Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Welcome & totally agree! GSAT is a High Conviction stock for sure... for those willing to endure The FCC "Regulatory Process" of delays/trials/tribulations/woes/perturbations/palpitations/etc...
the TLPS Proceeding/Docket is so very much akin to what transpired during the 13 years "of Process/Machinations" it took The FCC to get the R&O finalized/out the door for cellular (and its attendant industry -- we so very much take for granted today) to come into reality/be "born", viz.:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124369499
Kevin G. Rooney TLPS Proceeding Ex Parte filing (9/19/16)
Kevin G. Rooney
Attorney-at-Law
441 Vine Street
2700 Carew Tower
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241-2324
krooney@whe-law.com
September 19, 2016
Via Electronic Filing
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 Twelfth Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re: Written Ex Parte Filing, Terrestrial Use of the 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low- Power Mobile Broadband Networks, IB Docket No. 13-213
Dear Ms. Dortch:
This responds to various recent ex parte filings in the above-captioned proceeding. 1 More specifically, this responds to individual filings made by Microsoft and Public Knowledge, and joint filings made by two groups consisting of: Entertainment Software Association, Microsoft Corp. Nintendo of America, Inc., Sony Electronics, Inc. and Sony Interactive Entertainment America, LLC
____________________
1 As with each of my prior filings in this proceeding, these comments are offered for the Commission’s review and represent the personal views and opinions of the undersigned counsel. This letter does not represent the views of undersigned counsel’s firm, or any of its clients, or necessarily any particular stakeholder or party in this proceeding.
Marlene Dortch September 19, 2016
(collectively “ESA”); and the Hearing Industries Association and Entertainment Software Association (collectively “HIA/ESA”).2
The Microsoft Test Results
As I have stated before on the record, in its NPRM adopted almost 3 years ago, the Commission urged the opposition to present technical evidence of the “concerns” they stated during the initial petition process. Prior to the most recent filing by Microsoft, the only testing results reported into the record by opposition were either presented through Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) as a result of testing facilitated by Globalstar and the FCC at OET facilities (“FCC Demo”), or by Bluetooth SIG stemming from the FCC Demo, or by hedge fund managers. 3
____________________
2 See Letters from: Andrew Bopp, Executive Director (HIA) and Michael Warnecke, Chief Counsel, Technology Policy (ESA), to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (9/1/16); Paula Boyd, Director, Govt. Relations and Regulatory Affairs and Michael Daum, Technology Policy Strategist, Microsoft, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (9/12/16); Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (9/15/16); and Michael Warnecke, Chief Counsel, Technology Policy, ESA to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (9/15/16), IB Docket No. 13-213.
3 Not that this is directly relevant to the value of any particular test results submitted by a hedge fund manager, but it cannot and should not go unnoticed that one particular hedge fund manager, who submitted technical reports in this proceeding and met with several senior FCC staff, was arrested last month after crashing his car into another car in the Hamptons. His arrest related to DUI and cocaine possession according to several reports. See http://mobile.easthamptonstar.com/News/2016818/Two-Are-Hurt-Crash. I can only assume that the FCC, for substantive reasons, gave no weight to the technical reports filed by this individual, but being that the FCC does not comment on pending proceedings and, further, that actual industry stakeholder filings publicly relied on this hedge fund manager’s opinion, it would seem to at least bear mention. In this latter regard, see Letter from Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute, and Steven E. Coran, Counsel for WISPA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (1/8/15), at footnote 1; Letter from Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (2/13/15), at footnote 1; and Letter from Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute, and Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (2/18/15), at footnote 1, IB Docket No. 13-213.
-2-
Marlene Dortch September 19, 2016
Notably, WFA and Bluetooth SIG made various complaints about the FCC Demo, such as by citing alleged “short notice,” “insufficient testing time,” “[a] small and crowded test facility,” “constrained circumstances,” and an “uncontrolled RF environment.” 4 Of course, this latter complaint of an “uncontrolled RF environment” contradicts the other repeated complaints about an alleged lack of “real world” testing, because the real world of unlicensed Wi-Fi or Bluetooth operations is usually quite uncontrolled. And, in all of this time, WFA, Bluetooth SIG and other industry stakeholders have presented no independent test results of their own even though they certainly have the technical expertise to design and conduct tests to overcome all of the “constraints” allegedly placed on them at the FCC Demo. That was the case until now when Microsoft secured an STA and then conducted shielded chamber tests that, to my knowledge, do not even require an STA or experimental license. I do commend Microsoft for finally taking at least a little time to do some testing of its own (or, perhaps more accurately, publicly reporting a small portion of its past test results). I do not know if Globalstar will have its own technical experts review and critique the latest Microsoft filing, but I suspect that if they do, the Globalstar technical experts may make some of the observations and ask some of the questions that immediately arose in my mind, such as:
1. Why did Microsoft focus its very first test in the record of this long proceeding on “worst case scenario” conditions?
