WPC!$ 2BJZ Courier3|x >x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) LPT2HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\RX@26 ZF :3|x HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) LPT2HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\RX@CourierCourier BoldTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman2vpkkga8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2-vta2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 _   Ua2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2l <    a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2|  nTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2k\a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2#3a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:fx6X@`7X@?xxx,x `7X7nC:,Xn4  pG;X7jC:,* Xj\  P6G;XPW!@(#,*9h@\  P6G;hPOتֽG}oy:`S b! jofJW"3!s0WDD6Wgbv{<@DDzE!n14 4GM0Bullet ListInde2$ XA #XU4  pQX# Federal Communications Commission   #o\  PC XP# #XP\  P6Q XP#  g!   g! DA 961790 ă   yxdddy  +Before the   Federal Communications Commission  X'H Washington, D.C. 20554 #XP\  P6Q XP# c  X4X01Í ÍX01Í ÍIn re application of ,hh]) ` `  ,hh])  Xf4U.S. Leo Services, Inc.,hh])ppFile No. 422DSEP/L96  XO4` `  ,hh])pp &  X8 4For a license to construct andhh])  X! 4operate transmitreceive gatewayhh])  X 4fixed Earth station facilities for usehh])  X 4with the IRIDIUM System in thehh])  X 419.419.6 GHz and 29.129.3 GHzhh])  X 4bands` `  ,hh]) ` `  ,hh]  X'* ORDER AND AUTHORIZATIONĐc  X;' Adopted: October 30, 1996 hh]ppReleased: October 30, 1996  X 4 By the Chief, International Bureau: 1. U.S. Leo Services, Inc. ("Leo Services"), a whollyowned subsidiary of Motorola, Inc., requests a license to construct and operate a fixed transmitreceive "gateway" earth station that would comprise an integral element of the IRIDIUM System, Motorola's proposed system for providing nongeostationary, lowearthorbit (LEO) mobile satellite service. The application, which includes requests for waiver of certain technical requirements, was filed on  Xl4January 16, 1996 and was placed on public notice on February 21.=l X4ԍ Report No. DS1605.= AT&T, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and TRW, Inc. filed comments on the application, and CellularVision USA, Inc. filed a "Petition to Deny Unconditional Grant". The applicant filed a consolidated opposition and response. We will grant the application in part.  X 4 ! I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ă  X!4 2. As designed, the IRIDIUM System will enable subscribers with handheld mobile terminals to conduct twoway voice and data communications from anywhere in the world with similarlyequipped subscribers or with telephone users. The system will have four basic components: satellites, mobile transceivers, groundbased satellitecontrol facilities, and gateway earth stations. The satellite component (or "space segment") will consist of aXX&y0*0*0*$3'#| X constellation of 66 satellites in lowearth orbit, networked together and providing continuous global coverage. Each satellite will have radio links with adjacent IRIDIUM satellites and with gateway stations and will use an array of spot beams for transmission to endusers' handheld mobile transceivers. The gateway earth stations will function as the system's interface with the Public Switched Telephone Network and will control user access and collect billing data. Motorola's business plan calls for establishment of multiple gateways distributed throughout the world, each equipped with multiple tracking earth terminals and switching equipment. 3. The instant application requests authority for construction of an earth station in the vicinity of Tempe, Arizona, to operate as a gateway and to conduct satellitecontrol functions. It will transmit on frequencies in the 29.129.3 GHz range for both purposes and receive feederlink transmissions from the IRIDIUM satellites in the 19.419.6 GHz range. The gateway will initially handle all IRIDIUM calls placed from points anywhere in the United States, pending construction of additional U.S. gateways. The facilities will include three satellitetracking parabolic antennas and other equipment necessary to establish twoway communication links with the IRIDIUM satellite constellation.  