquitous, high-quality,
    integrated mobile service throughout the United States.[^13]

8.  At MSV's request, the ATC application proceeding was designated
    "permit but disclose" for purposes of the Commission's *ex parte*
    rules.[^14] MSV filed supplemental information in response to
    inquiries from International Bureau staff and amended the
    application to specify greater suppression of emissions in the
    1606-1610 MHz band.[^15] On February 9, 2004, the Bureau issued a
    public notice announcing that the ATC applications had been found
    acceptable for filing and specifying a schedule for filing comments,
    petitions to deny, and reply pleadings.[^16]

9.  Inmarsat Ventures Limited ("Inmarsat") filed comments in opposition
    to MSV's ATC application.[^17] Inmarsat raised concerns about the
    potential interference that the proposed ATC operation could cause
    to Inmarsat's current and next-generation MSS network. Inmarsat
    argued that the application should be dismissed for failure to
    include showings required by the rules pertaining to the peak power
    of ATC mobile terminals, reservation of link margin for structural
    attenuation inside buildings, and mobile-terminal duty-cycle
    regulation.[^18] Inmarsat also argued that MSV had failed to show
    sufficient justification for its waiver requests and that most of
    the requested waivers would allow MSV to operate in a way that would
    cause harmful interference with Inmarsat's MSS system.[^19]
    Furthermore, Inmarsat contended that MSV's ATC applications, viewed
    as a whole, effectively proposed operation of a primarily
    terrestrial network, contrary to the Commission's stated intention
    that ATC should be ancillary to MSS operation.[^20]

10. The National Telecommunication and Information Administration
    ("NTIA") submitted written comments on the ATC applications,
    expressing concern about the potential impact on satellite
    radionavigation, Aeronautical Mobile Satellite En-Route Service
    ("AMS(R)S"), and the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
    ("GMDSS").[^21] For protection of AMS(R)S and GMDSS, the NTIA
    recommended that MSV's waiver requests pertaining to power limits
    for ATC base stations be granted only in part, subject to
    restrictions on operation in the vicinity of navigable waterways and
    limits on out-of-channel emissions. In addition, the NTIA
    recommended use of a certain measurement technique in compliance
    testing to ensure that out-of-band emissions from MSV's ATC mobile
    terminals will not interfere with reception of satellite
    radionavigation signals in the 1559-1610 MHz band.[^22]

11. Other interested parties filed comments that expressed no opinion on
    the merits of MSV's waiver requests but urged the Commission to
    grant the ATC application or promptly take action on it.[^23]

12. MSV filed comments in which it contended that Inmarsat had advanced
    no valid argument for denying the ATC application or the waiver
    requests, and Inmarsat filed a reply to these rebuttal
    comments.[^24] Both MSV and Inmarsat filed additional written
    comments on a variety of issues that were originally submitted as
    *ex parte* presentations.

13. On August 2, 2004, MSV filed a request for expedited action.[^25]
    MSV acknowledged in this filing that some of the issues raised by
    its waiver requests are closely intertwined with issues raised in
    its petition for reconsideration of the *ATC Report and Order*.
    Nevertheless, MSV asked the Bureau to grant "core elements" of its
    ATC application in advance of the Commission's disposition of the
    petitions for reconsideration in the ATC rulemaking. MSV maintained
    that issuance of such an expedited decision would facilitate early
    deployment of its proposed ATC network. Inmarsat has not filed
    comments in response to this request.

# DISCUSSION

14. In this Order, we grant MSV ATC license authority subject to certain
    limitations and conditions. We also rule on a number of MSV's waiver
    requests, without prejudice to disposition of requests for related
    rule amendments in MSV's petition for reconsideration of the *ATC
    Report and Order*. The Commission may waive its rules "for good
    cause shown."[^26] Good cause for waiver is generally found in cases
    where allowing deviation from a rule requirement would not disserve
    the rule's underlying purpose and would better serve the public
    interest than requiring strict compliance.[^27] We grant waivers, in
    this decision, where we are certain that relaxation of the rule
    restriction will not significantly increase interference or
    otherwise disserve the Commission's policy objectives and will
    promote the public interest by facilitating more-efficient spectrum
    use and enhanced competition. We generally decline, however, to rule
    on the merits of contested waiver requests that turn on resolution
    of issues that are also raised before the Commission in the ATC
    rulemaking proceeding and require a re-balancing of competing
    interests or deviation from an established Commission policy.
    Resolution of such issues is best left to the Commission based on
    the record developed in the rulemaking proceeding.

## A. Foreign Ownership {#a.-foreign-ownership .unnumbered}

15. Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act[^28] provides that no
    common carrier radio-station license shall be granted to a
    corporation controlled by another corporation of which more than
    one-fourth of the capital stock is owned or voted by aliens or by
    any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country, if
    the Commission finds that denial of the license application would
    serve the public interest. MSV requests authority to provide ATC as
    a common carrier. MSV is a U.S. limited liability company that is
    wholly-owned by Mobile Satellite Ventures LP ("MSV LP"), a U.S.
    limited-liability partnership. Thirty-eight percent of MSV LP's
    ownership equity is held by TMI Communications and Company, LP, a
    Canadian limited-liability partnership that, in turn, is wholly
    owned by BCE, Inc., a Canadian corporation.[^29]

16. In 2001, the International Bureau reviewed MSV's foreign ownership
    when considering applications for assignment to MSV of the licenses
    that it now holds for provision of MSS via the AMSC-1 and MSAT-1
    satellites.[^30] The Bureau concluded that the indirect ownership of
    MSV by Canadian companies (namely, TMI and BCE) did not raise any
    material concern about adverse impact on competition in the U.S.
    market but ruled that prior approval would have to be obtained for
    any increase of foreign ownership beyond certain specified
    levels.[^31]

17. As noted, TMI and BCE currently have a thirty-eight percent indirect
    equity share of MSV, which is within the level found permissible in
    the *MSS Assignment Order*. As no application has since been filed
    for permission to increase other foreign ownership interests in MSV,
    we presume that such interests remain within the levels previously
    found permissible. Therefore, in light of the Commission's favorable
    competitive-impact analysis in the *ATC Report and Order*[^32] and
    the Bureau's favorable determination in the *MSS Assignment Order*,
    we conclude pursuant to Section 310(b)(4) that it would not serve
    the public interest to deny MSV's ATC application because of the
    current levels of indirect foreign ownership.[^33]

## B. Non-Technical ATC Requirements {#b.-non-technical-atc-requirements .unnumbered}

18. The Commission's decision to permit implementation of MSS ATC was
    based on the premise that ATC must be "ancillary" to MSS operation.
    To that end, the Commission established "gating" requirements for
    ATC authorization and operation to ensure that ATC will augment,
    rather than supplant, MSS. In order to satisfy the gating
    requirements, which are set forth in Section 25.149 of the
    Commission's rules,[^34] an MSS-ATC licensee must, among other
    things, maintain spare satellites and replace failed satellites
    within a reasonable period of time[^35] and must integrate its
    offering of ATC services with its offering of MSS.[^36] We discuss
    MSV's compliance with these particular gating requirements below.

### Integration with MSS: Dual-Mode Terminals

19. An ATC applicant must demonstrate that it will integrate provision
    of ATC service with provision of MSS, either by certifying that the
    handsets that will be used to access its ATC network will be
    dual-mode devices that can also be used to access its MSS network or
    by submitting other evidence that its ATC service offerings will be
    integrated with its MSS offerings. [^37]

20. MSV asserts that the handsets that will be used to access its ATC
    network will be dual-mode devices that can also be used for MSS
    communication.[^38] The protocols enabling ATC and MSS modes of
    operation will reside in a single baseband chipset in the handsets,
    and a common set of internal amplifiers and a single integral
    antenna will serve both modes. MSV acknowledges, however, that the
    handsets' internal amplifiers and integral antenna will not produce
    enough radiated signal power or afford enough receiver signal/noise
    margin to support communication via the first-generation MSS
    satellites currently operated by MSV and MSV Canada. In order to
    enable customers to use the devices for MSS communication pending
    commencement of operation with its proposed second-generation
    satellite, MSV plans to make available a "link margin booster" that
    can be plugged into the handsets. The booster will consist of a
    circularly-polarized patch antenna with approximately 3 dBi of gain
    coupled with a 3 dBW power amplifier and a rechargeable battery,
    enclosed within a saucer-shaped container approximately 1.5 inches
    high and 3.5 inches in diameter, with a flexible coaxial cable
    several feet long for connection with the handset. When MSV's
    proposed next-generation satellite is placed in service customers
    would be able to use the handsets for MSS communication via the new
    satellite without the booster.[^39]

21. We find that MSV's proposal to deploy dual-mode handsets that will
    initially require use of a plug-in booster for MSS communication is
    a reasonable temporary solution that will enhance economic
    efficiency by making it possible to use the same lightweight handset
    for dual-mode operation with both first- and second-generation
    satellites. We conclude that the proposal is consistent with the
    Commission's integration requirement, provided that: i) handsets
    requiring a plug-in booster for MSS communication are not offered
    for sale without the booster before MSV commences commercial
    operation with a satellite that handset users can access without aid
    of an external booster and ii) MSV does not activate any additional
    handsets requiring a plug-in booster for MSS communication after an
    administratively-final denial of the license application for MSV-1
    or administratively-final cancellation, revocation, or nullification
    of FCC license authority for that proposed satellite. The ATC
    authorization granted by this order is conditioned accordingly.

### Substantial Satellite Service: Ground Spare

22. One of the basic tenets of the Commission's ATC policy is that
    MSS-ATC licensees that offer ATC service must provide "substantial"
    satellite service to the public. This means, among other things,
    that MSS-ATC licensees must repair or replace defective space
    stations within a reasonable period of time.[^40] More specifically,
    Section 25.149(b)(2) of the Commission's rules requires an ATC
    applicant with a geostationary-satellite-orbit MSS system to certify
    that it will have a spare MSS satellite available on the ground
    within one year after commencing ATC operation and that it will
    launch the spare satellite in the first commercially reasonable
    launch window following failure of an operational satellite.[^41]
    The Commission adopted this rule provision to ensure coverage
    continuity in the event of launch failures or satellite
    malfunctions.

23. MSV requests a complete waiver of the ground-spare rule. In support
    of this waiver request, MSV states that it has relied on an
    agreement with MSV Canada that provides for each party's
    first-generation MSS satellite to serve as an in-orbit backup for
    the other's in the event the other satellite malfunctions.[^42] MSV
    asserts that it plans to enter into a similar agreement with MSV
    Canada with respect to second-generation satellites, so that a
    second-generation MSV Canada satellite would afford in-orbit backup
    capacity for MSV's proposed second-generation MSS satellite, and
    *vice versa*. Moreover, MSV asserts that once the first-generation
    satellites have been replaced they will provide additional in-orbit
    backup capacity for the second-generation satellites. MSV contends
    that such in-orbit backup arrangements are better than relying on
    ground spares because it takes much less time to shift traffic to a
    functional satellite that is already in orbit than to launch a
    ground spare, position it, and make it ready for operation.[^43]

24. Viewing MSV's request for waiver of the ground-spare rule in light
    of the waiver criteria described above, we note that MSV has not
    said that it will limit the loading of AMSC-1 or its proposed
    second-generation satellite to the extent necessary to reserve
    sufficient unused capacity for full backup of the current or a
    second-generation MSV Canada satellite. Nor has MSV offered any
    guarantee that MSV Canada will similarly limit the loading of its
    own first-generation or second-generation satellite. Rather, MSV
    merely certifies that, if its own satellite fails, it will preempt
    up to half of the capacity of MSV Canada's satellite and transfer up
    to half of the traffic formerly handled by the failed
    satellite.[^44] Further, neither MSAT-1 nor AMSC-1, nor both
    together, would fully suffice to back up the proposed
    second-generation MSV satellite. The first-generation satellites are
    incapable of relaying transmissions to or from handsets operated
    without boosters. According to MSV's business plan, handset
    communications would comprise a substantial portion of the traffic
    burden handled by its second-generation satellite. Thus, there would
    be no suitable in-orbit backup for MSV's second-generation satellite
    before MSV Canada places a second-generation MSS satellite of its
    own into service -- and we have no way of knowing at this point when
    (if ever) that will occur. Therefore, we are not convinced that the
    proposed in-orbit back-up arrangements would fully serve the purpose
    for which the Commission adopted the ground-spare rule. Hence, we
    cannot conclude that the requested waiver to relieve MSV from any
    obligation to maintain a ground spare can be granted without
    undermining the purpose of the rule. We therefore deny the request
    for complete waiver of the ground-spare requirement.

