Skybridge v. MCLM, PSI, USDC NJ, 2011 Amended Complaint (SC)

Case 2:08-cv-03094-KSH-PS Document 51-2 Filed 02/18/11 Page 2 of 36 PageID: 1329
[ SkyTel Scribd publication note: As noted in various other SkyTel (Skybridge Spectrum Foundation [*] & supporting companies) Scribd
pubulications (and FCC filings), SkyTel is involved in public-interest wireless. This often involves defense of the spectrum needed in FCC and
court proceedings. In those proceedings, parties on the other side, including defendants listed below-- and the parties to whom they attempt to
assign their spectrum-- take the positioin before the FCC that they do not comprehend the charges against them for unlawful action, and in
any case that no claims against them should be considered at the FCC
R.N. Tendai Richards level or in any court at all. A FCC license provides immunity from
WINNE, BANTA, HETHERINGTON, federal or state law claims, they effectively assert. SkyTel believes
BASRALIAN & KAHN, P.C. these positions could not be more against applicable law and certainly
public policy.
2l Main Street
Court Plaza South A fundamental problem in wireless is this sort of abuse of FCC
East Wing licensing and related law. Many of the issues described in this case
Hackensack, NJ 07601 occur far too often in FCC licensing matters This is a prime cause of
spectrum shortage and lack of advancement in wireless technology and
systems. Allegations that the problem is simply a shortage of spectrum
Patrick J. Richard is false. The primary cause is that wireless is substantially corrupted
prichard@no ssaman. com and retarded by actions as complained of herein, which for various
reasons (of which the FCC staff are aware, some of whom have
NOSSAMAN LLP complained to Congress) go unchecked at the FCC which, in turn,
50 Califomia Street, 34th Floor encourages more of it.
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 41 5.398.3600 See also the other SkyTel court bilings posted in this Scribd folder.
-----
Facsimile: 415.398.2438 [*] Skybidge is a nonprofit public-benefit corporation. ]
admittedpro Ítac více
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW

JERSEY The Court
instructed that
it will assign a
WARREN HAVENS, SKYBRIDGE Case No.
new Case No.
SPECTRI.]M FOUNDATION, A after this is
Delaware nonpro fit corp oration, filed. It will,
TELESAURUS, VPC, LLC, a Delaware SECOND AMENDED however,
become part of
limited liability company, AMTS COMPLAINT FOR the pre-existing
CONSORTIUM, LLC, a Delaware INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND case with
Limited Liability Company, DAMAGES same parties.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION &
MONITORING, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, and
TELESAURUS GB, LLC aDelaware
Limited Liability Company.
Plaintiffs,
v.
MOBEX NETWORK SERVICES, LLC,

a Delaware Limited I-iability Company,
MOBEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., A
Delaware ion. MARITIME
256074 1.DOC
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Page 1 of 180
COMMLINICATIONS/LAND MOBILE
LLC, aDelaware Limited Liability
Company, PAGING SYSTEMS,INC., a
California corporation and TOUCH TEL
CORPORATION, a California '
corporation, and JOHN DOE Nos. 1-20
Defendants
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTI\TE RELIEF
Page 2 of 180
COMES NO'W, Plaintiffs Warren C. Havens ("Havens"), Skybridge Spectrum
Foundation ("Skybridge"), Telesaurus VPC, LLC ("Telesaurus VPC") (now known as Verde
Systems, LLC ("Verde Systems")), AMTS Consortium ,LLC('AMTS Consortium") (now
known as Environmentel, LLC ("Environmentel")), Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring,
LLC ("Intelligent") and Telesaurus Holdings, GB, LLC ("Telesaurus GB") (collectively
"Plaintifß"), and for their Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Mobex Network
Services, LLC - (formerly known as Regionet Wireless I,icense, LLC) ("Regionet") and Mobex
Communications, Inc. (collectively "Mobex"), Maritime Communicationsiland Mobile, LLC
("MCLM'z), Paging Systems, Inc. ('PSI") and Touch Tel Corporation ("Touch Tel") and John
Doe Nos. 1-20 (collectively "Defendants") state as follows.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action brought pursuant to: (i) The Federal Communications Act
("FCA") for mandatory injunctive relief under 47 U.S.C. $401(b) and for damages under 47
U.S.C. g206 and 207 and; (ii) the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.$$l 2, and 15) for damages resulting,
inter alia, from a conspiracy in restraint of trade.
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Warren C. Havens is an individual residing in Berkeley, California.
Since 1988, Havens' principal occupation and business has been obtaining "geographic" licenses
(explained below), issued by the Federal-Communications Commission ("FCC") in the
A-utomated Maritime Telecommunications System ("AMTS") radio service, for certain
exclusive-use radio frequencies or spectrum. Havens conducts business based upon these
licenses to provide spectrum and wireless telecommunications services to govemmental and non-
governmental entities within the State of New Jersey and other states, including for "Intelligent
256074 1.DOC
Page 3 of 180
Transportation Systems" or "ITS." Havens is the founder, majority owner, manager, and
president of the other Flaintiffs, and has assigned to the other Plaintiffs some of the licenses
(described below) at issue in this case. Mr. Havens and all other Flaintiffs have coordinated
business plans and operations using all of their FCC licenses.
3. Plaintiff Telesaurus VPC (now known as Verde Systems, LLC) is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business in Berkeley, California. It has been
engaged since 1999 in the business of obtaining FCC geographic licenses in the AMTS radio
service for certain exclusive-use frequencies or spectrum, and conducts business based on these
licenses to provide spectrum and wireless telecommunications services to governmental and non-
governmental entities.
4. Plaintiff AMTS Consortium (now known as Environmentel, LLC) is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business in Berkeley, California. It has been
engaged since 2004 in the business of obtaining licenses in the AMTS radio service for certain
exclusive-use frequencies or spectrum, and conducts business based on these licenses to provide
spectrum and wireless telecommunications services to governmental and non-governmental
entities within the State of New Jersey and other states, including for ITS.
5. Plaintiff Intelligent is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Berkeley, California. It has been engaged since 2005 in the business of
obtaining FCC geographic licenses in the AMTS radio service for certain exclusive-use
frequencies or spectrum , and conducts business based on these licenses to provide spectrum and
wireless telecommunications services to governmental and non-govemmental entities within the
State of New Jersey and other states, including for ITS.
256074 1.DOC
Page 4 of 180
6. Plaintiff Telesaurus Holdings GB is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Berkeley, California. It has been engaged since 2001 in the
business of obtaining FCC geographic licenses in the Multilateration Location and Monitoring
Service" ("M-LMS") radio service from the FCC, and conducts business based on these licenses
to provide spectrum and wireless telecommunications services to governmental and non-
govemmental entities within the State of New Jersey and other states, including for ITS. M-LMS
is also a transportation-system radio service, as is AMTS. Telesaurus Holdings has a joint core
plan and business with the other Plaintiffs to use its M-LMS licenses integrated with the others'
AMTS licenses for multi-band (multiple frequency or spectrum bands) ITS wireless systems and
services.
7. Plaintiff Skybridge is a Delaware nonprofit corporation with its principal place of
business in Berkeley, California, recognized by the IRS as a tax-exempt corporation under
Section 501(cX3) of the Internal Revenue Code as an educational, scientific and charitable
organization holding assets þrimarily FCC licenses) and operating solely in the field of public
interest wireless in support of government needs. It has been engaged since 2007 in the business
of obtaining FCC geographic licenses in the AMTS and M-LMS radio services for certain
frequencies or spectrum, and conducts exclusively nonprofit business based on these licenses to
provide spectrum and wireless telecommunications services to governmental and non-
govemmental entities within the State of New Jersey and other states. The primary purpose of
Skybridge as a non-profit corporation is to support, with certain spectrum and advanced wireless
techniques and systems (and underlying research and development), governmental goals and
programs in the United States (including in the State of New Jersey) in "Intelligent
Transportation Systems" to reduce accidents, congestion, pollution and other problems in the
256074 1.DoC
Page 5 of 180
nation's transportation systems. All of the Skybridge's assets have been and most of its
operational services are provided via outright charitable contributions by the other Plaintiffs.
8. Defendant Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC ('MCLM") is a
Delaware limited lïability company formed in 2005, with offices in Mississippi, alleged by its
putative sole owner (Mrs. Rev. Sandra Depriest of Lowndes County Mississippi. who uses the
"Rev." title including in FCC matters) to be a valid legal entity. MCLM is the holder of certain
FCC "Site-Based" AMTS licenses (defined below). Certain of MCLM's Site-Based Licenses are
associated with stations putatively located in, conducting operations in, and providing wireless
services in the State of New Jersey, incfuding in the areas of most population and transportation
traffic (in the "Northeast Corridor"). (A "station" is defined in FCC rules as, in sum, the
physical radio and antenna equipment installed at a site and operated to provide service under a
FCC license.) MCLM obtained its AMTS licenses by assignments from Mobex Network
Services, LLC and its parent Mobex Communications, Inc., as part of MCLM's purchase of
Mobex. Upon information and belief, MCLM is actually controlled not by Sandra Depriest but
by her husband Donald Depriest and affiliates.l Sandra and Donald Depriest were married during
all times relevant to this Complaint.
g. Defendant Mobex Network Services LLC ("Mobex-N") is or has been a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business in Alexandria, Virginia and/or
Jeffersonville, Indiana. Mobex-N was the holder of "Site-Based" AMTS licenses, including
I MCLM, per MCLM's own statements to the FCC, alleges to have the following ownership
structure: I00% of the membership interests of MCLM are owned by S/RIW Partnership, L.P.
SiRIW Partnership, L.P. has as its general partner Communications Investments, Inc. Sandra
DePriest owns 100% of the shares in Communications Írvestments, [tc. and Sandra DePriest
owns 100% of the partnership shares in S/RIW Partnership, L.P. Other MCLM statements are in
conflict, however.
256074 1.DOC
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIYE RELIEF'
Page 6 of 180
licenses for stations putatively located and operated in the State of New Jersey that were
assigned to, or acquired by, MCLM. Defendant Mobex Communications, Inc. ("Mobex-C") is
or has been a Delaware corporation that owns and/or controls, or owned and/or controlled,
Mobex-N including at the time Mobex-N assigned the above-described AMTS licenås to
MCLM. Upon information and belief either or both of Mobex-N and Mobex-C, during the time
period relevant to this Complaint, controlled or were controlled by other companies using the
name "Mobex". Mobex-N and Mobex-C will be collectively referred to herein as "Mobex."2
10. Defendant Paging Systems, Inc. ("PSI") is a corporation organized,under the laws
of the State of California, with its principal place of business located in Burlingame, Califomia.
PSI is the holder of certain "site-Based" AMTS licenses, including licenses associated with
stations putatively located in the State of New Jersey. Defendant Touch Tel Corp. ("Touch Tel"
or "Touchtel") is a California corporation that seryes to carry out PSI's alleged construction and
operation of purportedly valid AMTS licensed stations across the country. According to filings
with the FCC and State authorities: PSI alleges to be fully owned and controlled by Susan
Cooper, and Touch Tel alleges to be fully owned and controlled by her spouse, Robert Cooper.
Upon information and belief, the actual controlling owner of FSI is Robert Cooper, not Susan
Cooper, but this fact is hidden in required disclosures to the FCC and State authorities. Susan
and Robert Cooper, who reside in California, were married during all times relevant to this
Complaint
2
Regionet Wireless License, LLC changed its name to Mobex Network Services, LLC on
August 6,2001per State of Delaware records. Regionet Wireless Operations LLC was allegedly
fully merged into Regionet Wireless License, LLC as of March 21,2001per State of Delaware
corporate records. Waterway Communications System, LLC was allegedly merged into Mobex
Network Services, LLC as ofNovember 1,2004 per State of Delaware corporate records. Other
Mobex or MCLM records are in conflict, however.
256074_1.DOC
Page 7 of 180
11. John Does Nos. l-20 are officers, directors, owners and/or agents of the other
Defendants who have personally participated in the wrongful acts alleged herein andloroperated,
or obtained or sought benefits from, the shell entities as mere alter egos. The full extent of the
individual John Doe's participation is unknown at present and such defendants will be named
when their identity and participation is ascertained.
72. Plaintifß are informed and therefore allege that Defendants, and each of them, at
all relevant times, were the agents, alter egos, employees, servants, representatives and/or co-
conspirators of their respective co-Defendants, and were at all relevant times acting within the
scop-e, purpose, and authority of such agency. Furthermore MCLM/IvIobex (including Mobex-N
and Mobex-C) and PSVTouchtel are alter egos of one another, as evidenced, inter alia,bytheir
conflicting statements as to ownership and control contained in FCC filings and in other public
documents. The principals of MCLM, Donald and Sandra DePriest, are subject to many
judgments arising out of their conduct of MCLM and are currently under investigation by the
FCC for similar wrongful conduct. MCLM/l\4obex and PSI (or PSVTouchtel) are, including
with regard to their AMTS licenses, FCC-regulated common-carrier "Commercial Mobile Radio
Services" ("CMRS") that must submit certain periodic reports conceming CMRS contributions
to the Universal Service Fund (that supports basic communication services to eligible low-
income persons), but during the course of events described herein and to this day, they each have
failed to file said reports in the time, form, and extent required. As used herein, the term
"Defendants," shall be construed in its broadest possible sense, to include any one of the
Defendants named herein, unless otherwise indicated.
JURISDICTION AND YENUE
256074 1.DOC
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTI\¡E RETIEF
Page 8 of 180
13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because each of the
Defendants transacts business within the State of New Jersey, because each of the Defendants
owns, possesses and/or uses property within the State of New Jersey and/or because each of the
Defendants has consented to the jurisdiction of this Court by actively participating in this case.
14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive
relief in this case pursuant to 47 U.S.C. $401(b), and over Plaintiffs' claims for monetary
damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. $$206-07, and 15 U.S.C. $15.
15. Venue is proper in this judicial District because a substantial part of the events
and omissions giving rise to this case occurred in this District, and/or because a substantial part
of the property that is the subject of this action is situated within this District,
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
16. AMTS T, u Service or "CMRS" (as

"
described in FCC Rules) licensed throughout the United States, which provides when in
operation voice and data communications to customerr.3 Th" AMTS ("Automated Maritime
Telecommunications Systems") service was created by the FCC to service maritime customers,
principally along extensive coastal and major navigable inland waterway transportation routes,
and later expanded to also allow service to customers on land. AMTS was created to serve the
unique requirements of the transportation sector, including the need for continuous coverage
3
Herein, "AMTS" is used to mean the AMTS radio service, or of or related to the AMTS radio
service. In FCC rules and licensing, there are maîy "radio services" each involving a specific
g.oup of radio frequencies or band of radio spectrum; particular technical, usage and other rules;
and particular licensing mechanisms. The AMTS radio service, under FCC rules and orders, was
established and is maintained primarily for a mobile, two-way wireless service over vast areas
(first maritime, then expanded to include land) serving transportation-systems involving multiple
overlapping-coverage transceiver stations (on high buildings, towers or sites), as opposed to
wireless to fixed end points, or one-way broadcast wireless. AMTS has unique attributes
especially suitable for "Intelligent Transportation Systems" wireless systems and services, on the
waterways and on land, further discussed herein.
256074 1.DOC 7
Page 9 of 180
over long distances, and is especially suited in frequency range and quantity and other attributes
for this service. The expansion to land service noted above includes the Northeast rail and
roadway corridor, which links Boston and Washington, D.C., and which passes through New
Jersey, an approximate center. Plaintiff and Defendants have competed for AMTS licenses and
AMTS-licensed based business along the Northeast Corridor including in the State ofNew
Jersey, during the period relevant to this Complaint, and remain in such competition to this day.
17. There are two types of AMTS licenses that are relevant to this case - Geographic
Licenses and Site-Based Licenses. The term "Geographic License," within the context of the
wireless communications industry, refers to a license issued by the FCC to a high bidder in a
public auction, which authorizes to the licensee exclusive use of specified radio frequenciesa to
construct and operate wireless telecommunications stations within adefined wide geographic
area. ln the case of AMTS services, each Geogtaphic License typically encompasses a number
of whole or partial states. The term "Site-Based License," means a license issued by the FCC on
a first-come, first-served basis, at no cost (except for nominal application processing fees), prior
to the time a public auction is held for the associated Geographic License for the same
frequencies (same in frequency range and bandwidth, also called "co-channel" or "same
channel" frequencies in FCC rules) in a given region. Site-Based Licenses authorize the
construction and operation of systems only at the specific station locations for which the Site-
Based Licensee has applied. Site-Based Licenses are also known in the wireless industry as
"Incumbent Licenses" (indicating their existence prior to the auction of the larger, surrounding
co-channel Geographic Licenses).
4
Herein, "frequencies" and "spectrum" are used interchangeably, as is common in FCC-licensed
based regulatory and business coÍtmunications. Each means a quantity of radio ftequencies in
frequency range and bandwidth.
256074 1.DOC
SECOND AMENDED COMPI AINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Page 10 of 180
18. Until the first AMTS auction in2004, all AMTS licenses were Site-Based
Licenses. Site-Based licensing (for new or expanded Stations)S *as "flozen" by the FCC in or
about 2000,because the FCC determined that it would transition to Geographic licensing by
auction. Following the first auction of AMTS Geographic Licenses in2004,and the second
auction in 2005, all newly-issued AMTS licenses have been auctioned Geographic Licenses.
(No new AMTS licenses have been issued after these auctions, inasmuch as all AMTS spectrum
in the nation was fully licensed via these auctions and the preceding Site-Based licensing
scheme.) Under the current system, preexisting Site-Based Licenses are afforded certain
protections in an FCC rule,47 C.F.R. $S0.385(b)(1), to continue their Station operations without
excessively close-spaced co-channel Geographic-Licensed Stations that may cause radio
interference. The same rule, in another section, 47 C.F.R. $80.3S5(c), provides that if the Site-
Based license (or a Station under the license) is terminated, revoked, or otherwise becomes or is
found invalid, the spectrum involved "automatically reverts" to the co-channel Geographic
license in that geographic area.
ß. Plaintiffs are the holders of certain AMTS Geographic Licenses awarded in the
two FCC AMTS auctions held in2004 and2005. These licenses, in the aggregate, cover the vast
majority of the United States, including the State of New Jersey. ln all of New Jersey, Plaintifß
hold the maximum, full amount of AMTS spectrum on a Geographic-License basis: both the "A"
and the "8" blocks of AMTS spectrum, which is2}/rlHzin bandwidth combined. Plaintiffs hold
in full the "co-channel" (same-frequencies, as noted above) AMTS Geographic License spectrum
5
Und", the FCC rule applicable to AMTS, 47 CFR $80.5, a "station" is defined as: "One or
more fradio] transmitters or a combination of transmitters and receivers, including the accessory
equipment, necessary at one location for carrying on radio communication services."
256074 1.DOC
Page 11 of 180
in relation to all of the Defendant's Site-Based T.icense Stations in the State of New Jersey
(including those noted immediately below) and the surrounding areas at all times relevant to this
Complaint, and to this day.
20. Defendants are holders and controllers of Site-Based AMTS Licenses6 located in
various regions, oostly in and around the major cities along the coast lines, Great I akes and
Mississippi River systems; including in the State of New Jersey, with alleged public Commercial
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) to most of the State's area and population. For example, PSI
holds license Call Sign WQA216 for a statipn that was allegedly conskucted at the former World
Trade Center and that can provide service to areas of New Jersey. MCLM holds license Call
Sign WRV 374 withthe following station locations (per the FCC's online license database) in
New Jersey and New York: station location #15 in Verona, NJ; station location #25 in
Perrinville, NJ, station location #14 inselden, NY; station location #18 in Valhalla, NY; and
station location #33 atthe former One V/orld Trade Center. As FCC AMTS licensees and
purported operators of stations, Defendants have an obligation to comply with the relevant FCA
and FCC rules. However, atmany,if not all, of their AMTS Stations, Defendants have failed to
comply with the relevant FCA and FCC rules, as described below.
21. Because the territories associated with Site-Based AMTS Licenses and
Geographic AMTS Licenses always overlap (the CMRS service area of a Site-Based AMTS
Licensed stations is fully contained within the much larger co-channel Geographic License for
the region), the FCC has formulated rules designed to ensure cooperation between the licensees
these classes of licenses. In particular, these rules are designed to prevent "co-channel
interference" (i.e., crosstalk and other interference from multiple radio transmitters using the
6
Th" individual owners of the Defendants have transferred ownership on several occasions,
making a determination as to the precise ownership of the subject licenses unknown.
256074 1.DOC 10
Page 12 of 180
same frequency). The primary rule the FCC has promulgated provides that the Geographic
Licensee build and operate stations no closer than a certain range of lawful stations operated
under a valid co-channel (same frequencies) Site-Based AMTS license. This provides the fixed-
location Site-Based stations (which are not permitted to change their location, antenna height, or
antenna directionality, if it results in expansion of their service area, or "contouÍ" boundary, in
any direction) a certain measure of interference protection. This rule (the l'Contour Protection
Rule") is codified at 47 C.F.R. $80.385, which states, in pertinent part:
b) Subject to the requirements of $1 .924 of tknschapter, $$80.215(h), and

80.475(a), each AMTS geographic area licensee may place stations anywhere
within its region without obtaining prior Commission approval provided:
(l)The AMTS geographic area licensee must locate its stations at least 120
kilometers from the stations of co-channel site-based AMTS licensees. Shorter
separations between such stations will be considered by the Commission on a
case-by-case basis upon submission of a technical analysis indicating that at least
18 dB [decibel] protection will be provided to a site-based licensee's predicted 38
dBu signal level contour. The site-based licensee's predicted 38 dBu signal level
contour shall be calculated using the F(50, 50) freld strength chart for Channels 7-
13 in $73.699 (Fig. 10) of this chapter, with a 9 dB correction for antenna height
differential. The 18 dB protection to the site-based licensee's predicted 38 dBu
signal level contour shall be calculated using the F(50, 10) field strength chart for
Channels 7-13 in $73.699 (Fig. 10a) of this chapter, with a 9 dB correction factor
for antenna height differential.
(emphasis added)
22. This framework presupposes that Site-Based Ljcensees will provide certain
information details to the co-channel Geographic Licensees regarding the current operating
parameters of the Site-Based Licensee's actual operating stations to enable the Geographic
Licensee to calculate the above-described technical case-by-case determination (where said
Geographic Licensee does not choose to use the more-distant, 120-kilometer spacing described
in this rule). In addition, based on the FCC "freeze" order (see paragraph 18 above) said current
256074 1.DOC 11
Page 13 of 180
station details can not exceed those of the same stations at the time of the freeze. This
cooperation principal in this rule is also reflected in FCC ruIe 47 C.F.R. $80.70(a).
23. Plaintiffs and Defendants are competitors. Over the past few years and to this
day, they have been involved in litigation in a number ofjurisdictions, including administrative
litigation before the FCC. In the course of this litigation, the FCC, through its Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (the "Wireless Bureau"), has issued several orders specifying the
minimum standard of cooperation expected from Site-Based Licensees (such as Defendants) and
Geographic Licensees (such as Plaintiffs) in order to forestall potential interference issues, and at
the same time to allow the Geographic licensees, Plaintiffs, effective use of their purchased
spectrum in the face of refusals by the Site-Based licensees, Defendants, to provide the
information under Section 80.385(bX1) (collectively, the "Cooperation Orders"). For example,
in an April 8,2009 Order by the Wireless Bureau (FCC Order DA Og-7g3), at footnote 9
(attached hereto as Exhibitl), the FCC determined that:
we expect incumbent AMTS fsite-based] licensees to cooperate with IAMTS]