Xy4  Xb44. The Commission has granted authority for construction of the IRIDIUM satellites.pb& X4ԍ Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 2268 (1995).p It said when granting that authorization, though, that the time was not yet ripe for assigning feederlink frequencies unconditionally, as pertinent allocational issues were still under consideration in WRC95 and other pending proceedings, particularly the Ka Band  X4proceeding.y& X04ԍ See Rulemaking to Amend Part 1 and Part 2 of the Commision's Rules to redesignate  X4the 27.529.5 GHz Frequency Band and to Establish Rules and Policies for LMDS, 9 FCC Rcd 1394 (1994). Consistently with the pertinent interim policy announced in the Big LEO Order, the Commission granted conditional, atyourownrisk authority for Motorola to construct its satellites with a configuration suitable for operation with the requested feederlink frequencies  X4while withholding authority for it to launch and operate them with that configuration.E& Xp4ԍ 10 FCC Rcd at 2271, 17.E  Xe4I II. DISCUSSION ă  X7' A. Technical Requirements   X 45. Subsection 25.204(e) power limit. The applicant asks for a waiver of the limit on compensatory power boosts prescribed in Subsection 25.204(e) of the FCC's rules, which says that earth stations operating on frequencies above 10 GHz may exceed normal power limits by up to 1 dB to compensate for fading during periods of precipitation. U.S. Leo asks for" 0*0*0*o" permission to exceed the normal limit by as much as 3 dB during periods of precipitation  X4i.e., to exceed the rule's precipitationperiod limit by 2 dB contending that the increase is warranted in light of the different protection and tracking requirements of lowearthorbit,  X4nongeostationary satellites.  X46. Subsection 25.202(f) spectral emission limits. Subsection 25.202(f) of the FCC's rules specifies limits on spurious emissions, in terms of dB of required attenuation below mean authorized output power. U.S. Leo acknowledges that when the proposed earth stations transmit on two channels at maximum power, intermodulation products, measured at the transmitting antenna, would exceed those limits. It asserts, though, that this condition would occur infrequently and that any interference caused would be brief. It says that the transmitters would operate with maximum power only during periods of excessive attenuation due to rainfall and estimates, based on rainfallfrequency records for the Tempe vicinity, that such periods would amount to only 5 hours per year, approximately. Given the narrow beamwidth of the gateway's transmitting antennae and the apparent velocity of the IRIDIUM spacecraft, U.S. Leo calculates that mainbeam to mainbeam alignment of the former with any stationary terrestrial or satellite receiver would last for only 7.5 seconds, at most, per occurrence. Hence, in light of the infrequency of severe precipitation in the relevant location and the brevity of intervals of alignment, the applicant contends that the likelihood that maximum powerboost would occur during alignment with any particular space or terrestrial receiving antenna within a year's time is minimal. (U.S. Leo estimates that the probability is on the order of 0.00072 percent.) It maintains, moreover, that the possibility of disruptive interference with reception by other satellites is especially low, because the gateway transmitters would operate on full power only to compensate for unusual atmospheric attenuation, in which event spurious emissions from the uplink would also be attenuated. 7. U.S. Leo therefore proposes to conform to an alternative spuriousemissions suppression standard that permits higher intermodulation levels than the standard specified in Sect. 25.202(f). The proposed emissions mask also specifies different frequency breakpoints, chosen in light of the frequency characteristics of a twochannel FDM transmitter with  XP4channel separation ranging from 7.5 to 180 MHz. P X4ԍ The applicant proposes to adhere to the following limits during periods of excessive attenuation due to precipitation while transmitting two primary carriers:  X4 `  PSD(b) 17 dB/4KHz for 0.5 BW  b  1.5 BW  X 4 hhC27 dB/4KHz for 1.5 BW  b  2.5 BW  Xm!4 hhC37 dB/4KHz for 2.5 BW  b where PSD(b) = PSD measured in a 4KHz band relative to the highest power level of the two channels; b = frequency of measurement relative to the center point of the twocarrier pair; BW =  + 6.25 MHz;  = n x 7.5 MHz  X%4(separation between carriers); and 0  n  24 (i.e., 0  separation  180 MHz). If the power levels of the two channels are different, the higherpower channel is to be used as a reference."P 0*(("Ԍ X4ԙ8. Applicability of 25.209 and 25.210. U.S. Leo requests issuance of a clarifying statement that the earthstation antennaperformance standards specified in Sect. 25.209 and the technical requirements specified in Sect. 25.210 do not apply to the operation of earth stations for nongeostationary MSS systems.  