25. At the same time, we do not believe that it would serve the public
    interest to force MSV to delay implementation of ATC to avoid
    violating the one-year rule in Section 25.149(b)(2) if it acquires a
    suitable ground spare as soon as reasonably possible. We do not
    think that it would be reasonable to expect or require MSV to
    construct a duplicate of its aging first-generation satellite for
    this purpose. It may well be infeasible[^45] and would, in any
    event, be economically wasteful, for MSV to construct a spare
    satellite replicating the obsolete design of AMSC-1, which would not
    afford a suitable backup capability for MSV's planned
    second-generation MSS system. We assume, though, that parallel
    construction of a duplicate of MSV's second-generation satellite for
    use as a ground spare could be completed within six months after
    launch of the second-generation satellite.[^46] Therefore, in the
    event that MSV completes preparations for commencing commercial ATC
    operation sooner than six months prior to the milestone deadline for
    launching its second-generation MSS satellite, we would entertain a
    request for a limited waiver extending the one-year deadline for
    obtaining a ground spare, supported by evidence that a suitable
    spare satellite is under construction with a scheduled delivery date
    no later than six months after the launch deadline.[^47]

### Other Non-Technical Requirements 

26. Section 25.149 establishes other gating requirements pertaining to
    service coverage and spectrum use. For example, a licensee's L-Band
    ATC operations must be limited to the frequency assignments
    authorized and internationally coordinated for its L-Band MSS
    system, and an ATC licensee may not provide ATC service outside the
    geographic coverage area of its MSS network.[^48] Also, an L-Band
    ATC applicant must show that it can provide full-time MSS in all
    fifty states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands except to the
    extent such coverage is impossible from its the assigned orbital
    position(s) of its satellite(s).[^49] Section 25.149 also provides
    that ATC mobile terminals must be type-certified and meet
    radio-frequency radiation exposure limits and requires ATC base
    stations to meet previously-adopted rules pertaining to antenna
    construction, environmental impact, and protection of
    radio-astronomy observation.[^50] No question has been raised
    pertaining to MSV's showing in these respects, which we find to be
    sufficient.

## C. Technical Requirements for ATC Operation {#c.-technical-requirements-for-atc-operation .unnumbered}

27. The Commission adopted band-specific technical rules to ensure that
    ATC operation will not cause harmful interference. The technical
    requirements pertaining to L-Band ATC operation are set forth in
    Section 25.253 of the Commission's rules. The Commission derived the
    requirements in Section 25.253 from analysis of the potential for
    interference with operation of an ATC licensee's own MSS system and
    operation of other L-Band MSS systems, particularly Inmarsat's, and
    the potential for interference with radio-astronomy observation and
    satellite radionavigation in adjacent frequency bands.[^51]

### Link Margin for Structural Attenuation

28. Section 25.253(a)(8) requires an applicant for L-Band ATC
    authorization to demonstrate that its ATC network will reserve a
    minimum of 18 dB of link margin for overcoming structural
    attenuation between base stations and mobile terminals when the
    terminals are operated inside buildings.[^52] Alternatively, Section
    25.253(a)(8) states that, if less than 18 dB of link margin is
    reserved for overcoming structural attenuation, the number of U.S.
    base stations operating on any channel must be reduced to offset the
    potential interference impact, or a showing must be made that the
    reservation of less link margin would not result in increased
    interference to other MSS systems.

29. MSV has submitted an ATC network link budget that shows an 18 dB
    structural attenuation margin.[^53] MSV represents that the link
    budget takes into account the radius within which mobile terminals
    can communicate with a base station with a specified statistical
    reliability, subject to specified propagation impairments including
    structural attenuation that may result in up to 18 dB of signal
    loss. MSV asserts that when a mobile terminal's line-of-sight
    propagation path to a base station is unobstructed, its signal power
    will be reduced by a closed-loop power-control algorithm,
    implemented in the base station and mobile terminal, to an average
    level 18 dB lower than its maximum power.[^54] MSV further asserts
    that an active mobile terminal moving from one base station's
    service area to another's will likewise operate with its signal
    level reduced by 18 dB when its transmissions are unimpaired by
    structural attenuation.[^55]

30. MSV describes methods for configuring base stations at the periphery
    of an ATC service area to control the power of mobile terminals
    operating near the edge of the service area. To this end, MSV says
    that it will disable the transmitters of base station sectors facing
    away from the ATC service footprint, thus configuring them as
    receive-only sectors. A user terminal moving away from the ATC
    service footprint could transmit to a base station via the main
    reception lobe of such a receive-only sector, while receiving
    transmissions from the side lobes of one of the base station's
    transmit-enabled sectors. In this situation, MSV maintains, the
    forward link from the base station to the user terminal will be much
    weaker than the return link from the mobile terminal. Consequently,
    the communication will terminate due to forward-link breakage well
    before the terminal reaches a distance from the base station that
    would require it to radiate at maximum power. MSV asserts that an
    antenna front-to-back ratio of 26 dB resulting in a forward link
    disadvantage of approximately 25 dB is effectively mandated by the
    Commission's rules. The base station service radius in the direction
    of a receive-only sector would therefore shrink to less than
    two-tenths of the normal radius. Therefore, according to MSV, a user
    terminal that is within a receive-only sector and is not affected by
    structural attenuation would radiate at power levels at least 25 dB
    below the levels that it would generate if it were operating at the
    edge of a normally-engineered sector.[^56]

31. Inmarsat maintains that Section 25.253(a)(8) required MSV to
    demonstrate that the peak EIRP of any ATC mobile terminals will not
    exceed -18 dBW when the terminal is operated outdoors or demonstrate
    that equivalent measures will be taken to limit uplink interference
    to Inmarsat from ATC mobile-terminal operation.[^57] Inmarsat
    contends that MSV has not demonstrated that its ATC mobile terminals
    generate no more than -18 dBW EIRP when operating outdoors. To the
    contrary, according to Inmarsat, MSV indicates that its mobile
    terminals *will* sometimes transmit at EIRP levels higher than -18
    dBW while operating outdoors. Inmarsat contends that MSV implies
    this by saying that, if necessary, it will show that uplink
    interference will be reduced to an equivalent extent by reducing the
    number of base stations or by some other alternative means.[^58]
    Inmarsat maintains that MSV should have explained in the application
    where and to what extent its network will allow mobile terminals
    operating outdoors to radiate more than -18 dBW EIRP and to what
    extent it would reduce the number of base stations or how such a
    reduction would be calculated.[^59] For these reasons, Inmarsat
    argues that MSV's showing fails to comply with Section 25.253(a)(8).

32. We do not agree that Section 25.253(a)(8) requires an applicant to
    demonstrate that the EIRP generated by mobile terminals will never
    exceed -18 dBW when they are operated outdoors. Rather, the
    Commission indicated in the *ATC Report and Order* that the
    underlying intention was to bar licensees from extending a base
    station's coverage area to such an extent that a mobile terminal at
    the edge of the area would have to transmit at EIRP higher than -18
    dBW merely to overcome free-space path loss.[^60] MSV has explained
    how it intends to meet this requirement.

33. Nor do we agree with Inmarsat that MSV is presently proposing to
    allocate less than 18 dB for structural attenuation in some areas.
    Rather, MSV merely said it would provide the alternative showing
    required by Section 25.253(a)(8), if necessary, to justify any
    base-station arrangement that would not comport with the proposed
    allocation of 18 dB for indoor structural attenuation. To require
    MSV to specify in its initial application precisely where and to
    what extent such deviation will occur would be unreasonable. We
    recognize that it would be very difficult to ascertain now whether
    18 dB can be reserved for structural attenuation in all cases, and,
    if not, where and to what extent deviation will be necessary. This
    Order does not grant authority for any base station arrangement that
    would allocate less than 18 dB of link margin for structural
    attenuation. To obtain authority for any such deviation from the 18
    dB link-margin requirement, MSV would have to specifically describe
    and identify the proposed deviations and demonstrate with technical
    analysis that equivalent interference suppression will be achieved
    by reducing the total number of base stations or by some other
    means. We find, however, that the pertinent information in MSV's
    application and its submission of a link budget allocating 18 dB for
    structural attenuation is a sufficient initial showing for purposes
    of Section 25.253(a)(8).

### Protection for Radionavigation Satellite Service

34. The Commission decided in the *ATC Report and Order* that, in order
    to minimize interference with reception of Radionavigation Satellite
    Service ("RNSS") signals, ATC mobile terminals and base stations
    should operate in compliance with the limits on emissions in the
    1559-1610 MHz band that the Commission had previously prescribed for
    mobile earth stations in the *GMPCS* rulemaking, which are set forth
    in Section 25.216.[^61] Accordingly, Section 25.253(a)(6) requires
    an L-Band ATC applicant to show that its base stations and mobile
    terminals accessing its ATC network will operate in compliance with
    "the ... GMPCS system requirements to protect ... RNSS operations in
    the allocation above 1559 MHz." In other words, the applicant must
    show that ATC base stations and mobile terminals will operate within
    the emission limits for L-Band mobile earth stations, which are set
    forth in Section 25.216. Although this provision in 25.253(a)(6)
    would have sufficed to accomplish the stated intention of
    establishing equivalent RNSS-protection requirements for ATC
    transmitters, the Commission also adopted provisions in Paragraphs
    (d)(7) and (g)(3) of Section 25.253 that require applicants to show
    that emissions will not exceed certain EIRP limits in the 1559-1610
    MHz RNSS band.[^62]

35. In its ATC application, as amended, MSV certifies that the EIRP
    density of emissions in the 1559-1605 MHz band from mobile terminals
    that access its ATC network will not exceed ‑90 dBW/MHz, that the
    EIRP of discrete emissions from the mobile terminals of less than
    700 Hz bandwidth will not exceed ‑100 dBW in that band, that the
    EIRP density of the mobile terminals' emissions will not exceed ‑66
    dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz, and that the EIRP of their discrete emissions
    of less than 700 Hz bandwidth will not exceed ‑76 dBW at 1610 MHz.
    Further, MSV certifies that mobile terminals placed in service five
    years or more after it commences ATC operation will suppress
    emissions to an even greater extent in the 1605-1610 MHz band.[^63]
    MSV also certifies that the EIRP density of emissions from its ATC
    base stations will not exceed -100 dBW/MHz anywhere in the 1559-1610
    MHz RNSS band and that the EIRP of discrete ATC base-station
    emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth will not exceed ‑110 dBW in
    that band.[^64] MSV certifies that it will use two-millisecond
    measurement intervals when testing transmitter performance to ensure
    compliance with the RNSS emission limits specified in its
    application.[^65]

36. Because MSV's emission specifications are more strict than necessary
    for compliance with the applicable RNSS-band emission limits in the
    Commission's rules, its showing satisfies the requirements of
    Paragraphs (a)(6), (d)(7), and (g)(3) of Section 25.253. The terms
    of the authorization we grant here require test data to be submitted
    in equipment-authorization applications to demonstrate compliance
    with the stricter specifications.

###  Priority and Preemptive Access: GSM Operation

37. Section 25.253(a)(5) requires an applicant for L-Band ATC authority
    to explain how it would afford priority and preemptive access for
    aeronautical mobile-satellite en-route service ("AMS(R)S") and
    global maritime distress and safety system ("GMDSS) communications,
    as required by Footnotes US308 and US315 to the Table of Frequency
    Allocations in Section 2.106 of the Commission's rules. MSV explains
    in detail how its ATC system would meet these requirements through
    use of inherent features of GSM operation.[^66] The Commission has
    previously determined that an identical proposal for implementing
    priority and preemptive access for GSM-protocol ATC operation that
    MSV filed in the ATC rulemaking was consistent with the requirements
    of Footnotes US308 and US315.[^67] Accordingly, we conclude that
    MSV's reiteration of that proposal in its current ATC application
    satisfies the requirement of Section 25.253(a)(5) insofar as it
    pertains to GSM operation.

### Vocoder Rates

38. A vocoder is a device that encodes digitized speech signals into a
    compressed digital data stream and decodes the compressed data
    stream back into digitized speech signals. On the encoding side, the
    vocoder is preceded by a microphone and analog-to-digital converter
    for converting sound waves to digitized speech signals. On the
    decoding side, the vocoder is followed by a digital-to-analog
    converter, amplifier, and earphone or loudspeaker for converting the
    digitized speech signals back to sound waves.

