Before the Federal Communications Commission



Download 135.04 Kb.
Date11.02.2018
Size135.04 Kb.

Federal Communications Commission DA 99-1805

______________________________________________________________________________



Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matters of )

)

STRATOS MOBILE NETWORKS (USA), LLC )



Application for Authority to Provide U.S.- )

Originated Fixed-to-Mobile and Mobile-to-Fixed ) File No. ITC-214-19970924-00580

Inmarsat-B and-M Services via U.S. Land Earth ) (Previous File No. ITC-97-594)

Stations )

)

and )


)

)

STRATOS MOBILE NETWORKS (USA), LLC )



Application for Authority to Provide U.S.- ) File No. ITC-214-19980130-00053

Originated Fixed-to-Mobile Inmarsat-B and ) (Previous File No. ITC-98-103)

-M Services via Foreign Land Earth Stations )

)

)



STRATOS MOBILE NETWORKS (USA), LLC )

Petition for Reconsideration of Grant )

of Special Temporary Authority to Provide ) File No. ITC-TAO-19980701-00916

U.S.-Originated Fixed-to-Mobile Inmarsat-B )

and Inmarsat-M services with )

Secure Telephone Unit (STU-III) Capabilities to the )

U.S. Department of Defense via Foreign )

Land Earth Stations )




MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION

Adopted: September 29, 1999 Released: September 30, 1999
By the Chief, International Bureau:

I. Introduction
1 In this Order we consider two applications filed by Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC (Stratos), for authority pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, as amended (Communications Act).1 The first application will be referred to as the "US LES application." It was originally filed by IDB Mobile Communications, Inc. (IDB Mobile) on September 24, 1997, and later transferred to Stratos.2 The US LES application requests authority to provide mobile-to-fixed and fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat Standard-B, Standard-M, and Mini-M, mobile satellite services, except for land mobile satellite services involving terminals in North America, using its U.S. land earth stations (LESs) in Niles Canyon, California, and Staten Island, New York.3 The second application will be referred to as the "foreign LES application." It requests authority to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-B and Inmarsat-M (including Mini-M) mobile satellite services, except for land mobile satellite services involving terminals in North America, using foreign LESs, including those located at Laurentides, Canada, and Perth Australia.4

2 We also consider Comsat Corporation's (Comsat) petition for reconsideration of the International Bureau's grant, in File No. ITC-TAO-19980701-00916, to Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC, of special temporary authority to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-B and Inmarsat-M services with Secure Telephone Unit (STU-III) capabilities to the U.S. Department of Defense via the foreign land earth stations at Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia.5


3 For the reasons discussed below, we: (1) grant in part Stratos' US LES application, subject to certain conditions and limitations; (2) grant Stratos' foreign LES application, subject to certain limitations; and (3) defer consideration of Stratos' US LES application to the extent it requests authority to provide Inmarsat services involving Mini-M terminals being used in the United States. We also deny Comsat's petition for reconsideration of the International Bureau's grant to Stratos of special temporary authority to provide fixed to mobile Inmarsat-B and Inmarsat-M services with STU-III capabilities to the U.S. Department of Defense via the foreign land earth stations at Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia. These grants do not include authority to provide land mobile satellite services involving terminals located in North America and any aeronautical services.6