X49. TRW's comments. TRW is the only party that filed comments on these requests. It agrees with U.S. Leo that the cited rules concerning power limits, suppression of spurious emissions, and antenna performance should not be applied to operation of gateway earth stations as components of nongeostationary satellite systems. TRW asserts that the rulerequirements in question are clearly designed with regard to interference situations that could occur between geostationary satellites and earth stations used in conjunction with them and that they are inappropriately quantified for, or inherently inapplicable to, nongeostationary operations. It therefore recommends that we announce in any order granting U.S. Leo's gateway application that we are establishing a waiver policy for the benefit of any applicant for a gateway earth station to be used for communication with nongeostationary satellites.  X410. Discussion. We are granting the requested waivers of 25.204(e) and 25.202(f), as we agree with the applicant that some relaxation of those requirements is warranted for earth  Xb4stations transmitting in the Ka Band to lowearthorbit NGSO satellites and as we are satisfied that the alternative standards that it proposes are sufficient substitutes for this purpose. 11. We agree in part with U.S. Leo's contention that it should not be compelled to operate in conformance with the strictures in Section 25.209. The requirement in Subsection (a)(1) of that rule section was obviously devised to protect geostationary satellites from longterm interference from earth stations licensed for transmission to adjacent geostationary satellites, and we see no need to impose that restriction on tracking earth stations used to transmit to lowearthorbit NGSO satellites. The other two principal requirements of Section 209 apply by their terms to all fixedservice earth stations, however, and it is not selfevident that it would serve the public interest to excuse Big LEO licensees from complying with them. Hence, U.S. Leo's appropriate recourse for seeking relief from the requirements in Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of 25.209 is to file a waiver request pursuant to Section 25.133(c). 12. As for Section 25.210, no clarification is necessary here, as all of its requirements are plainly inapplicable by their terms to earthstation operation.  X!' B. Conformance with Rules Adopted in Ka Band Proceeding 13. TRW, Lockheed Martin, CellularVision USA, and AT&T all contend that because the applicant is requesting authority for the proposed gateway station to transmit on frequencies between 29.1 and 29.3 GHz any grant of its application prior to resolution of the Ka Band rulemaking in Docket No. 92297 should be expressly conditioned on the outcome":&0*((B$"  X4of that proceeding.w Xy4ԍ See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.529.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.530.0 Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed  X44Satellite Service (Third NPRM), 11 FCC Rcd 53 (1995).w U.S. Leo disagrees, contending that it is eligible for an unconditional  X4grant because the Commission decided in the Big LEO Report and Order that feederlink licenses could be unconditionally granted once sufficient spectrum for MSS feeder links has  X4been internationally allocated by the 1995 World Radio Conference.D4 X 4ԍ 9 FCC Rcd at 5998 166.D U.S. Leo asserts that precondition has been met by the designation at WRC95 of the spectrum at 19.319.6 GHz and 29.129.4 GHz and additional frequencies in the 5, 7, and 15 GHz bands for nongeostationary MSS feeder links, stressing that none of the commenting parties has contended  X_4otherwise. It also argues that it will be obliged to comply with any bandsharing plan  XH4adopted in the Ka Band proceeding in any case, whether or not its earthstation license is explicitly conditioned on the outcome, therefore contending that inserting such a condition would be superfluous.  X 414. Discussion. The objection against issuing an unconditional grant prior to the resolution of pertinent issues in the Ka Band proceeding has become moot. Those issues  X 4were resolved in a "First Report and Order" released on July 22, 1996,  XT4ԍ Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.529.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.530.0 Frequency Band, to Establish  X&4Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Service (First Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), FCC No. 96311  X4(released July 22, 1996), 61 F.R. 39425 (August 28, 1996).  which, among other things, promulgated rules governing use of frequencies in the 29.129.5 GHZ range for feederlink transmission to MSS NGSO satellites from fixed earth stations. U.S. Leo will, of course, be obliged to operate in compliance with the new rules.  