39. A GSM channel is divided in the time domain into a series of
    consecutive frames of specified uniform duration, each of which is
    sub-divided into eight time-slots. A GSM mobile terminal must
    operate at a full-rate duty cycle -- that is, it must transmit a
    "burst" in one assigned time-slot in every frame -- in order to
    transmit data at the standard GSM vocoder data-output rate of 13
    kbps. A GSM terminal can operate at a half-rate duty cycle, however,
    if the vocoder data-output rate is sufficiently reduced. When
    operating in half-rate duty-cycle mode, a GSM terminal will transmit
    one burst in every two frames, skipping every other frame.
    Frame-skipping reduces the time-averaged EIRP of the terminal's
    transmissions.[^68]

40. Section 25.253(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, adopted in the *ATC
    Report and Order*, requires the duty cycle of an ATC mobile terminal
    using a standard GSM protocol to be reduced to half-rate and the
    vocoder output rate to be reduced accordingly when the terminal's
    amplifier output power exceeds -7.4 dBW and requires further
    vocoder-rate/duty-cycle reductions at amplifier power levels above
    -4.4 dBW. The Commission estimated that such vocoder/duty-cycle
    regulation would reduce the effective (*i.e.*, time-averaged) EIRP
    of active mobile terminals by 3.5 dB, on average, assuming a typical
    user distribution.[^69]

41. MSV requests a waiver to allow use of a different
    vocoder-rate/duty-cyle schedule than the one prescribed in Section
    25.253(a)(2). Instead of shifting to half-rate duty cycle and
    vocoder operation when amplifier output power exceeds -7.4 dBW and
    to quarter-rate or less when the power exceeds -4.4 dBW, as the rule
    requires, MSV mobile terminals using a GSM protocol would shift to
    half-rate duty cycle and reduce the vocoder rate (from 13 kbps to
    4.75 kbps) only when amplifier output power rises above -3.5 dBW and
    would not reduce either the duty cycle or the vocoder rate to any
    further extent at higher amplifier-output levels. The shift to
    half-rate duty cycle will reduce effective peak EIRP by 3 dB. MSV
    maintains that the concurrent reduction of the vocoder data
    transmission rate will further reduce the effective peak EIRP by
    another 0.5 dB, for a total reduction of 3.5 dB.[^70] MSV requests
    waiver of Section 25.253(a)(2) as necessary to permit operation in
    this manner.[^71]

42. Inmarsat contends that the vocoder-rate/duty-cycle schedule proposed
    in MSV's application would not reduce effective mobile-terminal EIRP
    to the same extent as the schedule prescribed in Section
    25.253(a)(2). On the contrary, Inmarsat maintains that, with the
    user distribution assumed in the Commission's analysis, MSV's
    proposed vocoder-rate/duty-cycle operation would yield an average
    power reduction of only 0.97-1.87 dB, rather than the 3.5 dB average
    reduction that would result from adherence to the rule.[^72] MSV
    replies that its proposed regulation of the vocoder data rate and
    the GSM duty cycle will ensure that each mobile terminal's effective
    EIRP will never exceed -3.5 dBW. MSV stresses that this effective
    maximum power level is 3.5 dB below the peak EIRP permitted by
    Section 25.253(g)(1), and contends that this will suffice to meet
    the Commission's objective of limiting uplink interference.[^73]
    According to MSV, user distribution -- the percentage of active
    terminals transmitting at the full vocoder rate and duty cycle and
    the percentage(s) transmitting with reduced vocoder rates and duty
    cycles -- is irrelevant to uplink interference analysis.[^74]

43. MSV has not persuaded us that a further 0.5 dB power reduction would
    result from reducing the data transmission rate, in addition to the
    3 dB reduction from half-rate duty cycle operation. MSV bases the
    assertion that an additional 0.5 dB reduction will be achieved on an
    implicit assumption that forward error correction will remain
    constant when the data transmission rate changes. MSV has provided
    no support for that assumption, however. We agree with Inmarsat that
    MSV's proposal to switch to half-rate vocoder operation at amplifier
    output levels above -3.5 dBW would not reduce the *average*
    effective EIRP of active GSM mobile terminals to the same extent as
    vocoder-rate regulation in conformance with the schedule in Section
    25.253(a)(2). Assuming a 3 dB reduction in the effective EIRP of
    mobile terminals with amplifier output above --3.5 dBW, the
    variable-rate vocoder operation that MSV proposes would achieve only
    a 0.97 dB overall-average reduction in the effective EIRP of active
    mobile terminals, rather than the 3.5 dB average reduction estimated
    in the *ATC Report and Order*.[^75] We nevertheless grant MSV's
    request for waiver of section 25.253(a)(2) to permit use of the
    vocoder/duty-cycle schedule described in its application, because,
    as explained below, the deficit in average-EIRP reduction due to
    MSV's proposed vocoder/duty-cycle operation is more than offset by
    its demonstration that its mobile terminals' average antenna gain in
    the direction of co-channel satellites will be 4 dB lower than the
    Commission assumed in its uplink interference analysis.[^76]

### Channel Re-use Limit

44. Section 25.253(c), adopted in the *ATC Report and Order*, states
    that no more than 1725 ATC base stations may operate in the U.S. on
    any one 200 kHz L-Band channel. This rule effectively limits the
    number of mobile terminals that can simultaneously communicate on
    one GSM channel through U.S. base stations to 1725. The Commission
    imposed this restriction for two reasons: to limit self-interference
    with the operation of MSV's own satellite system and to prevent
    harmful interference with the operation of other L-Band MSS systems.
    The Commission said, however, that it would entertain requests to
    deploy more than 1725 base stations in the U.S. based on a showing
    that there would be no consequent increase in interference either to
    MSV's own MSS system or to other MSS systems.[^77]

45. MSV argues that Section 25.253(c) should be waived to allow it to
    operate substantially more than 1725 base stations per channel in
    the U.S., based on the following contentions: (i) the channel re-use
    limit should be recalculated to allow MSV's ATC network to increase
    the noise received by Inmarsat's satellites by as much as 6%; (ii)
    the limit should be adjusted upward to an additional extent because
    MSV will deploy only 20% as many base stations outside of the U.S.
    as it deploys within the U.S.; (iii) the limit should be further
    increased because the spatially-averaged antenna gain of MSV mobile
    terminals, when operating in ATC mode, will not exceed -4 dBi;
    and (iv) it is not necessary to impose the channel re-use limit to
    minimize self-interference because MSV will accomplish that
    objective through use of an interference-cancellation technique.
    Additionally, MSV argues that there should be no limit on re-use of
    channels that are not used by satellites visible in North America
    (aside from those licensed to MSV and MSV Canada). We address each
    of these contentions in turn.

46. ***[Intersystem Interference Allowance]{.underline}*** The
    Commission determined that limiting the number of active U.S. base
    stations to 1725 per channel would ensure that MSV's ATC operation
    would raise the noise floor of current Inmarsat satellites by no
    more than 0.1% and that of next-generation Inmarsat‑4 satellites by
    no more than 1.4% (0.7% from MSV operations within the US and no
    more than 0.7% from non-US operations), which the Commission deemed
    to be acceptable*.*[^78] MSV argues that the 1.4% intersystem
    interference allowance reflected in the
    1725-base-stations-per-channel limit is overly strict.[^79]
    According to MSV, it would suffice to limit intersystem uplink
    interference from its ATC operation to 6% ΔT/T, which would reduce
    the link margin for co-channel Inmarsat-4 receivers by only 0.25
    dB.[^80] MSV also contends that a 6% ΔT/T interference allowance
    would be more consistent with the common practice, acknowledged in
    the *ATC Report and Order*, of designating 6% ΔT/T as a threshold
    for international satellite coordination.[^81] For these reasons,
    MSV requests a waiver that would allow an amount of channel re-use
    that would result in up to 6% increased noise into the Inmarsat-4
    satellites (which would effectively increase the channel re-use
    limit for MSV's system by a factor of 4.3). Inmarsat opposes this
    request, arguing that such a waiver would allow MSV to increase the
    noise floor of Inmarsat's satellites to an unacceptable extent and
    would effectively confer co-primary status on a non-conforming use
    of the band, contrary to an ITU regulation.[^82]

47. In its pending petition for reconsideration of the ATC Report and
    Order, MSV similarly urges the Commission to amend Section 25.253(c)
    to adjust the limit on the number of U.S. base stations per channel
    upward to a level that would allow up to up to 6% ΔT/T intersystem
    uplink interference impact. MSV's argument for amending Section
    25.253(c), which would potentially increase interference into other
    MSS systems, is essentially the same as the argument in its ATC
    application for granting equivalent relief through waiver.

48. The Commission prescribed limits on the number of ATC base stations
    in order to limit MSV's self-interference to 6% ΔT/T (or 0.25 dB), a
    level that MSV indicated it would adhere to in its system design,
    and also to limit interference to Inmarsat to 1.4% ΔT/T.[^83] The
    Commission did not determine how much interference to Inmarsat would
    be the maximum acceptable. It concluded, however, that operation in
    accordance with the rules adopted, which were consistent with MSV's
    original proposal, would not hinder Inmarsat's operations. The
    Commission said in the *ATC Report and Order* that its adoption of
    rules to prevent harmful interference was not intended to preclude
    acceptance of less-restrictive limitations based on negotiated
    agreements between L-Band MSS operators. In fact, the Commission
    explicitly encouraged L-Band MSS operators to engage in private
    negotiations to resolve interference concerns and stated that it
    would consider waiver requests of these rules based on such
    agreements.[^84]

49. In view of the fact that essentially the same issue is before the
    Commission in the rulemaking proceeding and the Commission intended
    to allow parties to negotiate technical solutions to interference
    issues, where possible, we will defer consideration of MSV's waiver
    request in this regard pending the Commission's resolution of the
    corresponding issue in MSV's petition for reconsideration. Should
    the parties reach a negotiated agreement on this issue, the
    Commission, at that time, will consider such agreement to determine
    what further action, if any, would be necessary.[^85]

50. ***[Base Station Distribution]{.underline}*** The Commission's
    estimate of the amount of uplink interference that Inmarsat would
    receive from ATC operation in L-Band spectrum assigned to MSV was
    based on an assumption that no more than 1725 base ATC stations
    would simultaneously operate on a single MSV-ATC channel in
    locations *outside* the United States.[^86] MSV asserts in its
    application, however, that only 20% of its network's base stations
    will be deployed outside the U.S. Hence, MSV maintains that it could
    operate 1.6 times as many co-channel base stations in the United
    States as Section 25.253(c) currently permits -- 2760 instead of
    1725 -- without increasing system-wide uplink interference beyond
    the level contemplated in the *ATC Report and Order*. MSV therefore
    requests a waiver that would increase the permissible number of
    co-channel U.S. base stations by a factor of 1.6.[^87] As with the
    request for increased channel re-use predicated on a 6% ΔT/T
    intersystem interference allowance, this waiver request mirrors a
    request for equivalent relief through rule amendment in MSV's
    petition for reconsideration of the *ATC Report and Order*. In
    opposition, Inmarsat argues that the Commission should place no
    reliance on MSV's assurance concerning the number of base stations
    that will be deployed outside the U.S. because the Commission has no
    authority to enforce a limit on base-station deployment in foreign
    countries.[^88]

51. This waiver request presents a verification issue that we cannot
    resolve based on the information currently before us. The waiver
    request presupposes that the Commission will be able to ascertain
    how many ATC base stations are operating outside the United States
    in spectrum assigned to MSV under the Mexico City MOU. It is not
    clear, however, that the rules under which ATC will be implemented
    outside the United States will ensure that MSV will know how many
    ATC base stations are operating outside the United States on
    particular frequency bands within its assigned L-Band spectrum.
    Because it is unclear from the information before us whether MSV
    would know how many such foreign base stations are in operation, it
    is equally unclear whether the Commission could verify the accuracy
    of MSV's assurance that no more than 20% of all ATC base stations
    operating in its assigned MSS spectrum will be located outside the
    United States. We therefore deny this waiver request without
    prejudice to the Commission's consideration of this issue as raised
    in MSV's pending petition for reconsideration of the *ATC Report and
    Order.*

52. ***[Mobile Terminal Antenna Gain]{.underline}*** The Commission
    assumed for purposes of the interference analysis from which it
    derived the channel re-use limit that an L-Band ATC handset would
    not radiate EIRP of more than 0 dBW in the direction of an Inmarsat
    satellite, which necessarily implies that it could radiate no more
    than 0 dBW in any direction, since the orientation of a handset's
    antenna relative to an Inmarsat satellite will not be fixed.[^89]
    Accordingly, the Commission adopted a rule provision, Section
    25.253(g)(1), that states that an applicant for L-Band ATC authority
    must demonstrate that peak mobile-terminal EIRP will not exceed 0
    dBW. MSV contends in its application, however, that the potential
    interference impact from operation of mobile-terminal handsets
    accessing its ATC network should be assessed on the basis of their
    "spatially-averaged" antenna gain and EIRP in the direction of
    co-channel satellites, taking into account all possible handset
    orientations relative to a satellite's position. MSV maintains that
    this is the most appropriate method for gauging interference impact
    because the directional gain of the cellular/PCS-type antennas that
    will be incorporated in its dual-mode handsets is highly irregular
    and because a large number of handsets with diverse orientations
    will contribute to the aggregate interference impact on satellite
    uplink reception.[^90] Based on an included analysis with measured
    antenna-gain data obtained from an equipment manufacturer, MSV
    certifies that its ATC terminals' spatially-averaged antenna gain
    will not exceed -4 dBi toward any co-channel satellite (including
    MSV's own satellite) and consequently that the spatially-averaged
    EIRP toward any such satellite from mobile terminals operating at
    full power will not exceed -4 dBW.[^91] Hence MSV contends that the
    aggregate interference impact from operation of a given number of
    its ATC mobile terminals will be 250% less than the Commission
    assumed when calculating the channel re-use limit. MSV therefore
    requests a waiver of Section 25.253(c) that would allow it to
    increase the number of co-channel U.S. base stations by a factor of
    2.5 (in addition to the requested increases predicated on a 6% ΔT/T
    interference allowance and 80% domestic base-station
    deployment).[^92]

53. Inmarsat argues that MSV's showing regarding spatially-averaged
    mobile-terminal antenna gain does not justify a waiver because MSV
    is not proposing any change from the mobile-terminal design
    specifications in its original ATC application, which the Commission
    took into account when calculating the channel re-use limit.[^93]
    Inmarsat also questions the validity of diagrams in MSV's
    application that plot the gain of an external stubby antenna in two
    elevation planes, asserting that the plots suggest extremely high
    isolation values that are unlikely to be realized in practice.[^94]
    Furthermore, Inmarsat argues that MSV's application should be
    dismissed for failure to demonstrate that the peak EIRP of each ATC
    mobile terminal will be limited to 0 dBW, as required by Section
    25.253(g)(1).[^95] Inmarsat asserts in this regard that the antenna
    gain patterns included in MSV's application indicate that an MSV
    mobile terminal would generate an EIRP of up to +2 dBW in the
    direction of maximum antenna gain.

