DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulation of Global Broadband Satellite Communications GSR Advanced Copy Septembre 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regulation of Global Broadband Satellite Communications GSR Advanced Copy Septembre 2011 Regulation of Global Broadband Satellite Communications GSR Advanced Copy Septembre 2011 Work in progress, for discussion purposes Comments are welcome! Please send your comments on this paper at: [email protected] by 7 October 2011. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of ITU or its Membership. This report has been prepared for ITU by Rajesh Mehrotra, Founder and Principal Consultant, Red Books Please consider the environment before printing this report. ITU 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any means whatsoever, without the prior written permission of ITU. Regulation of Global Broadband Satellite Communications Table of Contents Page 1.1 Introduction: Satellites for smart broadband solutions ........................................................ 1 1.1.1 What is broadband and what does satellite broadband mean? ............................ 1 1.1.2 Why satellites for broadband delivery? ................................................................. 1 1.1.3 Satellite used for broadband communications – advantages and limitations ....... 2 1.2 Satellite services and systems........................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Definition of satellite services and systems for broadband delivery ..................... 4 1.2.2 Description of satellite orbits ................................................................................. 5 1.2.3 Technical characteristics of air interfaces for global broadband satellite systems 6 1.2.4 Global broadband Internet access by fixed-satellite service systems ................... 6 1.2.5 Additional spectrum for Mobile Satellite Service .................................................. 6 1.2.6 Satellite system approaches to broadband ........................................................... 7 1.3 Overview of satellite broadband services ......................................................................... 9 1.3.1 Regional approaches to satellite broadband services ........................................... 9 1.3.2 Global broadband satellite delivery ....................................................................... 16 1.4 Understanding challenges and opportunities................................................................... 17 1.4.1 Satellite as a complement to terrestrial backbone network – Satellite component of the IMT advanced .............................................................................................. 17 1.4.2 Integrated MSS Systems – Use of satellite spectrum to combine terrestrial networks with satellite systems ............................................................................. 19 1.4.3 Interoperability between WiMAX & broadband mobile space networks: ............ 20 1.4.4 Use of FSS & MSS for warning and relief operations during natural disaster & emergency situations– the Tampere convention ................................. 20 1.5 International Regulation Issues – Use of spectrum and orbital resource ........................ 22 1.5.1 Regulatory Challenges: – Virtual satellites & other International coordination issues – Possible solutions ..................................................................................... 24 1.5.2 Cleaning up of the ITU’s Master International Frequency Register (MIFR) poses challenges .................................................................................................... 25 1.6 Economics of satellite systems ......................................................................................... 25 1.6.1 When does it make economic sense to use satellite systems? ............................. 25 1.6.2 Present economic status & outlook for the satellite industry ............................... 27 1.7 Market Entry: Existing practices and overcoming drawbacks .......................................... 27 1.7.1 Licensing and access practices in place for Satellite systems and Earth stations (VSAT) ..................................................................................................................... 28 1.7.2 Open access: Open skies and International Gateway liberalization ...................... 30 1.7.3 Regional harmonization of regulatory network ..................................................... 31 1.8 Bringing it all together: Regulatory best practices for satellite industry .......................... 32 Annex 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 34 i Regulation Global Broadband Satellite Communications 1.1 Introduction: Satellites for smart broadband solutions Commercial satellites had a shaky start. When the first working model of an artificial satellite by Hughes Aircraft was displayed from the top of the Eiffel Tower, in 1961at the Paris Air Show, the sceptics remarked that it was as high as it would go1. Today, with over 900 satellites orbiting the Earth2 the proponents of satellite technology are having the last laugh. Around the mid 1990s, “packet-switching technology” and “the Internet” – both of which led directly to the development of broadband technology, satellite and terrestrial networking enabled multimedia traffic, voice/video/data/fax, to be carried over ‘converged’ data networks. The terms Voice Over IP (VoIP) and IP Telephony (IPT) were introduced to describe how circuit switched voice signals were converted into data packets for transport on IP networks.3 Since the opportunities for convergence of data, voice and multimedia (video) on the same network are now offered by