XK415. As part of the bandsegmentation/sharing plan that it adopted in the First Report  X44and Order, the Commission ruled that because of the evident infeasibility of coprimary frequencysharing between IRIDIUM gateway stations and geostationary FSS systems, the feeder uplinks for the IRIDIUM System must be confined to the 150 MHz band between 29.1  X4and 29.25 GHz.> :  X"4ԍ Id. at 63.> We will therefore grant the application in part, specifying an authorized transmission frequency range of 29.129.25 GHz in lieu of the wider one requested.  X' C. Coordination with Lockheed Martin "| 0*(("Ԍ16. The Lockheed Martin Corporation asserts that its proposed "Astrolink" geostationary FSS system and the U.S. Leo IRIDIUM gateways would transmit in overlapping and/or adjacent frequency bands if one of the alternative bandsegmentation plans under  X4consideration in the Ka Band proceeding is adopted. Lockheed contends that it will consequently need to understand "the interference scenario" between the two systems in considerably more detail than can be fathomed from the information furnished in U.S. Leo's gateway application. It therefore urges us to declare in this licensing order that U.S. Leo must enter into frequency coordination "at the appropriate time" with respect to the Astrolink system, particularly if we grant the applicant's request for partial waiver of the 25.202(f) limit on outofband emissions. 17. U.S. Leo points out in reply that Subsection 25.203(k) merely requires Big LEO gatewaystation applicants to demonstrate that its feederuplink transmissions would not cause  X 4unacceptable interference to any satellite network that is already authorized to operate in the same frequency band or certify that its operations will conform to existing coordination agreements with such licensees. U.S. Leo contends that inasmuch as Lockheed Martin has not yet received a license for the Astrolink system its request for a coordination requirement is premature.  XM418. Discussion. Lockheed's concern about cochannel interference is now moot, as  X64there is no overlap between the spectrum band that the First Report and Order allocated for IRIDIUM feeder uplinks (29.129.25 GHz) and the band that it allocated for geostationary FSS systems (29.2530 GHz). We decline to impose a requirement for coordination with GSO/FSS licensees with respect to outofband emissions, as Lockheed has not shown that there is any likelihood of interference from outofband emissions from the proposed gateway station.   X~' C. Regulatory Status 20. U.S. Leo requests a declaratory ruling that its provision of gateway services pursuant to the business plan outlined in its application would not be subject to commoncarrier regulation under Title II of the Communications Act. It says that it plans to use the proposed earthstation facilities to provide gateway and systemcontrol service to just one client: U.S. Iridium, L.P., an affiliated company primarily owned by U.S. Leo's parent corporation, Motorola, Inc. It also says that it would provide those services to U.S. Iridium in conjunction with IRIDIUMSystem spacesegment capacity (which U.S. Leo would obtain under contract from the Motorola spacesegment licensee, Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc.). U.S. Iridium, in turn,   would resell integrated IRIDIUM service in bulk. U.S. Leo contends that because it would not offer service to the public it would not be operating as a  Xj$4common carrier, as defined in National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v."j$ 0*((""  X4FCC,v  Xy4ԍ 525 F.2d 630, 642 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 999 (1976).v and would not be a "telecommunications carrier", as defined in Sect. 3, item (44) of the Communications Act. The applicant stresses, moreover, that the Commission expressly  X4recognized in the Big LEO Report and Order and the CMRS Second Report and OrderI { X4ԍ 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 145758 (1994).I that it retained discretion under Section 332(c)(5) of the Communications Act to decide whether provision of spacesegment capacity to resellers providing commercial MSS to end users  X4should be regulated under Title II and that it concluded in the Big LEO Report and Order that there is no good reason to require Big LEO spacesegment capacity to be offered to resellers on a commoncarrier basis.  