[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18778-18780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9092]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 2

[ET Docket No. 92-28; FCC 95-71]


Mobile-Satellite Service at 1610-1626.5 and 2483.5-2500 MHz

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Second Report and Order denies five pioneer's preference 
requests submitted by Constellation Communications, Inc. 
(Constellation), Ellipsat Corporation (Ellipsat), Loral Qualcomm 
Satellite Services, Inc. (LQSS), Motorola Satellite Communications, 
Inc. (Motorola), and TRW Inc. (TRW). These parties requested a 
pioneer's preference for their proposals with regard to non-
geostationary (low-Earth orbit, or LEO) mobile-satellite service (MSS) 
systems. In denying the requests, the Commission has determined that 
none of these LEO MSS proponents pioneered an innovative new service or 
technology.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray LaForge, Office of Engineering and 
Technology, telephone (202) 739-0598.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order in ET Docket No. 92-28, adopted February 
24, 1995 and released March 30, 1995. The complete text of this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Public Reference Center (Room 
239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order also may be purchased from the 
Commission's duplication contractor, International Transcription 
Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20036, 
(202) 857-3800.

[[Page 18779]]


Summary of Second Report and Order

    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Tentative Decision, ET 
Docket No. 92-28, 7 FCC Rcd 6414, 57 FR 43434 (September 21, 1992), in 
this proceeding, we decided not to award a pioneer's preference to any 
of the five applicants proposing to establish LEO MSS systems. We were 
unable to discern a significant innovation in any of the five proposals 
that would warrant a preference grant. In each case, the technology 
relied upon to show innovation appeared to have already been used on 
existing satellite systems. Further, we found that none of the five 
applicants demonstrated, at the time of filing of their applications 
for a pioneer's preference, the technical feasibility of their 
respective systems. As noted, the Second Report and Order affirmed the 
Tentative Decision with respect to each of the five applicants. The 
Commission reason for not awarding preferences to these applicants were 
as follows.
    2. First, Constellation requests a pioneer's preference for its 
proposed LEO MSS system, stating that its proposal is innovative 
because it would use: (1) Micro-satellites that are designed as an 
outgrowth of other satellites that Constellation had pioneered for the 
U.S. military; (2) dynamic receivers; and (3) a new launch vehicle that 
enables satellites to be launched into orbit in a more cost-efficient 
and reliable manner. Constellation proposes a nationwide satellite 
service that would, inter alia, serve areas and people who do not 
currently have access to any telecommunications service.
    3. In the Tentative Decision, we concluded that Constellation's 
proposal merely combined existing technologies and did not constitute 
innovative achievements. We also noted that Constellation had neither 
demonstrated that its micro-satellite and dynamic receiver are unique, 
nor provided a technical showing to demonstrate that its design 
surpassed the state-of-art in satellite communications technology. 
Thus, we concluded that Constellation did not warrant a preference. No 
commenting party addressed the tentative denial of Constellation's 
request. Accordingly, in the Second R&O, we find no basis in the record 
to indicate that an award of a pioneer's preference is warranted and 
therefore, deny Constellation's pioneer's preference request.
    4. Second, Ellipsat asserts that it was the first applicant for a 
LEO system in these bands. Specifically, Ellipsat proposes to operate a 
nationwide mobile voice and position determination service via small 
low-Earth orbit satellites. Ellipsat requests a pioneer's preference 
for its alleged pioneering proposal for a voice and position 
determination LEO MSS system that: (1) Would be the first commercial 
use of elliptical orbits that optimize coverage over the U.S.; (2) 
would provide efficient spectrum use and facilitate sharing and 
multiple entry by other licensees by using code division multiple 
access (CDMA) spread spectrum technology; and (3) would utilize 