54. The NTIA agrees that spatial averaging should be used when
    estimating uplink interference from mobile-terminal operation but
    argues that no increase in channel re-use is warranted to correct
    for this because the Commission erred in the other direction by
    adjusting for estimated average reduction in effective
    mobile-terminal EIRP due to vocoder-rate/duty-cycle regulation.[^96]
    We find no merit in this contention, which is based on the incorrect
    premise that the Commission's uplink interference analysis assumes
    that all active mobile terminals will be transmitting with EIRP
    reduced by 20 dB through power control. Rather, the Commission
    estimated that the effective radiated power *that would be seen by
    satellites* would be reduced, on average, by 20 dB by the combined
    effect of power control and structural attenuation of transmissions
    from mobile terminals operating inside buildings and motor
    vehicles.[^97] Vocoder-rate/duty-cycle regulation would reduce the
    average effective radiated power to an additional extent, as the
    Commission acknowledged.

55. We agree with MSV that using spatial averaging to estimate the
    aggregate interference impact of mobile-terminal operation is
    appropriate, for the reasons that MSV has stated. We therefore
    agree, as well, that MSV's certification that the spatially-averaged
    EIRP of mobile terminals operating at full power will not exceed -4
    dBW in the direction of co-channel satellites, supported by the data
    and analysis in Appendix H of its application and MSV's commitment
    to provide verifying prototype test data, has a material bearing on
    the extent to which base-station channel re-use must be limited in
    order to achieve the Commission's objectives of limiting uplink
    interference into second-generation MSV and Inmarsat satellites to
    6% and 1.4% ΔT/T, respectively. As demonstrated and guaranteed, the
    maximum spatially-averaged EIRP of MSV's mobile terminals will be at
    least 4 dB less than the maximum EIRP in the direction of co-channel
    satellites that the Commission assumed when calculating the channel
    re-use limit. After adjusting for the previously-noted differential
    between average power reduction that would result from MSV's
    proposed vocoder/duty-cycle operation and the average reduction that
    would result from operation in strict compliance with Section
    25.253(a)(2), there is still a net power reduction of 1.47 dB more
    than the Commission assumed. This warrants a 40% increase in channel
    re-use. We therefore grant a partial waiver to allow MSV to
    simultaneously operate up to 2415 co-frequency ATC base stations in
    the United States. To provide an adequate transition, however, MSV
    shall not operate more than 1208 base stations on the same channel
    during the first eighteen months following activation for testing of
    the first ATC base station.[^98]

56. We do not agree with Inmarsat that MSV's ATC application should be
    dismissed for failure to demonstrate that mobile-terminal EIRP will
    not exceed 0 dBW in the direction of maximum gain. As explained
    above, MSV has provided a well-supported showing that its mobile
    terminals' spatially-averaged EIRP in any relevant direction --
    *i.e.*, in the direction of any L-Band satellite -- will be limited
    to levels substantially below 0 dBW. This showing fully satisfies
    the underlying purpose of the demonstration requirement in Section
    25.253(g)(1). For this reason, we conclude that MSV's application is
    not materially incomplete due to the absence of a showing regarding
    peak EIRP in the direction of maximum gain. Dismissal -- which would
    simply delay resolution of important licensing issues by forcing MSV
    to re-file subject to another public-notice cycle -- is therefore
    unwarranted.

57. ***[Self Interference]{.underline}*** As noted previously, the
    Commission adopted the channel re-use limit not only to protect
    other satellite systems from harmful interference but also to limit
    interference into MSV's own MSS satellite to 0.25 dB.[^99] MSV
    asserts that it will employ an adaptive interference cancellation
    technique that will limit self-interference to 0.25 dB or less, even
    if its ATC network operates with a much-higher channel re-use factor
    than Section 25.253(c) specifies.[^100] Simply described, MSV is
    proposing to use signal processors in its gateway stations to cancel
    the portion of each MSS downlink signal that has leaked from
    adjacent beam coverage areas, which would include any interference
    from ATC mobile terminals. MSV contends that its use of this
    technique to cancel self-interference obviates any reason for
    concern that waiving the channel re-use limit to the full extent
    requested would result in a higher level of self-interference than
    the Commission deemed acceptable in the *ATC Report and
    Order*.[^101]

58. Inmarsat contends that MSV's plan to use adaptive interference
    cancellation is impractical. Inmarsat asserts that in order to
    implement the plan with its next-generation MSS system, MSV would
    have to increase the number of channels in its next-generation
    satellite by a factor of seven and would need seven times as much
    feeder-link spectrum. The impact to MSV's current MSS system would
    be even worse, according to Inmarsat, because MSV would have to
    reserve all but one-seventh of its current satellite's capacity for
    interference monitoring. Inmarsat stresses, moreover, that MSV's use
    of adaptive interference cancellation would not protect Inmarsat
    from interference.[^102]

59. In reply, MSV denies that implementation of the interference
    cancellation technique will entail any reduction of its MSS traffic
    capacity, assignment of additional spectrum, or substantial
    additional cost.[^103] MSV asserts that it will increase re-use of
    feeder-link spectrum as needed for interference monitoring by
    deploying additional gateway earth stations for its
    second-generation MSS system, rather than requesting additional
    bandwidth for this purpose. The interference cancellation processors
    will be embedded in the baseband portion of the gateway receivers
    and will be small and inexpensive, according to MSV. MSV also denies
    that there will be any adverse impact on first-generation MSS
    operation. To the contrary, MSV states that it does not intend to
    implement interference cancellation for its first-generation MSS
    system, which is relatively insensitive to interference due to the
    low receive-antenna gain of the first-generation satellites.

60. Nothing in the Commission's rules precludes MSV from implementing
    adaptive interference cancellation in its MSS-ATC network, although
    the technology is new and the degree of effectiveness remains to be
    seen. As Inmarsat points out, even if the use of interference
    cancellation eliminates all of the interference from MSV's ATC
    operation into its own satellite network, it will not reduce
    interference to Inmarsat. We need not determine in this order how
    effective the technique will prove to be, however, because the
    authorization we are granting here does not allow MSV to operate in
    a way that would generate more uplink interference than the
    Commission deemed acceptable in the *ATC Report and Order*.[^104]

61. ***[Non-Co-Channel Frequencies]{.underline}*** MSV asks the
    Commission for a further waiver of Section 25.253(c) to permit
    unlimited re-use of "non-co-channel" frequencies -- *i.e.*, uplink
    frequencies assigned to MSV pursuant to the Mexico City MOU that are
    not received by any other satellite with an above-horizon line of
    sight to any point in North America where MSV could provide ATC
    service.[^105] Inmarsat asserts that this request should be denied
    because the Commission considered and rejected a similar request
    from MSV in the ATC rulemaking.[^106] The NTIA states that it has no
    objection to MSV's request for waiver of the re-use limit in this
    respect, however, except that MSV should not be excused from
    complying with applicable rule restrictions when using frequencies
    that are currently "non-co-channel" in the event of their subsequent
    use by a satellite visible in North America in conformance with
    international coordination requirements.[^107]

62. As Inmarsat correctly points out, the Commission did, in fact,
    consider a similar contention from MSV in the context of the ATC
    rulemaking; specifically, MSV contended that there was no need to
    restrict use of L-Band frequencies for ATC that are not shared with
    another MSS system.[^108] The Commission declined to exempt
    non-shared frequencies from the channel re-use limit, however,
    because it could not reconcile creation of such an exception with
    the objective of limiting self-interference to 0.25 dB.[^109]
    Moreover, the Commission declined "to adopt rules that would relax
    interference protections to other MSS licensees based on MSV's
    assumption that the number of co- and adjacent-channel operations in
    the L Band is limited" because it was unclear how those channels
    would be assigned in the future, due to the dynamic nature of
    frequency assignment under the Mexico City MOU.[^110] To be sure,
    the Commission clearly implied that waiver of the channel re-use
    limit could be obtained based on a convincing showing that increased
    interference would not result, but MSV has not made such a showing
    to support its request for a waiver allowing unlimited re-use of
    "non-co-channel" frequencies. MSV has not demonstrated, to date,
    that self-interference with its own MSS uplink reception of such
    "non-co-channel" frequencies would not exceed 0.25 dB if there were
    no limit on re-use of those frequencies for ATC. Nor has MSV
    addressed the extent to which its unlimited re-use of non-co-channel
    frequencies for ATC would increase interference in adjacent channels
    used by other MSS systems.

63. Moreover, MSV has not clearly identified which, if any, of its
    assigned MSS uplink frequencies will be non-co-channel, in the sense
    defined in its application, when it commences ATC operation. MSV did
    not consider prospective satellites for which an Advanced
    Publication Information has been filed with the ITU that has not yet
    been followed by a request for coordination. Several new
    coordination special sections have been published recently by the
    ITU, however, leading us to believe that additional requests for
    coordination may be forthcoming. MSV also ignored prospective
    satellites that would be in line-of-sight with its coverage area and
    for which international coordination *has* been formally requested,
    on the assumption that they would not operate on any of MSV's
    assigned MSS frequencies because MSV has received no requests to
    coordinate with them. This assumption is unjustified, as the
    satellite operators have several more years in which to effect
    coordination agreements.

64. For these reasons, we deny the request for a waiver that would
    permit unlimited ATC re-use of non-co-channel frequencies.

### Peak Traffic Limit

65. The Commission said in the *ATC Report and Order* that, because its
    assessment of potential adjacent-channel interference into MSV's own
    satellite and other MSS satellites from operation of an all-GSM
    L-Band ATC system was based on an assumption that up to 90,000 GSM
    mobile terminals could transmit at the same time to MSV's ATC base
    stations, it would require L-Band ATC operators to report peak
    traffic annually and limit peak ATC traffic to 90,000
    simultaneously-operating terminals.[^111] This limit is not included
    in the Commission's ATC rules, however.

66. MSV points out in its application that the Commission found that the
    aggregate out-of-channel emissions from 90,000 fully-loaded
    standard-GSM ATC carriers operating at the out-of-channel emission
    limit prescribed in Section 25.253(g)(1) of the Commission's rules
    would increase uplink noise in Inmarsat's current and
    next-generation satellites by only 0.001%.[^112] MSV stresses that
    it follows from this finding that even if there were as many as 9
    million fully-loaded ATC carriers the resultant out-of-band
    emissions would increase Inmarsat's noise level by only 0.1%. MSV
    therefore requests waiver of the limit on peak traffic.
    Alternatively, MSV requests a clarifying ruling that the limit
    allows up to 90,000 simultaneous ATC voice conversations in each GSM
    time slot and allows "equivalent" amounts of peak traffic for
    non-GSM ATC services.[^113]

67. It is clear from relevant discussion in Appendix C2 of the *ATC
    Report and Order*[^114] that the limit on "simultaneously
    transmitting MTs" refers to the number of mobile terminals in the
    United States transmitting simultaneously in a single time-slot,
    assuming that standard GSM protocols are used throughout the ATC
    network. This limit effectively permits 720,000 simultaneous
    conversations on MSV's network. Assuming a five percent activity
    factor, this limit would effectively permit more than 14 million
    subscribers. It is unlikely that this limit will constrain MSV's
    operations. Thus, we grant MSV's alternative request for
    clarification in this regard. The associated request for
    clarification regarding peak CDMA traffic is effectively granted by
    our specification, below, of numerical limits on simultaneously
    transmitting mobile terminals operating with cdma2000 or W-CDMA
    protocols.[^115]

68. Regarding the request for waiver of the 90,000-terminal limit, we
    note that MSV has not shown in its application or associated
    pleadings that there is any real likelihood that more than 90,000
    GSM-protocol terminals would ever simultaneously transmit to its ATC
    base stations in a single time-slot in any event. We also note that
    Inmarsat has requested in a petition for reconsideration of the *ATC
    Report and Order* that the Commission incorporate the
    90,000-terminal limit in the ATC rules and rule that the limit
    applies in the aggregate to all L-band ATC licensees.[^116] If the
    latter request were granted, the maximum permissible number of
    active ATC terminals in MSV's network would be reduced if another
    MSS licensee were authorized to provide ATC service in the United
    States. Since a grant of MSV's waiver request is not needed at this
    time, and since another party has argued for a different
    interpretation of the limit in the ATC rulemaking proceeding, we
    decline to grant the waiver request here.

### Overhead Gain

69. In order to protect operation of airborne Inmarsat AMS(R)S
    terminals, the Commission adopted Section 25.253(e), which requires
    an L-Band ATC applicant to demonstrate that the transmit-antenna
    gain of its ATC base stations will be suppressed by different
    specified amounts at various vertical angles.[^117] MSV requests a
    waiver that would relax its overhead-gain suppression requirements
    by 8 dB over the range of angles in the vertical plane from the
    direction of maximum gain from 30° to 55° and by 10 dB for angles
    from 55° to 145°.[^118] On the basis of an analysis included in the
    application, MSV contends that the requested relaxation of
    overhead-gain suppression would result in a mere 0.03 dB increase in
    potential interference to airborne earth-station terminals.[^119]
    MSV asserts that granting this waiver request would reduce its costs
    significantly without any appreciable resultant increase in
    interference.