II. Background
4 Stratos, a Delaware corporation, is authorized under Section 214 to provide international maritime, aeronautical, and land mobile satellite services, and international basic switched and private line services to various points on both facilities and resale bases.7 In its Application, Stratos asserts that it is: (1) affiliated with Stratos Mobile Networks, Inc. (Stratos Mobile), a Canadian carrier that is the wholly-owned telecommunications operating subsidiary of Stratos Wireless, Inc. (Stratos Wireless) and authorized within Canada to provide international telecommunications services;8 (2) wholly-owned by Stratos Wireless through two U.S. subsidiaries;9 and (3) affiliated with Teleglobe Canada (TCG), a Canadian carrier that is the wholly-owned operating subsidiary of Teleglobe, Inc. (Teleglobe) through Teleglobe’s 29.17 percent interest in Stratos Wireless.10 We note, however, that since the applications were filed, Teleglobe sold its interest in Stratos.11 Stratos Wireless now is an indirect subsidiary of AtlanticCo, the dominant provider of local services in Newfoundland, Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, Canada.12
5 The applicants state that the requested authorizations are in the public interest because they will result in competition to Comsat for provision of AOR and POR Inmarsat B and Inmarsat-M services, thus significantly lowering the prices for such services.13 Stratos pledges that, if authorized, it will begin providing U.S. fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-B and -M services at $2.50 per minute -- allegedly an $.80 reduction from Comsat’s current $3.30 per minute price.14 In support of its contention that a price decrease will result if its applications are granted, Stratos refers to the price decrease that occurred as a result of the Commission’s elimination of Comsat’s bottleneck control over facilities for provision of Inmarsat-A services.15 Stratos asserts that the Commission has the authority to grant authorizations to entities other than Comsat to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat services, and has done so in the past.16 Stratos asserts further that the Commission also frequently has authorized entities other than Comsat to provide Inmarsat services that terminate in the United States via foreign LESs.17 Stratos asserts that neither the Maritime Satellite Act18 nor Commission precedent require Stratos to acquire Inmarsat space segment from Comsat.19 In addition, in a letter dated April 29, 1999, Stratos urges the Commission to grant its applications immediately, particularly given that Inmarsat was fully privatized in April 1999, extinguishing any claim that Comsat may have had to be the exclusive provider of Inmarsat space segment in the United States.20
6 Comsat opposes Stratos’ application to use foreign LESs. First Comsat argues that both the Maritime Satellite Act (which Comsat argues gives it the exclusive right to provide space segment for U.S.-originated traffic) and Commission precedent (which Comsat states has long acknowledged Comsat’s statutory right to be the exclusive provider of Inmarsat space segment in the United States) bar Stratos’ request.21 Second, Comsat argues that granting Stratos’ request would be counter to the public interest. According to Comsat, Stratos’ application does not provide sufficient information to permit a public interest determination.22 Comsat also argues that a grant of Stratos’ application would permit cross subsidies and predatory market behavior by foreign carriers.23 Comsat further argues that it does not have, and is not abusing market power, and that Stratos misrepresents Comsat’s lawful Inmarsat-M and Inmarsat-B rates.24 Third, Comsat argues that Stratos’ provision of the services in question would violate the terms of the Intercarrier contract between Stratos’ affiliate, IDB Mobile, and Comsat.25
7 AT&T Corp. (AT&T) filed comments in support of Stratos’ application to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-B and -M services via foreign LESs, arguing that prompt Commission grant of Stratos’ application is in the public interest.26 Comsat questions the credibility of AT&T’s comments, which, according to Comsat, merely repeat Stratos' arguments.27 Comsat also argues that AT&T attacks Comsat’s Inmarsat-M and Inmarsat-B rate solely because it would like to receive a lower rate.28
8 Comsat does not oppose Stratos’ request, in its US LES application, for authority to provide mobile-to-fixed services.29 With respect to Stratos’ request for authorization to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat -B, -M, and Mini-M services, however, Comsat asserts that IDB Mobile is bound by an intercarrier agreement to utilize Comsat’s LES services through September 1, 1999.30 Therefore, Comsat requests that the Commission condition the grant of Stratos’ application to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-M and –B services via its U.S. LESs on: (1) expiration of the IDB Mobile-Comsat Intercarrier contract; and (2) Stratos’ acquisition of Inmarsat space segment from Comsat.31 Comsat asserts that it does not object to Section 214 authorization for such services, if the effective date of the authorization is September 2, 1999.32
9 Finally, Comsat urges the Commission to defer any grants of the applications until it has acted on Comsat's pending complaint against Stratos' affiliate, IDB Mobile, and to refuse to grant the applications if, in that proceeding, the Commission determines that IDB Mobile violated U.S. law.33
III. Discussion
10 We conclude, for the reasons discussed below, that the public interest is served by grant of Stratos' applications, subject to certain conditions and limitations. We grant Stratos authority, as requested in its US LES application, subject to the condition that Stratos file, and receive authority for, a modification of its existing Title III authority for those LESs. That authority currently is limited to services involving Inmarsat A terminals.34 In addition, our grant of Section 214 authority to Stratos to provide service involving Inmarsat Mini-M terminals is limited to services involving Inmarsat Mini-M terminals located outside the United States. We also grant Stratos authority under Section 214, as requested in its foreign LES application, subject to the same limitation regarding Inmarsat Mini-M terminals. We have not authorized any Mini-M terminals to operate in the United States on a permanent basis, and would need to consider in connection with any request for such an authorization a number of potential public interest concerns. Such potential concerns, include, for example: the impact of additional spectrum usage of L-Band frequencies on other licensed services; potential law enforcement and national security concerns; impacts on safety services; and questions regarding out-of-band emissions from such terminals. A full and adequate record on these issues is not present here.
11 We find Comsat’s arguments in opposing Stratos' applications unpersuasive in three respects. First, Stratos' applications do not pose a very high risk of anticompetitive behavior. Comsat has not demonstrated that Stratos’ foreign affiliations give Stratos the incentive or ability to engage in anticompetitive practices. Second, the privatization of Inmarsat in April 1999 has eliminated Comsat's claim to be the exclusive provider of Inmarsat space segment in the United States. Accordingly, Comsat’s arguments in that regard are now moot. Third, we believe that Comsat’s contract claims are not relevant to this proceeding, but rather are best left for the courts to resolve. The courts in fact have ruled in Stratos' favor on this issue.35
A. Standard of Review
12 We review the applications under the standards set forth in the Foreign Participation Order.36 In the Foreign Participation Order, the Commission adopted an open entry standard for Section 214 applications from service suppliers of World Trade Organization (WTO) Members, such as Canada. The Commission adopted a presumption that a carrier’s affiliation with a carrier in a WTO