2. When Microsoft complained in previous filings that Globalstar failed to test “real world” conditions, or that Globlastar’s testing or demonstrations were not “rigorous,” was it this type of “worst case scenario” that Microsoft had in mind as “real world” and “rigorous?” Were the test room conditions and equipment, as shown and described in Microsoft’s very first testing report, what Microsoft had in mind for “rigorous” testing? Was Microsoft part of the WFA and/or Bluetooth
____________________
4 See filing by Mark Powell, Executive Director, Bluetooth SIG, Inc. (3/12/15), and Letter from Rob Alderfer, Principal Strategist, CableLabs, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (4/14/15), IB Docket No. 13-213.
-3-
Marlene Dortch September 19, 2016
SIG group that complained about the so-called “constrained” FCC Demo conditions? Did the FCC reject Microsoft’s indirect request for “worst case scenario” testing at the FCC Demo? 5
3. The FCC, through its Technical Advisory Council, has been transitioning to a risk informed analysis of interference conditions and away from “worst case scenario” analysis, in order to accommodate further and more efficient spectrum use. Why is Microsoft clinging to the past instead of adapting both its technology and its interference analytics to the needs of a more spectrally efficient environment? 6
4. Microsoft tested its legacy “Xbox 360S” system that is being phased out of existence. Why didn’t Microsoft report on testing its latest “Xbox One” technology?
5. Microsoft Xbox users have experienced technical problems referred to by gamers as “input lag,” “controller lag” and “controller delay” for over a decade. Why did Microsoft not mention the history of this problem, as well its own suggestions to Xbox customers for resolving these longstanding issues, in their recent report to the Commission? Why did
____________________
5 See, for example, Letter from Paula Boyd, Director, Govt. Relations and Regulatory Affairs and Michael Daum, Technology Policy Strategist, Microsoft, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (5/25/15), (“Based on these and other concerns, Microsoft has concluded that the Globalstar demonstration was just that—a limited and controlled demonstration of TLPS that produced some interesting tidbits of data—but nothing that the Commission should consider as a substitute for rigorous testing.”), citing Letter from Greg Gerst, Gerst Capital, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IB Docket No. 13-213, RM-11685 (filed May 19, 2015), IB Docket No. 13-213.
6 See, for example: https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting4115/Intro-to-RIA-v100.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting121015/MetSat-LTE-v100-TAC-risk-assessment.pdf
-4-
Marlene Dortch September 19, 2016
Microsoft reframe the issue as so-called “button loss” for purposes of its test report in this proceeding? 7
6. In its recent letter reporting shielded, worst case scenario testing, Microsoft tells the FCC to stay tuned for real world testing. After almost three years from the date of the Commission’s request for technical evidence, why is Microsoft continuing to keep the Commission “on the hook” for relevant evidence? How long is the FCC going to wait for the “smoking gun?”
7. If the test set up conducted and reported on by Microsoft was not “real world,” exactly what does its report add to the discussion? What will the “real world” consist of in Microsoft’s opinion when it comes to these action video games? Perhaps the “real world” will consist of a dorm room suite in which eight “gamers” are simultaneously playing “Halo,” “Call of Duty,” and “Grand Theft Auto” while Channels 1, 6, 11 and 14 are fully loaded. Perhaps a microwave oven will be used as shelf for the game consoles and will be cooking frozen lasagna for the group. This example may not be an exaggeration of what could be found in a few college dorm rooms today. Being that one need not walk from room to room while using their wireless Xbox controller, perhaps the first solution pursued in the case of “serious” action gaming being hampered by “controller delay,” “input lag,” “controller lag,” or “button loss” is to simply use wired connections between the user controllers and the control console.
8. What is the definition of illegal interference in the context of action video games, for example, in a “real world” dorm room situation? Is it that one or more of the gamers cannot shoot or otherwise destroy a virtual enemy fast enough due to “controller lag,” “controller delay,” or so-called “button loss?” Does the policy of allowing faster virtual destruction of enemies outweigh the policy of helping multiple classes of students at an anchor institution such as The Washington School for Girls simultaneously take standardized tests?
____________________
7 See, for example: http://forums.xbox.com/xbox_support/xbox_360_support/f/8/t/315964.aspx
-5-
Marlene Dortch September 19, 2016
9. If TLPS, as continuously in use at The Washington School for Girls, is not “real world,” then what is a better representation?
10. What level of testing is required for purposes of Part 15 interference standards?
The ESA Meetings and Ex Parte
On September 13, 2016, nine members of the action video game industry or their representatives, met with Commissioner O’Rielly and his Legal Advisor, Erin McGrath. A subgroup met with senior staff including Edward Smith, Johanna Thomas and Julius Knapp. I can only surmise that, in accordance with Commissioner’s O’Rielly’s many public comments regarding the limitations of such meetings, these nine individuals essentially restated many of the points raised in the Microsoft report of its test results. FCC personnel were not permitted to tell the parties whether any merit was found in their arguments, nor could FCC tell them whether their “concerns” about interference were even an issue at this point in the proceeding. On the record, the Chairman has stated that the draft Report and Order has taken these “concerns” into account with appropriate safeguards. 8 Regardless of whether nine individuals appear at FCC headquarters in an effort to spin the actual record into something it is not, or to strong arm a Commissioner by force of numbers, it is hard to believe that the FCC’s technical experts would change their minds based on the recent submission by Microsoft. Moreover, it is long past time to cut off the incessant delays and “testing Hell” being condoned in what is essentially a proceeding based on Part 15 interference standards.