70. Inmarsat asserts that if the waiver were granted Inmarsat AMS(R)S
    receivers in aircraft within a horizontal distance of one kilometer
    from an MSV base station would be overloaded at altitudes up to
    750-1000 meters, while adherence to the current requirements of
    25.253(e) would preclude overload at altitudes above 500 meters.
    Inmarsat therefore maintains that the proposed modification of
    overhead gain suppression would impair the safety of aircraft just
    after take off and just before landing.[^120] The NTIA has
    concluded, however, based on its own assessment of the impact of the
    proposed relaxation of overhead gain suppression requirements, that
    the waiver request can be granted without increasing the potential
    for interference to AMS(R)S receivers.[^121]

71. We agree that relaxation of overhead gain suppression to the extent
    MSV proposes would not significantly increase interference to
    airborne Inmarsat terminals, as the effect on the noise level of
    Inmarsat receivers would be negligible. Inmarsat's unexplained
    contention that aircraft safety would be compromised by overload of
    AMS(R)S receivers at altitudes below 1000 meters is outweighed by
    the comments in favor of the waiver request from the NTIA, which
    represents the Federal Aviation Administration and other Federal
    executive-branch agencies that make extensive use of airborne
    Inmarsat terminals. We also agree with MSV that there is a
    significant public interest benefit to granting this waiver, as it
    will enable deployment of ATC base stations sooner and at less
    expense. We therefore waive section 25.253(e), in part, to permit
    base-station antenna gain of up to 27 dB below the maximum
    directional gain in vertical angles from 30° to 55° and up to 30 dB
    below the maximum directional gain in vertical angles from 55° to
    145°, as requested.

### Airport and Waterway Distance and PFD Limits 

72. Section 25.253(d) of the Commission's rules states that an L-Band
    ATC applicant must show that it will not install a base station
    within 470 meters of an airport runway or aircraft stand area and
    that the PFD from its base stations will not exceed -73.0
    dBW/m^2^/200 kHz at the edges of such runways or stand areas.
    Section 25.253(d) also requires an ATC applicant to demonstrate
    either that its base stations will be situated more than 1.5 km from
    navigable waterways or else that the PFD from the base stations will
    not exceed -64.6 dBW/m^2^/200 kHz at the shores of such waterways.
    The purpose of these restrictions is to prevent harmful interference
    with operation of aeronautical and maritime Inmarsat
    terminals.[^122]

73. MSV contends in its ATC application that the Commission's PFD limits
    for runways and waterways are 15 dB too low, due to calculation
    error and erroneous estimation of the overload threshold of Inmarsat
    terminals. MSV also contends that it should be allowed a choice
    between meeting either the runway siting restriction or a
    corresponding PFD limit, rather than having to comply with both. MSV
    therefore requests waivers that would allow it to either comply with
    the base-station siting restrictions prescribed in Section 25.253(d)
    or meet PFD limits of -49.6 dBW/m^2^ per carrier at the edges of
    runways and aircraft stands and ‑54.4 dBW/m^2^ per carrier at the
    shores of navigable waterways.[^123]

74. Inmarsat opposes these waiver requests.[^124] Inmarsat contends that
    the Commission underestimated the overload sensitivity of Inmarsat
    terminals and therefore that the airport and waterway PFD limits
    should not be relaxed but should, instead, be more strict. Inmarsat
    also maintains that MSV should be subject to both a siting
    restriction with respect to runways and aircraft stands and a
    corresponding PFD limit because neither type of restriction standing
    alone would suffice to prevent interference with operation of
    Inmarsat aeronautical terminals. In its August 2, 2004 letter,
    however, MSV modified these waiver requests by asking for an 8 dB
    increase in the PFD limits rather than a 15 dB increase.

75. We are conducting tests to resolve the controversy concerning
    terminal overload thresholds. The testing might support MSV's
    argument for relaxing the PFD limits or might show, instead, that
    the current limits should be retained or that additional or stricter
    constraints are necessary. For example, the test results might
    reveal that intermodulation products or other interference-like
    effects militate against increasing the permitted PFD levels. To
    delay the release of this Order pending completion of the testing
    and evaluation of the results would effectively preclude granting
    MSV's request for expedited action on its application. We therefore
    deny MSV's requests for waiver of PFD limits without prejudice. As
    indicated in the *ATC Report and Order,* however, we would consider
    requests for waiver of the PFD limits based on negotiated
    agreements.[^125]

### Base Station EIRP

76. Section 25.253(d)(1) of the Commission's rules prohibits ATC base
    stations from radiating more than 19.1 dBW EIRP per 200 kHz carrier
    or transmitting more than three carriers per antenna sector.[^126]
    These restrictions effectively limit aggregate EIRP per sector to
    23.9 dBW. Further, Section 25.253(d)(2) prohibits ATC base stations
    from radiating more than 14.1 dBW EIRP toward the physical horizon
    (excluding man-made structures) per 200 kHz carrier, which
    effectively limits aggregate per-sector EIRP toward the physical
    horizon to 16.9 dBW. The Commission imposed these limits based on
    MSV's proposals in IB Docket No. 01-185, without determining whether
    these were the maximum levels consistent with providing adequate
    protection to Inmarsat. These power limits, along with other
    technical requirements, were deemed adequate to protect Inmarsat
    mobile earth-station terminals (METs) from interference.[^127] In
    its ATC license application, MSV requests waiver of these
    restrictions to allow its base stations to radiate an aggregate EIRP
    per sector of up to 33.9 dBW toward the physical horizon and 38.9
    dBW in other directions, with no limit on the number of carriers per
    sector, provided that the aggregate EIRP of all base stations within
    a 50-mile radius does not exceed 58.3 dBW in any direction. MSV
    bases these waiver requests on test data that demonstrate, according
    to MSV, that the receiver overload threshold of Inmarsat MSS
    terminals is 15 dB higher than the Commission assumed in the
    calculations from which it derived the base-station EIRP limits in
    Section 25.253(d).

77. In its Opposition to MSV's ATC application, Inmarsat says that it
    would not object to waiver of the limit on the number of carriers
    per sector but maintains that there is no justification for allowing
    MSV's base stations to radiate more than 23.9 dBW aggregate EIRP per
    sector.[^128] To the contrary, Inmarsat contends that the aggregate
    per-sector EIRP of MSV's base stations should be limited to a lower
    level than the rules currently require.[^129] Inmarsat also contends
    that MSV ignores the potential for intermodulation interference,
    which could occur at much lower levels than receiver overload.[^130]
    On the other hand, the NTIA recommends that we allow MSV's base
    stations to radiate aggregate EIRP per sector of up to 35.9 dBW and
    up to 30.9 dBW toward the horizon, provided that base stations are
    not located within 2.5 km of navigable waterways or PFD at waterway
    boundaries does not exceed -54.6 dBW/m^2^/sector.[^131] The NTIA
    also recommends that if we waive the limit on the number of carriers
    per sector we should require out-of-channel emissions from each
    carrier to be reduced by a factor of 10Log(number of carriers)
    relative to -53 dBW/MHz when more than three carriers are
    transmitted in one sector.[^132]

78. In the letter submitted for the purpose of "narrow\[ing\] the
    breadth of certain core elements of its application in order to
    shorten the time to process its license application,"[^133] MSV
    proposes, *inter alia*, that we initially grant a partial waiver
    that would allow an 8 dB increase in peak aggregate EIRP per
    base-station sector (rather than the 15 dB increase requested in the
    application) with no limit on the number of carriers per sector. We
    have received no comments or objections from Inmarsat or any other
    party in response to this modified waiver request.

79. We agree with MSV that there is no need to limit the number of
    carriers per sector if appropriate limits are imposed with respect
    to aggregate radiated power in each sector and with respect to
    out-of-channel emissions. Indeed, by spreading the power among more
    carriers, the potential for interference on a single carrier
    frequency is reduced. Therefore, we grant the request for waiver of
    the limit on the number of carriers per sector, subject to the
    limits on peak sector EIRP specified herein, provided that, as
    recommended by the NTIA, out-of-channel emissions from each carrier
    are reduced by a factor of 10 Log (number of carriers) relative to\
    -53 dBW/MHz when more than three carriers are transmitted in one
    sector. This waiver will serve the public interest by affording MSV
    more flexibility to operate with the number of carriers necessary in
    each base station sector to satisfy peak ATC network demands without
    adverse impact on MSS operation.

80. The limits on base station power levels necessitate installation of
    more base stations to provide adequate coverage and make it more
    difficult to provide consistently adequate signal levels to mobile
    terminals in urban environments where signals levels are likely to
    vary dramatically. Hence, an 8 dB increase in permissible peak power
    per sector would enable MSV to provide adequate coverage and signal
    levels with fewer base stations. We will permit MSV to operate at 8
    dB above the current power limits, provided it meets several
    conditions, enumerated below, to prevent harmful interference to
    Inmarsat or other L-Band MSS operators. The *ATC Report and Order*
    identified four potential situations in which MSV's ATC base
    stations could cause interference to Inmarsat MET receivers: (1)
    overload of land-based MET receivers when they are near an ATC base
    station; (2) out-of-band interference to land-based MET receivers
    from ATC base stations; (3) aggregate out-of-band interference to an
    airborne MET receiver from a relatively large number of MSV base
    stations visible from an aircraft; and (4) overload of an airborne
    MET receiver from an ATC base station. Most of these situations can
    be easily addressed. The out-of-band interference situations (ATC
    base station to terrestrial MET receiver, ATC base station to
    maritime MET receiver, and ATC base station to airborne MET
    receiver) are not impacted by a base station power change because
    the out-of-band emissions limit for MSV's base stations is a fixed
    value that won\'t increase if the base station power is
    increased.[^134] The overload interference situations for maritime
    and airborne MET receivers are governed by both PFD limits (at the
    boundary of navigable waterways or at all airport runways, taxiways,
    landing paths and stand areas) and distance separation limits. As
    mentioned previously, we are not waiving the existing PFD limits at
    this time and we are increasing the distance separation limits to
    compensate for the higher base station power. In these situations,
    there would be no change in interference potential. Regarding the
    overload of an airborne MET receiver, the *ATC Report and Order*
    showed the existing rules provide a 10.4 dB margin against
    overload;[^135] therefore, an 8 dB increase in power still wouldn\'t
    exceed the overload threshold and therefore interference should not
    occur.

81. One situation where there is a potential increase in interference is
    the overload of terrestrial MET receivers near an ATC base station.
    The *ATC Report and Order* indicated that at a 100-meter distance
    from an ATC base station, the ATC signal would be 1.8 dB below the
    Inmarsat MES receiver overload threshold.[^136] If we permit an 8 dB
    increase in power, then the overload threshold, under the very
    conservative studies done in the *ATC Report and Order*, could be
    exceeded within 204 meters of the ATC base station. This is still
    quite a small area, and it is unlikely that receiver overload would
    actually occur as a result of such a peak-power increase. Since most
    ATC base stations are likely to be in urban areas in order to boost
    MSV's weak satellite signals, the Inmarsat signal at these areas is
    also likely to be quite weak. Furthermore, Inmarsat\'s satellite
    positions are lower in elevation than MSV's, so it is very likely
    that Inmarsat\'s satellite signal will be even weaker than MSV's
    satellite signal. This means that Inmarsat probably would not have
    usable satellite signals near many of the ATC base stations (even in
    the absence of an ATC base station). However, in an abundance of
    caution, we require MSV to notify Inmarsat, and any other authorized
    L-Band MSS operator, of any ATC base stations that would operate at
    peak sector power levels above the peak levels allowed under the
    current rules. A notified party would then have an opportunity to
    object within 30 days if: 1) it can prove that its system provides a
    usable MSS satellite signal within 204 meters of the proposed ATC
    base station\'s location, and 2) it can show that there is a
    reasonable likelihood that METs will attempt to access its MSS
    network from a location within 204 meters of the base station. (This
    would presumably be unlikely if there are no streets, residences,
    office buildings, etc. within that distance.) However, if it is
    convincingly shown that a higher-power MSV ATC base station could be
    a problem, MSV must reduce the base station's aggregate per-sector
    power to a level consistent with the current rules. We believe that
    these measures will ensure that no harmful interference will be
    caused, while at the same time recognizing that MSS satellite
    signals and MSS users are not always available in urban areas.

82. Lastly, we agree with Inmarsat that the increase in peak
    base-station power could increase the potential for MET receivers
    being affected by intermodulation products. While we do not believe
    that this will a significant problem for most active Inmarsat
    receivers, which will be operating at large distances from ATC base
    stations, we believe that we should address this issue in those
    situations where the base station power is being increased above the
    current rules or where the base station will exceed the limit on
    carriers per antenna sector. By permitting higher base station power
    and the use of more than three carriers per antenna sector, the
    potential for intermodulation products being generated in Inmarsat's
    receivers increases, although we believe in general the potential is
    small. Typically intermodulation issues are resolved between
    licensees, and we believe that is the appropriate approach for
    dealing with the increased potential for intermodulation products as
    a result of base station power increases and use of more than three
    carriers per sector. We therefore require MSV to notify any other
    authorized L-Band MSS operator of the location of ATC base stations
    that will use more than three carriers in an antenna sector or
    operate above the power limits in the current rules. We expect MSV
    and other notified parties to work together to resolve any
    intermodulation problems.