``transparent interconnections'' between ground and satellite stations 
resulting in a seamless communications network which will provide low-
cost, high-quality voice service. In addition, Ellipsat asserts that it 
was the first to apply for a LEO MSS system in the 1.6 and 2.4 GHz 
bands.
    5. In the Tentative Decision, we concluded that Ellipsat failed to 
meet its burden of demonstrating that its proposal is new and 
innovative. We found that the techniques Ellipsat proposed to use 
already exist in the satellite community and thus do not demonstrate an 
innovative contribution. We stated that the elliptical orbits relied 
upon by Ellipsat to demonstrate innovation have been used by U.S. 
military satellites and the Russian Molnyia satellite system. Further, 
we found that Ellipsat had not demonstrated that it had pioneered the 
use of ``transparent interconnections'' between ground and satellite 
components or CDMA technology. Also, we found that Ellipsat did not 
have a significant lead over the other preference applicants in concept 
design nor had it performed relevant verifiable experiments. Thus, we 
stated that it would be inappropriate to single out Ellipsat for a 
preference based on the timing of its submissions.
    6. In comments to the Tentative Decision, Ellipsat supports our 
decision not to award any pioneer's preferences in this proceeding. 
Ellipsat states that if any preferences are awarded, it warrants a 
grant since it was the first to propose a LEO satellite system above 1 
GHz. Ellipsat did not submit additional information related to its own 
proposed system, and no other party commented on the tentative denial 
of Ellipsat's request. Accordingly, in the Second R&O, we find no basis 
in the record to indicate that an award of a pioneer's preference is 
warranted and, therefore, deny Ellipsat's pioneer's preference request.
    7. Third, LQSS requests a pioneer's preference for its proposed 
enhanced satellite system that it states can provide data and voice 
transmission to hand-held portable transceivers and also provide 
position determination services. LQSS argues that its proposed system 
reflects substantial development of new system architecture and 
provides for multiple users and interoperability with the existing 
public telephone switched network. Further, it claims that its 
satellite system design using eight satellites per circular orbital 
plane, spot beams, smooth call hand-off, and a pilot channel for 
synchronization with gateway stations is innovative. Further, LQSS 
claims that is high system capacity accommodates thousands of voice and 
data users simultaneously. LQSS proposes to use CDMA spread spectrum 
technology that its Qualcomm subsidiary developed and patented. LQSS 
submits that all of these developments constitute innovations that 
satisfy the criteria for a pioneer's preference.
    8. In the Tentative Decision, we found that LQSS's proposal offers 
no contribution to communications technology that is significantly 
innovative. No party commented on the tentative denial of LQSS's 
request. Accordingly, in the Second R&O, we find no basis in the record 
to indicate that an award of a pioneer's preference is warranted and, 
therefore, deny LQSS's pioneer's preference request.
    9. Fourth, Motorola requests a pioneer's preference for its 
proposed LEO MSS system that it contends uses an innovative cellular 
design and spot beam technology. Motorola states that in the case of 
conventional cellular telephones, a static set of cells serves a large 
number of mobile units, whereas in its proposed system, cells would, in 
effect, move rapidly over the Earth while mobile units remain 
relatively stationary. Motorola claims that the unique elements of its 
system are its spectral efficiency and innovative design that includes 
the use of intersatellite links, a combination of frequency division 
multiple access and time division multiple access techniques, and bi-
directional capabilities.
    10. In the Tentative Decision, we concluded that Motorola's 
approach does not offer any significant improvements or innovations in 
service or technology. We found that Motorola's use of inter-satellite 
links and its concept of moving cells and spot beams have been utilized 
in earlier satellite systems and are thus not innovative. As we stated 
in the Tentative Decision, the U.S. military established inter-
satellite link (crosslink) feasibility in 1976. Further, the technique 
of moving cells and spot beams has been utilized by the Department of 
Defense on its satellites 