geographic licensees in order to avoid and resolve interference issues. Zåzs
includes, at a minimum, providing upon request sfficient information to enable
geographic licensees to calculate the site-based station's protected contour. This
is necessary because a station's predicted 38 dBu [decibel] signal contour is a
function of its ERP [Effective Radiated Power] . . . but the power limit for site-
based AMTS stations in the rules and on their licenses is based on transmitter
output power rather than ERP . . . and determining a station's ERP requires
additional information, such as antenna gain and line loss.
See also,FCC Order DA 09-643 (Exhíbit2) at footnote 12 (|'AMTS site-based
incumbents are expected to cooperate with geographic licensees in order to avoid and resolve
interference issues . . . This includes, at a minimum, providing upon request sufficient
information to enable geographic licensees to calculate the site-based station's protected
contour."); FCC Order DA l0-664 (Exhibít j\, atParugraph 6 ("Indeed, the Division directly
256074 1.DOC 12
Page 14 of 180
addressed this issue, pointing out that AMTS site-based licensees are expected to cooperate with
geographic licensees in avoiding and resolving interference issues, and that this obligation
requires, at minimum, that the site-based licensee 'provid[e] upon request suffrcient information
to enable geographic licensees to calculate the site-based station's protected contour."').
(Exhibits I, 2 and3 shall be collectively referred to herein as the "Cooperation Orders.")
24. Plaintiffs' AMTS Geographic Licenses encompass all of the State of New Jersey
and encompass all of the Defendants' Site-Based AMTS stations in the State ofNew Jersey, and
in adjacent States with Service Contours into the State of New Jersey that Defendants currently
allege are valid and operational. Specifically, Environmentel LLC holds Call Sign V/QCP8l0
for the North Atlantic B-Block that encompasses New Jersey, and [ntelligent Transportation &
Monitoring Wireless LLC holds Call Sign V/QGF310 for the North Atlantic A-Block that
encompasses New Jersey. Accordingly, under the Contour Protection Rule, Plaintifß and
Defendants are obligated to cooperate with one another in accordance with the Cooperation
Orders to ensure mutual non-interference.
25. In an effort to comply with 47 CFR $80.385(b) and the Cooperation Orders,
Plaintiffs have on numerous occasions requested that Defendants MCLM and PSI provide
Plaintiffs with sufficient information regarding the operating parameters of their stations to
enable Plaintiffs to calculate the protected contour of these stations. (,See, requests for operating
parameters, collectively attached hereto as Exhibit4). Defendants have disregarded each of
these requests, contending they are not required to provide Plaintifß with this information (See
Exhíbít 5).
26. Plaintiffs have also requested that the FCC issue an order directing MCLM to
comply with the Cooperation Orders and the underlying Contour Protection Rule. In response to
256074 1.DOC 13
Page 15 of 180
this request, the Deputy Chief of the'Wireless Bureau (who has primary responsibility for AMTS
licensing matters), by communication dated Aprrl22,2010, indicated that "the Commission will
not involve itself in matters that licensees are expected to resolve between themselves ." (See
Exhibit 6). As such, Plaintiffs have no other effective administrative recourse before the FCC
with respect to the Cooperation Orders.
27. Defendants' refusal to provide Plaintiffs with information regarding Defendants'
Site-Based stations' operating parameters is motivated by an anticompetitive purpose and intent
both to block and restrain Plaintiffs as competitors, and to conceal the fact that these stations
have not in fact been lawfully constructed and/or lawfully maintained (or have other fatal defects
noted herein), any of which, if revealed, would result in Defendants' forfeiture of their Site-
Based licenses to the benefit of Plaintiffs including the licensed stations within the State of New
Jersey, including under subsections of FCC rules 47 CFR $$ 80.49, 1.946, and 1.955, and
conditions stated on the subject Defendants' licenses.
28. FCC Rules generally require that when a Site-Based AMTS license is issued, the
required component stations must be constructed within two years of the granting of the license
(the "Construction Period"), or else the license automatically terminates. See 47 CFR $80.49
("For site-based AMTS coast station licensees, when a new license has been issued or additional
operating frequencies have been authorized, if the station or frequencies authorized have not
been placed in operation within two years from the date of the grant,the authorizationbecomes
invalid and must be returned to the Commission for cancellation."); see also 47 C.F.R. $$ 1.946,
1.955.
29. Additionally, FCC Rules impose certain "coverage" requirements upon Site-
Based AMTS licersees, which, among other things, obligate these licensees to construct two or
256074_1.DOC 14
Page 16 of 180
more stations with overlapping radio-service coverage under a certain technical standard (also
called "continuity of coverage" or "continuity of service coverage"). At times relevant to this
Complaint, the then-existing version of 47 C.F.R. $80.a75(a) also provided that: (i) AMTS
applicants who proposed to serve a navigable inland waterway that is less than 150 miles in
length must serve that waterway in its entirety; and (ii) AM-TS applicants who proposed to serve
a navigable inland waterway that is more than 150 miles in length must provide continuity of
service along at least 60 percent of the waterway. An AMTS license "automatically terminates,
without specific [FCC] action," if the coverage requirement is not satisfied by the construction-
coverage deadline (47 C.F.R. $1.946).
30. In the event a Site-Based AMTS license terminates automatically (it for example,
the licensee does not actually construct a component station by the construction deadline, or if
after valid and timely construction, the station is "permanently discontinued"), the "frequency
block" associated with this license reverts to the Geographic Licensee under 47 CFR $80.385(c):
(c) Anv recovered frequency blocks will revert automatically to the holder of
the geoqraphic area license within which such frequencies are included. Any
frequency blocks recovered where there is no geographic area licensee will be
retained by the Commission for future licensing.
(emphasis added).
31. Given the scarcity of available spectrum for commercial ventures,
surrender of licenses that have automatically terminated to the FCC for cancellation is
essential to prevent unlawful "warehousing" of spectrum. This occurs when aparty
acquires spectrum licenses without the intent to utilize them lawfully (i.e., by
constructing component stations and providing service under relevant FCC rules) for the
pu{pose of preventing competitors from uillizingthe licensed band and location, by
"squatting" on the spectrum until a buyer is found for the spectrum. Spectrum
256074 1.ÐOC 15
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIYE RELIEF
Page 17 of 180
warehousing is forbidden by the FCC's Rules, among other reasons, because it is
anticompetitive in purpose and effect. Congress and the FCC moved from site-based
licensing to auctioned geographic licensing, in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services, in
largepartto reduce unlawful and wasteful spectrum warehousing.
32. Defendants MCLM and PSI's refusal to provide Plaintiffs with the above-
noted legally required information regarding the technical operating parameters of
Defendants' allegedly-valid Site-Based stations is motivated by Defendants' endeavor to
block and restrain Plaintifß, their primary competitors, and conceal a wide-scale
warehousing scheme undertaken by Defendants in the State of New Jersey and other
regions of the country, implemented over a decade.
33. Beginning several years ago, Defendants began applyng for and
obtaining Site-Based AMTS licenses along the coastlines and other waterways
throughout the United States, including in the State of New Jersey, with stations proposed
generally in the major urban areas. Defendants' intent in procuring these AMTS licenses
was not to develop them, but rather to warehouse them. Specifically, Defendants
intended to make the larger surrounding Geographic Licenses for the same frequencies
less economically viable to competitors in the upcoming auctions, so that Mobex and PSI
as the "Incumbent" Station licensees could succeed in the auctions with less competition
and atlower prices, or so that others succeeding in the auctions would have to deal with
these hcumbent Station holders, on terms favorable to these Incumbents, for a viable
regional collection of spectrum (generally, without spectrum over a verylarge area,
CMRS, or any modern-day wireless service, is not viable in the competitive market). By
doing so, Defendants could reap asubstantial profit, including by selling or leasing their
256074 1.DOC 16
Page 18 of 180
Site-Based licenses to successful bidders for the adjacent Geographic Licenses that would
otherwise be encumbered by the Site-Based licenses.
34. In accordance with this warehousing scheme, Regionet, Mobex (and its
other predecessors in interest) (and thereafter MCLM) and PSI failed to construct a major
percentage of the stations that comprised their Site-Based AMTS licenses in the nation
within the two-year Construction Period mandated by the FCC (and in some cases by an
extension of that period afforded by the FCC). They also, with regard to a major portion
of their other Stations, failed to comply with the FCC's coverage requirements for these
stations (the construction required was to meet this coverage requirement, which also
included a requirement of "Interconnection" to the Public Switched Network), in each
case resulting in the automatic termination of these licenses by operation of law.
35. Thereafter, Mobex, PSI and MCLM (the assignee of Mobex's Site-Based
AMTS licenses), by and through their princþals, attempted to conceal this failure from
the FCC, the public and Plaintiffs (the Geographic Licensees to which the Site-Based
spectrum would otherwise revert). Regionet, Mobex, PSI and MCLM, by and through
their principals, also made a number of false representations (including in public FCC
filings) regarding their purported compliance with the FCC's construction and coverage
requirements and consequent validity of the subject licenses, in order to conceal their
unlawful warehousing scheme. Among other things, these companies, through their
principals, have repeatedly and falsely represented to Plaintiffs, other competitors, and
the FCC, that all, or substantially all, of their initially granted AMTS Site-Based licensed
and component Stations were validly build and kept in permanent operation, including
providing the required CMRS maritime wireless services, when in fact they were not
256074 1.DOC 17
Page 19 of 180
doing so for alarge portion of those licenses and Stations (and possibly all of those
licenses and Stations).
36. Beginning in about 1993, at the inception of the AMTS site-based
licensing system, and continuing thereafter, Mobex (and its predecessors-in-interest) and
PSI (with Touchtel support) jointly agreed to restrain competition in the Pacific Coast,
Atlantic Coast, and Great Lakes regions, and thereafter in the Northeast Corridor, by
coordinating and applyng for AMTS site-based licenses at the same time in all regions.
The purpose and effect of this coordination was to permit Mobex to obtain the "A-Block"
AMTS spectrum and for PSI to obtain the "B Block" AMTS Spectrum. To this end of
coordination, several of Defendants' licensed stations were "co-located" at the same
transmitter location.
37. In 2000, Havens visited Regionet's headquarters south of Los Angeles,
CA and met with the two principals in Regionet, Fred Daniel and Paul Van der Hayden.
Fred Daniel was the owner of Orion Telecom;which was later acquired by Regionet. Lr
their meeting, Mr. Havens was told in certain terms that Regionet had an option on the
PSI AMTS Licenses. This was relayed to Mr. Havens in the context of Mr. Havens
discussing how he could apply for inland waterways on the A-block AMTS spectrum.
Messrs. Daniel and Van der Hayden also mentioned that if Mr. Havens were to also
apply for B-block AMTS spectrum, he would also have to talk with Regionet.
38. Also, in 2000, after the meeting with Regionet, Mr. Havens spoke on the
phone twice with Robert Cooper, who represented PSI, holder of AMTS B-block Site-
Based licenses. In one of those calls, Mr. Cooper commented on Regionet having an
option on the PSI AMTS Licenses. He did not outright deny it, but said that Mr. Havens
256074 1.DOC 18
SECOND AMENDED COMPI,AINT FOR INJTJNCTIVE RELIEF
Page 20 of 180
had to talk with him in any case about any applications that Mr. Havens might be
considering to submit for new AMTS B-block Site-Based licenses. He also specifically
said that persons associated with a big company were meeting him that day about buying
out all of the PSI AMTS spectrum and Regionet spectrum. The meaning of these
comments in this context is clear: Regionet and PSI were not only cooperating, Regionet
also had a financial stake in PSI's licenses, an interest required to be disclosed to the
FCC. Defendants did not disclose this financial interest because it was part of a secret
scheme and agreement to warehouse licenses and harm competitors and competition.
39. In May 2000, Mobex and PSI cooperated in requesting an extension of
time to construct their respective licensed stations for the Great Lakes Region, asserting
that one of the primary reasons the FCC should grant the extension of time was to permit
Mobex and PSI to co-locate stations at the same site and share certain system components
to reduce costs. That purported agreement arose out of the close relationship between
the principal of PSI, Robert Cooper, and the principals of Mobex, John Reardon and
Michael Monier. In their éxtension request, Mobex and PSI argued that the extension
should be granted because it would reduce their costs because they could then share
facilities and certain equipment in order to provide more cost-effective service to the
public.
40. Defendants' coordination and conspiracy was also evidenced by
Defendant Regionet and PSI's identical equivocations in certain station construction
notifications filed with the FCC, associated with their putatively co-located sites, in
which they stated thatthey would "commence testing to commence services" "on or
about" acertaindate with respect to many of the facilities associated with the subject
256074 1.DOC 19
. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Page 21 of 180
licenses. Defendants knew, when making these representations, that "testing had
commenced" is not arecognized construction status with the FCC.
4I. Defendants' conspiracy was also evidenced by certain other coordinated
filings made by the Defendants with the FCC. For example, Mobex and PSI jointly
petitioned (via separate petitions, which nonetheless adopted the same position and
supported one another) to extend the site-based station protection contour under 47
C.F.R. $S0.385(b)(1). Among the "bases" of these petitions was Mobex and PSI's
contention that their stations were properly built and operated. Mobex and PSI also
jointly petitioned the FCC before FCC Auction No. 57 (the first AMTS auction) at the
start of 2004, to postpone that auction. Again, among the bases for this request was
Defendants' specific representations that their stations were built and operated. Further,
in connection with a2005 AMTS auction, Defendants filed coordinated petitions to deny
the post-auction applications filed by certain of the Plaintiffs to be granted the licenses
theywon in the auction.
42. The foregoing warehousing scheme was in part exposed in a 2004FCC
audit of Mobex's and PSI's AMTS site-based licenses, in the course of which they
ultimately admitted that their prior representations regarding station construction had
been false and which resulted in the cancellation of several dozenof Defendants' licenses
for failure to construct component stations within the FCC's required construction period.
By way of a single example, in the 2004 AMTS audit, PSI admitted to the FCC that it did
not build 15 of its 25 Greatlakes stations that: (i) had a 2001 construction deadline; (ii)
PSI never returned for cancellation prior to the 2004 AMTS audit; (iiÐ PSI represented as
being constructed prior to the commencement of the first AMTS auction and (iv) for
256074 1.DOC
Page 22 of 180
which PSI submitted renewal applications in year 2003. In the same 2004 audit, Mobex-
N admitted to not constructing over 20 stations along the Pacific Coast that it has
previously reported as constructed and renewed.
43. Defendants knew of each other's fraud and agreed to and facilitated it.
Among other reasons, by virtue of their alleged co-location, Defendants would have had
radio equipment in the same building visible to each other. Therefore, if one Defendant
did not build at the co-located site, then the other Defendant would have known that fact.
44. Defendants' derogation of their responsibilities ùnder the Cooperation
Orders is a vehicle by which they perpetuate their warehousing scheme. Defendants
recognzethat if they were forced to provide the operating parameters of their Site-Based
AMTS stations, they would ultimately be forced to acknowledge that many of these
stations do not currently exist or never existed, or were unlawfully constructed or
operated, or fell short ofthe required constructed coverage, and thus, in all such cases,
that under FCC rules the frequency blocks associated with these Site-Based licenses
revert to Plaintiffs as the co-channel Geographic Licensees.
45. As a result of Defendants' unlawful warehousing scheme, as outlined
herein, Plaintiffs have been blocked and restrained in use of their AMTS license
including for transactions with passenger rail carriers, including Amtrak, as well as
carriers in Boston and the State of New Jersey.
COUNT I
(Claim for a Mandatory Injunction Under 47 U.S.C. $401(b))
256074 1.DOC 21
Page 23 of 180
46. Plaintiffs restate and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 45 hereof, as if more
fully set forth herein
41. The cooperation orders and,47 c.F.R. $S0.385 (the subject of the
Cooperation Orders), individually andior collectively, ate "Order[s] of the Commission
other than for the payment of money" as that term is defined in 47 U.S.C. $a01(b). The
Cooperation Orders were made and duly served and publicly noticed pursuant to a proper
delegation of authority by the FCC to the Wireless Bureau, and $30.385 was properly
enacted by the full Commission of the FCC. Accordingly, pursuant to 47 U'S.C.
$155(c)(3), the Cooperation Orders and $80.385 have the same force and effect as Orders
of the FCC.
48. The Cooperation Orders were regularly made and duly served, and are
final and binding.
49. The Cooperation Orders require incumbent "AMTS licensees to cooperate
with geographic licensees in order to avoid and resolve interference issues." As noted by
the FCC, this requirement "includes, at a minimum, providing upon request sufficient
information to enable geographic licensees to calculate the site-based station's protected
contour." As such, the Cooperation Orders require Site-Based Licensees, and in
particular Defendants, to take particular, specific, concrete action.
50. ln an effort to comply with47 CFR $80.385 and the Cooperation Orders,
Plaintifß have on numerous occasions requested that Defendants MCLM and PSI
provide Plaintiffs with sufficient information regarding the actual operating parameters of
Defendants' Site-Based AMTS stations to enable Plaintiffs, as Geographic AMTS
Licensees in this region; to calculate the protected signal contour of Defendants' Site-
256074 1.DOC 22
Page 24 of 180
Based stations. Defendants have flouted each of these requests. As such, Defendants
have disregarded and failed to comply with the Cooperation Orders, an order of the FCC.
51. There is no prescribed administrative remedy that must be exhausted with
respect to the Cooperation Orders. Furthermore, the FCC has expressly indicated its
intent "not to involve itself'with respect to the enforcement of the Compensation Orders.
52. Plaintiffs have been injured by Defendants' failure to comply with the
Cooperation Orders. This failure impedes Plaintiffs from using their AMTS Geographic
Licenses in many major markets in the nation, including in the State of New Jersey, and
from the economic opportunities (and for Skybridge, the charitable opportunities as well)
said spectrum would provide (including specific major available transactions) had the
spectrum not been blocked.
53. Additionally, Defendants have failed and refused to comply with 47
C.F.R. $S0.385(c), which provides for ths automatic reversion to Geographic Licensees
of any recovered frequency blocks, in this case, reversion to Plaintiff s AMTS
Geographic Licenses. As alleged herein, Defendants have failed and refused to notify the
FCC of the automatic termination of their licenses by operation of law for failure to
construct associated stations (or for other fatal-defect reasons noted herein: lack of
required coverage, unlawful construction and operation that does not count as valid,
permanent discontinuance, etc.) and, in so doing, have sought to undermine the purpose
of $s0.385(c).
54. Furthermore, Defendants, or some of them, have violated: (D FCC rules,
regulations and procedures requiring AMTS licensees to make annual filings, and
accurate disclosures on FCC Form 499[with the Universal Service Administrative
256074 1.DOC
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTI\TE RELIEF
Page 25 of 180
Company and to make contributions to such fund based on a percentage of Defendants'
revenues; (ii) FCC rules, regulations and procedures requiring AMTS licensees to make
accurate filings on FCC Form 601 when seeking eligibility for certain bidding
preferences under FCC rules; and (iii) FCC rules, regulations and procedures which
require licensees to fully and accurately disclose license applications and licenses that
have been denied and/or revoked.
COUNT II
(Violations Under the FCA $$201(b)' 301,308,309(i)' 312 and 503'
FCC Rules $$1.2101, 1.9001, 1.17,1.65,1.903 1.917(c),1.919 and 1.948, and related FCA
and FCC Rule Sections)
55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of all preceding
paragraphs as though fully set forth herein
56. Defendants are "common carriers" under 47 U.S.C. $206, insofar as they
are "engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by
wire or radio," and otherwise in accordance with the statutory definitions set forth in 47
U.S.C. $$153(10) and 332(c)(1XA). In addition, Defendants have alleged before the
FCC and the market to operate lawful AMTS Stations which are by rule classified as
¿ìmong "Public Coast" common-carrier CMRS described in 47 C.F.R. $20.9(aX5).
57. Defendants, as conìmon carriers, knowingly violated FCA $$201(b), 301,
308,309(i),312and503, andFCCRules $$1.2101, 1.9001, 1.17,1.65,1.9031.917(c),
l.glg and l.948,along with other related FCA and FCC Rules, by, among other things:
(a.) Hoarding and warehousing AMTS licensed spectrum when Defendants
did not intend to, knew they could not, and did not, comply with their obligations
to timely and lawfully construct (with the required coverage, Interconnection,
256074 1.DOC 24
Page 26 of 180
etc.) and keep in permanent operation the above-described licenses and
component Stations;
(b.) Falsely representing to the FCC, the market, and other parties that certain
Stations had been or would imminentlybe timely constructed and operated to
serve the public, and thereafter falsely representing to the FCC, the market and
other parties actual lawful construction and operation;
(c.) Deliberately failing, for years after Defendants' licensed Stations
automatically terminated due to the reasons noted above, to report such
termination to the FCC as required, in order to permit the FCC to cancel these
Station licenses in the FCC public licensing database, which would have (i)
before the above-noted FCC auctions, allowed Plaintiffs to apply for the spectrum
involved in applications for Site-Based licenses, and (ii) after Plaintiffs obtained
their Geographic licenses in the two AMTS auctions, resulted in the above-noted
automatic reversion of said spectrum to Plaintiffs' Geographic licenses.
(d.) Falsely representing to the FCC and other parties that Defendants had
complied with their obligation to provide overlapping, continuous coverage (also
sometimes called "continuity of coverage") along required percentage lengths of
the waterways subject of the licenses, when in fact they failed to do so, and, by
such false representation, evading automatic termination of the subject licenses
and all component Station licenses;
(e.) Falsely representing to the FCC and other parties that Defendants were
providing required service to maritime users;
256074 1.DOC
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIYE RELIEF
Page 27 of 180
(f.) Falsely representing to the FCC and other parties that Defendants used
Station equipment that complied with all FCC requirements for AMTS, including
for the required Interconnection, failing which the licenses and component
stations were unlawful operations that did not count toward meeting the
construction and perrnanent-operation requirements note ab ove ;
(g.) Renewing licenses that had terminated and operating Stations without a
valid FCC license, and failing to disclose these unlawful actions to the FCC and
the public;
(h) Operating Stations that were unlawfully moved to new locations, and/or
whose transmit anter¡ra height was unlawfully increased, resulting in unlawful
expansion of the Station's service contour, and not reporting the unlawful
operations and the invalidation of the licenses involved for cancellation to the
FCC; and
(Ð Other violations of the FCA and FCC rules.
58. The foregoing violations are actionable, among other reasons, because
false or fraudulent misrepresentations and actions such as those undertaken by
Defendants as alleged herein have been deemed by the FCC to be "unjust and
unreasonable" practices and therefore "unlawful" practices under the FCA, including
under $201(b), for which a cause of action lies against Defendants pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
$$206 and207.
59. As a result of the foregoing violations by Defendants, Plaintiffs were
damaged in a number of ways, including as follows:
256074 1.DOC 26
Page 28 of 180
(a.) Plaintiffs were blocked and continue to be blocked in a large number of he
major urban areas of the nation, and in other areas, in use of their AMTS licenses
by Defendants' violation of the Cooperation Orders and the underlying Contour
Protection Rule, as described above. As described herein, Plaintiffs obtained at
FCC auctions AMTS Geographic Commercial licenses that, under the FCA and
FCC rules, provide rights to use the exclusive spectrum involved for lawful
profitable purposes (and for Skybridge, its nonprofit purposes) - protected from
unlawful blocking or exploitation by others including Defendants as they have
done, as described herein;
(b) Plaintiffs were not able to seek, obtain, and use for various economic
advantages the AMTS spectrum to which Plaintiffs were entitled in the
Defendants' Licenses that had fully or in part terminated by operation of law and
should have been surrendered by Defendants. Some of this spectrum would have
been available for Plaintiffs to apply for prior to the suspension of the Site-Based
licensing system, and other spectrum, when "automatically terminated, would
have "automatically reverted" to Plaintiffs by operation of law;
(c.) Plaintiffs' efforts to pursue and obtain certain financing in connection with
their participation in the two AMTS auctions, as well as their endeavors to
negotiate favorable relations with equipment vendors, joint-venture candidate
companies, end users of licenses and licensed systems, and others, were interfered
with and delayed by the unlawful actions of Defendants described herein,
resulting in damage to Plaintiffs;
256074 1.DOC 27
Page 29 of 180
(d.) Plaintiffs have been delayed in, and/or prevented from, attempting,
securing and closing certain license spectrum-sale and license-lease opportunities
(i."., sales and leases by Plaintifß to third parties of Plaintiffs'valid licenses or
portions thereof), and for Skybridge, said restraint involves its nonprofit support
of govemment agencies and other nonprofit business;
(e.) Plaintifß have incurred substantial legal and other costs in their attempts
to mitigate and avoid the damages caused by Defendants' actions and omissions
set forth herein
(Ð ln addition, Defendants caused other damages to Plaintiff by other
violations of FCC rules and the FCA, as described herein.
60. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs' ability to secure economic
advantages arising out of relations with the FCC and the other parties, which is essential
to Plaintiffs'wireless business, has been undermined and delayed. Had Defendants acted
in compliance with their legal obligations, Plaintiffs had the financial and other capability
to and would have: (i) applied for and obtained the AMTS spectrum in the Defendants'
Licenses; (ii) placed this spectrum into operation via stations, leases, sales, and other
uses; and (iii) succeeded in securing other economic advantages in relation to the FCC,
equipment companies, potential financers, and others in the wireless industry.
61. Due to Defendants'actions and omissions, Plaintiffs were precluded from
seeking and obtaining from the FCC the spectrum in the Defendants' FCC Licenses, from
the time Plaintiffs were formed, until the time the FCC eliminated any possibility of
seeking such spectrum by freezing all licensing in the AMTS service for a period of time
256074_1.DOC
Page 30 of 180
prior to the institution of its new exclusive method of AMTS licensing via the
Geographic License auction system.
62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'interference, Plaintiffs
incurred damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
63. Because Plaintiffs have been directly and indirectly damaged as a result of
Defendants' conduct, including via the loss of pa¡rments to Plaintiffs they are entitled to under
the FCA and FCC rules, as holders of exclusive-spectrum AMTS Geographic licenses, by virtue
of (i) Defendants' unlawful blocking of Plaintiffs by violation of the Cooperation Orders and the
underlying Conlour Protection Rule; and (ii) Defendants' unlawful retention and use of AMTS
Site-Based Licenses and component Station licenses whose associated spectrum would otherwise
have reverted to and been part of Plaintiffs' exclusive Geographic Licenses, Plaintiffs may
maintain a suit for damages in this Court pursuant to FCA $$ 206 and207.
COUNT III
(Violation of the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. $$1 and 2 )
64. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs as
though fully set forth herein , and,in particular ,paragraphs 22-39 (describing the scope of
Defendants' agreements and conspiracies).
65. Defendants have violated Section I of the Sherman Act, by contracting,
combining and./or conspiring, in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce among the several
states, in the AMTS market, as evidenced by the wrongful concerted acts described herein,
including but not limited to:
(a.) Hoarding and Warehousing licenses when Defendants knew or should
have known that they could not and did not comply with their obligation to timely
256074 1.DOC
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIÐF
Page 31 of 180
construct licensed stations and provide required coverage and service to the
public;
(b.) Falsely representing to the industry, and in filings with the FCC which
were intended to be seen and relied upon by potential competitors and others in
the industry, that certain stations had been or would imminently be timely
constructed and operated to serve the public, when in fact they were not, would
not be, and were never intended to be
(c.) Deliberately failing, for years after licensed stations automatically
terminated due to Defendants'failure to timely construct stations, to report such
failure and termination to the FCC, as required for FCC cancellation of the station
licenses;
(d.) Falsely representing to the industry, and in filings with the FCC which
were intended to be seen and relied on by potential competitors and others in the
industry, that Defendants had complied with their obligation to provide
overlapping, continuous coverage along certain minimum lengths of waterways
when in fact they failed to do so, including since Defendants had
not constructed many of the stations they were required by their licenses to
construct, thereby inducing customers and potential customers from doing
business with Plaintiffs;
(e.) Falsely representing to the FCC and other parties that Defendants were
providing required service to maritime users;
(f.) Falsely representing to the FCC and other parties that Defendants used
systems that complied with all FCC requirements for AMTS;
256074 1.DOC
Page 32 of 180
(h.) Renewing licenses that had terminated, operating stations without any
FCC license, and failing to disclose these unlawful actions to the FCC and public;
66. These acts were undertaken pursuant to an agreement, express or tacit,
between the Defendants.
67. These acts produced anti-competitive effects within the relevant
geographic market for AMTS, are manifestly anticompetitive and constitute a per se
violation of the Sherman Act.
68. Defendants' concerted actions have proximately resulted in Plaintiffs'
injuw. For example, Defendants, by falsely representing construction status and
coverage, intercommunications, antenna site leases and other aspects of service, have
discouraged potential and existing customers of Plaintiffs from consummating spectrum
transactions. Specifically, as a result of Defendants' warehousing scheme, as outlined
herein, Plaintiffs have been prevented from consummating transactions with passenger
rail carriers, including Amtrak, as well as carriers in Boston and the State of New Jersey.
69. The injury sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants' unlawful
actions as alleged herein is of a type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and flows
from that with which makes the Defendants' actions unlawful. This unlawful activity also
had a wider impact on the relevant AMTS market.
70. In doing the acts described above, Defendants combined and conspired
with one other for the unlawful purpose of unreasonably restraining trade or preventing
competition in the relevant AMTS markets.
71. Additionally, Defendants have violated Section 2 of thesherman Act,
including under the "Essential Facilities Doctrine," by their clear, sustained refusal to
256074 1.DOC 31
Page 33 of 180
provide the threshold essential information that Plaintiffs need to enable them to plan,
build and operate their Geographic AMTS licensed stations: the operating details of
Defendants' AMTS Site Based licensed stations under FCC Rule $S0.385(b)(1) and the
Two Cooperation Orders. Defendants have sole access to this information (the
"Operations Detail Information") , and Plaintiffs have no independent ability practically
or reasonably to obtain this information on their own or from any third party. Moreover,
it was feasible, and indeed it would have been easy and inexpensive, for Defendants to
provide the Operations Detail Information to Plaintiffs. Defendants' violation was
deliberate, ongoing, and was specifically intended to injure its rival competitors
(Plaintiffs), and to allow Defendants to maintain unlawful, invalid FCC licenses and
stations. Defendants have denied the Operations Detail Information to their primary
competitors (Flaintiffs) in order to control the market and business in the AMTS radio
service including for Intelligent Transportation Services, and did so in violation of the
two Cooperation Orders and 47 C.F.R. $80.385(bX1).
72. Access to the Operations Detail Information is an ongoing essential-
service requirement. It is clearly essential under FCC rules and for practicalradio-
interference and related time, cost and quality-oÊservice reasons, for reasons described
above.
73. Accordingly, as injured parties, Plaintiffs may seek damages from
Defendants pursuant to l5 U.S.C. $ 15.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
(a) As to Count One, issue an Order directing Defendants, and those under their
256074 1.DOC
Page 34 of 180
control, to comply with the Cooperation Orders and 47 C.F.R. $80.385(b)(1), and specifically
requiring Defendants to provide to Plaintiffs the required information to enable Plaintiffs to
calculate the protected contour of Defendants' Site-Based AMTS stations and thus the portions
of Plaintiffs' same-channel Geographic licenses they may use, along with an award of attomeys'
fees and costs;
(b) As to Count Two, enter a judgment for monetary damages in favor of Plaintiffs
and against Defendants and any entities to whom Defendants may have transferred assets to
avoid satisfying the judgment, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial, along
with an award of attomeys' fees and costs and prejudgment interest;
(c) As to Count Three, enter a judgment for monetary damages in favor of Plaintiffs and
against Defendants and any entities to whom Defendants may have transferred assets to avoid
satisfying the judgment, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial, along with an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.
Dated February 18,2011
Respectfu lly submitted,
/s/ R.N. Rendai Richards