83. Therefore, in addition to waiving the limit on the number of
    carriers per sector, we also grant the request for a partial waiver
    to increase the maximum permissible peak EIRP per base-station
    sector (*i.e.*, the maximum permissible aggregate peak EIRP for all
    carriers in a sector) to 26.9 dBW toward the physical horizon and
    31.9 dBW in other directions. We retain the per-carrier EIRP limits
    of 14.1 dBW toward the horizon and 19.1 dBW in other directions,
    however, subject to the following restrictions and conditions:

    i\) the aggregate PFD limits specified in §§ 25.253(d)(4) and
    25.253(d)(5) will continue to apply unless amended by the
    Commission;

    ii\) as suggested by the NTIA, the separation distances specified in
    §§ 25.253(d)(3) and 25.253(d)(5), also discussed previously, must be
    increased for any MSV-ATC base station that radiates more than 18.9
    dBW aggregate EIRP per sector toward the physical horizon or more
    than 23.9 dBW aggregate EIRP per sector in another direction; the
    wider separation distances must be calculated on a case-by-case
    basis to provide a comparable PFD level at all airport runways and
    aircraft stand areas, including takeoff and landing paths, and at
    the water's edge of any navigable waterway based on free-space
    propagation, and should be computed according to the following
    equation:

    D = 10 ^(EIRP\ --PFD\ -11)/20^

    where:

    D is the distance in meters;

    EIRP is the base-station EIRP per carrier at the horizon (dBW/200
    kHz);

    PFD is the power flux density limits necessary to protect AMS(R)S of

    -73 dBW/m^2^/200 kHz and to protect GMDSS operations of -64.4
    dBW/m^2^/200 kHz;[^137]

    iii\) MSV must notify Inmarsat, and any other party with authority
    to provide L-Band MSS in the United States, of the location and
    power specifications of any ATC base stations that it intends to
    operate with more than three carriers per antenna sector or with
    peak sector EIRP above 18.9 dBW toward the physical horizon or above
    23.9 dBW in another direction; MSV must provide the requisite
    notification at least 30 days prior to commencing such operation and
    shall not operate at such higher power levels if a notified party
    demonstrates that such operation would increase the potential for
    harmful interference with operation of mobile earth stations
    accessing that party's MSS network;

    iv\) out-of-channel emissions from each carrier must be reduced by a
    factor of 10 Log (number of carriers) relative to -53 dBW/MHz when
    more than three carriers are transmitted in one sector;

    v\) authority to operate with higher base station power is subject
    to any modification necessary for conformance with future Commission
    decisions in IB Docket 01-185 regarding permanent power limits.

84. We note that MSV is asking the Commission to increase permissible
    base station power levels to a greater extent in its petition for
    reconsideration of the *ATC Report and Order.* The limited waiver we
    grant here to allow an 8 dB power increase, subject to the
    conditions listed above, will terminate automatically to the extent
    it is inconsistent with any determination by the Commission in
    ruling on MSV's petition for reconsideration. Finally, we understand
    that MSV and Inmarsat are working towards resolving technical
    differences in order to facilitate compatible operation of their
    respective systems.[^138] We would be willing to consider a joint
    proposal for additional waivers regarding base station power limits,
    as well as airport/waterway PFD and separation distances.

### Authority for Use of CDMA and Non-standard GSM Modulation

85. The technical requirements for L-Band ATC operation are based on an
    analysis that assumes use of a standard GSM protocol -- *i.e.*,
    either GSM/TDMA 800 or GSM 1800. An L-Band MSS licensee may apply
    for authority for ATC operation with another protocol, however,
    based on a showing that such operation would produce no more
    interference than a standard GSM network operating in compliance
    with the requirements of Section 25.253.[^139]

86. MSV requests authority to implement ATC using either a GSM protocol,
    a CDMA protocol (specifically, cdma2000^®^[^140] or W-CDMA), or both
    GSM and CDMA protocols. MSV contends that the proposed use of CDMA
    protocols would cause no more interference than the rules allow from
    a standard GSM system.[^141]

87. MSV states that its CDMA mobile terminals would radiate a maximum
    EIRP of\
    -9 dBW per single code and therefore maintains that fifty such
    cdma2000 carriers, or two hundred such W-CDMA carriers, would merely
    generate the same amount of uplink interference as one fully-loaded
    standard GSM carrier transmitted by a mobile terminal radiating with
    the maximum EIRP allowed by Section 25.253(g)(1). MSV also states
    that the proposed CDMA mobile terminals would employ variable-rate
    vocoders that would switch from full-rate to half-rate when nominal
    EIRP exceeds -12.5 dBW.[^142] Further, MSV states that the aggregate
    EIRP and out-of-band emissions of ATC base stations operating with
    CDMA would be limited to the same extent required for base-station
    operation with GSM and that the base-station antenna patterns would
    be the same regardless of the multiple-access protocol. MSV
    therefore contends that the potential interference from the base
    stations will remain the same regardless of whether a GSM or CDMA
    protocol is used.

88. Inmarsat argues that MSV has failed to demonstrate that the proposed
    CDMA operation would cause no more interference than rule-compliant
    operation with standard GSM protocols. In particular, Inmarsat notes
    that MSV has not explained how the proposed CDMA operation could
    comply with the requirement in Section 25.253(a)(3) to preclude
    other ATC mobile terminals from using open time slots. Inmarsat
    asserts that, in fact, it is not possible to reduce potential
    interference from CDMA transmission by requiring time slots to be
    left vacant, since CDMA carriers are transmitted simultaneously
    rather than in a series of time slots.[^143]

89. The omission of a showing that CDMA operation would be in compliance
    with the requirement in Section 25.253(a)(3) is immaterial, as the
    Note to Section 25.253 clearly indicates that an applicant does not
    necessarily have to demonstrate compliance with any specific
    provision of Section 25.253 to receive authority for ATC operation
    with non-GSM protocols. Rather, it is incumbent on MSV to show that
    the proposed operation with CDMA protocols would produce no more
    interference than operation with standard GSM protocols in
    compliance with the specific requirements of Section 25.253.

90. We conclude that MSV's proposed operation with CDMA protocols will
    produce no more interference than the GSM network analyzed in the
    *ATC Report and Order*, provided that the total number of U.S. base
    stations transmitting with any protocol on any common frequency does
    not exceed 2415.[^144] (Thus, for example, if 1000 U.S. base
    stations are transmitting with a GSM protocol in a particular 200
    kHz band, no more than 1415 U.S. base stations may transmit in any
    portion of that band with CDMA protocols.) In view of the difference
    in power levels between the CDMA system architectures and the GSM
    architecture, we prescribe limits on the number of mobile terminals
    that may simultaneously operate with CDMA protocols that are
    different from the corresponding limit for GSM terminals specified
    in the *ATC Report and Order*. The number of simultaneously active
    mobile terminals in a single 1.25-megahertz cdma2000 channel shall
    be no more than 120,750 and there shall be no more than 845,250
    simultaneously active terminals network wide.[^145] Similarly, there
    shall be no more than 483,000 simultaneously operating W-CDMA
    terminals per 5-megahertz channel. With these limits, we grant MSV's
    request for authority for ATC operation with cdma2000 and W-CDMA
    protocols. In addition, should MSV operate a mixed-architecture
    network with both GSM and CDMA protocols, as tentatively proposed in
    its application, the calculated EIRP density of simultaneously
    operating mobile terminals at any L-Band MSS satellite shall not
    exceed ‑244.2 dBW/Hz.[^146]

91. MSV has proposed to use a non-standard GSM system architecture in
    its network, employing offset quadrature-phase-shift keying (OQPSK)
    modulation, rather than the standard GSM modulation technique, which
    is Gaussian minimum-shift keying (GMSK).[^147]  Because operation
    with this variant modulation technique will not cause any increase
    in interference, however, we conclude that no special showing is
    necessary to justify its use.

# CONCLUSION

92. We have reviewed MSV's MSS-ATC application and all associated
    amendments, comments, pleadings, and other documents of record.
    Based on that review, we conclude that MSV is legally, technically,
    and otherwise qualified to operate an MSS-ATC network and that grant
    of the application, subject to the limitations and conditions
    specified herein, will serve the public interest, convenience, and
    necessity.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

93. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act, 47
    U.S.C. § 309, and Section 0.261 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 0.261, IT IS ORDERED that Application Files Nos.
    SAT-MOD-20031118-00333, SAT-AMD-20031118-00332, and
    SES-MOD-20031118-01879 ARE GRANTED and MSV is authorized to operate
    ATC base stations and mobile terminals in accordance with the terms,
    conditions, and technical specifications set forth in its
    application, except as otherwise provided herein, and in compliance
    with the Commission's rules, except insofar as expressly waived
    herein.[^148]

94. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paragraphs (a)(2), (c), (d)(1), (e), and
    (g)(1) of Section 25.253 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    25.253, ARE WAIVED to the extent indicated herein.

95. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this authorization is subject to the
    following conditions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(a) This authorization is subject to any restriction necessary for
    > conformance with a Commission decision disposing of petitions for
    > reconsideration of the *ATC Report and Order*.

(b) The grant herein of the authority requested in Application No.
    > SAT-AMD-20031118-00332 is contingent upon grant of the pending
    > license application for MSV-1 and is without prejudice to
    > disposition of that application.

(c) MSV shall ensure that the EIRP density of emissions from its ATC
    > base stations do not exceed -100 dBW/MHz EIRP in the 1559-1610 MHz
    > band, averaged over any two-millisecond interval, and that the
    > EIRP of discrete ATC base-station emissions of less than 700 Hz
    > bandwidth do not exceed -110 dBW in that band, averaged over any
    > two-millisecond interval. These EIRP limits apply to ATC base
    > stations that employ either Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA)
    > or Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and apply to the total
    > EIRP within any ATC base-station sector. MSV shall also ensure
    > that all mobile terminals accessing its ATC network restrict the
    > EIRP density of emissions in the 1559-1605 MHz band to -90 dBW/MHz
    > or less averaged over two-millisecond interval, restrict the EIRP
    > of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth to -100 dBW in
    > that band averaged over any two-millisecond interval, restrict the
    > EIRP density of emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz band to a level
    > determined by linear interpolation from -90 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to
    > -66 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz, averaged over any two-millisecond
    > interval, and restrict the EIRP of discrete emissions of less than
    > 700 Hz bandwidth in the 1605-1610 MHz band to a level determined
    > by linear interpolation, from -100 dBW at 1605 MHz to -76 dBW at
    > 1610 MHz, averaged over any two-millisecond interval. Further, MSV
    > shall ensure that all new mobile terminals placed in service more
    > than five years after it commences ATC operation restrict the EIRP
    > density of emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz band to a level
    > determined by linear interpolation from -95 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to
    > -71 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz, averaged over any two-millisecond
    > interval, and restrict the EIRP of discrete emissions of less than
    > 700 Hz bandwidth to a level determined by linear interpolation
    > from -105 dBW at 1605 MHz to -81 dBW at 1610 MHz, averaged over
    > any two-millisecond interval.

(d) MSV shall ensure that test results demonstrating compliance with the
    > foregoing limits on emissions in the 1559-1610 MHz band are
    > included in any application for equipment authorization pursuant
    > to 47 C.F.R. Part 2 and § 25.149(c) for mobile terminals that
    > would be used to communicate via MSV's ATC network.

(e) The total number of MSV's U.S. ATC base stations transmitting
    > simultaneously with any protocol on the same frequency shall not
    > exceed 2415, and no more than 1208 MSV base stations may
    > simultaneously transmit on the same frequency during the first
    > eighteen months following activation for testing of the first ATC
    > base station.

(f) MSV shall submit test data at least 60 days before commencing ATC
    > operation proving that the spatially-averaged EIRP of mobile
    > terminals accessing its ATC network (unadjusted for the
    > time-averaged effect of vocoder-rate/duty-cycle regulation) will
    > not exceed -4dBW in the direction of co-channel satellites.

(g) MSV shall ensure that dual-mode MSS/ATC handsets capable of
    > accessing its ATC network that require plug-in boosters for MSS
    > operation are not offered for sale, sold, or distributed without
    > such boosters before MSV commences commercial operation with an
    > MSS satellite capable of providing service to users operating such
    > handsets without such attachments.

(h) In the event that the pending license application for MSV-1 is
    > denied, MSV shall not activate any additional MSS/ATC handsets
    > requiring a plug-in booster for MSS communication thereafter
    > unless and until the denial is set aside on reconsideration,
    > review, or appeal and the application is ultimately granted. In
    > the event that a license is granted for launch and operation of
    > MSV-1 but is subsequently surrendered for cancellation, declared
    > void, or revoked, MSV shall not activate any additional MSS/ATC
    > handsets requiring a plug-in booster for MSS communication after
    > surrendering such authorization or after such nullification or
    > revocation becomes administratively final.[^149]

(i) No more than 90,000 mobile terminals operating with GSM protocols
    > may simultaneously transmit to MSV's ATC base stations in the
    > United States in a single time-slot. No more than 120,750 mobile
    > terminals operating with cdma2000 may simultaneously transmit to
    > MSV's U.S. ATC base stations in a single 1.25-megahertz channel,
    > and the total number of such terminals simultaneously transmitting
    > to MSV's U.S. base stations shall not exceed 845,250. No more than
    > 483,000 mobile terminals operating with W-CDMA may simultaneously
    > transmit to MSV's U.S. base stations in any five-megahertz
    > channel. If MSV implements a mixed-architecture MSS-ATC network
    > with both GSM and CDMA protocols, the calculated EIRP density of
    > mobile terminals accessing the network shall not exceed ‑244.2
    > dBW/Hz in the vicinity of any L-band MSS satellite licensed by
    > another administration consistently with international
    > coordination requirements.

