As you noted, the MSV solution did not provide satellite launch and operational milestones, nor did it have any RAN QoS service qualification. As a matter of fact, I believe that you will be unable to find another MSS company that is a peer to Globalstar that has specific space segment service level requirements “High Speed MSS”. This requirement is arbitrary, discriminatory, and not supported by the codified ATC rules. You opined that the FCC regulatory modifications of Globalstar’s ATC requirements is “arguably part of a process where the FCC has progressively tightened the criteria associated with ATC authorizations over time.” Unfortunately, there is no case to support this viewpoint. All one has to do is read the current NPRM/NOI to understand the wind appears to be blowing in the complete opposite direction for all the other MSS companies, minus Globalstar. For instance, when Terrestar received it’s ATC authorizations in January of this year. There is no requirement for specific levels of service “High Speed Data” that was arbitrarily added to their ATC gating requirements. If Globalstar had simply planned to launch satellites, are restart two-way voice and data services, without eventual upgrades to the RAN, then would they still have been tied to a “HIgh Speed MSS” requirement? Only with Globalstar does the FCC make these demands. Not one of Globalstar MSS peer, either before, or after the November 2008 ATC Wimax ruling has a requirement to provide a specific level of service on the Space Segment, in order to deem specific service levels on the terrestrial ATC reuse as being deemed. An integrated offering.

The FCC has a storied history of regulating Globalstar differently than its MSS peers. From the cancellation of it’s 2Ghz MSS license, to the complete lack of action on outstanding STA’s since 2007.

http://orbitrax.com/?p=2192

ORBITRAX

It is certainly the case that the original MSV authorization did not include milestones for launch of the next generation satellites. In that sense the Commission’s 2008 ruling on Globalstar, which did include specific deadlines, is “stricter” than the 2004 MSV ruling. However, this is arguably part of a process where the FCC has progressively tightened the criteria associated with ATC authorizations over time. Notably, the LightSquared authorization in March 2010 included specific deadlines for the ATC network as well, and we will have to see how these are treated by the FCC, if LightSquared needs them to be relaxed. Only if the Commission was more lenient in that case would it be reasonable to argue that Globalstar is being treated unfairly at this point in time. Indeed, as noted above, the fact that Globalstar’s waiver request has been denied should be a pretty strong signal to LightSquared not to ask for any similar waivers of its ATC deployment deadlines.

Of course there is the pending request for a delay of LightSquared’s satellite launch, but given that there is no LightSquared ATC network in operation at the moment, their ATC plans should not be impacted by that request. Satellite launch deadlines have repeatedly been missed in the past, and waivers given (e.g. to both DBSD and TerreStar), but the FCC appears to be drawing a distinction between satellite and ATC authorizations.

As an aside, DBSD and TerreStar’s ATC authorizations do not contain deadlines for deployment, but at present these are better thought of as “prospective” authorizations rather than “real” deployment plans as Globalstar/Open Range and LightSquared have put forward.

“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 CONDLUDE THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION’S INTEGRATION REQUIREMENT,”

Here the FCC clearly provided a definition of the “integrated service requirement”. A low-water mark if you will. The FCC claims that the stand alone ATC terminal would actually be a Single Mode ATC terminal that would be capable of Dual Mode operations if a bulky external amplifier and antenna were to be “plugged-in”. There is no requirement that the stand alone “LIGHTWEIGHT HANDSET (FCC DESCRIPTION)” would be rendered non-operational if the external Dual Mode Enabling device was not attached.

It should also me noted that the FCC called this “a temporary solution” even thought the Satellite that would eventually allow Dual Mode Operations with the approved “lightweight” ATC device had not even been approved for a license, let alone provided a start of construction milestone.

Furthermore, in the MSV Order. The Commission clearly understood that ATC terrestrial component services would provide high capacity mobile services by re-using the space segment spectrum.

DA 04-3553 (MSV ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION)@2.

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.

It should be noted that the AMSC satellite which served and still serves as the basis of MSV/Skyterra/LightSquared ATC authorization provided no data services at the time of the ATC authorization in 2004. Yet the FCC clearly understood that the services provided on the terrestrial segment would be “high capacity” versus the Space Segment. So it is ironic that the FCC opined that low data rate SPOT service would not satisfy the “integrated service requirement” offsetting high speed WiMax services on the MSS segment. There is absolutely no indication in the Rules that claim that there is any relationship between ATC service offerings and those available on the MSS segment. The FCC requiring such as a basis for ATC authorization is without merit or legal standing. We understand that there is the requirement for forward and reverse band utilization. So the question becomes one of definition of S Band service.

For instance we know that the S Band Amplifiers have experienced a gradual degradation over the last decade, and there becomes a point that the S Band Link Margin reaches a point were S Band services are no longer capable to existing “Small Form Factor” user terminals due to weak signals emitting from the S-Band Amplifiers. But, what if Globalstar employed “plug in” external receiver amplifiers (MSV/Skyterra) and directional antennas that require user participation (Terrestar, Inmarstat) to achieve suitable link margin on the S-Band?

Then is Globalstar’s constellation really in violation of it’s MSS Coverage and Spare Satellite gating requirements?

Are the operational and technical requirements (High-Speed MSS)required by Globalstar by the Commission to maintain it’s ATC authorizations in excess of it’s MSS peers? Are the Commissions rulings far stricter on Globalstar than it’s peers, and if so, what are their motivations to do so.

As I have opined before. I wouldn’t know what “tortious interference” looked like if it passed me on the street. But, If I had to guess, it might look something like what we have seen.

ORBITRAX

With respect to Globalstar, the FCC stated in Globalstar’s 2008 ATC license that (as per its 2005 Order) the gating criteria must be satisfied separately in each frequency band. Thus a simplex (L-band) satellite transmission would not be sufficiently “integrated” with respect to an S-band ATC network. Exactly what level of “high speed” data capabilities are required by the gating criteria (as opposed to Globalstar’s own promises of specific data rates in its application) once a two-way chipset is developed and integrated into the ATC terminal remains unclear. As far as I am aware LightSquared, TerreStar and DBSD did not make specific promises to the FCC that they would achieve a particular data rate over the satellite with their ATC terminals, and of course in the case of LightSquared and TerreStar no terminals have yet been approved for ATC service, while DBSD’s terminal was focused on one way broadcast service (MIM).

I also was under the impression that Lightsquared had about ~100 million in satellite payment deferrals due Boeing in late December 2010?

Orbitrax continues to believe that the FCC has no legal basis or authority to require specific levels of space segment MSS performance “High Speed MSS”, ATC/MSS user terminal performance which exceeds the maximum level of the original Qualcomm RAN 9.6kbs when their ATC authorizations were originally issued in 2006.

See MSV ATC authorization.

Orbitrax