IP, satellites, with their inherent strength to cover mass geographical coverage are offering a sound solution. Satellites are therefore seen as powerful transmission tools for broadband applications. But many regulatory barriers and uncertainties need to be overcome, at both the international and national levels. This paper defines the universe of broadband satellite technology and explains why it is so vital for the expansion of multimedia services and applications around the world. In order to help readers fully appreciate the potential of satellites, this paper will briefly describe their system architectures, the technical characteristics of air interfaces, 4 and the different broadband services and applications that can be delivered through satellite systems. Subsequently, the paper deals with international, regional & national practices for satellite system approaches for broadband delivery. Description of satellite as a component of `IMT-advanced’ and use of satellites for disaster relief work is then explained. ITU practices for use of spectrum/orbit resource and some of the important satellite coordination issues that have the potential to block new satellites (including the ones that may serve the broadband markets) and that are to be discussed during the ITU World Radiocommunication Conference-12 (WRC-12) early in 2012, are then introduced. Aspects concerning the economics of satellites systems and market entry issues are followed by thoughts on best satellite regulation practices and challenges to further broadband access for all. 1.1.1 What is broadband and what does satellite broadband mean? Broadband, which also may be referred to as `wideband’ is used frequently to indicate some form of high-speed access. There is however, no universally accepted definition for this term. Broadband is frequently used to indicate an Internet connection at 256 kbit/s in one or both directionsi. The FCC definition of broadband is 4.0 Mbit/s. The Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has defined broadband as 256 kbit/s in at least one direction and this bit rate is the most common baseline that is marketed as "broadband" around the world5. However, for the purposes intended in this paper, the term `broadband’ refers to data rates that correspond to the user rate of 2 Mbit/s and higher (also refer section 1.2.4). Not everyone is able to access DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) or cable service, particularly in rural areas, where the subscribers may not be well served by the phone centre. For those left out, satellite broadband can be the answer. The Internet feed is beamed from satellite to a dish installed at the subscriber's home. Typically, a two-way Internet access via satellites rather than dial-up, capable of delivering speeds equal to or greater than 2 Mbit/s downstream, and 1 Mbit/s upstream 6, would fall in the category of satellite broadband. Broadband satellite7 also refers to systems that have the capability to receive and transmit `rich media content’ from the satellite to the network end- users and between the end-users whether at home or in the office. Satellite broadband can also include a hybrid solution, where the “middle mile is provided via satellite and extended to end-users via terrestrial IMT technologies. 1.1.2 Why satellites for broadband delivery? According to ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database8, “There has been strong growth in fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions, in both developed and developing countries: at the end of 2010, fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions reached 8% penetration, up from 6.9% penetration a year earlier. Despite these promising trends, penetration levels in developing countries remain low: 4.4 subscriptions per 100 people compared to 24.6 in developed countries.” 1 Regulation Global Broadband Satellite Communications Recognizing the fact
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report 2009
    Annual Report 2009 Dear Fellow Stockholders, Once again it is time to extend a sincere welcome to all of our stockholders and thank you for your continued faith and confidence in and support of Globalstar. During 2009 we successfully met our financing challenges in a way other satellite companies are striving to replicate. 2009 was a difficult time for the Company but thanks to the perseverance and level of commitment from all of our investors and employees we have more than met these challenges. With only about 8 weeks to go before the expected delivery of the initial second-generation satellites I am pleased to provide you with a summary of our progress during 2009. MEETING THE RETAIL CONSUMER MARKET CHALLENGE One of the traditional barriers faced by the mobile satellite services industry has been the lack of mainstream retail consumer market acceptance. Globalstar is the first, and to this day the only, MSS provider to have successfully broken through this market barrier via the introduction of our revolutionary SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger™ product. Our challenge in 2009 was to continue to capitalize on, and further expand, this consumer success both domestically and around the world. We successfully met this challenge and grew our consumer market presence by expanding the mix of SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger retail products and services as well as the global distribution for our unique satellite messaging and tracking products. We introduced a new enhanced version of SPOT that is both easier to use and about 30 percent smaller and lighter than the original product. We also announced a suite of new SPOT value-added services such as our SPOT Assist Roadside and Maritime packages.