R.N. Tendai Richards
WINNE, BANTA, HETHERINGTON,
PC
it"f^H?H,&KAHN'
Court Plazasouth / East Wing
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Patrick J. Richard
pnchard@nossaman.com
50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94lll
Tel: 415.398.3600 I Fax: 415.398.2438
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
256074 1.DOC
Page 35 of 180
EXHIBIT
Second Amended Complaint
Document3
Page 36 of 180
Federal Communications Commission
Washington D.C 20554
April 2009
DA 09-793
Dennis Brown Esq

8124 Cooke Court
Suite 201
Manassas VA 20 109-7406
RE Request by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC for clarification of Sections
80.3 85 and 80.2 15 of the Commissions Rules
Dear Mr Brown
This letter responds to your December 18 2008 request filed on behalf Maritime
Communications/Land Mobile LLC MC/LM that we clarify certain rules governing the Automated
Maritime Telecommunications System AMTS service As set forth below we agree in part with your
proposed interpretations
First you request that we clarify Section 80.385b1 of the Commissions Rules which
provides that AMTS geographic licensees may locate stations within 120 kilometers of co-channel site-
based AMTS licensees only upon showing that at least 18 dB protection will be provided to the site-
based licensees predicted 38 dBu signal level contour.2 You note that the maximum permissible effective
radiated
power ERP for many AMTS stations is one thousand watts3 and propose that for
purposes of
calculating site-based AMTS stations predicted 38 dBu signal contour the site-based station be
assumed to operate with one thousand watts ERP rather than the maximum ERP of which the station is
actually capable
We decline to adopt your proposed interpretation Instead we conclude that the Commission
intended for an AMTS geographic licensees obligation to provide co-channel interference protection to
an incumbent site-based station to be based on the site-based stations actual operating parameters The
Commission based the AMTS co-channel interference protection rules on the analogous rules governing
the spectrally adjacent 220-222 M1-lz service.4 When it
adopted those rules the Commission expressly
stated that the 38 dBu contours of incumbent licensees were to be calculated on the basis of actual
Letter dated Dec 18 2008 from Dennis Brown to Scot Stone Deputy Chicf Mobility Division Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau
See 47 C.F.R 80.3 85bl
Specifically AMTS stations with an antenna height up to 61 meters that are located more than 129 or 169
kilometers respectively from Channel 10 or 13 television station See 47 C.F.R 80.215hl
4See Amendment of the Commissions Rules Concerning Maritime Communications Second Memorandum
Opinion and Order and F4flh Report and Order PR Docket No 92-257 17 FCC Rcd 6685 6700 312002 FOh
Report and Order holding that AMTS geographic licensees should adhere to the co-channel interference
protection standard that is used in the adjacent 220-222 MHz band on recon Third Memorandum Opinion and
Order 18 FCC Red 24391 2003 We note moreover that the language of Section 80.385b1 follows the
analogous 220-222 MHz service rules Compare 47 C.F.R 80.385b1 with 47 C.F.R 90.723k
90.763b1 ii
Page 37 of 180
Dennis Brown Bsq
Request for Clarification of Sections 80.3 85 and 80.215
operating parameters rather than maximum permissible operating parameters.5 In denying

reconsideration of those rules the Commission noted that providing protection to incumbents based on
their theoretical maximum operating facilities rather than on their actual operating facilities would be
spectrally inefficient and disserve the public interest.6 This concern applies equally to the AMTS
service.7 Moreoever assuming that incumbent site-based stations are operating with one thousand watts
ERP would underprotect any stations not subject to the ERP limit that are operating with higher ERP
which also would be contrary to the Comniissions intent.8 Finally basing the AMTS geographic
licensees co-channel interference protection obligations on the site-based stations actual operating
parameters is consistent with our recent decision applying the AMTS interference protection rules to
determine whether geographic licensees proposed stations provided the requisite protection to co
channel site-based stations.9
See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commissions Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the
Private Land Mobile Radio Service Third Report and Order Pjflh Notice of Proposed Rule Making PR Docket No
89-552 ON Docket No 93-252 PP Docket No 93-253 12 FCC Rcd 10943 11026 174 1997 stating that
the predicted 38 dBuV/m contour of the Phase licensees will be calculated based on the licensees authorized
effective radiated power ERP and antenna height-above-average-terrain HAAT not on the maximum allowable
ERP and HAAT provided in our rules for the 220-222 MHz band
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commissions Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the
Private Land Mobile Radio Service Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration PR Docket No 89-5 52
ON Docket No 93-252 PP Docket No 93-253 13 FCC Red 14569 14604 73 1998 If we were to assume
that all 220 MHz Phase licensees are operating at the maximum power and antenna height for the 220 MHz service
when many are not operating at such parameters and may never operate at such parameters we could force
Phase II licensees to provide considerably greater protection to co-channel Phase licensees than necessary and
thereby potentially deny service to the public in areas beyond the Phase licensees actual 38 dBu service contour
It is our understanding that MC/LM is concerned that unless Section 80.3 85b is
interpreted as requested there
exists the potential for geographic AMTS licensee to interpose station between two of the incumbents stations
The Commission has concluded however that such scenario will not occur if the incumbent licensee constructed
its in compliance with the then-existing requirement to maintain continuity of service see 47 C.F.R
system
80.475a 1999 See Amendment of the Commissions Rules Concerning Maritime Communications Third
Memorandum Opinion and Order PR Docket No 92-257 18 FCC Red 24391 22401 23-24 2003
See FTh Report and Order 17 FCC Red at 6699-6700 31 We conclude that allowing incumbent licensees to
continue interest
operating under the terms of their current station licenses will further the public by avoiding
interruption of the services they provide cf Ralph Hailer Letter 23 FCC Red 4714 4716 WTB/PSHSB 2008
declining to adopt interpretation of Section 90.187 of the Commissions Rules that would underprotect incumbents
with respect to new mobile-only stations
9See Northeast Utilities Service Company Order DA 09-643 11-12 WTB MD rel Mar 20 2009 As we
noted in that decision we expect incumbent AMTS licensees to cooperate with geographic licensees in order to
avoid and resolve interference issues This includes at minimum providing upon request sufficient information to
enable geographic licensees to calculate the site-based stations protected contour Id at n.1 citing Fih Report
and Order 17 FCC Red at 6704 39 This is

necessary because stations predicted 38 dBu signal contour is
function of its ERP see 47 C.F.R 73.699 Figs lO-lOc but the power limit for sitebased AMTS stations in the
rules and on their licenses is based on transmitter output power rather than ERP see 47 C.F.R 80.21 5h5 and
determining stations ERP requires additional information such as antenna gain and line loss See Amendment of
the Commissions Rules Concerning Airport Terminal Use Frequencies in the 450-470 MHz Band of the Private
Land Mobile Radio Services Report and Order WT Docket No 02-318 20 FCC Rod 1966 1970 2005 citing
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commissions Rules and Policies for Applications and Licensing of Low Power
Operations in the Private Land Mobile Radio 450470 MHz Band Report and Order WT Docket No 01-146 18
FCC Red 3948 3954 3J 12-13 2003
Page 38 of 180
Dennis Brown Esq
Request for Clarification of Sections 80385 and 80.2 15
Second you request that we clari that ship station that is transmitting with an output power of
fifty watts pursuant to Section 80.2 15i1-2 of the Commissions Rules is permitted to operate with an
ERP of up to thirty-six wafts We agree with this interpretation Section 80.2 15 provides
ship station must have transmifter output not exceeding 25 watts and an
ERP not exceeding 18 watts The maximum transmitter output power is

permitted to
be increased to 50 watts under the following conditions Increases exceeding 25
wafts are made only by radio command from the controlling coast stations and
The application for an equipment authorization demonstrates that the transmitter
output power is 25 wafts or less when external radio commands are not present
Although Section 80.2 15i expressly authorizes only an increase in transmitter output power under the
specified circumstances and not an increase in ERP it is evident that the Commission contemplated
corresponding increase in ERP Interpreting the rule to limit ERP to eighteen wafts even when the
station is operating with fifty wafts TPO would defeat the Commissions purpose in allowing the
exceptions to the general twenty-five waft TPO limit.2 We accordingly clarify Section 80.215i as
requested concluding that ship station transmitters operating with transmitter output of
power fifty
watts pursuant to that rule may have an ERP of up to thirty-six wafts during such operation
Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4i and 5d of the Communications
Act of 1934 as amended 47 U.S.C 154i 155d and Section 1.2 of the Commissions Rules 47
1047 C.F.R 80.215i
See Amendment of Parts 81 and 83 of the Commissions Rules to Allocate Spectrum for an Automated Inland
Waterways Commuilcations System TWCS along the Mississippi River and Connecting Waterways
Memorandum Opinion and Order Gen Docket No 80-1 88 FCC 2d 678 685 24686 28 1981 noting that the
proponent of the rule Waterway Communications Systems Inc Watercom expressly asked that the Commission
authorize ship station transmitter power be increased to maximum of 50 watts provided the power is
automatically reduced to produce an ERP not exceeding 18 watts within the grade contour of protected
television station and explaining that Watercom requests that the rules be revised to allow ship transmitters to
employ up to 50 watts output power provided the system is

designed to automatically reduce power to an ERP not
exceeding 18 watts when the vessel is in the grade contour of protected television station
12
See Id at 688 36 Accordingly we will amend the rules substantially as requested by Watercom to permit
ship station transmiters to utilize maximum output power of 50 watts provided power is
automatically
reduced to an ERP not exceeding 18 watts wherever it has not been specifically shown that television reception
within the grade contour is unlikely to be affected
Page 39 of 180
Dennis Brown Esq
Request for Clarification of Sections 80.385 and 80.215
C.F.R 1.2 the request filed by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC on December 18 2008 15
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent indicated herein
This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the
Commissions Rules 47 C.F.R 0.131 0.331
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Scot Stone
Deputy Chief Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Page 40 of 180
EXHIBIT
Locument3
Page 41 of 180
Federal Communications Commission BA 09-643
Before the

Washington B.C 20554
In the Matter of Applications of
NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE File No 0003026497
COMPANY
To Modify License for Station WQEJ7 18
PACifIC SYSTEMS INC File No 0003202834
To Modify License for Station WQA2I

ORDER
Adopted March 17 2009 Released March 20 2009
Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

By the Deputy Chief Mobility
Introduction On May 11 2007 Northeast Utilities Service Company NUSCO filed
an application to modify its Automated Maritime Telecommunications System AMTS geographic
license Call Sign WQEJ7 18 to add facilities at six locations in southwestern Connecticut Southbury
Redding Monroe Bridgeport Greenwich Norwalk Paging

and Systems Inc PSI licensee of site-
based co-channel AMTS Station WQA2 16 New York New York filed petition to dismiss or deny the
NUSCO application alleging that NUSCOs proposal fails to provide Station WQA216 adequate
interference protection.2 On October 18 2007 PSI filed an application to modify its license for Station
WQA2 16 to change the location of the licensed transmitter from the North Tower of the World Trade
Center WTC to Times Square.3 Petitions to deny the PSI application were ified by NUSCO and
below we grant NUSCOs
Foundation Skybridge.4 For the reasons set forth and
Skybridge Spectrum
Skybridges petitions and will dismiss PSIs modification application We also deny PSIs petition and
will grant the NLJSCO application with respect to the Greenwich and Norwalk sites and dismiss it as
FCC File No 0003026497 filed May 11 2007 NUSCO Application
2See PSI Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed June 22 2007 PSI Petition On July 16 2007 NUSCO filed an
opposition NUSCO Opposition to Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed July 16 2007 NUSCO Opposition PSI
filed reply on July 27 2007 PSI Reply to Opposition to Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed July 27 2007 PSI
Reply
FCC File No 0003202834 filed October 18 2007 amended December 2007 PSI Application
4NUSCO Petition to Deny Modification filed November21 2007 NUSCO Petition Skybridge Petition to
Deny Modification filed November 23 2007 Skybridge Petition Because the PSI application appeared on
public notice on October 24 2007 see Public Notice Rep No 3537 released October 24 2007 petitions to deny
were due November 23 2007 See 47 C.F.R .939a2 On November 24 2007 Skybridge submitted an
Erratum and Amendment to its
petition which sought to supplement the petition by adding declaration setting
forth additional facts Because the Erratum and Amendment was filed after the petition to deny was due the
additional information is untimely and has not been considered See e.g Amendment of the Commissions Rules
Concerning Maritime Communications Third Memorandum Opinion and Order PR Docket No 92-257 18 FCC
Rcd 24391 24397 14 2003 recon dismissed Order on Further Reconsideration 23 FCC Rcd 329 WTB MD
2008 recoti pending Maritime CommunicationsfLand Mobile LLC Order 21 FCC Red 8794 8795 n.15 WTB
PSCID 2006 recon denied Order on Reconsideration 22 FCC Rcd 4780 WTB MD
2007 recon and review
pending PSI filed an opposition to the petitions on December 2007
PSI Opposition to Petitions to Deny filed
December 2007 PSI Opposition NUSCO filed reply on December 17 2007 NUSCO Reply to
Oppositions to Petitions to Deny filed December 17 2007 NUSCO Reply
Page 42 of 180
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-643
moot with respect to the Southbury Redding Monroe and Bridgeport sites
Background AMTS stations provide automated interconnected ship-to-shore
conuuunications similar to cellular system for tugs barges and other maritime vessels5 and also
phone
may provide service to units on land In 2002 the Commission adopted geographic area licensing
approach for AMTS stations.7 Under Section 80.385b1 of the Commissions Rules geographic
licensee that locates facilities within 120 kilometers of co-channel site-based incumbent must provide at
least 18 dB protection to the site-based licensees 38 dBu signal level contour.8 Site-based licensees may
operate fill-in transmitters without separate authorization provided that the fill-in sites predicted
interference contour is filly encompassed by the composite interference contour of the licensed
transmitters9 and may modify their licenses provided that the modification does not extend the systems
composite service area
The six sites proposed in the NUSCO application are within 120 kilometers of the
licensed location of Station WQA216 As required by Section 80.385b1 NUSCO submitted
technical analysis indicating that the proposed operations would provide the required degree of
interference protection.11 NUSCO had to make certain assumptions regarding Station WQA2 16s
technical parameters given the destruction of the WTC on September 11 2001 12 In the alternative
NUSCO argued that PSIs license for Station WQA2 16 should be deemed to have canceled automatically
pursuant to Section 80.49a3 of the Commissions Rules3 because the station was never placed into
operation4 or if the station was placed into operation that the license should be deemed to have
canceled automatically pursuant to Section .955a3 of the Commissions Rules5 due to permanent
discontinuance of operations in light of the destruction of the WTC.6
In support of its petition to dismiss or deny NUSCOs application PSI submitted an
See Amendment of Parts and 80 of the Commissions Rules Applicable to Automated Maritime
Telecommunications Systems AMTS First Report and Order CEN Docket No 88-372 FCC Rcd 437437
1991
6See ManTEL Inc and Mobex Network Services LLC Report and Order WI Docket No 04-257 22 FCC Rcd
8971 8974-78 114-10 2007 recon pending
See Amendment of the Commissions Rules Concerning Maritime Communications Second Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Fj/ih Report and Order PR Docket No 92-25 17 FCC Rcd 6685 6696 24 2002
Pub/ic Coast Fifth Report and Order
47 C.F.R 80.385b1
9See 47 C.F.R 80.475b
See Pub/ic Coast Fifth Report and Order 17 FCC Rcd at 6701 34
See NUSCO Application Exhibit Southwest Connecticut Coast Station Location NUSCO Location Exhibit
Attachment Analysis of Interference Potential in the 217 MHz Band preparcd by UTC Spectrum Services March
23 2007 NUSCO Jnterfcrcncc Analysis
2See NUSCO Location Exhibit at NUSCO Interference Analysis at 2-3 AMTS site-based incumbents are
expected to cooperate with geographic licensees in order to avoid and resolve interference issues Cf Pub/ic Coast
F/h Report and Order 17 FCC Rcd at 6704 39 This includes at minimum providing upon request sufficient
information to enable geographic licensees to calculate the site-based stations protected contour
47 C.F.R 80.49a3
See NUSCO Location Exhibit at 2-5
547 C.F.R .955a3

6See NUSCO Location Exhibit at 5-8
Page 43 of 180
engineering study utilizing technical parameters for Station WQA216 different from NUSCOs
assumptions resulting in larger predicted contour indicating that NUSCOs proposed Greenwich and
Norwalk sites would not afford Station WQA2 16 the required degree of interference protection.17 PSI
also states that it

timely constructed at the WTC8 and that the stations operations have not been
permanently discontinued as evidenced by PSIs construction of temporary fill-in sites and its efforts to
secure space on Freedom Tower which is being constructed on the WTC site.9
While the NUSCO application was pending PSI sought to modify its license for Station
WQA2 16 to change the location of the licensed transmitter to Times Square where PSI currently operates
fill-in transmitter PSI submitted an engineering study indicating that the proposed modification would
not extend Station WQA2 16s service area.2 In opposition to the PSI application NUSCO reiterated the
arguments it raised previously -- that PSI relies on incorrect parameters that overstate the contour of WTC
site and alternatively that PSIs license for Station WQA216 was already terminated for failure to
construct or for pennanent discontinuation of operation.2 The Skybridge petition references the
arguments in the NJSCO petition.22
On January 11 2008 NTJSCO filed separate application to modifj its license for
See PSI Petition at Exhibit Engineering Statement at PSI Engineering Statement
See PSI Petition at 3-4
See PSI Petition at PSI Reply at 3-5 8-9 On August 2007 the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Mobility Division Division directed PSI pursuant to Section 308b of the Communications Act of 1934 as
amended 47 U.S.C 308b to provide additional information regarding its efforts to reconstruct Station WQA2 16
on Freedom Tower See Letter dated August 2007 from Scot Stone Deputy Chief Mobility Division Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau to Susan Cooper President PSI PSI responded on September 2007 providing
documentation of communications beginning in 2005 between PSI and the entity administering Freedom Tower
antenna issues See Letter dated September 2007 from Audrey Rasmussen Esq Counsel for PSI to Stana
Kimball Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau PSI Letter NUSCO filed reply on
September 11 2007 On September 21 2007 PSI filed rebuttal NUSCO filed surrebuttal on October 2007
Material in the reply rebuttal and surrcbuttal going beyond the matters in the Mobility Divisions letter has not
been considered Contrary to NUSCOs assertion the Divisions narrow inquiry letter did not initiate fbrther
round of pleadings related to the issues raised in the NIJSCO application See NIJSCO Surrebuttal at
20
See PSI Engineering Statement at 1-2 The Division requested that PSI accordingly supplenent its petition to
deny NUSCOs modification application to indicate whether PSI believed that NUSCOs proposed operations met
the co-channel interference requirements with respect to PSIs proposed Times Square location See Electronic mail
dated October 18 2007 Audrey Rasmussen

from On November
Scot Stone 19 2007 PSI filed
to supplement
that NUSCOs
asserting proposed operations would cause impermissible interference to PSIs proposed Times
Square location NUSCO filed an opposition on December 2007 PSI filed reply on December 13 2007
21
See NUSCO Petition at 2-6
22
See Skybridge Petition at Given that we must address the issues in the context of NUSCO petition we need not
address P51s contention that Skybridge lacks standing See PSI Opposition at n.l Skybridge also requests that
the undersigned official not participate in the present matter due to his previous advising Paging Systems Inc on
matters relating to the PS1J Application in violation of FCC cx parte rules and common fairness Id The
referenced communication NUSCO Location Exhibit Attachment Exhibit which predated the PSI application
by more than two years discussed PSI fill-in site and did not address the construction or operational status of the
WTC facility and was promptly provided to Skybridges principal Nor does Skybridgc explain how common
fairness requires recusal The test for recusal in an adjudicatory proceeding on the ground of bias or the
appearance of bias is whether disinterested observer may conclude that decisionmaker has in some measure
adjudged the facts as well as the law of case in advance of hearing it Liberty Productions Order 16 FCC Red
18966 189731162001 quoting Metropolitan Council of NAACP Branches FCC 46 F.3d 1154 1164-65 D.C
Cir 1998 Skybridge has made no such showing Consequently we deny its
request that the undersigned official
not in the
participate present matter
Page 44 of 180
Station WQEJ7 18 to add only the Southbury Redding Monroe and Bridgeport sites i.e the four sites to
which PSI did not object.23 The application was granted on April 2008.24 Therefore we will dismiss
the above-captioned NUSCO application as moot with respect to those four sites and consider it only
with respect to the Greenwich and Norwalk sites
Discussion Construction of Station WOA2 16 PSIs original application and the license
for Station WQA2 16 indicate that the antenna was located on the WTC antenna mast In support of its
assertion that the station was never placed into operation NUSCO presents evidence that PSI did not have
access to the WTC antenna mast.25 PSI responds that the station was constructed on the WTC roof rather
than on the antenna mast.26 NT.JSCO questions this assertion because PSI presented only declaration by
its construction agent and no documentary evidence.27 NUSCO also
argues
that if the station was
constructed other than as licensed it should be deemed not to have been constructed.28
Under the present circumstances where documentary and other evidence that could more
definitively establish the facilitys construction vel non no longer exists due to circumstances beyond the
licensees control we are reluctant to hold that an authorization automatically terminated at some point in
the past and should therefore be deleted from our licensing database9 Therefore while the evidence
proffered by PSI is less than overwhelming we conclude based on the record before us that PSI
constructed station on the WTC roof We also agree with PSI3 that such construction sufficiently
conformed to the licensed parameters that the station should be deemed to have been constructed.31
Permanent discontinuance of operation The WTC facility has not operated since
September 11 2001 NUSCO argues that as consequence the license for Station WQA2I has
tenninated pursuant to Section 1.955a3 due to permanent discontinuance of operation.32 As NUSCO

notes33 Part 80 unlike some rule parts34 does not set forth specific period of non-operation after which
the operation will be deemed to have pennanently discontinued NUSCO nonetheless argues that
regulatory parity requires that AIvITS licensees not be permitted to discontinue operations for longer
23
FCC File No 0003282861 filed January 11 2008
24
See Letter dated April 2008 from Scot Stone Deputy Chief Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau to Audrey Rasmussen Counsel for PSI denying PSis objection
255ee NUSCO Location Exhibit Attachments Educational Broadcasting Corporation EBC petition to deny
PSI application stating that EBCs niaster lease for the WTC antenna mast permitted use only by broadcasters and
that PSI was thus precluded from installing an antenna there 11 affidavit of Frank Oraybill chief engineer for the
broadcaster responsible for the WTC antenna mast stating that PSI never constructed on the WTC antenna mast
26See PSI Petition at 3-4 Id Exhibit Declaration of David Kling
27
See NUSCO Opposition at 12-13 NUSCO also notes that the construction agentis PSI affiliate Id at 13
Id at 12
WTB
29
See e.g Cuniulous Communications Corporation Order 18 FCC Red 11449 11450 6-7 PSPWD
2003 offd Memorandum Opinion and Order 19 FCC Red 15631 WTB PSCID 2004
PSI Reply at
31See e.g Bay Ventures Order 17 FCC Red 8166 8771-72 19 WTB CWD PRB 2002 fifteen to thirty-five
percent discrepancy in antenna height is not sufficient to warrant license termination for failure to construct PSI
nonetheless remains responsible for promptly correcting the technical infonnation in the Commissions licensing
database
32
See NUSCO Location Exhibit at 5-8 NUSCO Opposition at 12-16
See NUSCO Location Exhibit at
See e.g 47 C.F.R 90.157 101.65b
Page 45 of 180
periods than licensees in other services.35 NUSCO also contends that PSIs failure to attempt to relocate
the licensed location until 2007 reflects an abandonment of the license and that PSI cannot claim to
intend to resume operation at the same location due to continuing uncertainty regarding the site.36 We are
not persuaded by NUSCOs arguments
10 Instead we agree with PSI37 that it would be inappropriate to retroactively and without
notice apply to Part 80 stations the defmition of permanent discontinuance set forth in other rule parts
While we agree with NUSCO that Part 80 licensees may not cease operations indefinitely without the
license terminating for permanent discontinuance38 we conclude that the lack of Part 80 definition
requires us to evaluate claims of pennanent discontinuance on case-by-case basis That PSI did not
immediately seek to modify its authorization to relocate the licensed site can be explained by the fact that
the rules permit AMTS licensees to operate fill-in stations.39 In addition the record demonstrates that PSI
has exercised due diligence in its efforts to secure space on Freedom Tower.4 We conclude that the
evidence before us sufficienfly demonstrates that the discontinuance of operation is not yet permanent
11 Station WOA2 16 contour As noted above an AMTS geographic licensee that locates
facilities within 120 kilometers of co-channel site-based incumbent must provide at least 18 dB
protection to the site-based licensees 38 dBu signal level contour41 and site-based licensees may modify
their licenses only if the modification does not extend the systems composite service area in any
direction.42 Thus we must consider the WTC facilitys contour in order to detennine whether NUSCOs
proposed sites afford adequate protection to Station WQA21 and whether PSIs proposed relocation
expands the stations service area That consideration has been complicated in this matter by the fact that
the facility no longer exists and cannot be replicated
12 NUSCO and PSI disagree about the WTC facilitys technical parameters as set forth in
the following table
35Sce NUSCO Location Exhibit at 6-7
35Jd atl NUSCO Opposition at 14-15
See PSI Petition at PSI Reply at
NUSCO Location Exhibit at
See PSI Petition at PSI Letter at We clarilS however that whether station is in operation is determined
with respect to the licensed facility operation of fill-in sites does not render operative an inactive licensed
transmitter See Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commissions Rules to Facilitate FutureDevelopment of
Paging Systems Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report and Order WT Docket
No 96-18 14 FCC Rcd 10030 10055jj35 1999
40See PSI Letter Exhibits and demonstrating ongoing negotiations with the Freedom Tower property
site
management company regarding the availability
41
See 47 C.F.R 80.385b1
42
See Public Coast F/1h Report and Order 17 FCC Rcd at 6701 34 We reject PSIs suggestion that license
modification shift the service contour so long the total area of coverage does not increase See PSI
may as
Opposition at 5-6 We agree with NUSCO that site-based AMTS incumbent

may not relocate its service area
beyond its
existing contour See NUSCO Reply at The purpose of restricting the site-based incumbent to its
licensed contour is to prohibit any modifications that impair the rights of the geographic licensee See Public Coast
Fih Report and Order 17 FCC Rcd at 6701 34 Permitting site-based AMTS incumbent to exchange covered
area for previously uncovered area would have such an effect
Page 46 of 180
Federal_Communications CommissIon PA 09-643