[[Page 18780]]
to improve coverage and provide frequency reuse. We also disagree that 
Motorola was the first to conceive and design a LEO satellite system 
above 1 GHz. From the record, it appears that all of the pioneer's 
preference applicants were performing research and developing their 
proposals in approximately the same time frame. Motorola's comments do 
not persuade us that the above findings were incorrect.
    11. Further, we find that even if Motorola's system were 
innovative, it still would not meet our pioneer's preference criteria 
because Motorola did not demonstrate the technical feasibility of its 
proposed system prior to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making and 
Tentative Decision in this proceeding. Rather, the information 
submitted by Motorola at that time related to major spacecraft and 
ground segment systems and did not relate to the subsystem details 
necessary to establish technical feasibility.
    12. Motorola also argues that we erred when we permitted a group of 
experts from other federal agencies to advise us on the merits of the 
requests without opening the results of this review to public comment. 
Motorola contends that this constituted peer review as contemplated by 
us when we established the pioneer's preference rules in Docket 90-217 
(see Report and Order GEN Docket 90-217, 6 FCC Rcd 3488, 56 FR 24011 
(May 28, 1991)) and that we should have released the results of the 
experts' evaluations to the public for comment. However, we disagree 
that the review performed by representatives of other government 
agencies constituted peer review. These representatives are employees 
from other federal government agencies who have expertise in satellite 
engineering matters. They were detailed by their agencies to the 
Commission and performed duties as Commission staff. The Commission 
brought these employees onboard using normal FCC personnel practices. 
Further, we follow this course of action routinely when we need 
additional resources or expertise in various matters. Here, the purpose 
of the work detail was to provide additional analysis by government 
experts of the pioneer's preference requests, but not to perform 
independent peer review as discussed in the Report and Order in Docket 
90-217, (see Report and Order GEN Docket 90-217, 6 FCC Rcd 3488, 56 FR 
24011 (May 28, 1991)). Therein, we contemplated soliciting assistance 
from either government or non-government experts who would not be 
functioning as Commission staff. Thus, there was nothing unfair in the 
Commission's use of employees on detail from other Government agencies 
to assist in the review of the various proposals. For all of these 
reasons, the Second R&O concludes that Motorola is not entitled to a 
pioneer's preference and that the procedure used to reach that decision 
was appropriate.
    13. Finally, TRW requests a pioneer's preference for developing a 
LEO MSS system that would use higher orbits to provide position 
determination, voice communications, and data services to mobile users. 
It claims that its proposed service is a significant and innovative new 
use because the provision of co-primary mobile voice and data services 
is not currently authorized in the 1.6 and 2.4 GHz bands. TRW states 
that its system combines the advantages of LEO and geostationary orbit 
(GSO) systems by providing low communications time delay compared to 
the delay associated with GSO systems, while using higher elevation 
angles than other LEO proponents to minimize obstruction by trees, 
buildings, and terrain. Finally, TRW states that its proposed system 
will provide inexpensive service to underserved segments of society, 
including emergency service providers, farmers, ranchers, truckers, and 
automobile, sea, and air travelers.
    14. In the Tentative Decision, we concluded that although TRW's LEO 
system would take advantage of higher orbits, its proposal was not 
sufficiently innovative to warrant a preference. We found that TRW 
merely had balanced the relative advantages and disadvantages of LEO 
versus GSO systems.
    15. In comments to the Tentative Decision, TRW states that we 
pursued the most prudent and reasonable course in declining to award 
any of the applicants a preference. No other party commented on the 
proposed denial of TRW's request. Accordingly, in the Second R&O, we 
find no basis in the record to indicate that an award of a pioneer's 
preference is warranted and, therefore, deny TRW's pioneer's preference 
request.
    16. Accordingly, it is ordered, That the pioneer's preference 
requests filed by Constellation Communications, Inc., Ellipsat 
Corporation, Loral Qualcomm Satellite Services, Inc., Motorola 
Satellite Communications, Inc., and TRW Inc. are denied. This action is 
taken pursuant to sections 4(i), 303 (c), (f), (g), and (r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i), 303 
(c), (f), (g), and (r).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 2

    Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9092 Filed 4-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M