    [Show full text]
  • 59864 Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 185/Wednesday, September 23
    59864 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Rules and Regulations FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS C. Congressional Review Act II. Report and Order COMMISSION 2. The Commission has determined, A. Allocating FTEs 47 CFR Part 1 and the Administrator of the Office of 5. In the FY 2020 NPRM, the Information and Regulatory Affairs, Commission proposed that non-auctions [MD Docket No. 20–105; FCC 20–120; FRS Office of Management and Budget, funded FTEs will be classified as direct 17050] concurs that these rules are non-major only if in one of the four core bureaus, under the Congressional Review Act, 5 i.e., in the Wireline Competition Assessment and Collection of U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will Bureau, the Wireless Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2020 send a copy of this Report & Order to Telecommunications Bureau, the Media Congress and the Government Bureau, or the International Bureau. The AGENCY: Federal Communications indirect FTEs are from the following Commission. Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). bureaus and offices: Enforcement ACTION: Final rule. Bureau, Consumer and Governmental 3. In this Report and Order, we adopt Affairs Bureau, Public Safety and SUMMARY: In this document, the a schedule to collect the $339,000,000 Homeland Security Bureau, Chairman Commission revises its Schedule of in congressionally required regulatory and Commissioners’ offices, Office of Regulatory Fees to recover an amount of fees for fiscal year (FY) 2020. The the Managing Director, Office of General $339,000,000 that Congress has required regulatory fees for all payors are due in Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, the Commission to collect for fiscal year September 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Business Review
    December 2010 - SPECIAL EDITION: THE TOP-10 SPACE BUSINESS STORIES OF 2010 – #1 – ECAs Take Center Stage #6 – Satellite Broadband Market Grows Export credit agencies played a major role in The FCC’s National Broadband Plan space financings in 2010. COFACE of stimulated wireless broadband applications France backed a $1.8b credit facility for by proposing terrestrial use of certain Iridium Communications Inc. for its licensed MSS S- and L-band spectrum while Iridium NEXT constellation, a $1.2b facility the Ka-band satellite broadband market for O3b Networks Limited and a $115m continued to grow with ViaSat reporting a loan for Hughes Network Systems, LLC. The 15% increase in subscribers and Hughes U.S. Ex-Im Bank loaned $215.6m to Avanti Communications surpassing 500,000 Communications Group plc, $171.5m to subscribers. Avanti Communications SES S.A. and $666m to Inmarsat plc for its launched the HYLAS 1 broadband satellite, Global Xpress™ program. LightSquared™ Inc. launched SkyTerra 1 #2 – Debt & Equity Markets Heat Up and Eutelsat launched KA-SAT. Markets end on a high note in 2010. SIRIUS #7 – Sea Launch Exits Ch. 11 XM Radio Inc. closed $910m in note offerings, Sea Launch Company successfully ViaSat, Inc. closed a public offering of 6.9m of completed its Chapter 11 reorganization its shares, Eutelsat S.A. refinanced €1.3b of process with Sea Launch S.a.r.l. as the debt, Inmarsat plc closed a debt facility of successor entity and Energia Overseas €225m, Avanti Communications raised Limited of Russia the new majority owner, approx. £70m in a share placement, Intelsat investing more than $140m in capital.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Global Broadband Satellite Communications April 2012
    REGULATORY & MARKET ENVIRONMENT International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Development Bureau Place des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 20 REGULATION OF Switzerland www.itu.int GLOBAL BROADBAND SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS Broadband Series APRIL 2012 Printed in Switzerland Telecommunication Development Sector Geneva, 2012 04/2012 Regulation of Global Broadband Satellite Communications April 2012 . This report has been prepared for ITU by Rajesh Mehrotra, Founder and Principal Consultant, Red Books. The report benefited from extensive review and guidance from the team of the Regulatory and Market Environment Division (RME) of the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT). ITU wishes to express thanks to John Alden for editing the paper and to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (ITSO) for their comments and advice. This report is part of a new series of ITU reports on broadband that are available online and free of charge at the ITU Universe of Broadband portal: www.itu.int/broadband. Please consider the environment before printing this report. ITU 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any means whatsoever, without the prior written permission of ITU. Regulation of global broadband satellite communications Table of Contents Page Preface .......................................................................................................................................... iii Foreword .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • EXACTITUDE in DEFINING RIGHTS: RADIO SPECTRUM and the “HARMFUL INTERFERENCE” CONUNDRUM Thomas W