______
Parameter NUSCO43 PSr4
Antenna height above ground 527.6 meters 419.41 meters
Transmission line loss 3.9 dB 1.44 dB
Antenna gain 5.9 dB dB
Combiner and filter loss 8.5 dB 1.31 dB
Effective radiated power ERP 5.6 watts 165.57 watts
The differences in antenna height above ground and transmission line loss reflects that NUSCOs analysis
assumes that the station was located on the WTC antenna mast while as discussed above we conclude
that it was located on the WTC roof.45 With respect to the other parameters however verification is
difficult because PSI did not identify the equipment make and model numbers In particular PSIs
claimed insertion losses for the combiner and filter of 1.31 dB appears to be unrealistically low yielding
an unreasonably high ERR We believe that NUSCOs estimated insertion loss of 8.5 dB is reasonable
Consequently we have recalculated PSIs predicted contour for Station WQA216 utilizing the higher
insertion loss This results in contour smaller than that claimed by PSI but larger than that suggested by
NUSCO
13 PSI modification application By PSIs own admission the predicted contour for its
proposed Times Square site just barely avoids exceeding its proffered WTC contour.46 When the WTC
contour is recalculated as discussed above the predicted Thnes Square contour exceeds it Consequently
we will dismiss PSIs modification application because it impermissibly seeks to extend the systems
service area.47
14 NUSCO modification application Similarly by PSIs calculations the predicted
interference contour for NUSCOs proposed Greenwich and Norwalk sites impennissibly overlap the
WTC contour only in small portions of Westchester Nassau and Suffolk Counties.48 When the WTC
contour is recalculated as discussed above the predicted Norwalk contour clearly meets the interference
protection criteria of Section 80.385b1 any overlap and of the Greenwich contour appears to be de
minitnis Consequently we will grantNUSCOs application with respect to the Greenwich and Norwalk
sites
15 Gonclusion We conclude that PSIs proposed Times Square site would expand the
43See NUSCO Technical Analysis at
See PS Engineering Statement at
455ee NUSCO Opposition Exhibit PSI Reply Exhibit
See PSI Application Attachment Updated Times Square Contour
It follows from this conclusion that if the Times Square fill-in transmitter currently operates with the technical
parameters set forth in the PSI modification application its interference contour exceeds the predicted interference
contour of the WTC site Therefore PSI must promptly modifS its Times Square operations in order to comply with
Section 80.475b
4mSee PSI Engineering Statement Appendix Figure
Page 47 of 180
service area of Station WQA216 Consequently we grant the petitions of NUSCO and Skybridge and
will dismiss PSIs modification application We also conclude that NUSCOs proposed Greenwich and
Norwalk sites substantially meet the interference protection criteria of Section 80.3 85bl We
therefore deny in part PSIs petition and will grant NUSCOs modification application
16 Ordering Clauses Accordingly IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4i of the
Communications Act of 1934 as amended 47 U.S.C 154i and Section 1.939 of the Commissions
Rules 47 C.F.R 1.939 that the petitions to dismiss or deny filed by Northeast Utilities Service
Company and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on November 21 2007 and November 23 2007
respectively ARE GRANTED and application FCC File No 0003202834 SHALL BE DISMISSED
17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition to dismiss or deny filed by Paging
Systems Inc on June 22 2007 IS DENIED and application FCC File No 0003026497 SHALL BE
GRANTED with respect to locations 29 Greenwich and 31 Norwalk and DISMISSED AS MOOT
with respect to locations 27 Southbury 28 Redding 30 Monroe and 32 Bridgeport consistent with
this Order and the Commissions Rules
18 This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the
Scot Stone
Page 48 of 180
EXHIBIT
Document3
Page 49 of 180
Before the
In the Matter of
MARITIME COMMUNICATIONS/LAND
MOBILE LLC
WARREN HAVENS ENVIRONMENTEL LLC

iNTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATiON
MONITORING LLC SKYBRIDGE SPECTRUM
FOUNDATION
Petitions for Reconsideration
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted April 16 2010 Released April 19 2010
By the Deputy Chief Mobility Division Wireless Teleconununications Bureau
Introduction This Order on Reconsideration denies two petitions for reconsideration of
declaratory ruling interpreting two rules governing Automated Maritime Telecommunications System
AMTS operations We have before us two petitions for reconsideration one filed by Maritime
Communications/Land Mobile LLC MC/LM and one filed jointly by Warren Havens Envirorimentel
LLC Intelligent Transportation Sc Monitoring LLC and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation collectively
Havens2 each seeking reconsideration of Letter Ruling by the Mobility Division Division Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau.3 For reasons discussed below we deny both petitions for reconsideration
Background Section 80.215 of the Commissions Rules sets forth the AMTS transmitter
power limits Coast stations are limited to fifty watts transmitter output power TPO4 with an additional
limit5 of one thousand watts effective radiated power ERP for certain coast stations.6 Ship stations
generally are limited to twenty-five watts TPO and eighteen watts ERP7 but Section 80.215i permits
TPO of fifty watts under certain conditions.8
Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed May 2009 MC/LM Petition
for Reconsideration and Comments Erratum Copy filed May 2009 Havens Petition MC/LM filed an
opposition Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration filed May
21 2009 MC/LM Opposition
Dennis Brown Letter 24 FCC Red 4135 Letter Ruling
45ee47 C.F.R 80.2l5cl h5

5See ManTEL lnc and Mobcx Network Services LLC Report and Order WT Docket No 04-257 22 FCC Red
8971 8986 24 2007
Specifically stations with an antenna height of 61 meters or less that are more than 169 kilometers from Channel
13 television TV station or more than 129 kilometers from Channel 10 TV station See 47 C.F.R 80.2l5h1
See 47 C.F.R 8021 5e2

Specifically increases exceeding twenty-five watts are made only by radio command from the controlling coast
station and the TPO is

twenty-five watts or less when extemal radio commands are not present See 41 C.F.R
80.2 15il
Page 50 of 180
Section 80.385b1 of the Commissions Rules sets forth the co-channel interference
protection that AMTS geographic area licensees must afford site-based incumbents Generally
geographic licensee must locate its stations at least 120 kilometers from co-channel site-based incumbent
stations but shorter separations are permitted if at least 18 dBu protection will be provided to the site-
based licensees predicted 38 dBu signal level contour.9
In 2008MC/LM asked the Division to clarify Sections 80.385bl and 80.215i With
respect to Section 80.385bl MC/LM requested that the Division clarify that for
purposes
of
calculating site-based stations predicted 38 dBu contour the site-based station should be assumed to
operate with one thousand watts ERP irrespective of its actual ERP The Division denied this request
concluding that the Commission intended for an AMTS geographic licensee to provide interference
protection to co-channel site-based licensee of the basis of the latters actual BRP The Division
observed that the AMTS co-channel interference protection standard was based on the standard for the
spectrally adjacent MBz 220 MHz service and that the Commission has stated that the 38
22 0-222 dBu
contours of incumbent 220 MHz stations are to be calculated on the basis of their actual rather than
theoretical maximum operating parameters2 The Division further noted that adopting MC/LMs
interpretation of Section 80.385bl would run counter to the goal of promoting efficient spectrum use
because it could foreclose AIvITS geographic licensees from providing service even in areas that were not
service from an incumbent site-based station3

receiving
With respect to Section 80.2 15i MC/LM requested that the Division clarify that ship
station operating with TPO of fifty watts pursuant to Section 80.2 15i is
permitted to operate with an
ERP of up to thirty-six watts.14 The Division so clarified the rule agreeing that Section
80.215i expressly authorizes only an increase in under the specified circumstances and not an
increase in ERP it is evident that the Commission contemplated corresponding increase in ERP.15
See 47 C.F.R 80.385b1

Letter dated Dcc 18 2008 from Dennis Brown to Scot Stone Deputy Chief Mobility Division Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau at MC/LM Request
See Letter Ruling 24 FCC Rcd at 4135-36
21d citing Amendment of Part 90 of the Commissions Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MIz Band by
the Privatc Land Mobile Radio Service Third Report and Order Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making PR Docket
No 89-552 GN Docket No 93-252 PP Docket No 93-253 12 FCC Rcd 10943 11026 174 1997
at 4136 n.6 The Division also observed that assuming that site-bascd incumbent AMTS stations are
operating with one thousand watts ERP would underprotect stations not subject to the BRP limit that are operating
with higher ERP Id at 4136 The Division Ibrther noted that basing AMTS geographic licensees interference
protection obligations on the site-based stations actual operating parameters was consistent with recent Division
decision in licensing matter Id citing Northeast Utilities Service Company Order 24 FCC Rcd 3310 WTB MD
2009 NUSCO Order recon pending MC/LM faults the Divisions reliance on the NUSCO Order inasmuch as
the question of how to calculate site-based incumbents predicted 38 dBu contour was not contested in that case
See MC/LM Petition at The Division did not rely on the NUSCO Order rather it only noted that the NUSCO
Order and Letter Ruling were consistent in this regard There is no reason to believe that the Division would have
resolved MC/LMs declaratory ruling request any differently in the absence of the NUSCO Order
45e MC/LM Request at
See Letter Ruling at 4137 citing Amendment of Parts 81 and 83 of the Commissions Rules to Allocate
Spectrum for an Automated Inland

Waterways Communications System IWCS along the Mississippi River and
Connecting Waterways Memorandum Opinion and Order Gen Docket No 80-1 88 FCC 2d 678 685 24 686
28 1981 The Division reasoned that interpreting Section 80.215i as limiting ERP to eighteen watts even when
the ship station is permitted to operate with fifty watts TPO would defeat the Commissions purpose in allowing
the exceptions to the general twenty-five watt TPO limit Id
Page 51 of 180
Federal Communications Commission PA 10-664
Discussion MC/LM seeks reconsideration of the Divisions first holding that AMTS
geographic licensees need only provide cochannel interference protection on the basis of incumbent site-
based licensees actual ER rather than an assumed ER of one thousand watts First MC/LM contends
that the Divisions is based on misplaced reliance on the 220 MHz rules6 The Division
interpretation
did not itself MHz rules Rather the Division correctly noted that the Commission
rely on the 220
when adopted Section

it 80.385b1 expressly stated that the rule was based on the 220 MHz rules.17
MC/LM further argues that the 220 MHz interference rules are not instructive because the authorized
station ER is set forth on the face of each 220 MHz license but not on AMTS licenses.8 MC/LMs
observation regarding the absence of authorized ER from AMTS licenses correct but does not require is
that we abandon the use of actual ER for determining co-channel interference protection Indeed the
Division directly addressed this issue pointing out that AMTS site-based licensees are expected to
cooperate with geographic licensees in avoiding and resolving interference issues and that this obligation
requires at minimum that the site-based licensee provid upon request sufficient information to enable
geographic licensees to calculate the site-based stations protected contour.9
Finally MC/LM argues that the Commissions interpretation of Section 80.385bl is
inconsistent with the statutory mandate for equal treatment of licensees in the same service regardless of
whether tbe licenses were obtained though auction or other means.2 MC/LM contends that the
Divisions interpretation of Section 80.385bl effectively permits AMTS geographic licensees but not
AMTS site-based licensees to operate with an ERP of one thousand watts notwithstanding that Section
80.215 does not differentiate between geographic and site-based licensees.2 We disagree Section
80.215 imposes same maximum power limit on geographic and site-based

the licensees regardless of the
Divisions interpretation of how to calculate an incumbents predicted 38 dBu contour for purposes of co
channel interference protection pursuant to Section 80.3 85b1 As discussed above that interpretation
is based on the Commissions decision to protect site-based incumbents existing operations rather than
See MC/LM Petition at 3-8
7See Letter 24 FCC Rcd at 4135 Amendment of thc Commissions Rules Concerning Maritime
Ruling citing
Communications Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Pfih Report and Order PR Docket No 92-257 17
FCC Red 6685 6700 312002 AMTS sh RO AMTS geographic licensees should adhere to the co-channel
interference protection standard that is used in the adjacent 220-222 MHz band on recoil Third Memorandum
Opinion and Order 18 FCC Rcd 24391 2003 MC/LM argues that the paragraph cited by the Division read in its
entirety reflects that the Commissions concern was to protect incumbent licensees from geographic licensees and
not vice versa and therefore supports MC/LMs position See MC/LM Petition at That both Section
80.385b1 and the cited paragraph address concern over interference from geographic licensees to site based
incumbents is evident and the Division suggested nothing to the contrary MCILM infers from the Commissions
statement in the referenced paragraph that incumbent licensees should be permitted to operate under the terms of
their current licenses an intent to protect incumbents on the basis of an ERP of one thousand watts Jd at We
conclude however that the Commissions concern was to avoid disruption of existing AMTS service rather than to
indefinitely preserve an incumbent licensees ability to expand its facilities to the maximum permitted ERP See
AMTS 5th RO 17 FCC Rcd at 6699 31 allowing incumbent licensees to continue operating under the terms of
their current station licenses will further the public interest by avoiding interruption of the services they provide
6701 34 prohibiting incunibents from rnodiing their licenses in any manner that extends the service area
8See MC/LM Petition at 6-7 AMTS site-based licenses authorize maximum power based on TPO MC/LM
asserts that in contrast to the situation in the 220 MHz service geographic AMTS licensee would not be able to
ascertain the protected area of site-based AMTS station if the protected area is based on actual ERP rather than the
maximum ERP allowed under Part 80 Id at
9See Letter Ruling 24 FCC Rcd at 43136 n.9 citing NUSCO Order 24 FCC Red at 331 12 citing AMTS 5h
RO 17 FCC Red at 6704 39
MCLM Petition at 8-9 citing 47 U.S.C 309j6D

21
Id at 9-10
Page 52 of 180
Federal Communications Commission PA 10-664
protecting the maximum possible contour We accordingly deny the MC/LM petition for reconsideration
Havens seeks reconsideration of the Divisions second holding that ship stations
operating with an output power of fifty watts pursuant to Section 80.215i may operate with an ERP of
up to thirty-six watts to the extent that the holding is applicable to land mobile units.22 Havens argues
that power limits established for the maritime service are not appropriate for land mobile radio
operations3 We note however that Section 80.123e specifically provides that transmitter power for
land mobile units associated with AMTS coast stations shall be set in accordance with the limits set in
Section 80.2 15 for ship stations.24 This forecloses any argument that Section 80.215i should be
construed to apply differently to land mobile units.25 We accordingly deny the Havens petition
Conclusion and Ordering Clauses We conclude that the Division properly interpreted
Section 80.385b1 as specifying that geographic AMTS licensee locating station within 120
kilometers of co-channel site-based AMTS station must make showing that at least 18 dB protection
will be provided to the site-based stations predicted 38 dBu signal level contour as detennined by
reference to the site-based stations actual operating ERP rather than an assumed ERP of one thousand
watts We also conclude that the Divisions clarification that AMTS ship stations operating with
transmitter power output of fifty watts under the conditions set forth in Section 80.215i may exceed
eighteen watts ERP applies equally to land mobile stations associated with an AMTS coast station We
therefore deny the petitions for reconsideration
10 Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4i and 405 of the
Communications Act of 1934 as amended 47 U.S.C 154i 405 and Section 1.106 of the
Commissions Rules 47 C.F.R 1.106 the Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed by Maritime
Communications/Land Mobile LLC on May 2009 and the Petition for Reconsideration and
Comments Erratum Copy filed on May 2009 by Warren Havens Environmentel LLC Intelligent
Transportation Monitoring LLC and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation ARE DENTED
11 This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the
Scot Stone
22
See Havens Petition at 2-3
23
Id at According to Havens more refined rules are required for todays land mobile radio systems with for
example higher power levels in rural areas than in urban areas and separate standard for maritime service along
coastlines and major waterways Id
24
See 47 C.F.R 80.123e
25
As Havens and MC/LM both acknowledge any party who believes that the rules governing TPO and/or ERP
limits for land mobile units authorized under AMTS licenses should be n3odiflcd can file
petition for rulemaking to
that end See Havens Petition at MC/LM Opposition at
Page 53 of 180
EXHIBIT 4a
Document3
Page 54 of 180
Skybridge Spectrum Foundation

And donor LLCs
2649 Benvenue Avenue 2-6
Berkeley CA 94704
510.841.2220
December 2008
Via email Federal Express and US mail
Sandra DePriest and Donald DePriest
Co-controllers of
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC

At addresses on Certificate of Service
Re Further notice demanding cancellation or details required under FCC rules of
your alleged validly constructed and maintained AMTS licensed stations for the
AMTS A-Block spectrum in the greater New York City metropolitan area Call
Sign WRV374 station location 14 15 18 25 33 40 on the FCCs ULS the
Alleged NYC Stations and the NYC Stations License and of other alleged
AMTS stations and station licenses together with the Alleged NYC Stations and
the NYC Stations License the Alleged Stations and the Stations Licenses
Mrs and Mr DePriest
Summary
This is further demand prior to legal action in addition to pending court action
that by no later than December 12 2008 you provide to me defmitive written
documentation of the following in sum further described later herein
The FCC-rule-required written notices to the FCC for cancellation
of your NYC Stations License and your other Stations Licenses that have automatically
terminated under FCC rules -- and for all Stations Licenses for which you do not submit
said cancellation notices--
The FCC-rule- required and -specified actual station details to be
given to me for the Foundation and the LLCs defmed below as your co-channel AIvITS
licensees of your Alleged NYC Stations and the other Alleged Stations
have requested both of the above in the past as evidenced herein including in the
Exhibits To be clear if you do not now do the above then intend to have the Foundation
and Supporting LLCs defined below which manage take appropriate legal action to
obtain compliance with the FCC rules that are violated and to seek damages caused by the
past and ongoing violations of said rules This is in addition to claims currently filed in
SSF LLCs to MCLM 12.5.2008 Page of 40
Page 55 of 180
court and pending against you related to

your violation of FCC rules and the
Communications Act
In this regard in recent months and weeks business opportunities have arisen for
the Foundation and the LLCs in the greater New York City area and other parts of the
United States which require planning and use of AMTS A-block stations with theft
respective AMTS A-block licenses in those areas One of the opportunities involves
spectrum lease under FCC rule 1.9010 discussed below These opportunities are being
blocked and damaged by your willful continued violation of FCC rules described herein
The damages are in the millions of dollars and other damages cannot be measured
economically These economic and other damages will or may become irreparable soon if
you do not comply with the demands of this letter by the date set forth above
Further in this regard as noticed to you at the end of year 2007 see EXHIBIT
below the LLCs again plan this year by no later than December 30 2008 to donate and
assign to the Foundation additional AMTS A-block spectrum including in the New York
City region and including within the radio service and radio interference contours that you
allege before the FCC see footnotes II and 14 below for your Alleged NYC Stations jf
you do not comply with the demands of this letter by the date set forth above you will
cause irreparable malor harm to the donor LLCs and the Foundation and the Foundation
may relect the donations
Preliminary Information
As you know e.g as shown in FCC proceedings in which you are
principal party you are familiar with the fact that am the President and controlling
person in the legal entities for who speak in this email
ii Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined herein have meanings
defined in the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that apply to the Station
and the Station license Also you and your refer to Maritime Communications/Land
Mobile LLC MCLM and to all parties that have control in that
company or are
AIMTS Consortium LLC in fact did donate and assign to our Foundation at the end of
year 2007 B-block AMTS spectrum in the New York City region within your alleged
radio service contour and radio interference contour of your Alleged NYC Station The
LLCs did not assign at that time any A-block AMTS spectrum since
you did not respond
and your claims of the Alleged Stations encumbered and damaged the planed donation
assignment The just noted 2007 B-block donation assignment is shown in FCC records
In fact the donor LLC suffered the major damages that noted in Exhibit below as
determined in part by the professional appraisal required for the donors LLC income tax
filing in which it claimed this donation for tax benefit Similar damages to the LLCs were
caused by your lack of response and lack of turning back in invalid Stations Licenses on
the block
S5F LLCs to MCLM 12.5.2008 Page of 40
Page 56 of 180
controlled by that company and those entities predecessors in interest including entities
with names Mobex Regionet and Watercom and others perpetuating the fraud and
deliberate violations of law involved indicated herein not excluding alleged professional
counsel and me and my refers to me as the controlling person in the Foundation
and its donor LLCs defined below and to those entities
iii As shown in FCC records Skybridge Spectrum Foundation the

Foundation by charitable donation assignments of FCC licensed spectrum holds
AMTS B-block licensed spectrum in the New York City metropolitan area informed
you of intended assignments to the Foundation at the end of year 2007 of certain AMTS A-
block spectrum as shown in EXHIBIT hereto This donation assigmnent was from
AMTS Consortium LLC with which you are familiar e.g see Exhibits hereto out of its
AMTS geographic license holdings in the nation In addition as you know other LLCs
by donations the Foundation and that also hold
that manage that also support charitable
AMTS A-block and/or B-block geographic licensed spectrum throughout the nation except
for areas around the Great Lakes include Telesaurus 1/PC LLC and Intelligent
Transportation Monitoring Wireless LLC This demand notice to you is on behalf of the
Foundation and the just listed LLCs the LLCs
iv attach hereto documents relevant to this letters demands summarized
above and further described below and to its facts and arguments including but not limited
to those related to 80.70a You have not complied in any form or fashion but instead
have frustrated the purposes of that and related rules including 80.385h and At
the start of the Exhibits is list of the Exhibits and short descriptions of each including
notes on your violation and frustration of noted FCC rules
The further attempt in this letter is not required prior to the above-indicated
new legal action but by the attempt seek to mitigate damages reduce litigation expense
and provide further summary record for said action
The arguments related to 80.70a center around your Alleged Stations that are all site-
based licensed stations on the AMTS A-block that have any possible service or
interference contour in any of the areas within the LLCs geographic AMTS A-block
licenses However the request extends also to all other Alleged Stations since all of the
Alleged Stations are in areas in which the LLCs hold FCC licensed spectrum including
AMTS among other spectrum with which they may and do plan to compete with you and
your Alleged Station operations and ii for the reason given in the footnote herein that
commences with This makes relevant...
5SF LLCs to MCLM 12.5.2008 Page of 40
Page 57 of 180
Further Demand for Compliance with FCC Rules
Part
Compliance with FCC rules
on Turning In for Cancellation Automatically Terminated Station Licenses
and or 80.70a and Related Rules on Providing Details of Valid Stations
First as demanded herein you should without further delay turn in to the
FCC for cancellation your invalid Station Licenses that automatically terminated due to
your failure to construct operate andor maintain them under FCC time deadlines and
independently under other rule requirements including but not limited to interconnection
actual public common carrier service continuity of multi-station radio

coverage etc.
Evidence among much other evidence of which you are aware that you did
not under said FCC rule requirements construct operate
and maintain the Alleged
Stations and thus that they automatically terminated includes the evidence shown in
EXHIBIT re your not reporting the stations as constructed and in operation to the FCC
under the rule requirements and with the required form and details and EXHIBIT re
your not reporting stations to the FCC-related Universal Service Fund and your not paying
the fees due.2
However if
you continue to refuse to turn in the invalid Station Licenses
and instead continue to maintain them before the FCC and the market and your
competitors including the Foundation and the LLCs you must comply with the following
demand to stop violating the noted FCC rules and comply with their requirements
You are aware or under FCC rules are obligated to be aware of FCC
all
rules pertaining to your Alleged Stations and Station Licenses These include FCC Part
evidence others
Other your filing and
indirect includes maintaining for years
among
with the FCC many deliberately false reports of station consiruction and then your filing
of deliberately false applications to the FCC which were granted for renewing AMTS
station licenses for stations that had long since been terminated for failure to construct by
the construction deadline which you later admitted ii your failure to provide to us as
required in FCC rules shown in this letter of any proof or even any alleged details of your
Alleged Stations iii other evidence partly in FCC records and iv evidence including in
testimony in legal proceeding cases in which you including your predecessors in interest
were parties including but not limited to your Chicago station where Shorenstein the
building owner said you had no lease and your transceiver equipment was removed and
your stations in the Pacific Northwest where Day stated that you did not pay him sums due
under contract that you stations were not fully constructed under FCC rule requirements
and that he terminated their operations In addition you do not market your stations as
available to the public except nominally in few cases Instead you now list all your
Stations Licenses and geographic AMTS spectrum licenses as well as up for sale with
certain new spectrum exchange
SSF LLCS to MCLM 12.5.2008 Page of 40
Page 58 of 180
80 rules that apply to the AMTS radio service Part 80 of 47 CFR including the
following underlining and items in brackets added
80.5 Definitions
Station One or more transmitters or combination of transmitters and
receivers including the accessory equipment necessary at one location for
carrying on radio communication services
80.70 Special conditions relative to coast station VHF facilities
Coast stations which transmit on the same radio channel above 150
MHz must minimize interference by reducing radiated power by
decreasing antenna height or by installing directional antennas Coast
stations at locations separated by less than 241 kilometers 150 miles

which transmit on the same radio channel above 150 MHz must also
consider time-sharing arrangement The Commission may order station
changes if agreement cannot be reached between the involved licensees.3
This rule applies to AMTS which is coast station radio service that is above 150
MHz on its face and as noted by the FCC full Commission in decision denying your
as you is defined above request In the Matter ofAmendment of the Commissions