Member country does not pose competitive concerns.37 Under these standards, the Commission will grant an application absent a demonstration that it poses a very high risk to competition in the U.S. market that cannot be addressed by imposing additional conditions on the authorizations.38


B. Competitive Issues

13 Comsat argues that authorizing Stratos to provide services involving Inmarsat-B and -M terminals via foreign LESs would: (1) raise the risk that Stratos, and its foreign monopoly owners, would engage in anticompetitive practices; and (2) discourage investment in U.S. facilities and subsidize foreign carriers.39 First, we note that Comsat’s arguments are based on Stratos’ past affiliation with Teleglobe. Because Teleglobe is no longer affiliated with Stratos, Comsat’s concerns with anticompetitive conduct based on that affiliation are no longer relevant, and we need not address them.40 We therefore address Comsat’s concerns in the context of Stratos’ current affiliation with AtlanticCo. We have concluded with respect to NewTel, currently affiliated with AtlantiCo, that, even if NewTel were the provider of monopoly telecommunications services in Newfoundland and Labrador, the status of NewTel as a monopoly in these markets, by itself, does not pose a high risk to competition.41 We continue to believe that, given NewTel/AtlantiCo's size, Stratos' affiliation with NewTel/AtlantiCo will not give the applicants the ability to raise prices in the U.S. market unilaterally or to otherwise possess the ability to present a high risk to competition in the U.S. market for international maritime mobile satellite services.42 The Bureau has previously noted, with respect to the provision of mobile satellite services, that a carrier's affiliation with a foreign carrier possessing market power would not necessarily present it with an opportunity to discriminate. 43 The Bureau noted that, unlike with international message telephone service (IMTS), with mobile satellite services, distribution in foreign markets will not necessarily be accomplished through a monopoly carrier. The Bureau referred to an authorization granted to Cruisephone in which the Bureau stated that the company's affiliation with the monopoly carrier did not provide it with an opportunity to discriminate against other U.S. carriers because it was not using any of the facilities of the foreign monopoly carrier.44


14 Regarding predatory behavior, Comsat alleges that, if we grant Stratos' application to route Inmarsat traffic through foreign LESs using foreign space segment, Stratos would be able to secure space segment at subsidized, transit rates that Comsat likely cannot match.45 Thus, Comsat argues that Stratos could price its services too low, rather than too high. Comsat provides no evidence, however, that Stratos’ per minute price would be below cost. In addition, Comsat fails to demonstrate that Stratos would even have the incentive or ability to engage in predatory pricing. Moreover, Stratos states that its proposed price includes a healthy margin over the Space Segment Utilization Charge that Inmarsat charges for space segment, thus allowing Stratos to cover not only its average variable costs, but its fixed costs as well.46 We agree with AT&T that Stratos’ proposed price will instead be pro-competitive, because it will bring substantial (and non-predatory) price reductions.47 We conclude, therefore, as we have before, that there is no evidence that Stratos could engage in predatory pricing.48 Additionally, we note that Canada, in February 1998, liberalized the routing of mobile satellite services between points within Canada, and between Canada and points in the United States.49 Thus, Comsat, as well as any other provider of Inmarsat services, is able to route traffic from Canada through its U.S. LESs, if there is a cost advantage to be gained from such routing. Moreover, as a result of the recent Inmarsat privatization, Stratos is able to purchase space segment capacity under the LES Agreement directly from Inmarsat rather than former Inmarsat signatories, potentially resulting in additional cost savings that can be passed on to the consumer.
15 In addition, as noted above, Comsat urges the Commission to defer any grants of applications until it has acted on Comsat’s pending complaint against Stratos' affiliate, IDB Mobile, and to refuse to grant the applications if, in that proceeding, the Commission determines that IDB Mobile violated U.S. law.50 We take very seriously any allegations that U.S. laws and our rules are being violated, but allegations of impropriety do not by themselves necessarily create a very high risk to competition, nor do they provide a basis for withholding action on an application. The Commission will resolve Comsat’s allegations -- which IDB Mobile has opposed -- in the relevant proceeding now before it.51
16 Finally, we note that Stratos is – and will continue to be – regulated as dominant on the U.S.-Canada route.52 If we detect any anticompetitive behavior on that route to the benefit of Stratos, we can take appropriate action. Therefore, we conclude that the applications do not pose a very high risk to competition.53
C. Statutory Issues