    0227-0340_HAZLETT_081313_WEB (DO NOT DELETE) 8/13/2013 5:00 PM EXACTITUDE IN DEFINING RIGHTS: RADIO SPECTRUM AND THE “HARMFUL INTERFERENCE” CONUNDRUM Thomas W. Hazlett † and Sarah Oh †† ABSTRACT In the century since the Radio Act of 1912 initiated U.S. spectrum allocation rules, a precise definition of “harmful interference”—the control of which forms the rationale for regulation—has eluded policymakers. In one sense, that result is unsurprising; rights are always defined incompletely. In another sense, however, the regulatory system is dysfunctional, severely limiting the productive use of spectrum while locked down in years- long border disputes. These disagreements have, in turn, triggered calls to develop brighter lines and fuller engineering specifications of harmful interference. However, this emphasis on exact definitions is misguided. Spectrum use rights generate more robust market development when they feature technically fuzzy borders but are awarded in economically efficient bundles. The key ingredients are (a) exclusive, flexible rights; (b) frequency borders set via standardized edge emission limits; (c) large bundles of complementary rights that limit fragmentation; and (d) fluid secondary trading that allows mergers to end border disputes by eliminating borders. Regulators should focus less on delineating precise interference contours, and instead expeditiously distribute standard bandwidth rights to economically responsible agents, taking care to avoid undue fragmentation (and tragedy of the anti- commons). Many episodes illustrate these lessons, including those involving reallocation of the broadcast TV band, the emergence of HD radio, the Nextel/public safety “spectrum swap,” and the ongoing WCS/SDARS dispute. Each instance reveals that economic incentives, not engineering complexity, drive—or block—productive coordination of radio spectrum use.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re: Case No.11-10612 (SHL)
    11-10612-shl Doc 264 Filed 11/14/11 Entered 11/14/11 15:01:55 Main Document Pg 1 of 12 MOSES & SINGER LLP Philippe A. Zimmerman Christopher J. Caruso 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Tel: 212-554-7800 Fax: 212-554-7700 - and - CONCEPCION MARTINEZ & BELLIDO, P.A. Nelson C. Bellido (Admitted pro hac vice) Marian Kennady (Admitted pro hac vice) 255 Aragon Ave. Second Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 444-6669 Counsel to Aldo I Perez UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------- In re: Case No.11-10612 (SHL) TERRESTAR CORPORATION, et al., Chapter 11 Debtors. ------------------------------------------------------------ REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF EXAMINER ALDO I. PEREZ (“Movant”), by his undersigned counsel, hereby files his Reply to the Debtor’s1 Response in Opposition to his Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Appointment of an Examiner and states the following: 1The Debtor refers to TerreStar Corporation (“TSC”), which is the controlling shareholder of TerreStar Networks, Inc. 11-10612-shl Doc 264 Filed 11/14/11 Entered 11/14/11 15:01:55 Main Document Pg 2 of 12 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Movant seeks reconsideration of the order denying the appointment of an examiner. Reconsideration is warranted because it was improperly determined that the claim of Elektrobit, Inc. (“Elektrobit”) claim did not satisfy the requirement set forth in 11 U.S.C. §1104(c) which requires that there be liquidated debts in excess of $5,000,000. Elektrobit’s guaranty claim satisfies section 1104(c) thus mandating the appointment of an examiner.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes to the Database for May 1, 2021 Release This Version of the Database Includes Launches Through April 30, 2021
    Changes to the Database for May 1, 2021 Release This version of the Database includes launches through April 30, 2021. There are currently 4,084 active satellites in the database. The changes to this version of the database include: • The addition of 836 satellites • The deletion of 124 satellites • The addition of and corrections to some satellite data Satellites Deleted from Database for May 1, 2021 Release Quetzal-1 – 1998-057RK ChubuSat 1 – 2014-070C Lacrosse/Onyx 3 (USA 133) – 1997-064A TSUBAME – 2014-070E Diwata-1 – 1998-067HT GRIFEX – 2015-003D HaloSat – 1998-067NX Tianwang 1C – 2015-051B UiTMSAT-1 – 1998-067PD Fox-1A – 2015-058D Maya-1 -- 1998-067PE ChubuSat 2 – 2016-012B Tanyusha No. 3 – 1998-067PJ ChubuSat 3 – 2016-012C Tanyusha No. 4 – 1998-067PK AIST-2D – 2016-026B Catsat-2 -- 1998-067PV ÑuSat-1 – 2016-033B Delphini – 1998-067PW ÑuSat-2 – 2016-033C Catsat-1 – 1998-067PZ Dove 2p-6 – 2016-040H IOD-1 GEMS – 1998-067QK Dove 2p-10 – 2016-040P SWIATOWID – 1998-067QM Dove 2p-12 – 2016-040R NARSSCUBE-1 – 1998-067QX Beesat-4 – 2016-040W TechEdSat-10 – 1998-067RQ Dove 3p-51 – 2017-008E Radsat-U – 1998-067RF Dove 3p-79 – 2017-008AN ABS-7 – 1999-046A Dove 3p-86 – 2017-008AP Nimiq-2 – 2002-062A Dove 3p-35 – 2017-008AT DirecTV-7S – 2004-016A Dove 3p-68 – 2017-008BH Apstar-6 – 2005-012A Dove 3p-14 – 2017-008BS Sinah-1 – 2005-043D Dove 3p-20 – 2017-008C MTSAT-2 – 2006-004A Dove 3p-77 – 2017-008CF INSAT-4CR – 2007-037A Dove 3p-47 – 2017-008CN Yubileiny – 2008-025A Dove 3p-81 – 2017-008CZ AIST-2 – 2013-015D Dove 3p-87 – 2017-008DA Yaogan-18
    [Show full text]