Rules Concerning Maritime Communications PR Docket No 92-257 RM-9664
FOURTHREPORTAND ORDER AND THIRD FURTHER NOTICE OF PR OP OSED
RULEMAKING FCC 00-370 15 FCC Rcd 22585 2000 FCC LEXIS 6084
22 RegioNet also seeks ruling that Section 80.70 of our Rules which
requires coast stations above 150 MHz to minimize interference to other
coast stations does not apply to AMTS stationsp9 but because RegioNet
has not explained how Section 80.70 prevents AMTS licensees from using
new technology or offering additional services we find this request to be
beyond the scope of this proceeding aLQQ
n99 RegioNet Comments at citing 47 C.F.R 80.70

n100 See Second Further Notice 12 FCC Rcd at 17008
The FCC did not in the Final Rules set forth in the above-noted RO change 80.70 to
make it not applicable to AMTS as RegioNet one of your predecessors-in-interest asked

nor at any time thereafter to this day has there been any change to this rule including its
applicability to AMTS site-based and geographic stations
When the FCC created rules for geographic AIvITS licenses it extended in 80.479b
the application of 80.70a from site-based AMTS stations including your Alleged
Stations to geographic licensed stations including those of the Foundation and the LLCs
Section 80.70a creates obligations and rights for the co-channel same frequency coast
station licensees involved
SSF LLCs to McLM 125.2008 PageS of 40
Page 59 of 180
80.409 Station Logs.5
iii Logs relating to any claim or complaint of which the station
licensee ha notice must be retained until the claim or complaint has been
satisfied or barred by statute limiting the time for filing suits upon such
claims
1.9010 De facto control standard for spectrum leasing arrangement6
b1ii The licensee must maintain reasonable degree of actual working

knowledge about the spectrum lessees activities and facilities that affect its
ongoing compliance with the Commissions policies and rules These
responsibilities include Coordinating operations and modifications of the
spectrum lessees system to ensure compliance with Commission rules
regarding non-interference with co-channel and adiacent channel

licensees and any authorized spectrum user The licensee is
responsible for resolving all interference-related matters including conflicts
between its spectrum lessee and any other spectrum lessee or licensee or
authorized spectrum user
b1iii above as to interference issues
However despite the requirements of the preceding 80.70a and other

rules including 1.946d 80.385b and 80.475a it existed when you initially
constructed and for some time thereafter and my requests for the information they
require you to provide to me in various FCC proceedings in which you were the primary
or primary party on the other side you have refused to supply to me for the Foundation
and the LLCs any said information on your Alleged NYC Stations and other Alleged
Stations.7 Again for example see the EXHIBITS hereto and footnote below
Additional relevant parts of 80.409 are in Appendix hereto
Section 80.70a station details which as the rule states are for reduction of co-channel
channel interference as to station characteristics transmit power and antenna

height and directionality number of transmitter channels in use etc is also required for
the Foundation and the LLCs to proceed with the spectrum lease opportunity noted above
with regard to interference control obligations and rights including under the rule cite
above 1.9010
This makes relevant youre a-block Alleged Stations to the LLCs B-block geographic
licenses planned stations as well as to the LLCs A-block geographic licenses planned
stations
Indeed you have not even reported any such station to the FCC under requirements of
rules as actually constructed and placed into operation Such reports would have provided
some station details including which specific site-based transmitters were actually
constructed and in operational service See EXHIBIT hereto
In most of the many FCC proceedings related to your Alleged Stations and Stations
Licenses involving dozens of pleadings for the LLCs and Foundation raised facts and
Page 60 of 180
Station is defined term as you know the nile is given above

station is not the same as the maximum technical parameters of granted license
Application as partially reflected on the license You are required to have kept and
maintained from the commencement of each of the Alleged Stations station logs as
shown in the above cited rule 80.409 Station and its subsumed term transmitter is
the subject and pivotal defined term in principal FCC rules relevant to this letter as they
existed in the lime periods relevant to your Alleged Stations including rules on required
construction including 1.946 including subsection 80.475a and 80.49a3
required operation including 80.70a and the related 80.385b and required and
automatic termination for failing to timely and properly construct or maintain including
1.955a2 and 1.946c and 80.49a3-- each discussed herein
Not acting to supply the details of your Alleged NYC Stations and other
Alleged Stations causes violation of FCC rule 80.70a since it orders that same-channel
public coast including AMTS licensees arrange to minimize interference by the
stated technical means and must also if within 150 miles and to be clear the
Foundation and LL Cs plan stations at this time and always have on AMTSA block
spectrum within 150 miles of all of your Alleged Stations with spec j/lc urgency in some
areas involving the paragraphs in boxes above consider an arrangement on time sharing
In addition such non action also frustrates the purposes and functions of and the
Foundations and LLCs rights under 80.385b to space stations under the noted F50
50 technical showing method.8
law with respect to you not providing proof of construction and operation to maintain valid
stations and licenses and presenting evidence that exits to the contrary partial result of
those filings was the 2004 FCC AIvITS site-based station audit in which you admitted
that
many of the stations you formerly stated to the FCC were validly constructed and kept
in operation and even renewed were never constructed at all and thus automatically
terminated at the construction deadline All you had to do at any time to dispose of much
of the matters raised in the noted pleadings and proceedings was to show standard proof
of construction and operation including the details called for in 80.70a Most of those
pleadings were prior to the LLCs holding A-block geographic licenses In

any case
regardless of those past pleadings and those proceedings you did not supply any proof and
details of any of your Alleged Stations and the LLCs and Foundation have rights now to
demand this information including under 80.70a

You have not supplied any such details in past as noted above and if you do not
supply the details as result of this letters demand in the alternative said violation will be
clear
The details required under 80.70a would allow the noted site-spacing engineering
showing 80.385b and without such details no

in such showing can be calculated and
made 80.70a predates 80.385b and thus there was no need to repeat in 80.385b
the station-details requirements that already existed in 80.70a Only licensee who is
maintaining fraudulent claim to Alleged Stations and station licenses would refuse to
provide as required under said law to another co-channel same frequency coast station
licensee the details of and proof of its Alleged Stations Fraud is not permitted under the
5SF LLCs to MCLM 12.5.2008 Page of40
Page 61 of 180
Said arrangements on your side involve possible modifications to your
Alleged Stations including the Alleged NYC Stations technical attributes as the rule
describes possible decreases in radiated power and antenna height directional antenna
patterns and time sharing and on my Foundations and LLCs side involves the same with
regard to our planned stations indicated above including those within 150 miles of your
Alleged Stations including your Alleged NYC Stations We stand ready to make and abide
by those rule requirements and to demonstrate to you our station operations in compliance
with proof to the degree you hold and qualify to hold any valid stations under FCC
rules
Said arrangements or agreements are impossible to reach or even attempt if
you refuse to provide any station details of your Alleged Stations including actual transmit
power antenna height antenna type including directionality and pattern for particular
transmitters and receivers transceivers on particular transmit and receive frequencies
Accordingly you have been and remain in violation of FCC rule 80.70a9 that is pivotal
for the Foundation and the LLCs to proceed with the particular imminent business and
charitable opportunities indicated above in the paragraphs in boxes and for proceeding
with their other business nationwide with their AMTS A-block licenses and for reasons
noted above their B-block licenses also Your violations block and damage these
opportunities businesses and licenses
10 Thus by the date given in the Summary above provide to me full
documentation of
The FCC rule-required details described in items 4-9 above based

on rule 80.70a of all of your Alleged Stations including first of all your Alleged NYC
Stations that you allege to have constructed and kept in permanent operation under
FCC rule requirements1 along with evidence thereof station site leases station
Communications Act or FCC rules and deliberate frustration offair competition by such
refusal is not allowed under antitrust law and the Communications Act
While FCC rule 80.385b applies to the permissible spacing of geographic AMTS
station from an actual valid incumbent same-channel or co- channel site-based AMTS
station 80.70a also applies with regard to its stated requirements that all same-channel
coast stations licensees must undertake an agreement to minimize interference by the

means described which also greatly increases full and efficient use of the subject same
spectrum As any radio system engineer or educated layman can understand
immediately and as the FCC has often stated in decisions regarding interference and
spectrum efficiency Also for the Foundation and the LLCs to determine how to plan
construct and operate AMTS geographic A-block stations in proximity to your Alleged
NYC Stations and your Alleged Other Stations the same information required under FCC
rule 0.70a is required
That is stations that have not automatically terminated for failure to timely and
properly construct and put into operational service including under .955a2 or ii for
permanent discontinuance including under 1.955a
SSF LLCs to McLM 12.5.2008 Page of 40
Page 62 of 180
equipment purchases and installation reports station construction and operation
logs etc and
You turning in to the FCC for cancellation on the required forms
and with the required information of all your Station Licenses other than those for
the Alleged Stations for which you satisfy item immediately above.1
rest of this page is intentionally left blank

Part
On Turning In for Canceilation Automatically Terminated Station Licenses
And or Rules Requiring Reporting and Fees to the Universal Service Fund
You are aware or under FCC rules are obligated to be aware of all FCC
rules pertaining to your requirements as AMTS station licensees and operators to submit
to the Universal Service Fund required reports and related fees The applicable rules are
primarily in 47 CFR Part 54 and include underlining added
Sec 54.706 Contributions
Entities that provide interstate telecommunications to the public or to
such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public for fee
will be considered telecommunications carriers providing interstate
telecommunications services and must contribute to the universal service
support mechanisms Certain other providers of interstate telecommunica
tions such as payphone providers that are aggregators providers of

interstate telecommunications for fee on non-common carrier basis and
interconnected VoIP providers also must contribute to the universal service
support mechanisms Interstate telecommunications include but are not
limited to
Cellular telephone and paging services
Mobile radio services includes AMTS2
See rules and discussion in Part above
This rule is pursuant to 47 USC 254d

12
See In the Matter of Universal
Service Contribution Methodology Request for Review by
Waterway Communication System LLC and Mobex Network Services LLC of Decision
of the Universal Service Administrator WC Docket No 06-122 Order DA 08-1971

Released August 26 2008 23 FCC Rcd 12836 2008 FCC LEXIS 5919 In sum this
Order found
Page 63 of 180
You have maintained before the FCC your NYC Stations License and other
Stations Licenses for over decade and always described these in FCC filings as public-
coast commercial common carrier stations and operators extensively serving the mobile
maritime radio service market along as you wrote virtually all of the US Pacific Ocean
and US Atlantic Ocean coastlines Hawaii Puerto Rico the Mississippi River waterways
and other inland waterways the Gulf Coast waterways much of the Great Lakes
You have failed to file the required Forms 499-A contribute amounts
due and otherwise comply with the rules and purposes stated in item above of this
Part as described and documented in EXHIBIT below.3 In addition as stated in
footnote below given the number of your Alleged Stations it is impossible that you
would not need to contribute to the Universal Service Fund as you currently state on your
2008 Form 499-A See Exhibit below unless you were not actually operating your
Alleged Stations and providing CMRS services as you have indicated you are not doing in
Request for Review See footnote 13 here Thus actions noted in the preceding
your your
paragraph above are deliberately false if

you actually operated those stations or this
indicates that the Stations Licenses including the NYC Stations License are automatically
terminated under FCC rules for lack of construction operation and/or permanent
maintenance under the FCC rules indicated above including for not being operated as
CMRS if existing and operated at all and must be returned to the FCC for cancellation
under the rules also described above
However if you do not return said stations for cancellation for the reasons
just stated but maintain them as valid then under the noted FCC rules you must file full
and complete Forms 499-A and other filings required for purposes of the Universal Service
Fund and submit all required fees late penalties and other sums due
We deny Maritimes request and find that in accordance with the
Commissions instructions and rules AMTS providers are subject to USF

contribution obligations
Based on the worksheet and rules by which c/c minimis exemption is allowed from
making contributions you could not meet the exemption if you actually were operating
your Alleged Stations as you assert to the FCC and to me which is that you are operating
the Alleged Stations as per your granted FCC applications that resulted in the Stations
Licenses in which you stated you needed and would operate all of the A-block and B-
block spectrum Even if you were operating one of your Alleged Stations in this fashion
with typical customer loading and revenues you would not meet this exemption
13
See the decision cited in footnote 13 above The required 499-A filings must state the
Jurisdictions in Which the Filing Entity Provides Telecommunications Services as
indicated on the Form 499-A itself and in applicable rules That includes States in which
any of your Alleged Stations has an alleged service contour For example you have an
alleged station in the State of Connecticut but do not list that State on the Form 499-A
and you also dont list other States where you have Alleged Stations and radio service
contours asserted in your own FCC filings from said stations
SSF LLCs to MCLM 12.5.2008 Page 10 of 40
Page 64 of 180
Thus by the date given in the Summary above provide to me full
documentation of
The FCC filings for cancellation of your Stations Licenses just

indicated above in this Part
And for any Stations Licenses for which you do not submit such
cancellation filings evidence of curing the FCC rule violations involving the filings
just indicated above in this Part that you were required to submit in the past but
which you did not ever submit for purposes of the Universal Service Fund including
under 54.706 cited above and related rules
Sincerely
is the electronic version Signature on originaL and on file
Warren Havens
President
Attachments
Appendix
Four Exhibits
cc Foundation and LLCs legal counsel
SSFLLCstoMCLM 125.2008 Page 11 of 40
Page 65 of 180
Appendix
Sec 80.409 Station logs
General requirements Logs must be established and properly
maintained as follows
The log must be kept in an orderly manner The required information for the
particular class or category of station must be readily available Key letters or abbreviations
may be used if their proper meaning or explanation is contained elsewhere in the same log
Erasures obliterations or willfbl destruction within the retention period are
prohibited Corrections may be made only by the person originating the entry by striking
out the error initialing the correction and indicating the date of correction
must the vessel of registry and official

Ship station logs identifkj name country
number of the vessel
The station licensee and the radio operator in charge of the station are
responsible for the maintenance of station logs
Availability and retention Station logs must be made available
to authorized Commission employees upon request and retained as follows
Logs must be retained by the licensee for period of two years
from the date of entry and when applicable for such additional periods as required by the
following paragraphs
Logs relating to distress situation or disaster must be retained for three years
from the date of entry
the Commission has notified the licensee of an investigation the related

ii If
logs must be retained until the licensee is specifically authorized in writing to destroy
them
iii Logs relating to any claim or complaint of which the station licensee has
notice must be retained until the claim or complaint has been satisfied or barred by statute
limiting the time for filing suits upon such claims

Logs containing entries required by paragraphs and of
this section must be kept at the principal radiotelephone operating location while the vessel
is
being navigated All entries in their original form must be retained on board the vessel
for at least 30 days from the date of entry Additionally logs required by paragraph of
this section must be retained on board the vessel for period of years from the date of the
last inspection of the ship radio station
Ship radiotelegraph logs must be kept in the principal radiotelegraph operating
room during the voyage

Public coast station loEs Public coast stations must maintain log as follows
ON DUTY must be entered by the operator gjpning duty period followed
by the operators signature OFF DUTY must be entered by the operator being relieved
of or terminating duty followed by the operators signature
The date and time of making an entry must be shown opposite the entry
Failure of equipment to operate as required and incidents tending to unduly
delay communication must be entered
All measurements of the transmitter frequencyies must be entered with
statement of any corrective action taken
Entries must be made giving details of all work performed which may affect the
proper operation of the station The entry must be made signed and dated by the operator
who supervised or performed the work and unless the operator is regularly employed on
5SF LLCs to MCLM 12.5.2008 Page 12 of 40
Page 66 of 180
hill-time basis at the station must also include the mailing address class serial number
and expiration date of the operator license
Entries must be made about the operation of the antenna tower lights when the
radio station has an antenna structure requiring illumination by part 17 of this chapter
All distress or safety related calls transmitted or received must be entered
together with the frequency used and the position of any vessel in need of assistance
Coast stations which maintain watch on 500 kllz must enter the time this
watch is
begun suspended or ended
Page 67 of 180
Exhibits Follow on Next Pages
Page 68 of 180
NEXT
DOCUMENT
Page 69 of 180
From warren havens

Sent Thursday December 27 2007 349 PM
To d.c.brown@att.net ahartmangoodinmaebride.com
Cc bemsteinlaw@earthlink.net Patrick Richard jstobaugh Stobaugh warren
havens
Subject To MCLM-Mobex Request to immediately turn-in invalid licenses to
mitigate year-end damages
By email and Fed Ex with delivery tracking
Susan Depriest and Donald DePriest

and any other owners controllers and officers of
Maritime Communications Land Mobile LLC MCLM
Owners controllers and officers of

Mobex Network Services LLC Mobex
Via email their FCC legal counsel
Dennis Brown
The following information is taken off of the current MCLM licenses on the FCC
ULS database
Dennis Brown
8124 Cooke Court Suite 201
Manassas VA 20109-7406
Email d.c.brown@att.net
Anne Hays Hartman
The following is form the firms website and information the firm provided
today by phone
Anne Hays Hartman
GOODIN MACBRWE SQUERI DAY LAMPREY LLP
505SANSOME STREET SUITE 900
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111

Email 16 of 40
Page
Page 70 of 180
Addressed parties
Herein below by MCLM mean both the entity Maritime Communications
Land Mobile LLC but also all

persons and entities that are related and are
liable along with the entity for the direct and other damages noted herein and
ii the entity Mobex Network Services LLC along with all

persons and entities
that are related and are liable along with the entity for the direct and other
damages noted herein
As you know the LLCs manage listed below including AMTS Consortium LLC
own FCC geographic licenses for AMTS B-block spectrum in most areas of the
nation and for A-block spectrum in lesser but still major parts of the nation
In many of these geographic areas MCLM claims to have validly obtained and
constructed AMTS A-block and/or B-block incumbent site-based licenses that also
have never been permanently discontinued and which thus encumber restrict the
use of the geographic licenses for the same spectrum blocks in said MCLM
site-based licenses within and near their service-coverage contours MCLM
Encumbered Spectrum
As you know my LLCs contest these MCLM claims and we believe that there is
sufficient evidence in the record of which you have been made aware that your
claims are false and that your AMTS licenses are invalid including in the
Northern Pacific AMTS-geographic-license area and the Mississippi River
AMTS-geographic-license area but also in other areas
While your claims if invalid cause various damages each day to my LLCs in
particular cases your perpetuation of the invalid claims can cause particular
irreversible damages at given points in time One such case in explained below
My LLCs and their members have determined that they will donate by the end of
this year 2007 certain non-controlling interests in the LLCs and br certain
geographic spectrum held by the LLCs that is subject to MCLM Encumbered
Spectrum to nonprofit organization Skybridge Spectrum Foundation set up to
develop and System wireless networks

o9rajjn LeMtJf1isportation Page 17 of 40
Page 71 of 180
in the US to reduce accidents pollution congestion fuel consumption and
other public-interest purposes and possibly to another nonprofit organization
also for which said donors will obtain under IRS rules valuable tax
deductions based on the fair-market value of the donations at the time of the
donations
MCLMs invalid claims regarding the MCLM Encumbered Spectrum will cause major
devaluations and damages to the legitimate fair market valuation of these
donations to be made by the end of this year 2007 While the reasons for said
devaluation and damages are for the most part obvious they include among
others reduction in the
geographic-licensed AMTS B-block spectrum that is not
encumbered by the MCLM claims to site-based authorization of the same spectrum

the loss of use of the encumbered spectrum in time which also reduces the
utility and value of the adjacent not-encumbered AMTS geographic spectrum and
of our companion 900 MHz spectrum that our LLCs hold nationwide for use in ITS
wireless networks paired with our AMTS spectrum frequently described in
public FCC filings and in our

public website the cost of legal action to
clear invalidly encumbered spectrum and other reasons The damages will be to
both the donor LLCs and their members and the recipient nonprofit
organizations Based on research to date believe the direct initial
irreversible damages will be multi-milliondollars sum if MCLM does not
perform the following request by the date noted below and other additional
damages may be multiple of that sum My LLCs and their members and possibly
also the nonprofit organization involved intend to pursue these initial and
these other damages against MCLM as defined above to the full extent possible
under law
Thus on behalf of my LLCs and its members making these donations request
and demand that MCLM immediately notify the FCC with copy to me that MCLM
turns in to the FCC for immediate cancellation all of the invalid AMTS licenses
with these clearly identified the FCC Cancellation Notice in order to
mitigate the damages to said donations and to said donors and recipient
entities
If do not receive the above-requested copy of the above-requested FCC

Cancellation Notice by email before Noon on December 30 2007 with ccs to the
persons cced in this email who as you know assist me and my LLCs in FCC and
other legal matters then will assume that MCLM elects to not take the actions
requested and demanded above and in any case it will thereafter be beyond the
time that in
t1 an ns by MCLM will mitigate damages since
Page 18 of 40
Page 72 of 180
all of the described donations must and will be concluded immediately after said
day and time
By addressing the above-noted donations and related damages in this email

do not address other past and ongoing damages that MCLM has already caused and
is causing to the LLCs manage or any other matter In addition by the above
do not imply that MCLM has not already caused damages to the donations
donors and recipient in this year and with regard to previous periods of time
MCLM has clearly been on notice by the undersigned parties as to MCLMs

invalid claims noted above and as to damages those have caused and are causing
to the undersigned parties This email is an attempt to mitigate further damages

with regard to the specific transactions noted above
Sincerely
Is
Warren Havens
President
Telesaurus --
www.telesaurus.com
Telesaurus VPC LLC

AMTS Consortium LLC
Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC
Intelligent Transportation Monitoring Wireless LLC
Skybridge Spectrum Foundation nonprofit corporation
Berkeley California
510 841 2220
cc Litigation legal counsel for immediately above listed legal entities Mr

Bernstein and Mr Richards
Page 73 of 180
From warren havens
Sent Monday December 31 2007 951 AM

To ftc.brown@att.net ahartmangoodinmacbride com
Cc bemsteinlaw@earthlink.net Patrick Richard jstobaugh Stobaugh
Subject Re To MCLM-Mobex Request to immediately turn-in invalid licenses to
mitigate year-end damages
Addressed parties
The below deadline of Noon on December 30 2007 is hereby extended to today at
PM Pacific Time to make every attempt to mitigate the damages noted below
Warren Havens
On Dec 27 2007 at 349 PM warren havens wrote
By email and Fed Ex with delivery tracking
Susan Depriest and Donald DePriest

and any other owners controllers and officers of
Owners controllers and officers of
Mobex Network Services LLC Mobex
Via email their FCC legal counsel
Dennis Brov LLCs to MCLM 125.2008 Page 20 of 40
Page 74 of 180
The following infonnation is taken off of the current MCLM licenses on the
FCC ULS database

Dennis Brown
Email d.eirown@attnet
Anne Hays Hartman
The following is form the firms website and information the firm provided
today by phone
Anne Hays Hartman
000DIN MACBRIDE SQUERI DAY LAMPREY LLP
505SANSOME STREET SUITE 900
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111

Email ahartmangoodinmacbride.com
Addressed parties
Herein below by MCLM mean both the entity Maritime
Communications Land Mobile LLC but also all persons and entities that are
related and are liable along with the entity for the direct and other damages
noted herein and ii the entity Mobex Network Services LLC along with all
persons and entities that are related and are liable along with the entity for
the direct and other damages noted herein
As you
know the LLCs manage listed below including AMTS Consortium
LLC own FCC geographic licenses for AMTS B-block spectrum in most areas of
the nation and for A-block spectrum in lesser but still major parts of the
nation In many of these geographic areas MCLM claims to have validly obtained
and constructed AMTS A-block and/or B-block incumbent site-based licenses that
also have never been permanently discontinued and which thus encumber
restrict the use of the geographic licenses for the same spectrum blocks
in said MCLM site-based licenses within and near their service-coverage
contours MCLM Encumbered Spectrum
As you know my LLCs contest these MCLM claims and we believe that there
is sufficient of which you have been made aware that

21 of 40
Page
Page 75 of 180
your claims are false and that your AMTS licenses are invalid including in
the Northern Pacific AMTS-geographic-license area and the Mississippi River
AMTS-geographic-license area but also in other areas
While your claims if invalid cause various damages each day to my LLCs
in particular cases your perpetuation of the invalid claims can cause
particular irreversible damages at given points in time One such case in
explained below
My LLCs and their members have determined that they will donate by the end
of this year 2007 certain non-controlling interests in the LLCs and br
certain geographic spectrum held by the LLCs that is subject to MCLM

Encumbered Spectrum to nonprofit organization Skybridge Spectrum
Foundation set up to develop and operate Intelligent Transportation System
wireless networks in the US to reduce accidents pollution
congestion fuel consumption and other public-interest purposes and

possibly to another nonprofit organization also for which said donors will
obtain under IRS rules valuable tax deductions based on the fair-market
value of the donations at the time of the donations
MCLMs invalid claims regarding the MCLM Encumbered Spectrum will cause
major devaluations and damages to the legitimate fair market valuation of
these donations to be made by the end of this year 2007 While the reasons
for said devaluation and damages are for the most part obvious they include
among others reduction in the geographic-licensed AMTS B-block spectrum that
is not encumbered by the MCLM claims to site-based authorization of the same
spectrum the loss of use of the encumbered spectrum in time which also
reduces the utility and value of the adjacent not-encumbered AMTS geographic
spectrum and of our companion 900 MHz spectrum that our LLCs hold nationwide
for use in ITS wireless networks paired with our AMTS spectrum frequently
described in public FCC filings and in our
public website the cost of legal
action to clear invalidly encumbered spectrum and other reasons The damages
will be to both the donor LLCs and their members and the recipient nonprofit
organizations Based on research to date believe the direct initial
irreversible damages will be multi-milliondollars sum if MCLM does not
perform the following request by the date noted below and other additional
damages may be multiple of that sum My LLCs and their members and possibly
also the nonprofit organization involved intend to pursue these initial and
these other damages against MCLM as defined above to the full extent
possible und 1Csto McLM 12.5.2008 Page 22 of 40
Page 76 of 180
Thus on behalf of my LLCs and its members making these donations
request and demand that MCLM immediately notify the FCC with copy to me
that MCLM turns in to the FCC for immediate cancellation all of the invalid
AMTS licenses with these clearly identified the FCC Cancellation Notice
in order to mitigate the damages to said donations and to said donors and
entities
recipient

persons cced in this email who as you know assist me and my LLCs in FCC
and other legal matters then will assume that MCLM elects to not take the
actions requested and demanded above and in any ease it will thereafter be
beyond the time that in this year any such actions by MCLM will mitigate
damages since all of the described donations must and will be concluded
immediately after said day and time

do not address other past and ongoing damages that MCLM has already caused
and is causing to the LLCs manage or any other matter In addition by the
above do not imply that MCLM has not already caused damages to the
donations donors and recipient in this year and with regard to previous
periods of time
MCLM has clearly been on notice by the undersigned parties as to MCLMs

invalid claims noted above and as to damages those have caused and are
causing to the undersigned parties This email is an attempt to mitigate
fbrther damages with regard to the specific transactions noted above
Sincerely
Is
Warren Havens
President
Telesaurus --
www.telesaurus.com
Telesaurus
XN MCLM 12.5.2008 Page 23 of 40
Page 77 of 180
AMTS Consortium LLC
Berkeley California
510 841 2220
cc Litigation legal counsel for immediately above listed legal entities Mr