17 Comsat asserts that the 1978 Maritime Satellite Act designates Comsat as the exclusive provider of Inmarsat space segment in the United States. Accordingly, Comsat argues that the Commission cannot grant Stratos the authority to provide Inmarsat services via foreign LESs.54 With respect to Stratos' US LES application, Comsat argues that the Commission must condition any grant on a requirement that applicants utilize Comsat space segment in providing the services.55 Stratos responds that the Maritime Satellite Act does nothing more than designate Comsat as the sole U.S. Signatory to Inmarsat, a role that does not confer a space segment monopoly on Comsat.56

18 Comsat’s arguments that the Maritime Satellite Act does not permit authorization of Stratos to provide the requested services are now moot in view of the recent privatization of Inmarsat.57 Comsat's claims to exclusivity are based upon the signatory role granted to it under the Maritime Satellite Act for participation in Inmarsat as an intergovernmental organization. The provisions of the Maritime Satellite Act are inapplicable to distribution of services by the privatized Inmarsat. Distribution of services of a privatized Inmarsat is pursuant to an agreement under which Stratos may acquire capacity directly from Inmarsat or through foreign LES operations for delivery of U.S.-originated services.58 Moreover, as we recently pointed out, Stratos’ proposed services involving Inmarsat-B and –M terminals include Secure Telephone Unit (STU-III) capabilities that Comsat is itself currently unable to provide.59 As we said in granting Stratos special temporary authority (STA) to provide these services to the U.S. Department of Defense (which Comsat itself has applied for authority to resell),60 the Commission has routinely issued authorizations for the provision of Inmarsat services, including Inmarsat-B and –M, from foreign LESs when alternative U.S. facilities have not been available.61

19 Under the same reasoning, we deny Comsat's petition for reconsideration of the International Bureau's grant to Stratos of special temporary authority to provide fixed to mobile Inmarsat-B and Inmarsat-M services with STU-III capabilities to the U.S. Department of Defense via the foreign land earth stations at Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia.62 Comsat's petition, and subsequent filings are based on the same legal and statutory arguments raised in its comments on the foreign and US LES applications and rejected above.


D. Contractual Issues
20 Comsat also argues that the requested authorizations would violate contractual obligations between Comsat and Stratos’ affiliate, IDB Mobile.63 We agree with Stratos that Comsat’s arguments are outside the scope of issues we should consider in this proceeding.64 Whether Stratos is barred from providing the services in question due to a contractual agreement between IDB Mobile and Comsat is a matter best left to the courts to decide because the Commission is not the proper forum for

the adjudication of private contractual disputes.65 Indeed, as Stratos points out, the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Maryland granting Stratos' motion to dismiss a Comsat suit against IDB Mobile/Stratos for breach of contract has been affirmed on appeal.66


IV. Conclusion
21 For the reasons described above, we: (1) grant in part Stratos' US LES application, subject to certain conditions and limitations; (2) grant Stratos' foreign LES application, subject to certain limitations; and (3) defer consideration of Stratos' US LES application to the extent it requests authority to provide Inmarsat service involving Mini-M terminals in the United States. We also deny Comsat's petition for reconsideration of the International Bureau's grant to Stratos of special temporary authority to provide fixed to mobile Inmarsat-B and Inmarsat-M services with STU-Secure Telephone Unit (STU-III) capabilities to the U.S. Department of Defense via the foreign land earth stations at Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia. In addition, we impose dominant carrier regulation on these authorizations for service on the U.S.-Canada route only.
V. Ordering Clauses
22 Upon consideration of the applications and in view of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the present and future public interest, convenience, and necessity require the grant, in part, of the present applications.
23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to section 214 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 214, that application FCC File No. ITC-214-19970924-00580 IS GRANTED IN PART. Stratos Mobile Networks (USA) LLC, is given authority to provide fixed-to-mobile and mobile-to-fixed Inmarsat Standard-B and Inmarsat Standard -M mobile satellite services using its U.S. land earth stations in Niles Canyon, California, and Staten Island, New York, and Inmarsat Mini-M international service using the same U.S. land earth stations. This grant is subject to the condition that Stratos file, and receive authority for, a modification of its existing Title III authority for those land earth stations. The grant of Section 214 authority to Stratos to provide service involving Inmarsat Mini-M terminals is limited to services involving Inmarsat Mini-M terminals located outside the United States. The application is DEFERRED IN PART, to the extent Stratos requests authority to provide any Inmarsat service involving Mini-M terminals being used in the United States. This grant does not include authority to provide land mobile satellite services involving terminals located in North America and any aeronautical services.
24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 214 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 214, that application FCC File No. ITC-214-19980130-00053 IS GRANTED, and Stratos Mobile Networks (USA) LLC, is given authority to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat Standard-B Inmarsat Standard-M mobile satellite services using foreign land earth stations, including those located at Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia, and Inmarsat Mini-M international services using the same foreign land earth stations. The grant of Section 214 authority to Stratos to provide service involving Inmarsat Mini-M terminals is limited to services involving Inmarsat Mini-M terminals located outside the United States. This grant does not include authority to provide land mobile satellite services involving terminals located in North America and any aeronautical services.

