However, it should be noted that paragraph 33. (pp17), the FCC espouses the advantages of providing LightSquared flexibility to rural operators. It explains.

“Moreover, as the record shows, LightSquared’s actions will improve the ability of small, rural wireless providers to utilize ubiquitous MSS spectrum and the MSS/ATC device marketplace being advanced by LightSquared.”

While three months earlier, the same International Bureau claimed that the public interest in improving the ability of small, rural wireless providers was NOT sufficient to override the ATC gating requirements.

“Provision of improved broadband service generally serves the public interest. The question in this case, however, is whether that potential benefit is sufficient to override the policy underlying the ATC gating rules. As we concluded above, the proposed extension would substantially broaden the scope of the waiver, both in duration and in the number of markets and consumers receiving non-compliant terminals. Given the purposes of the ATC rules, we cannot conclude that, on balance, the public interest would be served by an extended period of non-compliance.”

Here now, Lightsquared’s “ATC compliant terminals” equal Globalstar’s “non-compliant ATC terminals” Globalstar is required to provide High Speed MSS services as a condition, while it’s MSS competitors have no such requirement.

The differences in regulatory “policy” between two direct competitors in the same market is not trivial.

If the “policy” of the FCC is to transition what they perceive as “excess MSS capacity” into competitive CMRS spectrum. Then that should have been the outcome of the decision.

Providing a highly uneven regulatory environment amongst MSS competitors that will drastically change the competitive environment to favor a single MSS provider, in exchange for providing additional competition to terrestrial CMRS licensees is not an acceptable exchange.

Therefore, it is our opinion, that since the FCC has indicated that there is no “policy” in place to provide a level playing field amongst LightSquard’s MSS competitors as it pertains to like flexibility. Lightsquared should be required to “spin off” it’s MSS business and the 6Mhz of MSS only spectrum to allow a level, compeitive playing field amongst MSS licensees.

ORBITRAX

Undoubtedly Globalstar would argue that it was attempting to do similar things through its deal with Open Range. However, the critical difference may be that Open Range was never going to provide competition for AT&T and Verizon, while that has been an explicit part of the LightSquared/FCC agreement from the get-go. The FCC could still achieve this objective if the 2GHz spectrum is used to build out such a network, whether or not LightSquared is successful.

ORBITRAX