Bernstein and Mr Richards
Page 78 of 180
NEXT
DOCUMENT
Page 79 of 180
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC gave no response to the above request

of December 27 2007
Page 80 of 180
NEXT
DOCUMENT
Page 81 of 180
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLCs Fonn 499-A and its Predecessor-in-Interests
Mobex Network Services LLC Form 499-A Do not List Connecticut
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC MCLM holds and alleges to operate AMTS
licensed stations in and around Connecticut but is not listing Connecticut on its 2008 Form 499-
MCLM did not file Form 499-A prior to April 2008 per FCC online records even though it
has held AMTS licenses since 2005 and its predecessor-in-interest Mobex Network Services
LLC Mobex did not list Connecticut on its Form 499-A Thus both MCLM and Mobex
have not listed Connecticut as jurisdiction where either one has been providing
telecommunications services
Call Sign Station Location and Station City and State of MCLM Alleged New York New
Jersey and Connecticut Stations
Call Sign WRV374

Station Location 14 Selden NY
Station Location 15 Verona NJ
Station Location 18 Valhalla NY
Station Location 25 Perrinville NJ
Station Location 33 New York NY
Station Location 40 Hamden CT
Attached below are the following
MCLM April 2008 Form 499-A from FCC online Form 499-A database see
hp//fial1foss.fcc.gav/cgb/form499/499a.cfm
Search Results from the FCCs Form 499-A online database as of 11/1/07 showing that
there is no Form 499-A on file for MCLM
Mobex April 2006 Form 499-A from FCC online database printed 11/1/07
Note As witnessed by the below records MCLM filed its first Form 499-A per
the FCCs online database on April 2008 even though MCLM has held AMTS
station licenses since 2005 and the Form 499-A is required to be filed annually
SSF LLCs to MCLM U.5.2008 Page 28 of 40
Page 82 of 180
FCC Form 499-A Detailed Results of3
Case 2:08-cv-03094-KSH-PS Document 51-6 Filed 02/18/11 Page 30 of 62 Page
PageID: 1411
1Sd FCC Home Search Updates E-Filing Initiatives For Consumers

Find People
COB Form 499A Search Results Detailed Information
FCC CGB Home 499-A Search Form 499-A Detail rcc site map
FCC Form 499-A Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet
DETAILED INFORMATION
Filer Identification Information
499 Filer ID Number 827056

Registration Current as of 4/1/2008
Legal Name of Reporting Entity Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC
Doing Business As Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC
Principal Communications Type Other Mobile
Universal Service Fund Contributor No
Contact USAC at 8886418722 if this is not correct
Holding Company Maritime Communications/Land Mobile
Registration Number CORESID 0013587779
Management Company
Headquarters Address 6200 Hwy 62
Bldg 2501
Suite 875
City Jeffersonville
State IN
ZIP Code 47130
Customer Inquiries Address 6200 Hwy 62
Bldg 2501
Suite 875
City Jeffersonville
State IN
ZIP Code 47130
Customer Inquiries Telephone 8122808609
Other Trade Names MCLM LLC
Agent for Service of Process

Local/Alternate Agent for Service
of Process
Telephone
Extension
Fax
Email
Business Address of Agent for
Mail or Hand Service of Documents
City
State
ZIP Code
D.C Agent for Service of Process Corporation Service Comp

Telephone 8009279801
Extension
Fax 3026365454
EMail
Business Address of D.C Agent for
City
State
ZIP Code
FCC Registration Information
8SF LLCs to MCLM 12.52008 Page 29 of 40
http//tjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgb/form499/499detail.cfinFilerNum827056 12/2/2008
Page 83 of 180
FCC Form 499-A Detailed Results of
PageID: 1412
Chief Executive Officer John Reardon
Business Address 215 Lee Street
Suite 318
City Alexandria
State VA
ZIP Code 22314
Chairman or Other Senior Officer Robert Smith

Business Address 6200 Hwy 62
Bldg 2501
Suite 875
City Jeffersonville
State IN
ZIP Code 47130
President or Other Senior Officer

Business Address
City
State
ZIP Code
Jurisdictions in Which the Filing Entity Provides Telecommunications Services
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Use browser Back button to return to results page

This database reflects filings received by USAC as of Nov 04 2008
FCC Home Search iipdates E-Fiting Initiatives For Consumers Find People
Federal Communications Commission Phone -888-CALL-FCC 1-588-225- Privacy Policy
445 12th Street SW 5322 Website Policies Notices
Washington DC 20554 TTY 1-886-TELL-FCC 1-888-835- Required Browser PIgS

More FCC Contact Information.. 5322 Freedom of Information Act
Fax 1-866-418-0232
E-mail fccinfo@fccgay
http//fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgb/form499/499detail.cfmiFilerNum827056 12/2/2008
Page 84 of 180
Page of
Case
FCC 2:08-cv-03094-KSH-PS
Form 499-A Detailed Results Document 51-6 Filed 02/18/11 Page 32 of 62 PageID: 1413
Page 31 of 40
SSF LLCs to MCLM 12.5.2008
12/2/2008
Page 85 of 180
FCC Form 499-A Search Results Page of
FCC Home Search Updates E-Filing Initiatives For Consumers

Find People
COB Form 499A Search Results
FCC 0GB Home 499-A Search Form 499-A Search Results FCC site map
SEARCH RESULTS
No records were found matching your criteria
Name Trade Name or DBA contains Maritime Communications
last reviewed/updated on 08/15/06
FCC Home Search ilpdates E-Filinci Initiatives For Consumers Find People
Federal Communications Commission Phone 1-888-CALL-FCC 1-888-225- Privacy Policy
Washington DC 20554 TTY 1888-TELL FCC 1-888-835 Required Browser Plug-ins
More FCC Contact Information.. 5322 Freedom of lnfcrmaticn Act
Fax 1-866418-0232
E-mail fccinfoafcc.gov
SSF LLCs to MCLM 12.5.2008 Page 32 of4O
http//gullfoss2 fcc.gov/cib/form499/499results.cfm 11/1/2007
Page 86 of 180
FCC Form 499-A Search Results lot
Case 2:08-cv-03094-KSH-PS Document 51-6 Filed 02/18/11 Page 34 of 62Page
PageID: 1415

Find People
CGB Form 499A Search Results
iE COB Rome 499-A Search Form 499-A Search Results FCC site ms
SEARCH RESULTS
No records were found matching your criteria1
Name Trade Name or DBA contains Maritime Communications/Land Mobile
FCC Home Search Updates E-Filing Initiatives For Consumers Find Peopj
445 12th Street SW 5322 Website Poflcies Notices
Washington DC 20554 TTY 1-888-TELL-FCC 1-888-835- Required Browser Plug-ins
Wore FCC Contact lnformation. 5322 Freedom of Information Act

Fax 1-866-418-0232
E-mail fccinfofgov
http//gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cib/form499/499results.cfm 11/1/2007
Page 87 of 180
PCC Form
Case 499-A Search Results
2:08-cv-03094-KSH-PS Document 51-6 Filed 02/18/11 Page 35 of 62Page of
PageID: 1416

Find People
CGB Form 499A Search Results
FCC CGB Home 499-A Search Form 499-A Search Results FOO site map
SEARCH RESULTS
No records were found matching your criteria
Name Trade Name or DBA contains MC/LM
Datnrn tn QnnrJ 1rm
FCC Home Search Updates E-Filinq Initiatives For Consumers Find People
Washington DC 20554 flY 1-858-TELL-FCC 1-888-835- Required Browser Pluq-ins

Fax 1-866-418-0232
E-mail fcoinfo@fcc.gov
http //gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cib/form499/499results.cfm 11/1/2007
Page 88 of 180
PageID: 1417

Find People
CGB Form 499A Search Results Detailed Information
FCC CGB Home 499-A Search Form 499-A Detail

FCC site reap

Legal Name of Reporting Entity Mobex Network Services LLC- CONSOLIDATED
Doing Business As Mobex Network Services LLC
Principal Communications
Type Other Mobile
Contact USAC at 888-6418722 if this is not Correct
Holding Company Mobex Communications Inc
Registration Number CORESID 0002158152
Management Company
Headquarters Address 6200 Hwy 62
Bldg 2501 Suite 875
City Jeffersonville
State IN
ZIP Code 47130
Customer Inquiries Address 6200 Hwy 62
Bldg 2501 Suite 875
City Jeffersonville
State IN
ZIP Code 47130
Other Trade Names Regionet Wireless
Regionet Wireless Operations
Mobex
Waterway Communications System Inc
Waterway Communications System LLC
WATERCOM

of Process
Telephone
Extension
Fax
E-mail
Mail or Hand Service Documents
of
City
State
ZIP Code
D.C Agent for Service of Process CT CORP CT Corporation Syst

Extension
Fax 2025723100
EMail
http//gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cib/form499/499detail.cfiriFilerNum822896 11/1/2007
Page 89 of 180
PageID: 1418

Mail or Hand Service ofDocuments 1015 15th Street NW Suite 1000
City Washington
State DC
ZIP Code 20005

Chief Executive Officer David Predmore
Business Address 2934 Fox Tail Court
City Woodbridge
State VA
ZIP Code 22192
Chairman or Other Senior Officer John Reardon

Business Address 218 Lee St
Suite 318
City Alexandria
State VA
ZIP Code 22314
President or Other Senior Officer Robert Smith

Business Address 6200 Hwy 62
Bldg 2501 Suite 875
City Jeffersonville
State IN
ZIP Code 47130
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
http//gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cib/form499/499detail.cftnFilerNum822896 11/1/2007
Page 90 of 180
FCC Porn 499-A Detailed Results of
Case 2:08-cv-03094-KSH-PS Document 51-6 Filed 02/18/11 Page 38 of 62Page
PageID: 1419
FCC Home Search Updates E-Filinci Initiatives For Consumers Find Peooie
Washington DC 20554 TTY 1-888-TELL-FCC 1-888-835- 5gquired Browser PIugdn

Fax 1-866-418-0232
E-mail fccinfo@fcc.gov
http//gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cib/form499/499detail.efinFilerNum822896 11/1/2007
Page 91 of 180
NEXT
DOCUMENT
Page 92 of 180
FCC Rule Section 1.946d
Section 1.946 Construction and coverage requirements
Licensee notification of compliance licensee who commences service or operations
within the construction period or meets its or substantial services

coverage obligations
within the coverage period must notify the Commission by filing FCC Form 601 The
notification must be filed within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable construction
or coverage period Where the authorization is site-specific if service or operations have
begun using some but not all of the authorized transmitters the notification must show
to which specific transmitters it applies
Note The undersigned parties to the instant letter have conducted research
of FCC paper records and online databases and have not found records of
Form 60 is having been filed by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile
LLC to comply with the above rule section for the vast majority of its
AMTS stations
Page 93 of 180
Certificate of Service
Warren Havens hereby certit5 that have on this 5th

day of December 2008 caused
to be served by placing into the USPS mail system with first-class postage affixed and into the
Federal and otherwise noted

Express package system for overnight delivery as below copy of
the foregoing letter its appendix and its exhibits to the following
Sandra DePriest and Donald DePriest

206 North 8th Street
Columbus MS 39701
GINA GRAHAM Legal counsel to Maritime Communications/Land Mobile

GRAHAM CURTIN PA
HEADQUARTERS PLAZA
P.O BOX 1991
MORRISTOWN NJ 07962-1991
Also via email to ggraham@grahamcurtin.com
ROBERT MATJTRIELLO Legal counsel to Maritime Communications/Land Mobile

GRAHAM CURTIN PA
HEADQUARTERS PLAZA
P.OBOX 1991
MORRISTOWN NJ 07962
Also via email to rmauriellograhamcurtin.com
Dennis Brown Legal counsel to Maritime Communications/Land Mobile

Also via email to d.c.browniatt.net
John Reardon President and CEO

6200 Hwy 62 East
Bldg 2501 Suite 275
Jeffersonville IN 47130
Also via email to john.reardonmcIinllc.com
/s/ Warren Havens is the electronic version Signature on original and on file
Warren Havens
5SF LLCs to MCLM 12.52008 Page 40 of 40
Page 94 of 180

And donor LLCs
Berkeley CA 94704
510.841.2220
December 2008
Via email Federal Express and US mail
Susan Cooper and Robert Cooper

Co-controllers of
Paging Systems Inc

At addresses on Certificate of Service
Re Further notice demanding cancellation or details required under FCC rules of
your alleged validly constructed and maintained AMTS licensed stations for the
AIVITS B-Block spectrum in the greater New York City metropolitan area Call
Sign WQA21 the Alleged NYC Station and the NYC Station License and
of other alleged AMTS stations and station licenses together with the Alleged
NYC Station and the NYC Station License the Alleged Stations and the
Stations Licenses
Mrs and Mr Cooper
Summary
This is further demand prior to legal action in addition to pending court action
that by no later then December 12 2008 you provide to me definitive written
documentation of the following in sum further described later herein
The FCC-rule-required written notices to the FCC for cancellation
of your NYC Station License and your other Stations Licenses that have automatically
terminated under FCC rules and for all Stations Licenses for which you do not submit
said cancellation notices--
The FCC-rule- required and -specified actual station details to be
given to me for the Foundation and the LLCs defmed below as your co-channel AMTS
licensees of your Alleged NYC Station and the other Alleged Stations
have both of the above in the past as evidenced herein including in the
requested
Exhibits To be clear if you do not now do the above then intend to have the Foundation
and Supporting LLCs defined below which manage take appropriate legal action to
obtain compliance with the FCC rules that are violated and to seek damages caused by the
past and ongoing violations of said rules This is in addition to claims currently filed in
SSP LLCs to PSI 12.4.08 Page of 67
Page 95 of 180
court and pending against you related to your violation of FCC rules and the
Communications Act
In this regard
__ recent months
___ and weeks
--
business opporturuties have arisen for
the Foundation and the LLCs in the

greater New York City area and other parts
of the
United States which require planning and use of AMTS B-block stations with their
respective AMTS B-block licenses in those areas One of the opportunities involves
spectrum lease under FCC rule 1.9010 discussed below These oyportunities are being
blocked and damaged by your willful continued violation of FCC rules described herein
The damages are in the millions of dollars and other damages cannot be measured
economically These economic and other damages will or may become irreparable soon if
you do not comply with the demands of this letter by the date set forth above
--_____ __ _____
Further in this regard as noticed to
you at the end of year 2007 see EXHIBIT
below1 the LLCs again plan this year by no later than December 30 2008 to donate and
assign to the Foundation additional AMTS B-block spectrum including in the New York
City region and including within the radio service and radio interference contours that you
allege before the FCC see footnotes 11 and 14 below for
your Alleged NYC station jf
you do not comply with the demands of this letter by the date set forth above you will
cause irreparable major harm to the donor LLCs and the Foundation and the Foundation
reject the donations

may
Preliminary Information
As you know e.g as shown in FCC proceedings in which you are
principal party you are familiar with the fact that am the President and controlling
person in the legal entities for who speak in this email
ii Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined herein have meanings
defined in the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that apply to the Station
and the Station license Also you and your refer to Paging Systems Inc and to all
parties that have control in that company or are controlled by that company and others
perpetuating the fraud and deliberate violations of law involved indicated herein not
excluding alleged professional counsel and me and my refers to me as the
controlling person in the Foundation and its donor LLCs defined below and to those
entities
AMTS Consortium LLC in fact did donate and assign to our Foundation at the end of
year 2007 B-block AMTS spectrum in the New York City region within your alleged
radio service contour and radio interference contour of your Alleged NYC Station This is
shown in FCC records And in fact the donor LLC suffered the major damages that
noted in Exhibit below as determined in part by the professional appraisal required for
the donors LLC income tax filing in which it claimed this donation for tax benefit
SSF LLCS to PSI 12.4.08 Page of 67
Page 96 of 180
iii As shown in FCC records Skybridge Spectrum Foundation the
Foundation by charitable donation assignments of FCC licensed spectrum holds

AMTS B-block licensed spectrum in the New York City metropolitan area informed
you of this intended assignment at the end of year 2007 as shown in EXHIBIT hereto
Also this donation assignment was from AMTS Consortium LLC with which you are
familiar e.g see Exhibits hereto out of its AMTS geographic license holdings in the
nation In addition as you know other LLCs that manage that also support by charitable
donations the Foundation and that also hold AMTS B-block geographic licensed spectrum
throughout the nation except for areas arQund the Great Lakes include Telesaurus VPC
LLC and Intelligent Transportation Monitoring Wireless LLC This demand notice to
you is on behalf of the Foundation and the just listed LLCs the LLCs
iv attach hereto documents that demonstrate that have in the
past attempted
to obtain from you information needed as the basis of your compliance with FCC rules
described in the Summary above and further described below including but not limited
to 80.70a You have not complied in any form or fashion but instead have frustrated
the purposes of that and related rules including 80.385b and At the start of the
Exhibits is list of the Exhibits and short descriptions of each including notes on your
violation and frustration of noted FCC rules
The further attempt in this letter is not required prior to the above-indicated
new legal action but by the attempt seek to mitigate damages reduce litigation expense
and provide further summary record for said action
Further Demand for Compliance with FCC Rules
Part
on Tuning In for Cancellation Automatically Terminated Station Licenses
and or 80.70a and Related Rules on Providing Details of Valid Stations
First as demanded herein you should without further delay turn in to the
FCC for cancellation your invalid Station Licenses that automatically terminated due to
your failure to construct operate andor maintain them under FCC time deadlines and
independently under other rule requirements including but not limited to interconnection
actual public common carrier service continuity of multi-station radio coverage etc.
Evidence among much other evidence of which you are aware that you did
not under said FCC rule requirements construct operate and maintain the Alleged
Stations and Thus that they automatically terminated includes the evidence shown in
EXHIBIT re your not reporting the stations as constructed and in operation to the FCC
under the rule requirements and with the required form and details EXHIBIT re your
not reporting the stations to the FCC-related Universal Service Fund and your not paying
the fees due and EXHIBIT re sworn statement from the site
manager of your Alleged
5SF LLCs to P51 124.08 Page of 67
Page 97 of 180
NYC Station WNET and FOIA documentation from the Port Authority of NY-NJ which
owned the building that you did not ever construct said station.2
However if
you continue to refuse to turn in the invalid Station Licenses
and instead continue to maintain them before the FCC and the market and your
competitors including the Foundation and the LLCs you must comply with the following
demand to stop violating the noted FCC rules and comply with their requirements
You are aware or under FCC rules are obligated to be aware ofall FCC
rules pertaining to your Alleged Stations and Station Licenses These include FCC Part
80 rules that apply to the AMTS radio service Part 80 of 47 CFR including the
following underlining and items in brackets added
80.5 Definitions
Station One or more transmitters or combination of transmitters and
receivers including the accessory equipment necessary at one location for
carrying on radio communication services
80.70 Special conditions relative to coast station VHF facilities
Coast stations which transmit 9n the same radio channel above 150
MHz must minimize interference by_reducing radiated power by
decreasing antenna height or by installing directional antennas Coast
stations at locations separated by less than 241 kilometers 150 miles

which transmit on the same radio channel above 150 MHz must also
Other indirect evidence includes among others your filing and maintaining for years
with the FCC many deliberately false reports of station construction and then your filing
of deliberately false applications to the FCC which were granted for renewing AMTS
station licenses for stations that had long since been terminated for failure to construct by
the construction deadline which you later admitted ii your deliberately false repeated
reports to the FCC of construction of your Alleged NYC Station at the top of the WNET
controlled antenna mast at the old One World Trade Center and alleged operation up to 9-
11-2001 which falsity was revealed to the FCC in the NUSCO proceeding uhder
Application FileNo 0002147762 when you eventually admitted when caught in the lie
by the proof from WNBT and the Port Authority that you actually did not construct and
operate on the top of that mast by changing your story to assert with no proof that you
constructed and operated somewhere on the rooftop of that building iiiyour failure to
provide to us as required in FCC rules shown in this letter of any proof Or even any
alleged details of your Alleged Stations and other evidence partly in FCC records
5SF LLCs to PSI 12.4.08 Page of 67
Page 98 of 180
consider time-sharing arrangement The Commission may order station
changes if agreement cannot be reached between the involved licensees.3
80.409 Station Logs.5
iii Logs relating to any claim or complaint of which the station
licensee has notice must be retained until the claim or comulaint has been
satisfied or barred by statute limiting the time for filing suits upon such
claims
This rule applies to AMTS which is coast station radio service that is above 150
MHz on its face and as noted by the FCC full Commission in In the Matter of
Amendment of the Commissions Rules Concerning Maritime Communications PR Docket
No FOURTHREPORTAND ORDER AND THIRD FURTHER
92-257 RM-9664
NOTICE OFPROFOSEDRULEMAKUTG FCC 00-370 15 FCC Rcd 22585 2000 FCC
LEXIS 6084
22 RegioNet also seeks ruling that Section 80.70 of our Rules which
requires coast stations above 150 MHz to minimize interference to other
coast stations does not apply to AMTS stationsji but because RegioNet
has not explained how Section 80.70 prevents AMTS licensees from using
new technology or offering additional services we find this
request to be
beyond the scope of this proceeding pj.QQ
n99 RegioNet Comments at citing 47 C.F.R 80.70

nlOO See Second Further Notice 12 FCC Rcd at 17008
The FCC did not in the Final Rules set forth in the above-noted RO change 80.70 to
make it not applicable to AIvITS as RegioNet asked nor at any time thereafter to this day
has there been any change to this rule including its applicability to AMTS site-based and
geographic stations Also as you know and as this RO lists at the end you submitted
Comments in this docket in the NPRM that led to this RO

When the FCC created rules for geographic AMTS licenses extended in 80.479b it
the application of 80.70a from site-based AMTS stations including your Alleged
Stations to geographic licensed stations including those of the Foundation and the LLCs
Section 80.70a creates obligations and rights for the co-channel same frequency coast
station licensees involved
Additional relevant parts of 80.409 are in Appendix hereto
Page 99 of 180
1.9010 IDe facto control standard for spectrum leasing arrangement6
1ii The licensee must maintain reasonable degree of actual working
knowledge about the lessees activities and facilities that affect its
spectrum
ongoing compliance with the Commissions policies and rules These
responsibilities include Coordinating operations and modifications of the
spectrum lessees system to ensure compliance with Commission rules
regarding non-interference with co-channel and adjacent channel licensees
and any authorized spectrum user. The licensee is responsible for
resolving all interference-related matters including conflicts between its
spectrum lessee and any other spectrum lessee or licensee or authorized
spectrum user...
b1iii above as to interference issues
However despite the preceding 80.70a and other rules and my requests
for the information they require you to provide to me you have refUsed to supply to me
for the Foundation and the LLCs any said information on your Alleged NYC Station and
other Alleged Stations Again for example see the EXHIBITS hereto
Station is defined term as you know the rule is given above

station is not the same as the maximum technical parameters of granted license
Application as partially reflected on the license You are required to have kept and
maintained from the commencement of each such alleged station station logs as shown in
the above cited rule 80.409 Station and its subsumed term transmitter is the
subject and pivotal defined term in principal FCC rules relevant to this letter as they
existed in the time periods relevant to your Alleged Stations including rules on required
construction including 1.946 including subsection 80.475a and 80.49a3
required operation including 80.70a and the related 80.385b and rcquired and
automatic termination for failing to timely and properly construct or maintain including
1.955a2 and 1.946c and 80.49a3-- each discussed herein
By refUsing to supply the details of your Alleged NYC Station and other
Alleged Stations you are violating FCC rule 80.70a since it orders that same-channel
public coast including AMTS licensees fljj arrange to minimize interference by the
Section 80.70a station details which as the rule states are for reduction of co-channel
channel interference as to station characteristics transmit power and antenna

and number of transmitter channels is
height directionality in use etc also required for
the Foundation and the LLCs to proceed with the spectrum lease opportunity noted above
with regard to interference control obligations and rights including under the rule cite
above 1.9010
Indeed you have not even reported any such station to the FCC under requirements of
rules as actually constructed and placed into operation Such reports would have provided
some station details including which specific site-based transmitters were actually
constructed and in operational service See EXHIBIT hereto
5SF LLCs to P51 12.4.08 Page of 67
Page 100 of 180

stated technical means and must also if within 150 miles and to be clear the
Foundation and LLCs plan stations at this time and always have on AMTS block
spectrum within 150 miles of all of your Alleged Stations with specc urgency in some
areas involving the paragraphs in boxes above consider an arrangement on time sharing
In addition you are also frustrating the purposes and functions of and the Foundations
and LLCs rights under 80.385b to

space stations under the noted F50 50 technical
showing method.8
Said arrangements on your side involve possible modifications to your
Alleged Stations including the Alleged NYC Stations technical attributes as the rule
describes possible decreases in radiated power and antenna height directional antenna
patterns and time sharing and on my Foundations and LLCs side involves the same with
regard to our planned stations indicated above including those within 150 miles of your
Alleged Stations including your Alleged NYC Station We stand ready to make and abide
by those rule requirements and to demonstrate to you our stations operations in compliance
with proof to the degree you hold and qualify to hold any valid stations under FCC
rules
Said arrangements or agreements are impossible to reach or even attempt
since refuse to station details of your Alleged Statins including actual

you provide any
transmit power antenna height antenna type including directionality and pattern for
particular transmitters and receivers transceivers on particular transmit and receive
frequencies Accordingly you have been and remain in violation of FCC rule 80.70a9
that is pivotal for the Foundation and the LLC to proceed with the particular imminent
business and charitable opportunities indicated above in the paragraphs in

boxes and for
The required under

details 80.70a would allow the noted site-spacing engineering
showing 80.385b and without such details no

in such showing can be calculated and
made 80.70a predates 80.385b and thus there was no need to repeat in 80.385b
the station-details requirements that already existed in 80.70a Only licensee who is
maintaining afraudulent claim to alleged stations and station licenses would refuse to
provide as required under said law to another co-channel same frequency coast station
licensee the details of and proof of its alleged stations Fraud is not perm itted under the
Communications Act or FCC rules and deliberate frustration offair competition by such
refusal is not allowed under antitrust law and the Communications Act
While FCC rule 80.385b applies to the permissible spacing of geographic AIVITS
station from an actual valid incumbent same-channel or co- channel site-based AMTS
station 80.70a also applies with regard to its stated requirements that all same-channel
coast stations licensees must undertake an agreement to minimize interference by the
means described which also greatly increases full and efficient use of the subject same
spectrum As any radio system engineer or educated layman can understand

immediately and as the FCC has often stated in decisions regarding interference and
spectrum efficiency Also for the Foundation and the LLCs to determine how to plan
construct and operate AMTS geographic B-block stations in proximity to your Alleged
NYC Station and your Alleged Other Stations the same information required under FCC
rule 80.70a is required
Page 101 of 180

proceeding with its other business nationwide with their AMTS B-block licenses Your
violations block and damage these opportunities businesses and licenses
10 Thus by the date given in the Summary above provide to me full
documentation of
The FCC rule-required details described in items 4-9 above based

on rule 80.70a of all of your Alleged Stations including first of all your Alleged NYC
Station that
you allege to have constructed and kept in permanent operation under
FCC rule requirements along with evidence thereof station site leases station
equipment purchases and installation reports station construction and operation
logs etc and
You turning in to the FCC for cancellation on the required forms

and with the required information of all
your Station Licenses other than those for
the Alleged Stations for which you satisfy item immediately above.2
The rest of this page is intentionally left blank.J
10
That is stations that have not automatically terminated for failure to timely and
properly construct and put into operational service including under .955a2 or ii for
permanent discontinuance including under .955a3
As shown in
your response letter dated 1.16.2007 at the end of EXHIBIT hereto you
falsely stated to me that you NYC Station was constructed and operated as listed in the
FCC license records of that station namely as you originally submitted in your application
for that license That was false for reasons noted noted in footnote For that reason
part
and the others noted in the just referenced footnote including your many false and
fraudulent FCC AMTS license filings which you also ended up admitting in sworn
statements we will not accept any more assertions by you unsupported by evidence
which if
any exists you are required to keep as part of your FCC required station logs
and data as to the required details of your Alleged Stations including the Alleged NYC
Station Further the details in the FCC license records of the Alleged Stations do not
contain the required reports of construction referenced in this letter and subject of
EXHIBIT hereto said reports required you to provide certain station details including the
transmitter frequencies actually in use The FCC license records you refer to in your
1.16.2007 letter noted above are no more than some of the technical information from your
original applications for proposed stations and do not contain details as to actual stations
you were or are operating if any Thus you need to provide the details demanded herein
along with credible proof of those details
12
See rules and discussion in Part above
SSP LLCs to PSI 12.4.08 PageS of 67
Page 102 of 180