25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the applicants shall comply with the dominant carrier regulations under Section 63.10 of the Commission's rules for their provision of service on the U.S.-Canada route.


26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Comsat Corporation's petition for reconsideration of the International Bureau's grant, in FCC File No. ITC-TAO-19980701-00916, to Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC of special temporary authority to provide fixed-to-mobile Inmarsat-B and Inmarsat-M services with Secure Telephone Unit (STU-III) capabilities to the U.S. Department of Defense via the foreign land earth stations at Laurentides, Canada, and Perth, Australia, IS DENIED
27 This Order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, and is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.115 may be filed within 30 days of the date of the public notice of this Order. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(2). In addition, under Section 1.110 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.110, this action shall be considered as a grant of the applications unless applicants, within 30 days of the date of the public notice of this Order, file a written request rejecting the grant as made.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Donald Abelson



Chief, International Bureau

1 47 U.S.C. § 214.

2 See IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., Application Pursuant to Section 214 for Authority to Provide Mobile-to-Fixed and Fixed-To-Mobile Inmarsat Standard M, Mini-M and Standard B Mobile Satellite Service via the Inmarsat System in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean Regions, FCC File No. ITC-214-19970924-00580 (filed Sept. 24, 1997) (US LES Application). IDB Mobile's application was transferred to Stratos through a pro forma transfer of control. See Overseas Common Carrier Section 214 Applications Actions Taken, Report No. I-8273, Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd 19542 (1997) (announcing 10/31/97 grant of Pro Forma Assignment/Transfer of Control, FCC File No. ITC-97-647-TC).

3 See US LES Application at 2. IDB Mobile’s application seeks authority to provide services via the Inmarsat system in the Atlantic Ocean Region-East (AOR-E) and the Pacific Ocean Region (POR). See id. at 2. Hereinafter, when we refer to Inmarsat-B or Inmarsat-M services, we are referring to Standard-B and Standard-M services. Applicants describe "fixed to mobile" as encompassing "outbound," "base-to-mobile," and "shore to ship" services. They describe "mobile to fixed" as encompassing "inbound," "mobile-to-base," and "ship-to-shore" services. Id. at n.1.

4 See Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC Application Pursuant to Section 214 for Authority to Provide U.S.-Originated Fixed-To-Mobile Inmarsat Mobile Satellite Services via Foreign Land Earth Stations, Including those at Laurentides, Quebec, Canada, and Perth, Australia, FCC File No. ITC-214-19980130-0053 (filed Jan. 30, 1998) (Stratos Jan. 30, 1998 Application, or "Foreign LES Application") at 1-2. Stratos seeks authority to provide services via the Inmarsat system in the AOR-E, the Atlantic Ocean Region-West (AOR-W), and the POR. See id at 2. See also Ex Parte Letter from Alfred Mamlet and Colleen Sechrest, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (June 25, 1999) (withdrawing request for Inmarsat A authority).

5See Petition for Reconsideration of Comsat Corporation, FCC File No. ITC-TAO-199807091-00916, filed Mar. 31, 1999 (Comsat Mar. 31, 1999 Petition for Reconsideration); Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC, Application to Provide U.S.-Originated Fixed-to-Mobile Inmarsat-B and –M Services to the U.S. Department of Defense via Foreign Land Earth Stations at Laurentides, Quebec, Canada and Perth, Australia, FCC File No. ITC-TAO-19980701-00916, Order, DA 99-410 (rel. Mar. 1, 1999) (Stratos DoD Authorization Order).