(j) MSV must notify Inmarsat, and any other party with authority from
    > the FCC for provision of L-Band MSS in the United States, of the
    > location and power specifications of any ATC base stations that it
    > intends to operate with more than three carriers per antenna
    > sector or with aggregate EIRP in any sector above 18.9 dBW toward
    > the physical horizon or above 23.9 dBW in another direction at
    > least 30 days prior to commencing such operations and must cease
    > or desist from operation at such higher power levels if such
    > operation would unduly increase the potential for harmful
    > interference.

(k) No MSV base station radiating more than 18.9 dBW aggregate EIRP in
    any sector toward the physical horizon or more than 23.9 dBW
    aggregate sector EIRP in another direction may be sited within a
    minimum separation distance from any airport runway or aircraft
    stand area, including takeoff and landing paths, or from the edge of
    any navigable waterway computed according to the following formula:

    D = 10 ^(EIRP\ --PFD\ -11)/20^

    where D is the distance in meters, EIRP is the base station's EIRP
    per carrier toward the horizon (dBW/200 kHz), and PFD is -73
    dBW/m^2^/200 kHz for calculating minimum separation distance from
    runways and aircraft stand areas and -64.4dBW/m^2^/200 kHz for
    calculating minimum separation distance from the edges of navigable
    waterways.

(l) Out-of-channel emissions from each base-station carrier shall be
    reduced by a factor of 10 Log (number of carriers) relative to -53
    dBW/MHz when more than three carriers are transmitted in one sector.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
96. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this authorization will expire
    concurrently with the space-station license for MSV-1, if granted,
    and shall otherwise expire concurrently with the license for AMSC-1.

97. This Order is effective upon release. 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 thirty days of the date of the release of this Order (see 47
    C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(2)).

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Donald Abelson

Chief

International Bureau

[^1]: "L Band" is a general designation for the entire frequency range
    from one to two Gigahertz. In this Order, however, the term "L Band"
    more specifically denotes the so-called "upper L Band" (1545-1559
    MHz and 1646.5-1660.5 MHz) and "lower L Band" (1525-1544 MHz and
    1626.5-1645.5 MHz), which are internationally allocated for MSS. The
    FCC has allocated the 1525-1559 MHz band for downlink transmission
    from MSS satellites to mobile earth stations in the United States
    and the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz band for uplink transmission from mobile
    earth stations to MSS satellites. The 1660-1660.5 MHz band is also
    allocated for radio astronomy observation on a co-primary basis. 47
    C.F.R. § 2.106. Both the uplink and downlink bands are also
    allocated for ATC transmission, except for two one-megahertz
    segments at 1544-1545 MHz and 1645.5-1646.5 MHz, which are allocated
    exclusively for safety services. *Id.*, Footnotes 5.356, 5.375, and
    US380.

[^2]: Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite
    Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz
    Bands; Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary
    Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz
    Bands, *Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, IB
    Docket Nos. 01-185 and 02-364, 18 FCC Rcd 1962 (2003), petitions for
    reconsideration pending ("*ATC Report and Order*"), modified *sua
    sponte* by *Order on Reconsideration*, 18 FCC Rcd 13590 (2003).

[^3]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶¶ 2, 20-45, and 210-11.

[^4]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶¶ 239-41.

[^5]: *Id.* at ¶240.

[^6]: *Id.* at ¶245. An individual, site-specific license must be
    obtained for a proposed ATC base station that presents an
    aviation-hazard issue or for which an Environmental Assessment must
    be prepared. *Id.* at ¶239; also see 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307, 17.4, and
    17.7. Equipment authorization must be obtained for ATC user
    terminals pursuant to the test-based certification procedure
    specified in Part 2, Subpart J of the Commission's rules before such
    devices are marketed in the United States or imported for sale or
    lease in the United States. 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(c)(1) and (2). Also
    see 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803, 2.901 *et seq.*, and 2.1204. Dual-mode
    MSS/ATC terminals are also subject to blanket licensing for the
    earth-station component. *ATC Report and Order* at ¶248.

[^7]: The other petitioners are Inmarsat Ventures Ltd, the U.S. GPS
    Industry Council, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
    Association, Cingular Wireless LLC, The Boeing Company, and the
    Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.

[^8]: Coordination of use of upper and lower L-Band frequencies for
    provision of MSS in North America via geostationary satellite
    systems operated by Inmarsat or by other parties licensed by the
    governments of the United States, Canada, Russia, or Mexico is
    accomplished pursuant to a multilateral Memorandum of Understanding.
    The MOU provides for dynamic assignment of specific channels
    pursuant to recurrent temporary operating agreements to be
    negotiated by the system operators. The operators signed a one-year
    operating agreement, to be revised on an annual basis. The agreement
    assigned each system an amount of spectrum based on its current and
    projected near-term traffic requirements. The MOU requires that the
    precise frequency assignments for each system be kept confidential.
    The parties to the MOU last revised the spectrum assignments in 1999
    and, pending further negotiations, continue to operate with those
    assignments today. Memorandum of Understanding for the Intersystem
    Coordination of Certain Geostationary Mobile Satellite Systems
    Operating in the Bands 1525-1544/1545-1559 MHz and
    1626.5-1646.5/1646.5-1660.5 MHz, Mexico City, Mexico, 18 June 1996
    ("Mexico City MOU").

[^9]: Motient Services Inc. and TMI Communications and Company, LP,
    Assignors, and Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Assignee,
    *Order and Authorization*, 16 FCC Rcd 20469 (Int'l Bur. 2001).

[^10]: File No. SAT-LOA-19980702-00066.

[^11]: In accordance with instructions in the *ATC Report and Order*,
    MSV filed three applications for ATC authority on November 18, 2003.
    It filed an application for modification of its license for AMSC-1
    and an amendment to its space-station application for MSV-1
    requesting blanket authority for ATC operation in connection with
    its MSS operation via those satellites. MSV also filed an
    application for modification of its blanket license for mobile earth
    stations accessing MSAT-1 to request authority for ATC operation in
    connection with its provision of MSS in the United States via the
    Canadian-licensed satellite. *See* policy statements regarding
    application procedures in the *ATC Report and Order* at ¶¶ 240 and
    245, summarized in ¶3, *supra*.

[^12]: Application for Minor Modification and Amendment filed Nov. 18,
    2003 ("MSV ATC Application"), at 2.

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: Approval by grant-stamp (Dec. 2, 2003).

[^15]: Letters with attachments from Bruce D. Jacobs, counsel for MSV,
    to the FCC Secretary dated Dec. 30, 2003 and Feb. 4, 2004; letter
    with attachment from David S. Konczal, counsel for MSV, to the FCC
    Secretary filed March 25, 2004; letters with attachments from Lon C.
    Levin to the FCC Secretary dated Feb. 27, Aug. 31, and Sept. 22,
    2004.

[^16]: Public Notice, Report No. SPB-200 (Feb. 9, 2004).

[^17]: Opposition of Inmarsat Ventures Ltd, filed March 25, 2004
    ("Inmarsat Opposition").

[^18]: *Id.* at ii.

[^19]: *Id.* at ii-iv and 34-35.

[^20]: *Id.* at v.

[^21]: Letter (with attachment) from Frederick R. Wentland, Associate
    Administrator, NTIA Office of Spectrum Management, to Edmond J.
    Thomas, Chief, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, dated April
    21, 2004 ("NTIA Letter").

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.253(g)(3).

[^23]: *See* letter from Raul R. Rodriguez, counsel for the U.S. GPS
    Industry Council, to the FCC Secretary dated March 24, 2004
    (advocating grant); letter from Eric Epley, Executive Director,
    Southwest Texas Regional Advisory Council For Trauma, to FCC
    Secretary dated April 14, 2004 (advocating expeditious action);
    letter from Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Vice President for US Engineering,
    BMW of North America LLC, to FCC Secretary dated April 23, 2004
    (advocating grant); letter from Kenneth B. Taylor, Director, North
    Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, Division of
    Emergency Management, to FCC Secretary dated April 20, 2004
    (advocating expeditious action); letter from Conrad Burns, U.S.
    Senator, to Michael Powell, FCC Chairman, dated May 21, 2004
    (advocating expeditious action); letter from Tom Davis, U.S.
    Representative, to Michael Powell, FCC Chairman, dated June 3, 2004
    (advocating expeditious action); letter from Howard McConnell,
    Chairperson, Yurok Tribe, to FCC Secretary dated June 14, 2004
    (advocating grant).

[^24]: Response of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC to
    Opposition of Inmarsat Ventures Ltd. filed Apr. 14, 2004 ("Response
    to Inmarsat"); Reply of Inmarsat Ventures Ltd filed April 26, 2004.

[^25]: Letter from Lon C. Levin, Vice President, MSV, to the FCC
    Secretary dated Aug. 2, 2004, filed as attachment to letter from
    Henry Goldberg, Attorney for Motient, Inc., to the FCC Secretary,
    also dated Aug. 2, 2004. Also see letter from Lon C. Levin to the
    FCC Secretary dated Oct. 4, 2004 (modifying request for expedited
    action).

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^27]: *See Northeast Cellular Telephone Co., LP v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164
    (D.C. Cir. 1990) and *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir.
    1969).

[^28]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4).

[^29]: MSV ATC Application, Form 312, Attachment 2.

[^30]: Motient Services Inc. and TMI Communications and Company, LP,
    Assignors, and Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary, LLC, Assignee,
    *Order and Authorization*, 16 FCC Rcd 20469 (Int'l Bur. 2001) ("*MSS
    Assignment Order*").

[^31]: *Id.* at ¶¶ 19, 21, and 22.

[^32]: 18 FCC Rcd at ¶¶ 37-42.

[^33]: There is no need to explicitly condition the ATC authorization on
    compliance with the foreign-ownership reporting and further-approval
    requirements in MSV's MSS license. As previously noted, a valid MSS
    license is a prerequisite for lawful ATC operation. Therefore, if
    MSV's MSS license were to be cancelled or revoked for violation of
    reporting requirements or because of increased foreign ownership its
    authority to provide ATC would immediately terminate.

[^34]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(a) and (b).

[^35]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(b)(2).

[^36]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(b)(4).

[^37]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(b)(4). Also see *ATC Report and Order* at ¶¶
    87 and 88.

[^38]: MSV ATC Application at 10 and Appendix A.

[^39]: *Id.*

[^40]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶72.

[^41]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(b)(2).

[^42]: MSV ATC Application at 8-9.

[^43]: For example, MSV says that MSV Canada shifted traffic to AMSC-1
    in less than seven hours in May 2003 after MSAT-1 failed
    temporarily, after only one hour of service outage. *Id.*

[^44]: Letter from Lon C. Levin to FCC Secretary dated Oct. 4, 2004. The
    statement does not explicitly indicate whether the backup agreement
    with MSV Canada pertains to the current satellites, the
    second-generation satellites, or both. Nor has MSV disclosed what,
    if any, reciprocal backup obligation it would have in the event of a
    failure of MSV Canada's satellite.

[^45]: It would be prohibitively expensive to build a spare satellite
    replicating the design of AMSC-1 unless the necessary parts can
    still be procured without remanufacturing, which seems unlikely in
    view of the fact that the design for AMSC-1 was finalized more than
    ten years ago.

[^46]: Although it might be possible to complete construction of both
    the second-generation satellite and a duplicate for use as a ground
    spare in no more time than would be required for building only one
    such satellite, we recognize that when duplicate satellites are
    under construction it commonly proves expedient to "cannibalize" one
    of them for replacement components, consequently retarding its
    completion, in order to keep construction of the other on schedule.

[^47]: MSV has informed the Bureau that it expects to construct and
    launch MSV-1 within four years, in any event. *See* "Exhibit A",
    submitted with letter from Bruce D. Jacobs, counsel to MSV, to the
    FCC Secretary dated Dec. 30, 2003.

[^48]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(a)(2)(ii) and (a)(3).

[^49]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(b)(1). MSV certifies that it fully meets this
    coverage requirement.

[^50]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(a)(4), (a)(5), (c), and (d).

[^51]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶¶ 130-188.

[^52]: *See id.* at ¶140 and Appendix C2 § 1.3.1. "Structural
    attenuation" is defined in 47 C.F.R. § 25.201 as "signal attenuation
    caused by transmitting to and from mobile terminals which are
    located in buildings or other man-made structures that attenuate the
    transmission of radiofrequency radiation."

[^53]: MSV ATC Application at p.15 and Exhibit E and letter with
    attachment from Lon C. Levin, MSV Vice President, to the FCC
    Secretary dated Aug. 31, 2004.

[^54]: *See*, *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 25.253(g)(1) (prescribing 0 dBW limit
    on peak EIRP of mobile terminals).

[^55]: MSV ATC Application, Appendix E.

[^56]: *Id*.

[^57]: Inmarsat Opposition at p.36. EIRP -- *i.e.*, equivalent isotropic
    radiated power -- is defined in the Commission's rules as the
    product of the power supplied to an antenna and the antenna gain in
    a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna. 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.
    An isotropic antenna is one that radiates equally in all directions.

[^58]: Reply of Inmarsat Ventures Ltd filed Apr. 26, 2004 ("Inmarsat
    Reply") at 27, citing MSV ATC Application at 15-16.

[^59]: *Id.* at 28.