  • Radio Spectrum Inventory: a 2010 Snapshot ─ Canada
    The information in this document is provided for reference purposes only and is subject to change at any time without notice. Although efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of current spectrum allocations, assignments, services and applications, the Government of Canada does not warrant the quality, accuracy, or completeness of any information, or data in this document and assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or omissions. It is the responsibility of all persons who use this inventory to independently confirm the accuracy of the data, information, or results obtained through its use. In no event will the Government of Canada or its employees, servants or agents have any obligation to the user for any reason, including claims arising from contract or tort, or for loss of revenue or profit, or for indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising from the use of this information. This inventory is being posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use. It may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, for personal or non-commercial use without charge or further permission from Industry Canada so long as Industry Canada is identified as the source of the reproduction and no reproduction of the document, sections or information in the document shall indicate that Industry Canada is in any way responsible for the accuracy or reliability of the reproduction, nor shall any such reproduction imply that it was made with the endorsement of, or in affiliation with, Industry Canada. For more details, please contact the Engineering, Planning and Standards Branch, Industry Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re: ) Chapter 11 ) DBSD NORTH AMERICA, INC., Et Al., ) ) Case No
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________ ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) DBSD NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., ) ) Case No. 09-13061 (REG) ) Debtors. ) Jointly Administered _______________________________________) BENCH DECISION1 ON CONFIRMATION APPEARANCES: KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Attorneys for the Debtors and Debtors in Possession 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022-4611 By: James H.M. Sprayregen, P.C., Esq. Christopher J. Marcus, Esq. Yosef J. Riemer, Esq. (argued) Lee Ann Stevenson, Esq. (argued) Matthew F. Dexter, Esq. (argued) Christopher V. Coulston, Esq. (argued) -and- 300 North LaSalle Chicago, Illinois 60654 By: Marc J. Carmel, Esq. (argued) Sienna R. Singer, Esq. Lauren M. Hawkins, Esq. 1 I use bench decisions to lay out in writing decisions that are too long, or too important, to dictate in open court, but where the circumstances do not permit more leisurely drafting or more extensive or polished discussion. Because they often start as scripts for decisions to be dictated in open court, they typically have less in the way of citations and footnotes, and have a more conversational tone. CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT & MOSLE LLP Attorneys for Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 By: Steven J. Reisman, Esq. Maryann Gallagher, Esq. (argued) Timothy A. Barnes, Esq. MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP Attorneys for Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Noteholders 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, New York 10005 By: Dennis F. Dunne, Esq. Risa M. Rosenberg, Esq. Michael E. Comerford, Esq. Jeremy S. Sussman, Esq. -and- 1850 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 13- Obligations Under the Code, Skyterra and Harbinger Did Not
    -13- obligations under the Code, SkyTerra and Harbinger did not approach any ofthe relevant regulatory authorities on a named basis prior to the public announcement oftheir intention to make an offer for Inmarsat, SkyTerra and Harbinger believed that use ofthe Commission's trustee mechanism might complicate the approval process in a number ofthese jurisdictions. Another option under the Code would have been for Harbinger and SkyTerra to make a Rule 2.5 aJmouncement ofa 'pre-conditional offer'. This is an offer the making ofwhich (as contrasted with the closing ofwhich) is expressly conditioned upon (i) achieving approval (on acceptable terms) from the FCC; and (ii) (with the consent ofthe Panel) obtaining financing. As such, under this structure, the firm offer would only formally be made once such pre­ conditions had been satisfied (when the normal 109 day timetable would commence). However, with such a 'pre-conditional offer' Harbinger and SkyTerra would be committed on announcement to the offer price stated in their offer announcement and to proceeding at that offer price in the event that the stated conditions were satisfied. In ~le United States, the right ofthe offeror to withdraw from an offer on the basis ofa material adverse change affecting the offeree company is a matter ofcontractual negotiation. In contrast, in the U.K., for an offeror to be permitted to withdraw from an offer under the Code on the grounds ofa material adverse change affecting the offeree company"...requires an adverse change ofvery considerable significance striking to the heart ofthe transaction in question, analogous...to something that would justify frustration ofa legal contract..." (Panel Statement 2001115).