6 We recognize that Stratos has pending an application to provide aeronautical services. See IDB Mobile Communications, Inc. Application Pursuant to Section 214 for Authority to Provide Domestic Aeronautical Satellite Services via the Inmarsat System, FCC File No. ITC-214-19981214-00859; Non-Streamlined International Section 214, Cable Landing License and Section 310(B)(4) Applications Accepted For Filing (Formal Section 63.18 And 1.767), Report No. Tel-00044NS, Public Notice (rel. Dec. 18, 1998).

7 See Stratos Mobile Networks (USA) LLC, IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., Stratos Global Corporation, and Newtel Enterprises Limited, FCC File No. ITC-98-287-TC, Marinesat Communications Network, Inc., Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc., ICG Satellite Services, Inc., Stratos Holdings, Inc., And Stratos Acquisition Corporation, FCC File No. ITC-98-288-TC, Applications Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Transfer Control of Section 214 Authorizations, Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. and Stratos Acquisition Corporation, 9713587, Application for Consent to Assignment of Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Station License, Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. And Stratos Acquisition Corporation, 807-DSE-AL-98, Application to Assign Earth Station Authorizations, Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 14040 at para. 2 (1998) (Stratos/Marine Order and Authorization); see also Stratos Jan. 30, 1998 Application at 12.

8 See Stratos Jan. 30, 1998 Application at 13.

9 See id. at n.34.

10 See id. at 13. Stratos asserts that TCG is authorized to provide international telecommunications services to the public in Canada, but not authorized to provide service from Canada to the United States. See id.

11  Stratos/Marine Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 14040 at para. 8; Ex Parte Letter from Alfred M. Mamlet, Matthew S. Yeo, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (July 8, 1998).


12  See Satellite Communications Services Information, Actions Taken, Report No. SES-00069, Public Notice (Apr. 14, 1999) (listing Apr. 9, 1999 grant, Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC, et al., Application for Pro Forma Transfer of Control, SES/TC-19990401-004101999).

13  See Stratos Jan. 30, 1998 Application at 3.

14See id. at 4.

15 See id. at 4-6.

16 See id. at 6-11.

17 See id. at 7.

18International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act of 1978, Pub. L. 87-624, 92 Stat. 2392 (1978) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 751-757) (Maritime Satellite Act).

19  Stratos Jan. 30, 1998 Application at 6-11.

20 See Ex Parte Letter from Alfred Mamlet and Colleen Sechrest, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Apr. 29, 1999) (Mamlet/Sechrest Apr. 29, 1999 Ex Parte); "Inmarsat Shareholders Elect First Board of Directors," Inmarsat Press Release, http://www.inmarsat.org/newsroom/releases/board2.html; "Inmarsat Makes World History this Month (Apr. 1999) When it Becomes the First International Treaty Organization to be Transformed into a Commercial Company," Via Inmarsat Magazine, Apr. 1999, http://www.inmarsat.org/magazine/issues/current/news2.html.

21 See Comsat Mobile Communications Petition to Deny Stratos Application to Provide U.S.-originated Fixed-to-Mobile Inmarsat-B and –M Services via Foreign Land Earth Stations (Mar. 11, 1998) (Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny) at 8-17; Reply of Comsat Mobile Communications (Apr. 6, 1998) (Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply) at 2-8.

22 See Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 17-18; Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 16-8.

23 See Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 17-23; Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 10-14.

24 See Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 24-29; Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 9-10.

25See Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 29-30; Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 18-19.

26Comments of AT&T, FCC File No. ITC-214-19980130-00053 (filed Mar. 11, 1998).

27 See Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 15. See also Comsat Opposition to Comments of AT&T Corp. (filed Mar. 25, 1998) at 1.

28See Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 15; Mar. 25, 1998 Comsat Opposition to Comments of AT&T Corp. at 1-3.

29 See Comsat Comments, FCC File No. ITC-214-1997-0924 at 2, 3 (filed Nov. 7, 1997).

30 See id. at 6-7.

31See id. at 6-8.

32 See id. at 8-9.

33 See Ex Parte Letter from Neal T. Kilminster and John E. Benedict to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (May 21, 1999) (May 21, 1999 Comsat Ex Parte); Ex Parte Letter from Neal T. Kilminster and John E. Benedict to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (June 7, 1999) (June 7, 1999 Comsat Ex Parte); Ex Parte Procedures Modified for Formal Complaint Filed by Comsat Corporation Against IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., File No. E-99-08, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 1047 (1999).