[^60]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶142 and Appendix C2 § 1.3.1. It seems
    clear from context that "-10 dBW" in the last sentence of ¶142 is a
    typographical error and that the Commission meant "-18 dBW" instead.

[^61]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶¶ 197-200. *See* Amendment of Parts 2
    and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal Communications by
    Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding and Arrangements
    \[and\] Petition of the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration to Amend Part 25 of the Commission's Rules to
    Establish Emission Limits for Mobile and Portable Earth Stations
    Operating in the 1610-1660.5 MHz Band *Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 99-67, 17 FCC Rcd
    12941 (2002).

[^62]: The limits specified in Paragaphs (d)(7) and (g)(3) were
    identical, when adopted, to the limits for L-Band mobile earth
    stations in Section 25.216. The limits in Section 25.216 have since
    been revised in some respect, however, and to date there has been no
    conforming amendment of Paragraphs (d)(7) and (g)(3) of Section
    25.253. Consequently, there are minor discrepancies between the
    limits in those paragraphs and the RNSS-band emission limits
    currently specified in Section 25.216 and cross-referenced in
    Section 25.253(a)(6). The discrepancies are immaterial in this case,
    however, because operation in accordance with MSV's proposed
    RNSS-band emission specifications would comport with all of these
    rule provisions.

[^63]: *See* MSV ATC Application at 25-26 and letter with attachment
    from Lon C. Levin to the FCC Secretary dated February 27, 2004.

[^64]: MSV ATC Application at 22.

[^65]: Letter with attachments from Lon C, Levin to the FCC Secretary
    dated Sept. 22, 2004.

[^66]: *See* MSV ATC Application, Appendix D.

[^67]: *See ATC Report and Order*, Appendix C2 § 3.1, and Comments of
    TMI, Motient, and MSV filed on Oct. 22, 2001 in Docket No. 01-185,
    at 7-11.

[^68]: *See ATC Report and Order*, Appendix C2 § 1.10.

[^69]: The calculation assumes that 30% of active mobile terminals are
    operating outdoors with full-rate duty-cycles, 30% are operating in
    vehicles at quarter-rate duty cycle, and 40% are operating in
    buildings with an average 18% duty cycle. *ATC Report and Order*,
    Appendix C2 § 1.10.

[^70]: Since the carrier to noise density ratio required to send digital
    data through a radio communication link is directly proportional to
    the rate at which the data is sent (assuming the same modulation and
    forward error correction techniques are used), the required EIRP
    carrier power of a mobile terminal's ATC transmission can be reduced
    by reducing the vocoder data rate. Although toll-quality telephony
    requires a relatively high vocoder data rate, acceptable signal
    quality may be obtained at a lower vocoder rate, perhaps as low as
    2.0 kbps.

[^71]: MSV ATC Application at pp. 13-14 and Appendix C. *See also*
    letter with attachment from Bruce D. Jacobs and David S. Konczal to
    the FCC Secretary dated Feb. 4, 2004.

[^72]: Inmarsat Opposition at 39-40.

[^73]: MSV Response, Appendix A at 4, cross-referencing Reply of Mobile
    Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC filed Sept. 2, 2003 in IB Docket
    No. 01-185.

[^74]: MSV ATC Application, Appendix C at 2.

[^75]: *See ATC Report and Order*, Appendix C2 §1.10. The estimated
    average reduction from half-rate duty-cycle operation at nominal
    amplifier power levels above -3.5 dBW, as proposed in MSV's
    application, is derived from the following table, using the
    distribution assumed in the Commission's analysis:

    LocationPercentage PopulationPercentage Population at \>-3.5 dBWDuty
    CycleWeighted Vocoder FactorOutdoor30%0%100%0.3 \* 1 =
    0.3Vehicle30%0%100%0.3 \* 1 = 0.3Indoor40%100%50%0.4 \* 0.5 =
    0.2**Sum** 0.3 + 0.3 + 0.2 = 0.8

    **average vocoder power reduction (dB): 10log(0.8) = 0.97**

[^76]: *See* discussion of mobile-terminal antenna gain in ¶¶ 52-55,
    *infra.*

[^77]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶¶ 142, 145, 147, 167, and Appendix C2
    § 1.13.

[^78]: *Id.*, Appendix C2 § 2.1.1.

[^79]: MSV ATC Application at 18 and Appendix I.

[^80]: "ΔT/T" is a shorthand expression meaning percentage of noise
    increase over the system thermal noise level.

[^81]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶164.

[^82]: Inmarsat Opposition at 29-32. Also see *ATC Report and Order* at
    ¶214 and n.563, citing ITU Radio Regulations § 4.4.

[^83]: *ATC Report and Order* at Appendix C2 § 2.1.1.

[^84]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶ 143.

[^85]: Moreover, in the event MSV is in a position to deploy and operate
    more than the number of co-frequency U.S. base stations permitted by
    this Order before the Commission issues a decision on MSV's petition
    for reconsideration of the ATC Report and Order, we would be willing
    to entertain a request for Special Temporary Authority allowing
    operation of additional co-frequency base stations subject to
    subsequent compliance with any restrictions imposed by, or necessary
    for conformance with, the Commission's reconsideration decision
    and/or subsequent coordination agreements between interested
    parties.

[^86]: *ATC Report and Order* at Appendix C2 § 2.1.1.

[^87]: MSV ATC Application at 16-17 and Response to Inmarsat, Appendix A
    at 1.

[^88]: Inmarsat Opposition at 24-26.

[^89]: *ATC Report and Order*, Appendix C2, Table 2.1.1.C. As explained
    previously, a mobile terminal's maximum *time-averaged* EIRP would
    be limited by vocoder-rate reduction to less than the maximum
    instantaneous EIRP.

[^90]: MSV ATC Application, Appendix H at 1.

[^91]: *Id.*; MSV Response at 16 and n.18. MSV promises to provide
    prototype test data that will verify these assurances.

[^92]: MSV ATC Application at 18.

[^93]: Inmarsat Opposition at 27.

[^94]: *Id.* at n.81, referring to MSV ATC Application, Exhibit H,
    Figure 4.

[^95]: Inmarsat Opposition at 14.

[^96]: *See* Enclosure submitted with NTIA Letter at 14.

[^97]: *See* *ATC Report and Order*, Appendix C2 §§ 1.3-1.3.5 and Table
    1.14.A.

[^98]: *Cf.* 47 C.F.R. § 25.253(c).

[^99]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶145 and Appendix C2 §1.14.

[^100]: MSV ATC Application, Appendix F at 1.

[^101]: MSV ATC Application, Appendix I at 3.

[^102]: Inmarsat Opposition at 32-35.

[^103]: MSV Response at 17-18.

[^104]: This issue will be addressed in IB Docket No. 01-185 in response
    to MSV's petition for reconsideration.

[^105]: MSV ATC Application at 16-17. According to an analysis included
    in MSV's application, a satellite would have to be west of 7.6º E.L.
    and east of 158.6º E.L. to have a line-of-sight path to an MSV
    mobile terminal operating in ATC mode. *Id.*, Appendix G.

[^106]: Inmarsat Opposition at 42.

[^107]: NTIA Letter at 2.

[^108]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶145.

[^109]: *Id.*

[^110]: *Id.* at ¶¶ 146-47.

[^111]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶188. The assumption that up to 90,000
    GSM terminals might transmit simultaneously originated with MSV
    itself. *Id.*, Appendix C2, Section 1.14. As the Commission
    acknowledged, the rule limiting the number of co-channel GSM base
    stations indirectly limits the number of simultaneously-transmitting
    GSM terminals in the U.S., to an extent that depends on the amount
    of internationally-coordinated L-Band spectrum assigned to MSV.
    *Id.* In contrast, the 90,000-terminal limit applies regardless of
    the amount of spectrum available for MSV's ATC operation.

[^112]: MSV ATC Application at 25, citing *ATC Report and Order*
    Appendix C2 Table 2.1.1.A.

[^113]: Letter from Lon C. Levin to FCC Secretary dated Oct. 4, 2004.

[^114]: *See ATC Report and Order*, Appendix C2 § 1.14.

[^115]: *See* Section III.C.10, *infra.*

[^116]: *See* Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification of Inmarsat
    Ventures PLC filed in IB Docket No. 01-185 on July 7, 2003 at 13.

[^117]: *See* *ATC Report and Order.*, ¶¶ 158-161 and Appendix C2 §§
    1.12 and 2.2.3.

[^118]: MSV ATC Application at 23.

[^119]: *Id.*, Appendix L.

[^120]: Inmarsat Opposition at 57-60. Receiver overload occurs when a
    high-amplitude signal at the input of a receiver's amplifier causes
    the amplifier to attempt to exceed its maximum possible output
    level, consequently distorting the output signal. If a strong signal
    from a nearby ATC base station overloads the amplifier in an
    Inmarsat terminal receiver, the amplifier will distort the waveforms
    of both the ATC signal and a concurrently-received Inmarsat
    satellite signal. The amplifier's distortion of the satellite-signal
    waveform will cause demodulation errors and resultant errors in the
    receiver's output.

[^121]: NTIA Letter at 10.

[^122]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶154.

[^123]: MSV ATC Application at p.21 and Appendix K.

[^124]: Inmarsat Opposition at 53-57.

[^125]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶143.

[^126]: Base station coverage areas are generally divided into a small
    number (on the order of 3-6) of angular sectors, each served by a
    separate antenna. This permits the use of high-gain antennas and
    increased frequency re-use for better network performance.

[^127]: *ATC Report and Order* at ¶¶ 148-161 and Appendix C2 § 2.2.

[^128]: A 23.9 dBW limit on aggregate EIRP per sector is implied by the
    current rule provisions that limit per-carrier EIRP to 19.1 dBW and
    limit the number of carriers per sector to three.

[^129]: Inmarsat Opposition at 46-53.

[^130]: Intermodulation occurs when integer multiples of sums and
    differences of two or more signals are combined in a receiver.
    Intermodulation products are calculated by: IM=n\*f~1~ ± m\*f~2,~
    where f1 and f2 are the interfering frequencies.

[^131]: The NTIA initially recommended a sector PFD limit of -62.6
    dBW/m^2^ but subsequently revised the recommended limit to -54.6
    dBW/m2 to reflect an 8dB polarization mismatch factor. Email with
    attachment from Edward Drocella to Ronald Repasi sent Oct. 27, 2004
    at 7:39 AM.

[^132]: NTIA Letter at p.1.

[^133]: Letter from Lon C. Levin to the FCC Secretary dated August 2,
    2004, at 1.

[^134]: *See* §§ 25.253(b) and 25.253(d)(7).

[^135]: *ATC Report and Order* at Appendix C-2, Section 2.2.3.2.

[^136]: *ATC Report and Order* at Appendix C-2, Table 2.2.1.1.A.

[^137]: If the PFD for a sector is to be used a factor of 10 Log (number
    of carriers) must be included in the equation .

[^138]: MSV *ex parte* letter, October 6, 2004.

[^139]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.253, Note.

[^140]: cdma2000^®^ is a registered trademark of the Telecommunications
    Industry Association (TIA-USA) in the United States.

[^141]: MSV ATC Application at p.13 and Appendix B.

[^142]: *See* Response to Inmarsat at 9 and MSV ATC Application,
    Appendix B at 1.

[^143]: Inmarsat Opposition at 18-19.

[^144]: As Inmarsat has pointed out, MSV initially failed to explain how
    it would configure CDMA operation to afford priority and preemptive
    access for AMS(R)S and global maritime distress and safety system
    ("GMDSS") communications, as required by Section 25.253(a)(5) and
    Footnotes US308 and US315 to the Table of Frequency Allocations in
    Section 2.106 of the Commission's rules. MSV later rectified the
    omission, however, by submitting a satisfactory supplementary
    explanation. *See* letter with attachments from Lon C. Levin to the
    FCC Secretary dated Sept. 22, 2004.

[^145]: Since it takes 50 cdma2000 or 200 W-CDMA signals to create the
    equivalent power of a single GSM carrier, the cdma2000 total mobile
    terminal limit is calculated from the number of allowed base
    stations times 50, or 2415\*50=120,750. We also assumed that the
    same amount of spectrum was available for cdma2000 signals as was
    assumed for the purely GSM network discussed in Appendix C2 of the
    ATC R&O. This leads to the conclusion that there could be at most
    seven channels available for cdma2000 operations and at most 845,250
    (2415\*50\*7=845,250) cdma2000 terminals transmitting simultaneously
    in the U.S. Similarly, for W-CDMA, there can only be one 5 MHz
    channel within the same amount of spectrum, so the maximum number of
    simultaneously-transmitting terminals in an all-W-CDMA system would
    be 2415\*200\*1=483,000. This limit is both per-channel and
    system-wide for the W-CDMA architecture.

[^146]: This is calculated from Appendix C2, Table 2.1.1.A by adding the
    total number of base station re-use to the received power at the
    satellite.

[^147]: Letter from Lon C. Levin to the FCC Secretary dated 31 August,
    2004 concerning the testing of Inmarsat terminals.

[^148]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 25.253(f) (requirements for
    coordination of ATC base stations with SARSAT earth stations and MAT
    receive sites), and § 25.253(g)(2) (requiring all practicable steps
    to be taken to avoid causing interference with radio astronomy
    observation in the 1660-1660.5 MHz band).

[^149]: An action is "administratively final" when it is no longer
    subject to reconsideration or review under 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106,
    1.115, or 1.117 or judicial review pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 402.