Part
On Turning In for Cancellation Automatically Terminated Station Licenses
AndJ or Rules Requiring Reporting and Fees to the Universal Service Fund
You are aware or under FCC rules are obligated to be aware of all FCC
rules pertaining to your requirements as AMTS station alleged station licensees and
operators to submit to the Universal Service Fund required reports and related fees The
applicable rules are primarily in 47 CFR Part 54 and include underlining added
Sec 54J Contributions
Entities that provide interstate telecommunications to the public or to
such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public for fee
will be considered telecommunications carriers providing interstate
telecommunications services and must contribute to the universal service
support mechanisms Certain other providers of interstate telecommunica
tions such as payphone providers that are aggregators providers of
interstate telecommunications for fee on non-common carrier basis and
interconnected VoIP providers also must contribute to the universal service
support mechanisms Interstate telecommunications include but are not
limited to
Cellular telephone and paging services
Mobile radio services includes AMTS3
You have maintained before the FCC your NYC Station License and other
Stations Licenses for over decade and always described these in FCC filings as public-
coast commercial common carrier stations and operators extensively serving the mobile
maritime radio service market along as you wrote virtually all of the US Pacific Ocean
and US Atlantic Ocean coastlines Hawaii Puerto Rico and much of the Great Lakes
You have failed to file the required Forms 499-A contribute amounts
due and otherwise comply with the rules and purposes stated in item above of this
This rule is pursuant to 47 USC 254d

13
See In the Matter of Universal Service Contribution Methodology Request for Review by
Waterway Communication System LLC and Mobex Network Services LLC of Decision
of the Universal Service Administrator WC Docket No 06-122 Order DA 08-1971

Released August 26 2008 23 FCC Rcd 12836 2008 FCC LEXIS 5919 In sum this
Order found
We deny Maritimes request and fmd that in accordance with the
Commissions instructions and rules AMTS providers are subject to USF

contribution obligations...
5SF tiCs to PSI 12.4.08 Page of 67
Page 103 of 180

Part as described and documented in EXHIBIT below.14 This demonstrates that--
California
apart possibly from your Alleged Stations in the State of California you do list
on the few 499-A filings you filed but no other States including New York New Jersey
and Connecticut-- your actions noted in the preceding paragraph above are fraudulent
and false and that the other Stations Licenses including the NYC Station License are
automatically tenninated under FCC rules for lack of construction operation and/or
permanent maintenance under the FCC rules indicated above and must be returned to the
FCC for cancellation under the rules also described above
However if
you do not return said stations for cancellation for the reasons
just stated but maintain them as valid then under the noted FCC rules you must file full
and complete Forms 499-A and other filings required for purposes of the Universal Service
Fund and submit all required fees late penalties and other sums due
Thus by the date given in the Summary above provide to me full
documentation of
The FCC filings for cancellation of your Stations Licenses just

indicated above in this Part
And for any Stations Licenses for which you do not submit such
cancellation filings evidence of curing the FCC rule violations involving the filings
just indicated above in this Part that you were required to submit in the past but
which you did not ever submit for purposes of the Universal Service Fund including
under 54.706 cited above and related rules
Based on the worksheet and rules by which de minim/s exemption is allowed from
making contributions could not meet the exemption if were operating

you you actually
your Alleged Stations as you assert to the FCC and to me which is that you are operating
the Alleged Stations as per your granted FCC applications that resulted in the Stations
Licenses which you stated you needed and would operate all of the B-block spectrum
in
Even if
you were operating one of your Alleged Station in this fashion with typical
customer loading and revenues you would not meet this exemption
14
See the decision cited in footnote 13 above The required 499-A filings must state the
Jurisdictions in Which the Filing Entity Provides Telecommunications Services as
indicated on the Form 499-A itself and in applicable rules That includes States in which
any of your Alleged Stations has an alleged service contour For example you have
alleged to the FCC that your Alleged NYC Station has FCC-defined and actual radio
service contour that includes part

of the State of Connecticut and you have alleged to the
FCC that with said service contour you can in fact

compete with Northeast Utilities
Service Company NUSCO in provision of wireless service to end users with AMTS
spectrum in the State of Connecticut You alleged these things in filings in the proceeding
created by your petition to deny the FCC application File No 0002147762 assignment by
AMTS Consortium LLC to NUSCO of B-block AMTS spectrum including in all of the
State of Connecticut
8SF LLCs to PSI 12.4.08 Page 10 of 67
Page 104 of 180

Sincerely
Is
is the electronic version Signature on original and on file
Warren Havens
President
Attachments
Appendix
Six Exhibits
cc Foundation and LLCs legal counsel
SSF LLCs to PSI 12.4.08 Page 11 of 67
Page 105 of 180

Appendix
Sec 20A09 Station logs
General requirements Logs must be established and properly
maintained as follows
The log must be kept in an orderly manner The required information for the
particular class or category of station must be readily available Key letters or abbreviations
elsewhere the
may be used if theft
proper meaning or explanation is contained in same log
Erasures obliterations or willful destruction within the retention period are
prohibited Corrections may be made only by the person originating the entry by sinking
out the error initialing the correction and indicating the date of correction
Ship station logs must identify the vessel name country of registry and official
number of the vessel
The station licensee and the radio operator in charge of the station are
responsible for the maintenance of station logs
Availability and retention Station logs must be made available
to authorized Commission employees upon request and retained as follows
Logs must be retained by the licensee for period of two years
from the date of entry and when applicable for such additional periods as required by the
following paragraphs
Logs relating to distress situation or disaster must be retained for three years
from the date of entry
ii If the Commission has notified the licensee of an investigatip the related
logs must be retained until the licensee is specifically authorized in writing to destroy
them
iii Logs relating to any claim or complaint of which the station licensee has
notice must be retained until the claim or complaint has been satisfied or barred by statute
limiting the time for filing suits upon such claims
Logs containing entries required by paragraphs and of
this section must be kept at the principal radiotelephone operating location while the vessel
is being navigated All entries in their original form must be retained on board the vessel
for at least 30 days from the date of entry Additionally logs required by paragraph of
this section must be retained on board the vessel for period of years from the date of the
last inspection of the ship radio station
Ship radiotelegraph logs must be kept in the principal radiotelegraph operating
room during the voyage

Public coast station logs Public coast stations must maintain log as follows
ON DUTY must be entered by the operator beginning duty period followed
by the operators signature OFF DUTY must be entered by the operator being relieved
of or terminating duty followed by the operators signature
The date and time of making an entry must be shown opposite the entry
Failure of equipment to operate as required and incidents tending to unduly
delay communication must be entered

All measurements of the transmitter frequencyies must be entered with
statement of any corrective action taken
Entries must be made giving details of all work performed which may affect the
proper operation of the station The entry must be made signed and dated by the operator
who supervised or performed the work and unless the operator is regularly employed on
Page 106 of 180

fbll-time basis at the station must also include the mailing address class serial number
and expiration date of the operator license
Entries must be made about the operation of the antenna tower lights when the
radio station has an antenna structure requiring illumination by part 17 of this chapter
All distress or safety related calls transmitted or received must be entrd
together with the frequency used and the position of any vessel in need of assistance
Coast stations which maintain watch on 500 kHz must enter the time this
watch is begun suspended or ended
SSF LLCs to PSI 124.08 Page 13 of 67
Page 107 of 180

Exhibits Follow on Next Pages
Page 14 of 67
SSF LLCs to PSI 124.08
Page 108 of 180

NEXT
DOCUMENT
Page 15 of 67
SSP LLCs to PSI 12.4.08
Page 109 of 180

Attachment
AMTS Consortium LLC

Warren Havens President
Jinuny Stobaugh General Manager

Phone 510 841 2220 Ifax 510 841 2226
wchavensaoI.com jstobaughttelesaurus.com
few corrections are in this second 1.10.07 version shown in red.- WH January 10 2007
Susan Cooper Owner and President
Paging Systems Inc

P0 Box 4249
Burlingaine CA 94011-4249
Via US mail first class
David Hill Audrey Rasmussen

Counsel to Paging Systems Inc
Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden Nelson P.C

1120 20th Street N.W Suite 700 North
Washington DC 20036
Via email only to dhill@hallestill.com arasmussen@hallestill.com
Re WQA216 AMTS license listed on 1315 at the old One World Trade Center
Mrs Cooper
See Exhibit which depicts the large TV antenna mast on the old One World Trade Center
Building that is the mast and location that you asserted under oath to the FCC that Paging Systems Inc
tI used for the antenna for an aileged legitimate

of
AMTS operating
and
station under WQA21G
mast have informed
the
License the Alleged Station Authorities that building that antenna
AMTS Consortium LLC ACL in clear terms that your assertion is false and that it was in
addition contractually impossible
See Exhibit hereto item marked As wrote in said item if PSI asserted that it
timely constructed and had rights to continue with the Alleged Station for purposes of any protection
under FCC Rule 80.353b the described 18 dB protection the see Exhibit then PSI had
to provide to AMTS Consortium LLC 6QI the details described in said item to enable the
protection to be determined and if those details were not provided to ACL then PSI would waive any
to protection and also to continue to assert of the Alleged Station and the
rights rights any validity
License.2 No protection under the Rule can be asserted calculated or provided without such details
This was in direct oral and written communication between ACL and persons most knowledgable at
Educational Broadcast Corporation licensee of WNET Channel 13 and the Port Authority of New York-New
Jersey In addition see Exhibit hereto
The Rule see Exhibit provides for defined protection of valid site-based AMTS stations station is
defined in FCC Rule 80.5 as one or more transmitters or combination of transmitters and receivers including
the accessory equipment necessary at one location for carrying on radiocoinmunication services
Page 110 of 180

As shown in Exhibit item PSI responded to said item but did not provide any such
details Thus ACLs position is as stated in Exhibit PSI has waived rights to assert inter alia any
protection for the Alleged Station.3
However as you know PSI has continued to this time to assert before the FCC and thus
generally publicly also the validity of the Alleged Station based on alleged valid timely construction
and operation prior to 9-1 1-0 and rights un4er the License to reconstruct station under the License
with protection under the Rule as basis to encumber ACLs use assignment and economic benefits
of B-Block AMTS spectrum in the greater New York City region including in PSIs spurious still-
pending challenge to the assignment of such spectrum in Connecticut to Northeast Utilities Service
Company NUSCO the Assignment
Sucb false and assertions by PSI among other PSI actions are the direct cause of major
damages to ACL increasing daily ACL is prepared to pursue direct indirect and punitive damages
against PSI its agents and others responsible.4
In the actions of PSI described herein including the exhibits PSI and its
alleged and actual
controlling owners and officers bear responsibility of all actions by all PSI agents and such agents
may also have liability.5
ACL without waiver of its

position noted above hereby submits this final demand that PSI
provide those details and proof listed in Exhibit placed in box to be clear by the end of January
16 2007
If PSI supplies to ACL those details and proof by January 16 2007 or if by that date PSI in
writing submits the License to the FCC for cancellation with prejudice and provides copy of said
submission to ACL by email and ovemight mail then PSI will substantially mitigate such damages
and such potential FCC fines
Sincerely
/5/ Warren Havens emailed copy

Warren Havens President
Ends
Cc NUSCO counsel Keller Heckman DC

ACL counsel Hogan Hartson DC
ACL litigation counsel Guthner Knox Elliott LLP San Francisco
Also you reported construction with the technical specifications .. unchanged from your application and
the application specified 25-watt Neutec base transmitters and antenna height at the top of the WNET antenna
mast which was 389.4 feet above the top floor where radio transmitters were located With very large cable
losses even assuming quality cable and high gain antenna the stations 38 dBu station contour distances see
footnote had there been station would be sinai percentage of what you asserted in your reconsideration
petition to the FCC regarding the ACL assignment to NUSCO See also Exhibit including its Notes
In addition the same acts of PSI and its agents from the evidence are subject to Section 503bX2B of the
Communications Act authorizing FCC fines of up to $120000 for each violation or each day of continuing
violation up to limits
Section 217 of the Communications Ace .. the act omission or failure of any officer agent or other person
acting for or employed by any common carrier or user acting within the scope of his employment shall in
every
case be also deemed to be the act omission or failure of such carrier or user as well as that of the person
2-
LLCs Page 17 of 67
8SF to PSI 12.4.08
Page 111 of 180

Exhibit two pages

Below depicts the North Tower furthest away and the TV antenna mast at the top of which PSI
alleged to operate the Alleged Station up until 9-11-2001 The below is from
http//91 lresearch.wtc7.netlwtc/info/datahtml Items in boxes blue are added
The World Trade Center
Facts about the Famous World Trade Center
The World Trade Center consisted of cluster of buildings that occupied single superblock
plus Building which occupied an adjacent block
first floors elevators

building
occupied
Susan Cooper-PSI
to be here on
The North Tower was DOne WTC It is the
alleged
WNET
top of the
distant of the two since this view is from the
controlled antenna mast
Southwest as the author states below
See footnote and
Exhibit hereto
This photograph of the Twin Towers was taken from the southwest preceding in original
Contined
3-
Page 112 of 180

Exhibit Notes
The above-depicted WNET-controlled antenna mast was 389.4 fret above the top
floor where radio transmitters were located
See e.g http//en.wilcipedia.ora/wikilWorld_Trade Center The heights are given on the
right The mast spire height is 1731.9 ft The PSI ajplication and license states that its
antenna tip is at 1731 feet The top floor was at 1348 ft The mast spire was thus 389.4 feet
above the
top floor
The mast was 360 feet above the roof and heavily used Fox new reported on 9-12-0
see http//www.foxnews.corn/storv/029333425500.html
World Trade Center Pacts Wednesday September 12 2001
The 360-foot television mast atop One World Trade Center supports 10 main
television antennas numerous auxiliary antennas and master FM antenna

Transmissions from the mast began in June 1980 Ten television stations in the
the broadcast from the mast In

metropolitan area including all major networks
addition six stations broadcast high-definition digital television from the World
Trade Center
This mast height is very relevant to any actual power ER

put out by any AMTS
station see footnote above The PSI application had the top of the antenna mast height correct
but had the top of the building height incorrect as WNET pointed out in its Petition to Deny.6
Also any such construction and operation on top of such large premier mast on the
largest building in NYC would have been even if allowed which it was not see Exhibit
extremely expensive and certainly well documented insured reflected on corporate tax returns
etc An insurance claim would have been submitted after 9-1 1-0 and documented
The above website page also has like to tenants on the North tower One WTC.is
also given this lists that the radio broadcasters used the top floor Also this list does not mention
of Paging Systems Inc as tenant anywhere in or on this building
The PSI application incorrectly stated that the building top distance measurement of figure
depicted at the top page of the Form 503 application was .1 feet but it was actually see
feet
first link above Based on this incorrect height the application incorrectly stated that there was only 94.6
feet from the of which was same the of
top of
the to the its the as the
building tip proposed antenna top
WNET antenna mast Based on this serious error PSI may have assumed that there would be only modest
loss in the cable run to the antenna but in fact there would be very loss In there is clear
large any case
evidence that PSI never built the station
4-
SSF LLCs to PSI 12.4.08 Page 19of67
Page 113 of 180

Exhibit
2005 Emails in reverse chronological order Emphases added underlining color boxing
13
---Original Message---
From wchavens@aol.com
Sent Thesday March 08 2005 414 PM
To ARasmussen@HallEstill.com Scot Stone
Cc DLMartin@HHLAW.com jstobaughtelesaurus.com
Re PSI AMTS stations in the NYC metro areas
Subject
Mr Stone
address some matters to you below
Ms Rasmussen
Preface First the WTC Station never met FCC rules at the application or construction deadline stage
including due to this always being single-site system Even if this station was constructed by the deadline
with non-token equipment and construction methoth and PSIs single-channel systems are token
single site
system automatically terminated at the construction deadline without fbrther Commission action
due to not meeting the construction requirement of continuity of service which was at the bare minimum
multiple sites with overlapping service contours Accordingly it is

my and ACLs position that this WTC
Station does not exist under FCC rules FCC staff advice such as that from Mr Stone below is not
binding on the Commission
Your email below that you forwarded to me does not provide any details that effectively responds
to my email to you of 3-7-05 which per your placement is at the bottom of this email string
Thus as wrote in that email now assume that Paging Systems Inc PSI has no existing statioa
in the NYC metropolitan area that my LLC ANTS Consortium LLC ACL has to protect
assuming that it becomes the licensee of the AMTS B-block North Atlantic license this email assumes
this
object to violation of FCC rules regarding impermissible ex patre communications
Mr Stones previous email to me in response to my email to him with regard to the Paging Systems
Inc PSP AMTS station license still listed on ULS as at the World Trade Center the WTC Station
clearly indicated that my communications with him regarding the WlC Station was subject to such ex parte
rules and as be noted had taken care of compliance with those rules
In addition as you know PSI and and my LLCs are adverse parties in several restricted
proceedings one being the Petition to Deny of the PSI Form 601 in Auction 57 and other being the
Petition for Reconsideration of the Order denying in large part my petitions to deny Mobexs AMTS
renewal applications which PSI joined and where accepted this joining As you know in these
proceedings am challenging the validity of all PSI AMTS stations in the US including the SVTC Station
including for reasons noted above in the Preface to this email In fact you note to Mr Stone below that
you addressed the WTC Station in that Petition to Deny proceeding
Thus believe that your emails below between yourselves and Mr Stone below that were not copied to
me violate ex parte rules thus strongly object at this time and may take further appropriate action
-5-
Page 114 of 180

If as Mr Stone suggests below PSI applies to the FCC seeking to modi1 the discontinued alleged
former PSI station license at the World Trade Center the WTC Station then upon it being placed on
Public Notice ACL intends file petition to deny based onfacts and law that ACLI believes sustain grant of
such petition
In this regard ACL does not agree with the informal advice Mr Stone provided to you as reflected in the
below email string
Sincerely
Warren Havens
President ACL
Mr Stone
As indicated above you advised me that my conununications with you on this WTC Station were subject to
cx parte rules but that had taken care of compliance See above also Yet you have been providing
advice and suggestions to Ms Rasmussen on this matter without copying me see below emails What am
missing here
On behalf of AMTS Consortium LLC do not agree with your advice to Ms Rasmussen with regard to the
continued validity of the PSI station license at the collapsed World Trade Center the WTC Station
including for the purpose of allowing another station to be built within non-determinable signal
contours of the WTC Site these cannot be determined from the WTC Station station ifies or ULS
within an unidentified period of time and due to other facts and circumstances including those
note in the Preface above which as believe you know since you are handling them are in the two
restricted proceedings noted above
Please let me know which FCC rules you rely upon in regards to that advice provided to Ms Rasmussen
that summarize above
Please see the email from me to Ms Rasmussen of 3-7-05 placed by Ms Rasmussen at the bottom of this
email string For purposes reflected in that email bow can obtain from you or someone else at the FCC
copies of all
paper and electronic documents that relate to this WTC Station Is an FOIA required or even
if not required will it be the method by which am most likely to get IblI information
Sincerely
Warren Havens
President
AMTS Consortium LLC

Berkeley CA
In message dated 318/05 63255 AM Akasmussen@HallEstill.com writes to W.C Havens7
In response to your email of March 2005
Original Message---
JW Havens The text below up to the double line is what PSI counsel sent Havens in this
3/8/05 emaiL Her response was simply to forward her cx part communications with Mr Stone
6-
Page 115 of 180

EXHIBIT
[This continues from preceding

pages. It was broken up only for
Document3 electronic filing purposes.]
Page 116 of 180

From Scot Stone
Sent Wednesday February 23 2005 225 PM

To Audrey Rasmussen
Subject RE WQA216 discontinued AMTS station World Trade Center
You dont need to make any showing at this time The West Orange site is legitimately authorized under
the license for the WTC site Im just saying that the West Orange site cant be counted toward the
consiruction/operational requirements for the WTC site only the WTC site counts toward that
You cculd modll the license to relocate the licensed site to West Orange Site-based moth are permitted
if they dort expand the existing protected contour But youd be giving up some footprint that you
wouldnt be able to recover later since when you moved the authorized site the part of the footprint that
was covered by WTC but isnt covered by West Orange would default to the geographic license and you
wouldnt be allowed to change the authorized site back to WTC later The only way mod would make
sense is if you definitely arent going to rebuild the WTC site
Call if you have 418-063R

any questions
--Original Message--
Froni Audrey Rasmussen
Sent Wednesday February 23 005 206 PM

To Scot Stone
Qood Afternoon
Thank you for your response We are in dilemma because we always need to protect WNET and we
wanted to be on the same tower with it but there were too many carriers that had to move after 9/11 and
my client could not get on that tower with WNET in Manhattan The client went over to New Jersey
because of that situation but now we realize that we need to make some type of showing to the FCC -- if it
does not exist in the Commissions eyes Would we need fill application to show that Paging Systems
Inc is in West Orange NJ Would the Commission accept this since it is not accepting any non-
geographic applications any longer If so would we have an issue when we want to again move to the
orginal site in Manhattan
Thanks for any assistance that you can give in this matter
Audrey
-----Original Message-----
From Scot Stone mai1toScotStonefcc.gov1
Sent Tuesday February 222005 1013 AM

To Audrey Rasmussen
Cc wchavens@aol.com jstobaughtelesauruscom
Ms Rasmussen
7-
Page 117 of 180

As just stated to Mr Havens dont think the station has permanently discontinued so in my view PSI
was not required to file

anything But the existence of fill-in station had nothing to do with my
conclusion fill-in site cannot be relied on to satisfS construction or operational requirement
As fir as the Commission is concerned fill-iris dont exist We dont know where they are when they are
constructed when they discontinue operations We judge compliance with construction and operational
requirements by looking at the licensed facffitv not at fill-ins that maybe operating under the umbrella
any
of the authorization for the licensed facility
---Original Message---
From Audrey Rasmussen
Sent Tuesday February 082005 325 PM

To Scot Stone
Good Afternoon Scot
Congratulations on your promotion
My client wanted me to touch base with you on this What we stated in our Opposition to Petition for
Reconsideration the Application for AMTS License in the Great Lakes Region in Auction No 57 dated
November 30 2004 below remains true The station8 is on the air in West Orange New Jersey The client
wanted me to get confirmation that the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fifth Report and
Order in PR Docket No 92-257 17 FCC Rcd 6685 2002MOO as cited below still
applies to fill-ia
sites and that there is no requirement to have filed any notification with the FCC added
W.H
Thank you Audrey Rasmussen
New York City Location
20 While it is true that PSIs station at the World Trade Center was destroyed on September 112001
PSI is
presently operating fill-in station in New Jersey pending the construction of new structure at that
site
PSI intends to construct replacement facilities at the primary site

upon the availability of structure
l/ In its MOO at 30 2002 the Commission allowed such modifications or fill-ins
provided the Licensee does not increase its contours
0002000006B3000031E1 6AD garbage characters are in my original
--Original Message-----
From wchavens@aol.com
Sent Saturday February 05 2005 405 PM
To Audrey Rasmussen
Cc Scot.Stonefcc.gov jstobaughtelesaurus.com wchavens@aoLcom

Subject WQA216 discontinued AMTS station World Trade Center
Havens This transparently under applicable rules is NOT the licensed station
8-
LLCS Page 23 of 67
SSF to PSI 12.4.08
Page 118 of 180

El
-Original Message-----
From wchavcns@aol.com
Sent Monday March 07 2005 942 PM
To Audrey Rasmussen
Cc jstobaughtelesaurus.com DLMartinHHLAW.com wchavens@aoLcom

Subject PSI AMTS stations in the NYC metro areas
Audrey Rasmussen
Counsel to Paging Systems Inc PSI