34  See Satellite Communications Services Information, Actions Taken, Report No. SES-00069, Public Notice (Apr. 14, 1999) (listing Apr. 9, 1999 grant, Stratos Mobile Networks (USA), LLC, et al., Application for Pro Forma Transfer of Control, SES/TC-19990401-00410; Stratos Mobile Networks (USA)); see also Federal Communications Radio Station Authorization, Call Sign KA76 and File No. 1191-DSE-MP/L-97, Call Sign KA227 and File No. 1193-DSE-MP/L-97.

35  See Ex Parte Letter from Alfred Mamlet and Colleen Sechrest, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (May 6, 1998) (attaching Comsat Corporation v. IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. AW 98-281, Memorandum Opinion and Order (S.D.M.D. Apr. 30, 1998) (dismissing Comsat's complaint on the merits), appeal dismissed sub. nom., Comsat v. IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., et al., No. 98-2525 (4th Cir. May 21, 1999)).

36Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Market, Market Entry, IB 97-142, Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign Affiliated Entities, IB 95-22, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 23891 (1997) (Foreign Participation Order), recon. pending.

37See Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 23922, para. 69. Similarly, in the DISCO II Order, the Commission established an open entry standard for those earth station applicants seeking to access foreign satellite systems licensed by WTO members to provide services covered by the United States’ commitments under the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement. See Amendment of the Commission’s Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S.-Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States, IB Docket 96-111, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 24094, 24112, para. 39 (1997) (DISCO-II Order).

38See Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 23913-914, para. 51.

39See Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 17-23; Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 10-14.

40 See Stratos/Marine Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 14040 at para. 8.

41 See id.

42 See id.; Foreign Participation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 23914, para. 52. Under the same reasoning, we conclude that NewTel/AtlanticCo’s control of the dominant local carriers in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, Canada do not raise significant competition concerns.

43 See WorldCom Inc., Transferor, and Stratos Wireless, Inc., Transferee, Application for Authority, Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Transfer Control of an Authorized International Carrier, File No. ISP-PDR-19981002-00011 (Previous File No. ITC-97-234-TC), Memorandum Opinion and Order and Authorization, 12 FCC Rcd 8340 at para. 4. (WorldCom/Stratos Conditions Order); WorldCom Inc., Transferor, and Stratos Wireless, Inc., Transferee, Application for Authority, Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Transfer Control of an Authorized International Carrier, Order, DA No.99-1611, para. 2 (rel. Aug. 12, 1999) (removing conditions imposed on IDB Mobile's provision of non-mobile satellite services that had been imposed in the WorldCom/Stratos Conditions Order as a result of Teleglobe's indirect ownership of 30 percent of IDB Mobile's capital stock).


44 See WorldCom Stratos Conditions Order, 12 FCC Rcd at para.4, n.2, citing Cruisephone, Inc., Application for Authority, Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Inmarsat Standard B and Standard M Mobile Satellite Services in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean Regions, FCC File No. ITC-94-441, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Authorization, 9 FCC Rcd 6818 at para. 6 (1994).

45Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 19.

46See Stratos Mar. 25, 1998 Opposition to Comsat Petition to Deny at 8-9.

47 AT&T Mar. 11, 1998 Comments at 2.

48Stratos/Marine Order and Authorization, 13 RCC Rcd 14040 at para. 9.

49See Policy Framework for Provision of Mobile Satellite Services via Regional and Global Satellite Systems in the Canadian Market, Industry Canada RP-007, Rev. 1 at 3 (Feb. 1998).

50 See June 7, 1999 Comsat Ex Parte; May 21, 1999 Comsat Ex Parte.

51See Ex Parte Procedures Modified for Formal Complaint Filed by Comsat Corporation Against IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., File No. E-99-08, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 1047 (1999).

52 In a letter dated April 29, 1999, Stratos withdrew its request to be reclassified as a nondominant carrier for mobile satellite services on the United States-Canada route. See Ex Parte letter from Alfred Mamlet and Colleen Sechrest, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Apr. 29, 1999).

53See Stratos/Marine Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 14040 at para. 11.

54  See Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 8-10; Comsat Apr. 6, 1998 Reply at 2-4.

55See Comsat Nov. 11, 1997 Comments at 8.

56See Stratos Mar. 25, 1998 Opposition to Comsat Petition to Deny at 8-17.

57See Stratos DoD Authorization Order at para. 6.

58 The Bureau has authorized continued operation of both Comsat and Stratos earth stations located in the United States pursuant to the terms of this agreement, pending Congressional action on legislation to conform the Maritime Satellite Act to the Inmarsat privatization. Congressional action is necessary to authorize U.S. participation in the International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO) and to eliminate provisions of the Act no longer necessary or relevant to operation of Inmarsat in the United States. See Requests for Special Temporary Authority of Comsat Corporation and Stratos (USA) Limited To Change Points of Communications from Inmarsat to Inmarsat Limited, DA 99-679 (rel. Apr. 12, 1999).

