LightSquared Seeks Spectrum Rights Showdown
LightSquared’s petition for declaratory ruling Tuesday (CD Dec 21 p8) seeks to hold the FCC’s and the GPS industry’s feet to the fire by dealing with the unresolved issue of L-band and GPS spectrum rights, said LightSquared Executive Vice President Jeff Carlisle in an interview Wednesday. The LightSquared filing seemed to show a new tone in dealing with the agency, perhaps reflecting frustration with the continued regulatory uncertainty and a coming network agreement deadline with Sprint, said industry executives. A GPS industry group accused LightSquared of constructing “revisionist” history, during a conference call with reporters.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
"We went to the FCC to ask them to decide once and for all” if GPS has the right to look into our spectrum, said Carlisle. “I think [the GPS industry] knows the answer is no and decided to have big circus press conference” rather than wait and file comments, which shows they “don’t have a legal position that makes any sense,” he said. An FCC public notice on LightSquared’s request would give a forum to discuss the “underlying issue” of whether GPS has the right to listen into the L-band spectrum, which wasn’t addressed as part of the FCC’s MSS/ATC waiver process, he said. Carlisle said he hopes to see FCC movement on the request following the holidays.
LightSquared is dependent on a rewriting of history in its filing, said Jim Kirkland, general counsel at Trimble and a head of the Coalition to Save Our GPS. “I don’t know why the FCC would act on the declaratory ruling,” Kirkland said. The agency was very clear that LightSquared had to show noninterference with GPS devices, he said. “What would the FCC say? ‘OK, we accept your mischaracterization of history.’ We don’t know what the point of that filing is.” Kirkland said it’s time for the FCC to step in to see if there’s better use for the spectrum than what LightSquared has proposed. Both sides complained of moving targets created by the other side.
One GPS industry executive said the filing was more for third parties, such as Sprint, than it was for FCC involvement and amounts to “a sheer act of desperation.” Sprint can opt out of its network sharing agreement with LightSquared if regulatory conditions aren’t met by the end of the year.
Sprint said it has revised its deal with LightSquared as regulators continue their review. “We have realigned our deployment timeline to coincide with potential FCC actions,” said a Sprint spokeswoman. “Until 1.6 spectrum is approved for use, both companies believe it is prudent to pull back on expenses and stop new deployment design and implementation to ensure the Network Vision project remains on schedule. The deal between the parties remains intact and there is no impact to Network Vision deployment schedule. Sprint supports LightSquared’s business plans and efforts to resolve potential interference issues expediently. That said, the agreement includes protections for Sprint relating to LightSquared’s requirement to receive FCC approvals."
While the LightSquared filing asks the FCC to seek comment and decide on what levels of spectrum protection are afforded to the GPS industry and surrounding spectrum, the FCC isn’t required to address the concerns quickly, said industry lawyers. While the filing “puts the issue before the FCC in way it hasn’t been put before and the FCC will probably need to deal with it,” the timeframe in beginning the process is largely up to the agency, said Maury Mechanick, a lawyer at White & Case. LightSquared is likely feeling like it “is boxed into a corner” and seeking to put the agency on the spot, he said. Patrick Campbell, a lawyer at Paul Weiss agreed, saying the filing may be partly for public consumption and LightSquared’s “back is against the wall.”