____________________
8 Letter from Chairman Wheeler to Hon. Mike Thompson (7/27/16), (“[T]he draft Report and Order that I circulated included numerous conditions to help ensure that deployment of Globalstar’s terrestrial Wi-Fi network would not have a significant detrimental impact on Bluetooth or other spectrum users.”), IB Docket No. 13-213.
-6-
Marlene Dortch September 19, 2016
The Public Knowledge Meeting and Ex Parte
On September 12, 2016, representatives of Public Knowledge met with Jon Wilkins, Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Brian Regan, Associate Bureau Chief, regarding many proceedings. One of those proceedings was the present one, in which Public Knowledge continued to express “conditional” support. This confirms that Public Knowledge has, in fact, distanced itself from what amounts to be a new “socialized” spectrum policy demanded most recently by New America’s Open Technology Institute (“OTI”). In accordance with OTI’s most recent idea, a licensee would actually lose its licensed spectrum rights to public use despite billions in investment to secure and retain that license. While Public Knowledge did not directly address its former joint commenter in this proceeding, it is heartening to see that Public Knowledge is no longer a part of the shifting sands in this proceeding.
However, the Commission should take issue with Public Knowledge’s apparent view that MSS licensees are less justified in pursuing ATC based terrestrial rights because the associated MSS license was not obtained at “auction.” Globalstar’s MSS license did not come for “free.” A quid pro quo process for obtaining a spectrum license does not have to involve the licensee cutting a check to the U.S. Treasury. Sometimes, in return for the provision of services under the license, and perhaps most especially services that promote and protect national security interests and public safety, the government grants spectrum rights in return for demonstrated investment and continuous operations of such services. That is the case with MSS. MSS is a business that is neither easy nor a “no brainer” cash generator like a popular search engine may be, or even a popular action video game having many avid or even addicted users. 9
____________________
9 The effects of video game and other forms of “digital” addiction have been the subject of scientific study and are becoming a real problem for the country. See, for example:
http://nypost.com/2016/08/27/its-digital-heroin-how-screens-turn-kids-into-psychotic-junkies/
http://www.video-game-addiction.org/
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/features/video-game-addiction-no-fun
-7-
Marlene Dortch September 19, 2016
Instead, as most vividly shown by the recent launch pad explosion of a SpaceX rocket, MSS is a business fraught with very expensive and ever present risk related to space operations. Iridium, which is a competitor of Globalstar, will now be even further delayed in the launch of its “Next” generation of satellites because of the recent SpaceX rocket explosion. Globalstar faced similar delays in launching its second generation of satellites. So, suggesting that granting terrestrial rights to an MSS licensee equates to a “windfall” either amounts to uniformed opinion or intellectual dishonesty. In fact, Globalstar took on significant risk, overcame significant barriers to entry into the MSS market, and invested billions over the past two decades in order to secure and support its MSS license.
On the other hand, sometimes the government grants “free” spectrum rights that can then be monetized by giant technology companies, cable companies and the like with very high profit margins relative to the price paid for those spectrum rights. The Wi-Fi that my family uses from the access point in our kitchen did not come for “free.” Instead, we pay a healthy monthly fee to a cable company for the service. Likewise, I pay for Wi-Fi at the local coffee shop by handing over $4.00 for a cup of coffee, and I pay for Wi-Fi in my hotel room by way of ever increasing room rates. The price paid to keep further competition from monetizing that “free” spectrum is miniscule to such giant technology companies, cable companies and unlicensed industry groups. That “price” is simply the cost of lawyers, lobbyists and executives or other employees necessary to squash smaller competition having much less leverage with the highest levels of government operations. This is what is happening with regard to Globalstar, at least as far as an outsider such as myself can perceive from the public record. While I disagree with the position of Public Knowledge insofar as it justifies its “conditional support” on the inaccurate spin associated with Globalstar’s MSS license, I do appreciate that Public Knowledge’s position is intended to move the proceeding forward while also protecting the legitimate licensed rights of Globalstar.
The HIA/ESA Ex Parte
In their letter dated September 1, 2016, HIA/ESA stated:
Globalstar, Inc. (“Globalstar”) has recently suggested that the answer to resolving the widespread concerns regarding its proposed Channel 14 service is for the Commission to permit additional Channel 14 operations
-8-
Marlene Dortch September 19, 2016
by other parties. We write today to reiterate that Globalstar’s original terrestrial low power service (“TLPS”) proposal would disrupt Bluetooth-dependent consumers, and to emphasize that the company’s new, more expansive proposal would be even worse.