    [Show full text]
  • The Year in Review... 2 0
    Worldwide Satellite Magazine December 2008 SatMagazine The Year In Review... 2 0 2008 insights + 2009 prognostications by 33 leading companies Subject-matter experts examine the past year... — Chris Forrester — Futron 0 — Near Earth LLC — Paul Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP — Space Foundation — World Teleport Association 8 FOCUS features by Parallel + IDC SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS Taking Wireless to New Heights www.skyterra.com SATMAGAZINE DECEMBER 2008 CONTENTS YEAR IN REVIEW YIR: UPLINK YIR: COMPANY INSIGHTS Reflections + Projections 03 by Hartley Lesser Asia Broadcast Satellite ASC Signal Corporation The Year in Space... 04 by Eilliot Pulham, Space Foundation GATR Technologies Global Protocols YIR: COLUMNIST INSIGHTS Globecast Worldwide Hughes Network Systems A Blisteringly Good Year iDirect 10 For Europe by Chris Forrester Integral Systems, Inc. PREVIEW: 2009 Intelsat General Corp. 16 Peering Around The Curtain Iridium by Peggy Slye, Division Director Futron ISODE Newtec Annus Horribilis or MITEQ 20 Annus Mirabilis? by Hoyt Davidson, Founder ONDAS Media Nearth Earth LLC Operationally Responsive Space The Legal + Regulatory View Orbit Technology Group by J. Steven Rich, Attorney Paradise Datacom 27 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP PBLSat Vol. 6 No. 8 The Age of Uncertainty PPM December by Robert Bell, Executive Director 2008 36 World Teleport Association Proactive Communications RRsat RUAG Aerospace SAT-GE FOCUS SkyTerra (formerly MSV) Space Florida The Maritime Market: 30 VSAT Rules Space Foundation by James Dell, Co-Founder, Parallel Spacenet Inc. New Era For Space Systems/Loral 57 SatRadio Distribution STM Group Inc. by Gary Carter, V.P., International Datacasting Corporation Thuraya UltiSat ViaSat Vizada SATMAGAZINE Reflections + Projections UPLINK December 2008 hile this past year generally was a pleasant experience for our EDITORIAL + PRODUCTION industry, next year may find the experience more challenging.
    [Show full text]
  • DA-10-535A1.Pdf
    Federal Communications Commission DA 10-535 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) SkyTerra Communications, Inc., Transferor ) IB Docket No. 08-184 ) and ) FCC File Nos.: ) Harbinger Capital Partners Funds, Transferee ) ITC-T/C-20080822-00397 ) SAT-T/C-20080822-00157 Applications for Consent to Transfer of Control of ) SES-T/C 20080822-01089 SkyTerra Subsidiary, LLC ) SES-T/C-20080822-01088 ) 0003540644 ) 0021-EX-TU-2008 and ) ISP-PDR-20080822-00016 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND DECLARATORY RULING Adopted: March 26, 2010 Released: March 26, 2010 By the Chief, International Bureau, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology and Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Description of the Applicants . ........................................................................................................ 2 1. The Transferor – SkyTerra Communications............................................................................ 2 2. Transferee – Harbinger.............................................................................................................. 5 B. Description of the Transaction........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]