59 See Stratos DoD Authorization Order at para. 1.

60 Satellite Policy Branch Information, Applications Accepted for Filing, Report No. SAT-00017 (May 11, 1999) (includes announcement of application of Comsat General Corporation, SAT-ITC-19990420-00044, to operate as an international resale carrier of space segment service under Section 214 of the Communications Act, as amended); Application of Comsat General Corporation, FCC File No. SAT-ITC-19990420-00044 (filed Apr. 19, 1999).

61 See Stratos DoD Authorization Order at para. 6 (citing IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., Application for Authority to Provide Inmarsat Standard A Mobile Satellite Services via the Inmarsat System in the Indian Ocean Region, FCC File No. ITC-95-565, Application for Authority to Provide Inmarsat Standard B and Standard M Mobile Satellite Services via the Inmarsat System in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean Regions, FCC File No. ITC-95-569, 11 FCC Rcd 2913 (1996) (authorizing IDB Mobile to provide Inmarsat-B and –M service in the Indian Ocean Region via the Telstra LES at Perth, Australia); The Application of IDB Aero-Nautical Communications, Inc. for Authority Pursuant To Sections 503 and 504(C) of the International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act and Section 214 of The Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Inmarsat-C Mobile Satellite Services Via The Inmarsat System in the Indian Ocean Region, and the Application of IDB Aero-Nautical Communications, Inc. for Authority Pursuant to Sections 503 and 504(C) of the International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act And Section 214 Of The Communications Act Of 1934, as amended, to Provide Inmarsat-C Mobile Satellite Services Via The Inmarsat System in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean Regions, FCC File No. ITC-93-013, FCC File No. ITC-93-014, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Authorization, 8 FCC Rcd 807 (1993); The Application of IDB Aero-Nautical Communications, Inc. for Authority Pursuant to the International Maritime Satellite Communications Act of 1978 and Section 214 of The Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Maritime Mobile Satellite Service in the Indian Ocean Region via the Inmarsat System, FCC File No. ITC-91-012, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Authorization, 6 FCC Rcd 5962 (1991)).

62See Comsat Mar. 31, 1999 Petition for Reconsideration.

63 Comsat Mar. 11, 1998 Petition to Deny at 29-30; Comsat Nov. 7, 1997 Comments at 6-7.

64Stratos Mar. 25, 1998 Opposition to Comsat Petition to Deny at 21-22.

65See Listeners’ Guild, Inc. v. FCC, 813 F.2d 465, 469 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (referring with approval to the “Commission’s longstanding policy of refusing to adjudicate private contract law questions for which a forum exists in the state courts”); Stratos DoD Authorization Order, FCC File No. ITC-TAO-19980701-00916 at para. 7; Applications of Stockholders of Renaissance Communications Corporation (Transferor) and Tribune Company (Transferee) for Transfer of Control of Renaissance Communications Corporation, Parent of: 61 Licensee, Inc., Licensee of WTIC-TV, Hartford, CT, Channel 43 Licensee, Inc. Licensee of WPMT(TV), York, PA,, Channel 40 Licensee, Inc. Licensee of KTXL(TV), Sacramento, CA, Channel 39 Licensee, Inc. Licensee of WDZL(TV), Miami, FL, 59 Licensee, Inc. Licensee of WXIN(TV), Indianapolis, IN, 33 Licensee, Inc. Licensee of KDAF(TV), Dallas, TX, and Channel 43 Licensee, Inc. BPCT-960724KK, File Nos. BTCCT-960801LG, BTCCT-960801LH, BTCCT-960801LI, BTCCT-960801LJ, BTCCT-960801LK, BTCCT-960801LL, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 11866, para. 6 (1997) (stating that the Commission is not the proper forum for the adjudication of private contractual disputes); Application Of MCI Communications Corp., Transferor and Southern Pacific Telecommunications Company, Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control of QWEST Communications, Inc., File No. ENF-94-006, File No. 9413177, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 7790, para. 19 (1997).

66  See Mamlet/Sechrest May 6, 1998 Ex Parte (attaching Comsat Corporation v. IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. AW 98-281, Memorandum Opinion and Order (S.D.M.D. Apr. 30, 1998) (dismissing Comsat's complaint on the merits), appeal dismissed sub. nom., Comsat v. IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., et al., No. 98-2525 (4th Cir. May 21, 1999).




Download 135.04 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2020
send message

    Main page