There have been various intellectually dishonest statements by opposition in this record, but this one ranks as one of the most blatant. In fact, the idea of permitting additional Channel 14 operations by other parties was first suggested by opposing parties, such as OTI, Public Knowledge, Bluetooth SIG and Google. For example, in 2015, Google stated: “Given the extreme congestion of currently available 2.4 GHz spectrum, unlocking Wi-Fi use across the entirety of the band would contribute materially to the national wireless economy and be a major achievement for the Commission.” 10 For HIA/ESA at this late stage to suggest that it is GSAT pushing for public use of Channel 14 belies reality. For the four years that this proceeding has been pending, Globalstar has simply endeavored to move an NPRM toward adoption for purposes of providing additional broadband capacity to the nation, and lately, at least as far as one can tell from the record, it seems that the shifting position of the Commission has required Globalstar’s agreement to “public interest” conditions. Surely, HIA/ESA and other third parties interjecting in this proceeding have noticed such conditions being imposed in recent proceedings such as the AT&T/DirectTV and Charter/Time Warner/Bright House transactions.11 This proceeding appears to be no different.
____________________
10 Letter from Austin C. Schlick, Director, Communications Law, Google, Inc., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (10/10/15), IB Docket No. 13-213.
11 See:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-94A1.pdf ;
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0510/FCC-16-59A1.pdf
-9-
Marlene Dortch September 19, 2016
Conclusion
None of the recent submissions by third parties, including those discussed herein, should alter the Commission’s course in this proceeding to adopt its proposed rules in an expeditious fashion. The Commission should be ready to adopt and release a Report and Order the strikes the appropriate balance of safeguarding incumbents and providing further broadband capacity for the nation.
Pursuant to section 1.1206(b)(2) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2), this ex parte notification is being filed electronically for inclusion in the public record of the above-referenced proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kevin G. Rooney
Kevin G. Rooney
cc (via e-mail only):
Hon. Tom Wheeler, Chairman
Hon. Mignon Clyburn
Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
Hon. Ajit Pai
Hon. Michael O’Rielly
-10-
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091959673457/Ex%20Parte%2013-213%20Sept%2019.pdf
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED DAILY READING (as well as for all back Filings) is to check on the TLPS Docket 13-213 Proceedings at
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=13-213&sort=date_disseminated,DESC
¿"... selling of more than 6 million shares"¿ viz.: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gsat/after-hours
for those of us who endured/lived though the "trials and tribulations" of Docket 18262
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124369499
these machinations/shenanigans are not only The Coin of The Realm, BUT are to be expected (and summarily/patiently just "weathered"/slogged through :D)...
been there, done/seen that and now "this"... it's just more of the same ol' tired/predictable shuck 'n' jive...
hopefully TLPS won't take 13 years to Go Though "The Process" and bring the much needed benefits to The Public...
Tally Ho/Da Beat Goes On...! :D
LOL!!! and also sooooooo looking forward to more specious "Future Testing" -- AS WELL AS how much longer we can possibly drag this tawdry and all to transparent charade out in another feeble attempt to use a regulatory agency to prevent a promising competitor from entering the market!
https://twitter.com/Keubiko/status/776466023046385664
Mr. Softie is simply trying to get the FCC to orchestrate a "Lightsquared-esque" revocation maneuver on Globalstar/TLPS with their bogus Ex Parte filing... BUT, really they have just exposed themselves as the Emperor without clothes of/being a pot calling the kettle black...
more SSDD: sound/look familiar? in the Wi-Fi/LTE-U proceeding its come out that Wi-Fi access points don’t always share spectrum well among themselves -- even for APs from the same vendor ...!
http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/qualcomm-finds-wi-fi-doesn-t-share-spectrum-so-well-either-1
and here's more on testing "unfairness" and "biases" in the Wi-Fi/LTE-U matter:
http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/verizon-wi-fi-alliance-s-lte-u-test-plan-fundamentally-unfair-and-biased
this makes "the supposed issues" with TLPS sharing spectrum appear/seem "minor" -- as the parties in the Wi-Fi/LTE-U docket try to "manipulate" the FCC in favor their selfish interests rather than for A/The Greater Good for ALL.
and also just like with TLPS, there is A Process At Play here, and at the end of the day, it will be done... and hopefully not take 13 years of this kinda "nonsense" and jockeying about like it did in Docket 18262 that brought us CMRS (i.e. cellular) in 1981!
August 11, 2016 Globalstar Ex Parte filing vis-a-vis another Erin McGrath, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Michael O’Rielly meeting:
... Dear Ms. Dortch:
On August 9, 2016, Tim Taylor, Vice President of Finance, Business Operations & Strategy, for Globalstar, Inc. (“Globalstar”), Harold Furchtgott-Roth of Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises, John Dooley of Jarvinian, and I met with Erin McGrath, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, regarding the Commission’s proposed rules in the above- captioned proceeding.1 In this meeting, Globalstar’s representatives urged that the Commission expeditiously adopt rules in this proceeding to authorize an innovative broadband service, Terrestrial Low Power Service (“TLPS”). Such rules would serve the public interest by adding 22 megahertz to the nation’s broadband spectrum inventory and alleviating congestion in the 2.4 GHz ISM band.