X1421. Discussion ]!7W . ]!7W  As the Commission recognized in the Big LEO Report and Order, the provision in 332(c)(1) mandating commoncarrier regulation of commercial mobile services does not compel the FCC to regulate provision of "space segment capacity" to  X 4providers of commercial mobile services as common carriage, as the proviso in 332(c)(5) v , X4ԍ The text of 332(c)(5) proviso is as follows:     SPACE SEGMENT CAPACITY.Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Commission from continuing to determine whether the provision of space segment capacity by satellite systems to providers of commercial mobile services shall be treated as common carriage. preserves its discretion in that regard. More to the point, a proviso in Section 3 (44) of the Communications Act, one of the provisions newly added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, states that "the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage." We read this as a grant of discretion to  Xy4either impose, or refrain from imposing, commoncarrier regulation on the provision of any element of satellite service, including Earthtosatellite transmission, based on assessment of the public interest. 22. The next question to consider, then, is whether it would best serve the public interest to require U.S. Leo to provide earthtosatellite feeder links on a commoncarrier basis, subject to pertinent Title II requirements. We hold that it would not, in light of considerations similar to those that the Commission noted in concluding that there was no need to compel Big LEO licensees to provide spacesegment service components as common  X4carriers and in compliance with Title II.r j  X#4ԍ Big LEO Order,supra, 9 FCC Rcd at 600305,  178181.r As U.S. Leo will face significant commercial competition from both terrestrial and satellite MSS providers, including other Big LEO licensees, the discipline of the market should obviate any need to resort to intrusive supervision of its commercial practices. Furthermore, as the Commission recognized in the"g 0*((q"  X4Big LEO Report and Order,G Xy4ԍ Id. at  18081.G it is likely that imposing commoncarrier requirements on Big LEO licensees would hamper development of the service. In particular, to compel them to comply with the restriction on foreign involvement that Section 310(b) of the Communications Act prescribes for common carriers could impair their ability to raise capital and gain entry in foreign markets; although this consideration may seem moreobviously relevant to spacesegment licensing, we think that it is also has a material bearing on the appropriate regulatory policy for Big LEO gateway stations.  X 4*" III. ORDERING CLAUSES ă 23. Accordingly, pursuant to authority delegated by 47 C.F.R. 0.261, IT IS ORDERED that Application File No. 422DSEP/L96 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, and U.S. Leo Services, Inc. IS AUTHORIZED to operate a gateway Earth station in accordance with the technical specifications in its application and in compliance with FCC rules, except insofar as those have been waived herein. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this authorization is issued with the following conditions: (1) the licensee must obtain a notice of clearance pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  X4425.113(c) before commencing construction; (2) as required by 47 C.F.R. 25.133, construction of the station must be complete within one year from the releasedate of this  X4order, except as the Commission may otherwise order for good cause shown; (3) the licensee  X4must furnish the information requested in Question 18 of the application form: viz., a verified statement as to whether the manufacturer's measurements show that the station's transmitting antennas would operate in accordance with the gain patterns specified in 47 C.F.R.  X425.209(a)(2) and (b).  X4 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license term will be ten years, beginning on the date when the first transmission on the authorized frequencies from the earth station to a satellite has occurred. 26. This license does not confer any right to operate the station or use the designated frequencies beyond the term thereof or in any manner not authorized herein. No right granted by this authorization shall be transferred, assigned, or disposed of in any manner, voluntarily or involuntarily, or by transfer of control of any corporation holding this authorization, to any person except upon application to the Commission and upon a finding by the Commission that the transaction will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. ""{0*(( " 27. This license is subject to the rights of use or control conferred by 47 U.S.C. 706.  X4   ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqDonald H. Gips ` `  hhCqChief, International Bureau