We also discussed a potential framework to permit third parties to obtain opportunistic use of Channel 14 where Globalstar has not deployed TLPS, while ensuring that licensed and unlicensed services are not disrupted. We emphasized the need to balance carefully the concerns raised by competitors and other parties with the Commission’s goals of encouraging investment, innovation, competition, and efficient use of scarce spectrum.
Pursuant to section 1.1206(b)(2) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2), this ex parte notification is being filed electronically for inclusion in the public record of the above-referenced proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Regina M. Keeney
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/108110153420503/Globalstar%20Ex%20Parte%20Notice%20081116.pdf
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=13-213&sort=date_disseminated,DESC
SSDD: sound/look familiar? as with the "slow"/snails pace/seemingly endless "drawn out" FCC TLPS rule making "process" -- here we see EXACTLY the Same kinda "Stuff" happening but in a Different Docket [and even some of The Same Protagonists]... fellow LONG HIGH CONVICTION GSAT shareholders, please understand this "nonsense" is so totally "The Coin of The Realm" with/in FCC "Process":
While the Wi-Fi Alliance is marching forward with an LTE-U coexistence test plan due to be released Sept. 21, not everyone is convinced it’s the best plan.
Qualcomm made that clear last week, saying the draft plan lacks technical merit, is fundamentally biased against LTE-U and rejects all the input that Qualcomm provided over the past year. WiFiForward said neither side received its preferred outcome, and the Evolve coalition, which represents mobile carriers and associations like CTIA, said the Wi-Fi Alliance buckled under political pressure from the cable lobby.
Others said the compromises on the test plan could leave half of all outdoor Wi-Fi connections vulnerable to LTE-U degradation.
As engineers at Broadcom described it, the compromises that led to progress on the LTE-U coexistence test plan were substantial, including some that they’re still concerned about. But, cognizant that operators like T-Mobile and Verizon are eager to deploy the technology, they said they’re determined to press ahead and continue conversations with the cellular community.
“Broadcom is really focused on seeing this executed,” Christopher Szymanski, director of product marketing and government affairs at Broadcom, told FierceWirelessTech. Szymanski was among those who attended one of the Wi-Fi Alliance’s regularly scheduled LTE-U coexistence workshops in San Jose last week.
Noting how some operators are upset that the plan is taking too long to establish..SNIP
August 8, 2016 Globalstar Ex Parte filing vis-a-vis August 4, 2016 FCC meeting:
August 8, 2016
Via Electronic Filing
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 Twelfth Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re: Ex Parte Notice: Terrestrial Use of the 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low-Power Mobile Broadband Networks – IB Docket No. 13-213
Dear Ms. Dortch:
On August 4, 2016, Tim Taylor, Vice President of Finance, Business Operations & Strategy for Globalstar, Inc. (“Globalstar”), John Dooley of Jarvinian, and I met with Edward “Smitty” Smith, Legal Advisor to Chairman Tom Wheeler; Brian Regan, Matthew Pearl, Blaise Scinto, Stephen Buenzow, Paul Malmud, Roger Noel, and Linda Chang of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; and José J. Albuquerque of the International Bureau, regarding the Commission’s proposed rules in the above-captioned proceeding. Globalstar’s representatives urged that the Commission expeditiously adopt rules to authorize an innovative broadband service, Terrestrial Low Power Service (“TLPS”) and discussed a potential framework to permit third parties to obtain opportunistic use of Channel 14 where Globalstar has not deployed TLPS.
The Commission’s proposed rules in this proceeding would serve the public interest by adding 22 megahertz to the nation’s broadband spectrum inventory and alleviating congestion in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. Any regulatory framework for TLPS should encourage investment, innovation, competition, and efficient use of scarce spectrum.
Pursuant to section 1.1206(b)(2) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2), this ex parte notification is being filed electronically for inclusion in the public record of the above-referenced proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Regina M. Keeney
cc: Edward “Smitty” Smith
Brian Regan
Matthew Pearl
Blaise Scinto
Stephen Buenzow
Paul Malmud
Roger Noel
Linda Chang
José J. Albuquerque
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10808958606782/Globalstar%20Ex%20Parte%20Notice%20080816.pdf
Sean A. Lev Partner at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel:
Sean Lev rejoined the firm as a partner in April 2014. Over more than 20 years, and in both private practice and public service, Sean’s work has focused on solving complex regulatory problems and on administrative and appellate litigation.
Sean served as the General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission from June 2012 through December 2013. In that role, Sean was responsible for all legal advice provided to the Commission, including Chairman Wheeler, Acting Chairwoman Clyburn, and Chairman Genachowski. Sean was also responsible for all Commission litigation. Among other things, Sean argued the Open Internet case for the Commission in the D.C. Circuit and oversaw the federal court defense of the Commission’s overhaul of its Intercarrier Compensation and Universal Service regimes. Sean was also heavily involved in the Commission’s review of major transactions and served as Director of the Commission’s Technology Transitions Policy Task Force. Prior to being named General Counsel, Sean served as Deputy General Counsel and Senior Advisor to the Chairman.
Before coming to the FCC, Sean was designated by President Obama to serve as the Acting General Counsel of the United States Department of Energy (DOE) from March through December 2011. In that role, he was the chief legal officer for the Department, and provided advice on the full range of issues relevant to the Department’s mission, including those involving energy efficiency and renewable energy, oil and gas, environmental remediation, nuclear energy, and national security. Sean also served as the Deputy General Counsel for Environment and Nuclear Programs at DOE beginning in June 2009.
Sean was previously at the firm from 1996 until 2009, and was made a partner in 1999. He started his career as an Honors Program attorney on the Civil Division, Appellate Staff at the United States Department of Justice.
http://www.khhte.com/attorneys-Sean-Lev.html
http://www.khhte.com
August 5, 2016 Globalstar Ex Parte filing vis-a-vis August 3, 2016 FCC Office of General Counsel call:
August ?5??, 2016
Via Electronic Filing
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 Twelfth Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re: Ex Parte Notice: Terrestrial Use of the 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low-Power Mobile Broadband Networks – IB Docket No. 13-213
Dear Ms. Dortch:
On behalf of Globalstar, Inc. (“Globalstar”), Sean A. Lev of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans, P.L.L.C., and I spoke by telephone with William Richardson, Deputy Associate General Counsel in the Office of General Counsel, on August 3, 2016. We emphasized the importance of finalizing the rules in this proceeding promptly. We also inquired as to whether there were legal or procedural issues as to which the Office of General Counsel would like input at this stage and, in particular, whether it would be helpful to provide legal or factual support as to compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements in this proceedings.
Pursuant to section 1.1206(b)(2) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2), this ex parte notification is being filed electronically for inclusion in the public record of the above-referenced proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Regina M. Keeney
cc: William Richardson
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1080530424246/Globalstar%20Ex%20Parte%20Notice%20080516.pdf
comparing the TLPS 13-213 proceeding to Docket 18262 (proposing to allocate the upper portion of the UHF TV band to cellular mobile radio systems for both private AND public uses)
yours truly, having endured the FCC Docket 18262 "experience"/proceeding, what's happening right now wrt TLPS is feeling all to/so familiar (and has been throughout the extant TLPS proceeding)...
so, thought it might add just a wee bit of "perspective" to share this "historical (hysterical?) R&O process retrospective" with y'all:
"... in 1968, with the UHF TV band continuing to fall far short of its original promise, the FCC opened Docket 18262, which proposed to allocate the upper portion of this band to mobile systems for both private and public uses.
IN 1971, THE BELL SYSTEM SUBMITTED A DETAILED PROPOSAL FOR A CELLULAR SYSTEM TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THIS BAND. [4] THIS BEGAN A DECADE-LONG BATTLE AMONG A DIVERSE SET OF “STAKEHOLDERS,” MANY OF WHOM HAD A STRONG INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO. BROADCASTERS DID NOT WANT THE FREQUENCIES REASSIGNED. EXISTING MANUFACTURERS WERE THREATENED BY THE PROSPECT OF NEW SYSTEMS, MARKETS AND COMPETITORS. FLEET OPERATORS WANTED THE SPECTRUM FOR CONVENTIONAL USES.
RCCs [Radio Common Carriers] feared domination of a new, capital intensive service by the Bell System. In contrast, THERE WAS NO LOBBY FOR THE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS, WHO WERE GENERALLY UNAWARE OF THE PROPOSED NEW SERVICE.
Cellular proponents came to fully appreciate the words written by Machiavelli, 400 years earlier:
"It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions, and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones."...
"Let the future tell the truth, the present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine"
--Nikola Tesla
the same can easily be present day said -- about Jay Monroe, John Dooley and the rest the GSAT team!
Globalstar Q2 2016 Earnings Call Transcript excerpts with respect to TLPS:
... To start the call, an in continued deference to the FCC's ongoing deliberations following the circulation of the draft report and order, we won't be providing any new information regarding the FCC's process today except to say that we have continued to work with the agency to reach a final consensus on their order so that it can be voted in our favor. And though we hope to be in a position to answer questions regarding the proceeding in detail soon, we thank you in advance for not asking any FCC-related questions during the Q&A portion of today's call...
... Operator, it looks like there are no additional questions today. Generally, we spend a good deal of time on the FCC so apparently people listened to my comment at the very beginning. I appreciate everybody joining the call today. Thank you very much. And hope to have more information on that FCC matter in the near-term, which would prompt us to pull together another conference call. Thank you all very much and we'll talk to you in another quarter.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler responds to Congressional Hearing Caucus Representative letters from April and further shows strong support for TLPS:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10803219725529/16-277.pdf
Globalstar Announces Second Quarter 2016 Results
http://www.globalstar.com/en/index.php?cid=7010&pressId=938
that 11/1/2013 NPRM was (finally!) put "On Circulation" by the FCC Chairman on 05/13/2016.
it "sits" there now... awaiting a vote by each of the 5 FCC Commissioners for approval -- at which time of a majority vote, it will then become an issued Report & Order (R&O) [i.e. "Law of The Land" after it is published in the Federal Register], viz.:
05/13/2016 IB Terrestrial Use of the 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low-Power Mobile Broadband Networks; Amendments to Rules for the Ancillary Terrestrial Component of Mobile Satellite Service Systems, IB Docket No. 13-213, Report and Order
http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/circ_items.cgi
July 21, 2016 Public Knowledge [AWESOME] Ex Parte filing vis-a-vis July 19, 2016 FCC Chairman's office meeting:
Public Knowledge
Ms. Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
July 21, 2016
RE: IB Docket No. 13-213 – Terrestrial Use of The 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low Power Mobile Broadband Networks.
Dear Ms. Dortch:
On July 19, 2016, Harold Feld, Dallas, Harris, and John Gasparini, all of Public Knowledge, met with Edward Smith, Legal Advisor to Chairman Tom Wheeler, regarding the above-captioned proceeding.
Public Knowledge argued that moving from proof of concept to controlled deployment is not abandoning the Commission's responsibility to control against harmful interference. To the contrary, the proposed approach has the enormous benefit of ending what has become the all too common problem of "testing stalemate." As the Commission has seen repeatedly in recent years, laboratory testing provides limited comfort to existing spectrum users because laboratory testing is always probabilistic and subject to significant disagreement as to what constitutes a real world scenario.
For this reason, Public Knowledge continues to believe that the Commission proposed approach of controlled roll out, subject to ongoing observation and authority to require interference mitigation if it occurs, is a valuable step forward in allowing new technologies to come to market.
With regard to opportunistic sharing and broader general sharing opportunities, Public Knowledge adheres to its statement of Public Interest principles submitted in November 2015.1 Generally, the public interest is best served by maximizing direct public access to the spectrum without an licensed intermediary. Where exclusivity is granted, sufficient benefit to the public must accrue to justify the exclusivity. Given the right trade off, however, the exclusivity is not a "windfall" but a necessity justified by the public interest.
For example, the Commission recently permitted legacy licensees to enjoy expanded spectrum use rights in the 28 GHz band as part of the Spectrum Frontiers Order, and has enormously enhanced the value of the spectrum these legacy licensees possess. Accordingly, it is inconsistent and contrary to the public interest to summarily reject a workable solution that will universally enhance spectrum access for everyone as a "windfall." The correct question is not whether it expands Globalstar's spectrum usage
1 Public Knowledge Letter, Terrestrial Use of The 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low Power Mobile Broadband Networks, IB Docket No. 13-213 (Nov. 19, 2015), available at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001339856.pdf.
1818 N Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • T: (202) 861-0020 • F: (202) 861-0040 www.publicknowledge.org
July 21, 2016
Page 2
rights, but whether or not overall public access to the spectrum is enhanced and if the trade offs for exclusivity are justified by the unique circumstances and overall value returned to the public for use of "the public airwaves."
With regard to opportunistic sharing supporting by Public Knowledge, OTI and others, the Commission should consider a form of exclusivity and common access similar to that adopted in the 3.5 GHz Order. Unlike in the case of 3.5 GHz, where the federal users are the priority access incumbents entitled to exclusion zones, Globalstar would be entitled to an initial period of deployment and a right to modest "exclusion zones" around its established access points before the rest of the band would be opened to a Part 15 version of General Access (facilitated with registration in the Globalstar/TLPS database). These exclusion zones should be limited to census tracts, as they are in the existing 3.5 GHz rules.
However, if census tracts are considered insufficient -- either to encourage initial deployment of TLPS or to compensate Globalstar for the cost of maintaining the database -- the Commission could adopt the proposal submitted by MIT Economist William Lehr in the course of the 3.5 GHz proceeding but rejected by the Commission there as being inconsistent with the specifics of 3.5 GHz.2 The Commission would provide Globalstar access points with a "guard band" of census tracts surrounding the census tract in which Globalstar is operating as the priority user. This would provide Globalstar with a limited form of protection, while still requiring TLPS access points generally to operate under Part 15 equivalent rules.
Additionally, Globalstar could be permitted to deploy within these "border" tracts because it can coordinate with itself. Because the TLPS service has proposed to accept interference from other devices in a manner identical to the Part 15 rules, these TLPS devices deployed in the "border tracts" would not enjoy any protection against Part 15 devices operating in the adjacent tracts. But it would provide Globastar with the opportunity to provide service without the additional interference protection that distance separation provides to the central "priority access" tract.
Further expansion of the sharing model between private users -- rather than simply between private users and the federal government -- would help to promote this approach and provide valuable public interest benefits by enhancing spectrum access for all. At present, WiFi channel 14 is usable by no one. This approach would make the TLPS spectrum currently terrestrially available to no one terrestrially available to everyone. That it provides incentive to the existing licensee to make the spectrum available is no more a "windfall" than the current Incentive Auction can be considered a "windfall" for allowing legacy broadcasters to take cash for spectrum given them for free. As the spectrum becomes increasingly crowded, the Commission must navigate the general
2 See generally Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550- 3650 MHz Band, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 12-354 (Apr. 21, 2015).
July 21, 2016
Page 3
problem of promoting shared access within the context of existing spectrum rights and legacy services.
Again, this question is hardly unique to Globalstar. It is a question the Commission is currently facing with regard to expanded sharing in the 5.9 GHz band. It is a question the Commission is facing in the pending Petitions of Ligado and the MVDDS Coalition. It is a question the Commission faces with regard to legacy licensees in the bands now designated or under consideration for 5G deployment. Adopting TLPS rules that both allow the legacy licensee to deploy and benefit from the change in its spectrum access rules while simultaneously expanding access to previously exclusive use spectrum by the public provides another, useful model for the Commission as it navigates the next stage of wireless evolution.
In accordance with Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules, an electronic copy of this letter is being filed in the above-referenced docket. Please contact me with any questions regarding this filing.
Sincerely,
/s/ John Gasparini
Policy Fellow
Public Knowledge
Cc: Edward Smith
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1072151547436/July%202016%20Globalstar%20Smitty%20Ex%20Parte.pdf
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=13-213&sort=date_disseminated,DESC
“By adding Globalstar’s TLPS service, our network congestion at [Washington School for Girls in Washington, DC] decreased significantly.”
Inside Scoop from Bobby Koeth,
Washington School for Girls
Students using new technology at Washington School for Girls in Washington, DC
As the Educational Technology and Media Specialist at the Washington School for Girls (WSG), my job is to enhance our students’ learning experience through the use of technology and media. When I joined WSG two years ago, the school had 40 aged-laptops, an unstable, congested network, and its first set of tablets. As a result, technology was not well-integrated into our curriculum, and our teachers were hesitant to utilize technological tools in the classroom due to frequent technical problems accessing the internet and syncing devices.
Our partnership with GlobalStar has proved essential to our transition to a technology-rich school by providing both TLPS broadband access at our middle school campus and Chromebooks that are specially manufactured to work with the TLPS network. WSG conducted some infrastructural upgrades for the 2015- 2016 and then Globalstar approached us about partnering with them for a one of a kind experiment. By adding GlobalStar’s TLPS service, our network congestion at school decreased significantly. By providing additional frequencies, more devices and students were able to access the internet without increasing our bandwidth. With the donated chromebooks from Golobalstar, we have been able to reach our goal of a 1:1 student to device ratio. Previously, teachers were unable to use Chromebooks and other mobile devices in the classroom due to inconsistent and slow network access. Now, we not only have enough devices to provide students with individualized learning experiences, we have the network infrastructure to support the use of outstanding online tools such IXL Learning and Khan Academy.
As a small, independent school that serves 130 girls from low-income communities in the DC metropolitan area, WSG recognizes that students need to learn technological skills to be successful in the modern workforce. For many of our students, WSG is the primary, if not only, place that they can access online tools and develop digital skills.
http://us12.campaign-archive2.com/?u=b8f06a885587335ee5c6b1717&id=f3c459768d
FCC Items on Circulation July 15, 2016 update posted: TLPS STILL ON IT! (whew! :D)
05/13/2016 IB Terrestrial Use of the 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low-Power Mobile Broadband Networks; Amendments to Rules for the Ancillary Terrestrial Component of Mobile Satellite Service Systems, IB Docket No. 13-213, Report and Order
http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/circ_items.cgi/
bastianprafec, directly and laconically: unless GSAT gets some reasonable semblance R&O of TLPS approval, it plays out badly, Very Badly, actually...
Why?
because, frankly, da (solo/stand alone) MSS biz is a zero billion dollar industry... starting with the plain and simple fact that GSAT's "coverage" is a hodge-podge of strewn out gateways and coverage (as opposed to the harmoniously integrated competition, namely/mostly: Inmarsat and Iridium -- both of which effectively provide world-wide coverage --'cept for the poles in inmarsat's case).
as of next month, i.e. august 2016, the 2G sats will be have in orbit AND ON STATION FOR THREE YEARS(!)...
good ol' day (or rather yearS late) and dollar short GSAT as of this writing has STILL NOT finished installing the necessary ground infrastructure AND gotten FCC approval for the 2G subscriber equipments to make use of the "new" 2G sats and "in currently in process/progress" 2G RAN's & GW's!
it is (and has been) A Mightly SAD, TIRESOME Tale of Pain & Woe... in summation -- in this LONG shareholders pithy opinion: it's TLPS (approval) or BUST!
place your bets/chips accordingly! :D
[this high-conviction LONG shareholder is/has been, "obviously/clearly", betting on (and still firmly believes) -- at The End of The Day -- in TLPS approval :D].
ecstaticallyeuphoriceuthanasia from the y! mb is in da house.