Please inform me whether PSI believes that AMTS Consortium LLC ACL of which am President
assuming it is granted the North Atlantic B-block AMTS license must provide any tyne of uroteclion
under FCC rules to any PSI B-block AMTS incumbent station in the New York City greater metropolitan
area
If so please provide to me the legal basis for this and
the details of each such station based upon which this asserted protection can be
practically fulfilled including exact coordinates street address height of the transmit
antenna above 2round level PUP and type of antenna including pattern power into the
antenna or power out of the transmitter and all losses to the input terminal of the antenna
all actual transmit and receive freijuencies in operation mobile radios In operation to
maritime and land service and any other details relevant or that believe are relevant
you
under the applicable FCC rules
Please also provide the contact information for the person or entity that manages the antenna site used by
each such PSI station and the person or entity that maintains each such PSI station
will have expert PP site inspector visit this site to confirm the details
III do not hear back from you or another authorized PSI agent by end of this Thursday today is end
of Monday will assume that PSI is not operatinc any site in this area or not any site which is
entitled to any protection
Also if PSI is actually offering or offering and providing CMRS or other AMTS public service from
any such site in the NYC metro area please let me know who is the local person or entity that is marketing
or otherwise handling this public service and details sufficient to identi this public service
In addition if PSI has any plans to rebuild the alleged former PSI AMTS station on the World Trade
Center building that collapsed on 9-11-2001 which is still listed on ilLS as active please provide those
details to me so that ACL can consider this matter with respect its rights and obligations under FCC rules
Sincerely
Wairen Havens
President
AMTS Consortium LLC

Headers --
Return-Path Scotstonefcc.gov
of headers retained on original
9-
Page 119 of 180

ExhibitS
Emphases added
Sec 80.3 85 Frequencies for automated systems
each AMTS geographic area licensee may place stations anywhere

within its region without obtaining prior Commission approval provided
The AMTS geographic area licensee must locate its stations at least 120
kilometers from the stations of co-channel site-based AMTS licensees Shorter
separations between such stations will be considered by the Commission on
case-by-case basis upon submission of technical analysis indicating that at least
18 dB protection will be provided to site-based licensees predicted 38 dBu
signal level contour The site-based licensees predicted 38 dBu signal level
contour shall be calculated using the F50 50 field strength chart for Channels
713 in Sec 73.699 Fig 10 of this chapter with dE correction for antenna
height differential The 18 dE protection to the site-based licensees predicted 38

dBu signal level contour shall be calculated using the F50 10 field strength
chart for Channels 713 in Sec 73.699 Fig ba of this chapter with dB
correction factor for antenna height differential
The calculation above requires details of the AMTS site-based station See Exhibit item lJ
An FCC Rule Part SO station is defined as follows
Sec 80.5 Definitions
Station One or more transmitters or combination of transmitters and receivers
including the accessory equipment necessary at one location for carrying on

radiocommunication services
10-
Page 120 of 180

Exhibit two pages
Exhibit Part
The below is from page and of Educational Broadcast Corporation licensee of EBC
WNET TV Channel 13 Petition to Deny the PSI application for an ANTS B-Block station on
the EBC antenna mast on One World Trade Center WNET Petition the PSI Application
This WNET Petition is dated October 18 1993 and is under the signature and declaration of the
Secretary and General Counsel of EBC licensee of WNET The FCC denied the WNET Petition
and granted the PSI Application The WNET Petition is in
the FCC files of WQA216 the ANTS
station license that resulted from the grant of the PSI Application for PSI to construct operate gi
the
top
of the WNET antenna mast which PSI reported to the FCC under oath that it fact
construct by the construction deadline and in fhct operated up until 9-11-2001
Underling in original Footnote in original Text in brackets added
Pagings Proposed Antenna Site is Available Only to Broadcasters

First the current long-term antenna mast in Exhibit above
lease agreement between EBC and the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey Port Authority the owner of the mast at issue limits use of the mast
to broadcasters Therefore Paging for all practical here is and will
purposes
continue to be effectively precluded from installing its ANTS antenna
anwhere on the Port Authority antenna mast Futhermore neither EBC nor Fox
Television Stations Inc Fox the licensee of WNYW would in any event
consent to Pagings locating an antenna within their antenna apertures 41
Commission should require.. applicants to determine
whether or not use of proposed site would as in this casebe impossible
EAhihit Part II
The below is from the PSI Applications Amendment Request RE File Nos 871674 signed by
Cooper undated but with the PSI Application PSI asserts it must collocate with PSI to comply
with FCC rules Underlining added Item in bracket added
Paging Systems Inc Paging amends its referenced
application FCC File No.871674 as follows
Item of FCC Form 503 City New Yorlq County New Yorlq State
New Yort
Item 20A WNIBC Fox Television Stations Inc Educational
Broadcasting Corporation
Item 20B Television broadcast
Item 20C NNBC WNYW WNET

The proposed site is the only suitable site because it is the site at which
channel 13 TV station WNET-TV is situated Operation at any other location
would impose level of interference which was not uniform over the service area
of WNET-T...
4/ By Letter dated October 13 1993 attached hereto as Exhibit Andrew Ci Setos
Senior Vice President at Fox states that Fox would not consent to the installation of
Pagings AMTS antenna within WNYWs aperture
11
Page 121 of 180

Exhibit Continued
WHET directly informed ACL that the reason that WHET did not after grant of the PSI
Application have problem with PSI at its facility ie that no practical issues arose not that
WNET changed its position to oppose PSI and deny access to the masfl is
simply because PSI
never constructed anything as stated in the granted Applicgjp and that had PSI attempted it
WHET and the Port Authority could and would not have denied access to the antenna mast as
indicated in Part of this Exhibit
WHET further directly informed ACL that had PSI or anyone actually transmitted from any 217-
220 MHz station anywhere on top of One World Trade Center it would have detected those
iransmissons and taken approprithe remedial action to protect its Channel 13 broadcasts which
are only slightly below 217 MHz and that there were never any such 217-220 MHz
transmissions detected
WNET further directly informed ACL that well after the FCC granted the PSI Application it
learned that PSI applied to the FCC for an AMTS station license New Jersey
in and that
NWETWNET submitted petition to deny the PSI FCC application that ACL responded from
FCC records prior to that time PSI had informed the FCC that it had already constructed at the
top of the WHET mast to which WHET espondth saying that such PSI construction assertion
was of course false and that may be reason that PSI withdrew its application for the New Jersey
site when WNET opposed it since that contest may have ended lip exposing PSIs false
construction allegation made to the FCC just noted
Thereafter PSI alleged in informal communications with the FCC including those in Exhibit
hereto to have constructed and to be operating fill-in station in New Jersey However under
FCC rules and related rule making Order decisions AMTS fill-in stations are not permitted
unless the licensee has valid licensed station to fill-in under certain limitations and fill-in
station does not in any way count toward meeting construction and ongoing operating
requirements to maintain granted license
The communications from WHET to ACL noted above and elsewhere in this letter were from
person with direct knowledge of the facts in WNET
ACL further obtained confirmation in writings from persons most knowledgeable at the Port
Authority of NY-NJ that PSI never obtained the permit required of all entities to use the top of
One World Trade Center for any purpose including placement and operation of radio
transmission station Port Authority records of those permits and other relevant records
survived 9-11-01
12-
Page 122 of 180

Case 2:08-cv-03094-KSH-PS Document 51-7
..
._ Page 8 of 55 PageID:
Filed 02/18/11 ..
1451
Attachment
HJkILL Pdre
.T i1ZO2QUtSVcl.t4W.
suJ uiie
WnontC 2o3i46
FTQ\tFYS Af \\V
caemuseShstl4om
Ti
f.
Member ol The Ameris Grap Renderfi Fdg .iama keptJbflo 84lÆtidkgenI

DomiOan
_1. FL
SSFLLCstaPSI 12408 Pg8f67
Page 123 of 180

NEXT
DOCUMENT
SSF LLCs to PSI 12.4.08

Page 29 of 67
Page 124 of 180

From warren havens

Sent Wednesday December 26 2007 422 PM
To Audrey Rasmussen David Hill
Cc ehahm@manaff.com bernsteinlaw@earthlink.net Patrick Richard stobaugh
Stobaugh warren havens
to immediately turn-in invalid licenses to mitigate year-end

Subject Request
damages
Susan Cooper
Robert Cooper
Paging Systems Inc
Via email to their FCC legal counsel
Audrey Rasmussen and David Hill
Mrs and Mr Cooper

Ms Rasmussen and Mr Hill
Also am copying Mr Eugene Hahm at the Manatt Phelps law firm who
current litigation do not

represents PSI in certain normally directly
communicate with opposing counsel but due to the below-noted deadline am in

this case providing to him copy In addition this should further demonstrate
that PSI has been served copy of this email also intend to send hard copy
of this email to PSI
As you know the LLCs manage listed below including AMTS Consortium LLC
owii geographic licenses for AMTS B-block spectrum in most areas of the
nation In all of these geographic areas except for the Mountain area your
company Paging Systems Inc PSI claims to have validly obtained and
constructed AMTS B-block incumbent site-based licenses that also have never been
permanently discontinued Herein by PSI mean the entity PSI but also all
persons and entities that are related and are liable along with the entity for
the direct and other damages noted herein
As you know my LLCs contest these PSI claims and we believe that there is
sufficient evidence in the record of which you have been made aware that your
claims are fal 5yq4MTS licenses are invalid including your Page 30 of 67
Page 125 of 180

license for the New York City NYC area
While your claims if invalid cause various damages each day to my LLCs in
particular cases your perpetuation of the invalid claims can cause particular
irreversible damages at given points in time One such ease in explained below
My LLCs and their members have determined that they will donate by the end of
this year 2007 certain non-controlling interests in the LLCs and br certain
geographic AMTS B-block spectrum held by the LLCs to nonprofit organization
Skybridge Spectrum Foundation set up to develop and operate Intelligent
Transportation System wireless networks in the US to reduce accidents
pollution congestion fuel consumption and other public-interest purposes

and possibly to another nonprofit organization also for which said donors will
obtain under IRS rules valuable tax deductions based on the fair-market value
of the donations at the time of the donations The LLC interests and licensed
spectrum that will be donated involves the geographic AMTS B-block spectrum in
all of the NYC area but also involves geographic AMTS B-block spectrum in many
other areas of the nation where PSI claims to have valid B-block site-based
licenses
PSIs invalid claims to AIVITS B-block spectrum in such NYC area such other
areas of the nation will cause major devaluations and damages to the legitimate
fair market valuation of these donations to me made by the end of this year
2007 While the reasons for said devaluation and damages are for the most part
obvious they include among others reduction in the geographic-licensed AMTS

B-block spectrum that is not encumbered by the PSI claims to site-based
authorization of the same spectrum the loss of use of the encumbered spectrum
in time which also reduces the utility and value of the adjacent
not-encumbered AMTS geographic spectrum and of our companion 900 Mhz spectrum
that our LLCs hold nationwide for use in ITS wireless networks paired with our
AMTS spectrum as frequently described in public FCC filings and in our public
website the cost of legal action to clear invalidly encumbered spectrum and
other reasons The damages will be to both the donor LLCs and their members
and the recipient nonprofit organization Based on research to date believe
the direct initial irreversible damages will be multi-milliondollars sum

if PSI does not perform the following request by the date noted below and
other additional damages may be multiple of that sum My LLCs and their
members and possibly also the nonprofit organization involved intend to pursue
these initial and these other damages against PSI as defined above to the full
extent possible under law

S5F LLCs to P8112.4.08 Page 31 of 67
Page 126 of 180

Thus on behalf of my LLCs and its members making these donations request
and demand that PSI immediately notify the FCC with copy to me that PSI is
turning in to the FCC for immediate cancellation all invalid AMTS licenses the
FCC Cancellation Notice in order to mitigate the damages to said donations
and to said donors and recipient entities

persons cced in this email who as you know assist me and my LLCs in FCC and
other legal matters then will assume that PSI elects to not take the actions
requested and demanded above and in any case it will thereafter be beyond the
time that in this year any such actions by PSI will mitigate damages since all
of the described donations must and will be concluded immediately after said day
and time

do not address other past and ongoing damages that PSI has already caused and is
causing to the LLCs manage or any other matter In addition by the above
do not imply that PSI has not already caused damages to the donations donors
and recipient in this year and with regard to previous periods of time
PSI has clearly been on notice by the undersigned parties as to PSIs invalid
claims noted above and as to damages those have caused and are causing to the
undersigned parties This email is an attempt to mitigate further damages with

regard to the specific transactions noted above
Sincerely
Is
Warren Havens
President
Telesaurus --
www.telesaurus.com
Telesaurus VPC LLC
AMTS Consortium LLC
Telesaurus Holdiuns GB LLC
5sF tLCs to PSI 12.4.08 Page 32 of 67
Page 127 of 180

Berkeley California
510 841 2220
8SF LLCs to P51 12.4.08 Page 33 of 67
Page 128 of 180

..uec-co-cuui vouu nt Tesescurus .31Ua41.ttb
AMTS Consortium IJIJC

/g2t kc
2649 Benvenue Aye 2-3
Berkeley CA 94704
____
0Yta6/ 4cnri wL t/anY/t
S\
-et5e cn475cJi
oz02z -1ca
Paging Systems Inc California Corporation
805 Burlway
Burlingarne CA 94010
CA File Cl 094850 filed 11/211981 status active
Agent for service of process

Susan Cooper President of Paging Systems Inc
805 Burlway Rd
Burlingame CA 94010
Rbbert Cooper husband of Susan Cooper

TOUCH TEL CORP California Corporation
805 Burlway Rd
Burlingame CA 94010
CA File Cl 6270841 flIed status
11/14/1998 active
Agent for service of process
Robert Cooper
805 Burlway Rd
Burlingame CA 94010
An/sC c2 947
From
sirou/t
warren havens warrenhavenssbciobal.neb
/Lc2c7
Subject Request to Immediately tum.In invalid licenses to mitigate year-end damages
Date lDecembtjr 28200742216 PM PSI
To Audrsy Rasmussen cARasmussen@HailEst1ll.com DavId Hffl cdavldIamarhilimsncom
Cc ohahm@rnanatt.com bernstelnlaw@earthlink.net Patrlok Richard PRichardNossaman.cem jstobsugh Stobaugh
havens warren.havens@sbcgiobaLnab
5SF
Page 34 of 67
Page 129 of 180

rom warren havens

sent Monday December 31 2007 953 AM
lo Audrey Rasmussen David Hill ehahm@manatt.com
bemsteinlaw@earthlink.net Patrick Richard jstobaugh Stobaugh
ubject Re Request to immediately turn-in invalid licenses to mitigate
tear-end damages
kddressed parties
The below deadline of Noon on December 30 2007 is hereby extended to today at
PM Pacific Time to make every attempt to mitigate the damages noted below
Sincerely
Warren Havens
On Dec 26 2007 at 422 PM warren havens wrote
Susan Cooper
Robert Cooper
Paging Systems Inc
Via email to their FCC legal counsel
Mrs and Mr Cooper

Ms Rasmussen and Mr Hill
Also am copying Mr Eugene Hahm at the Manatt Phelps law firm who
represents PSI in certain current litigation normally do not directly
communicate with opposing counsel but due to the below-noted deadline am

in this case providing to him copy In addition this should further
demonstrate that PSI has been served copy of this email also intend to
send hard s1WLt0 PSI Page 35 of 67
Page 130 of 180

As you
know the LLCs manage listed below including AMTS Consortium
LLC own FCC geographic licenses for AMTS B-block spectrum in most areas of
the nation In all of these geographic areas except for the Mountain area
your company Paging Systems Inc PSI claims to have validly obtained and
constructed AMTS B-block incumbent site-based licenses that also have never
been permanently discontinued Herein by PSI mean the entity PSI but
also all persons and entities that are related and are liable along with the
entity for the direct and other damages noted herein
As you know my LLCs contest these PSI claims and we believe that there is
sufficient evidence in the record of which you have been made aware that
your claims are false and that your AMTS licenses are invalid including your
license for the New York City NYC area
While your claims if invalid cause various damages each day to my LLCs
in particular cases your perpetuation of the invalid claims can cause
particular irreversible damages at given points in time One such case in
explained below
My LLCs and their members have determined that they will donate by the end
of this year 2007 certain non-controlling interests in the LLCs and br

certain geographic AMTS B-block spectrum held by the LLCs to nonprofit
organization Skybridge Spectrum Foundation set up to develop and operate
Intelligent Transportation System wireless networks in the US to
reduce accidents pollution congestion fuel consumption and other
public-interest purposes and possibly to another nonprofit organization
also for which said donors will obtain under IRS nies valuable tax
deductions based on the fair-market value of the donations at the time of the
donations The LLC interests and licensed spectrum that will be donated
involves the geographic AMTS B-block spectrum in all of the NYC area but also
involves geographic AMTS B-block spectrum in many other areas of the nation
where PSI claims to have valid B-block site-based licenses
PSIs invalid claims to AMTS B-block spectrum in such NYC area such other
areas of the nation will cause major devaluations and damages to the
legitimate fair market valuation of these donations to me made by the end of
for said devaluation and damages

this year
20cb cwjeile e1eons are for
Page 36 of 67
Page 131 of 180

the most part obvious they include among others reduction in the
geographic-licensed AMTS B-block spectrum that is not encumbered by the PSI
claims to site-based authorization of the same spectrum the loss of use of
the encumbered spectrum in time which also reduces the utility and value of
the adjacent not-encumbered AMTS geographic spectrum and of our companion
900 MHz spectrum that our LLCs hold nationwide for use in ITS wireless
networks paired with our AMTS spectrum as frequently described in public FCC
filings and in our public website the cost of legal action to clear
invalidly encumbered spectrum and other reasons The damages will be to both
th donor LLCs and their members and the recipient nonprofit organization
Based on research to date believe the direct initial irreversible damages

will be multi-milliondollars sum if PSI does not perform the following
request by the date noted below and other additional damages may be
multiple of that sum My LLCs and their members and possibly also the
nonprofit organization involved intend to pursue these initial and these
other damages against PSI as defined above to the full extent possible under
law
Thus on behalf of my LLCs and its members making these donations
request and demand that PSI immediately noti the FCC with copy me
to
that Psi is turning in to the FCC for immediate cancellation all invalid AMTS
licenses the FCC Cancellation Notice in order to mitigate the damages to
said donations and to said donors and recipient entities

persons cced in this email who as you know assist me and my LLCs in FCC
and other legal matters then will assume that PSI elects to not take the
actions requested and demanded above and in any case it will thereafter be
beyond the time that in this year any such actions by PSI will mitigate
damages since all of the described donations must and will be concluded
immediately after said day and time

do not address other past and ongoing damages that PSI has already caused
and is causing to the LLCs manage or any other matter In addition by the
above do not imply that PSI has not already caused damages to the
donations donors and recipient in this year and with regard to previous
periods of time
55F LLcs to PSi 12.4.08 Page 37 of 67
Page 132 of 180

PSI has clearly been on notice by the undersigned parties as to PSIs

invalid claims noted above and as to damages those have caused and are
causing to the undersigned parties This email is an attempt to mitigate
further damages with regard to the specific transactions noted above
Sincerely
/5
Warren Havens
President
Telesaurus --
www.telesaurus.com
Telesaurus VPC LLC
AMTS Consortium LLC

Berkeley California
510 841 2220
5SF LLcs to PSI 12.4.08 Page 38 of 67
Page 133 of 180

NEXT
DOCUMENT
Page 134 of 180

Paging Systems Inc gave no response to the above request of December 262007

Page 40 of 67
Page 135 of 180

NEXT
DOCUMENT
Page 136 of 180

From warren.havenssbcg1obal.net
Subject Request for leave to file 8O.475b Information Request re WQA216

fill-in stations
alleged
Date September 28 2007 54127 AM PDT
To scot.stonefcc.gov
Cc arasmussen@hallestill.com bercovici@khlaw.com jstobaughtelesaurus.com

wanen.havens@isbcglobal.net
Request for leave to submit 80.475b Information Request
Re Request of AMTS Consortium LLC regarding its AMTS B-block
license WQCP81O for the North Atlantic AMTS area to FCC staff to obtain under the
information-supply provision of 80.475b and provide to ACL construction-
operational details and proof of alleged fill-in stations of alleged incumbent licensed
station WQA2I held by Paging Systems Inc PSI that is needed for ACLs current
planning of base stations in proximity to New York City the 80.475b Information
Request
this email was composed in 13 point typeface If it arrives in typeface that is
smaller and not easy to read please place your copy into larger typeface have had
problems in this regard in the last few weeks
Mr Stone
Introduction
copy of this request will be concurrently filed on ULS under WQCP81O

and WQA2I6 copy is being provided to counsel to Northeast Utilities Service
Company NUSCO for reasons indicated below
ACL hereby requests leave to file the above-captioned 80.475b Information Request
as described below
If the
request is granted ACL requests 21 days after grant to file the undersigned
have trip to China for 7-10 days starting next week in relation to ACLs and its
affiliates FCC licenses the World Congress of Intelligent Transportation Systems and
other business matters This and time before is cause of this 20

the trip to set it
up the
day request
have partly drafted this request to submit to the FCC Secretary and on ULS under the
above-listed two Call Sign ACL requests leave to file it since it is not filing under an
8SF LLCs to PsI 12.4.08 Page 42 of 67
Page 137 of 180

FCC rule section authorizing filings However its need is apparent as ACL will show in
the filing and partially indicate below
Reasons for of the Request

grant
In sum in order for ACL to proceed with its plans to build and operate AMTS B-
block spectrum stations in the greater New York City metro area we need details of all
PSI alleged fill-in stations under the alleged-valid WQA2 16 exact coordinates all
equipment components from which we can calculate ERP transmit antenna height times
of operation modulation type and other details more ftlly given in the filing
Section 80.475b that pertains to AMTS fill-in stations contains provision for the
FCC to require that the site-based licensee supply information details of its fill-in
stations the AMTS licensee must make record of the technical and administrative
information concerning the station and upon request supply such information to the
EY and said information is also practically required under 80.385b by the
geographic licensee for the below-noted short spacing Indeed it that that is the
appears
principal reason that for placement of this information-supply provision since primary
role of the FCC after licensing is to regulate co-channels licensees to operate without
harmful interference and to maximize spectrum use and efficiency This is precisely why
thc geographic licensee needs this information where the incumbent licensee will not
supply it Jn the instant case hereby declare under penalty of perjury that have
requested of PSI in writing details of its operations under WQA2 16 for above purposes
and PSI refused to provide such also in writing
fill-in station as you know may be located and operated if among other
requirements its interference contour is within the interference contour of of the licensed
station in AMTS the interference contour is under 80.385b the incumbent 38 dBu
service contour but where the geographic licensee protects that 38 dBu by 20 dB
difference Said licensed stations and fill-in stations contours are based on certain
F5050 formula this formula is not real-life radio-propagation model especially when
used in congested urban area such as New York City with large and densely located
buildings and substantial terrain features also cliffs and hills along the Hudson River
etc fill-in station

may have far
stronger real-life signal at said theoretical interference
contour than licensed station since the fill-in station may be much closer to said
contour may not be as blocked by buildings and terrain etc
Without knowing the details ofgflj the licensed station and the fill-in station is is not
possible under FCC rules to know if the fill-in stations are indeed within said
interference contour of the licensed station if not the fill-in stations are not authorized
FN below and to know how to realistically plan geographic stations in
compliance with 80.385b using the short-space method as noted above protecting the
incumbent 38 dBu with 20 dB or seeking waiver for closer spacing for good cause
For example while the geographic station does not have to protect fill-in station
including one with stronger actual signal strength at the licensed stations interference
contour than the licensed station the

geographic station must contend with the actual
SSF LLCs to PSI 12.408 Page 43 of 67
Page 138 of 180

of and noted above be far stronger then those

signal strength fill-in stations as these may
of the licensed contour Where
station as said this is the case the geographic licensee
must plan its stations accordingly its location type of antenna terrain and building
shielding use of its own fill-in supplement stations etc Field surveys to find fill-in
stations and hope to find their actual maximum operational signals modulations types
etc is not reliable and is also wastefhl as PSI itself suggested in one of its filings in the
Request to Provide Information proceeding noted herein The information must come
directly from the fill-in station operator the licensee by someone direct personal
knowledge and authority See FN below
The filing seek leave to submit presents the above and related and supporting
matters more formally citing relevant FCC rules and precedents and attaching relevant
factual exhibits
ACL is aware of the filings of PSI in relation to the pending 385b Applications of
NUSCO and the related FCC Sept 2007 FCC Request to Provide Information
However no PSI filing in these matters or in other other FCC filing of which ACL is
aware contain the information required by ACL to plan and use its license noted above
FN below
In addition as ACL previously informed FCC staff with copy to PSI ACL has
commenced litigation against PSI in California courts See the ACL 1.65 report dated
8.21.2007 in relation to File No 0002147762 While this will involve in the course of
the case depositions and other factual discovery of PSI and related parties including the
alleged sole owner of PSI Susan Cooper her husband the owner of Touch Tel Port
Authority personnel WNET engineers that handled the mast on the old One World Trade
Center and authorities of the sites of the PSI-alleged fill-in stations associated
with WQA216 etc.--ACL seeks to proceed at this time with planning and subsequent
deployment of stations under WQCP8 10 without relying upon said litigation for the facts
it seeks under the contemplated 80.475b Information Request
Conclusion
Without grant
of this request and subsequent action under the 80.475b Information
Request ACL will not be able to plan and operate in compliance with FCC rules and in
of
spectrum- and cost- efficient manner under WQCP8 10 in the most important region
said license the greater New York City region
PSI would clearly not be prejudiced in any way by grant of this request for leave and
action under the 80.475b Information Request All that is sought is information on PSI
station construction and operations where PSI is required to comply with FCC rules and
document that in company and station files 80.457a for fill-in stations and 80.409
for all stations etc.
Thus for all the above reasons ACL requests timely grant of this request for leave and
grant would serve the public interest
SSF LLCs to PSI U.4.O8 Page 44 of 67
Page 139 of 180

Footnote
The matters of this FN amp4fy the needfor the instant 80.475b Information
Request
fill-in station is authorized only where it fills-in current coverage of an
existing stationand is otherwise unlawfUl and unlawful actions are barred in claims and
defenses in any legal proceeding or for any asset-title claim purpose
See 80.475b ii 11 11-12 p.42 etc in the VPC-AMTS FOURTH

REPORTAND ORDER AND THIRD FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE
MAKING FCC 00-370 released November 16 2000 and iii cited authority on its
fill-in stations for AMTS and other CMRS 12 and 45 in Implementation of Sections
3n and 332 of the Communications Act Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
FCC Rcd 2863 287 3-74 1994 and iv in relation to said FNPRM see the definitions
in Part 22 of Fill-in transmitters Dead spots Service area and Station
Fill-in stations do not count toward construction or operation requirements of the
related license station
See 39 in In the Matter of Flexible alocation of frequencies in the Domestic
Public Land Mobile Service for paging and other services CC Docket No 87-120 FCC
89-15 FCC Rcd 1576 1989 FCC LEXIS 284 65 Rad Reg 2d 1523 Februaiy
15 1989 Released
Thus unless PSI has proof of actual timely construction that includes required
coverage and operational maintenance in compliance with applicable rules 1.946
1.955 80.49 etc any fill-in stations even if valid are at least irrelevant or both
irrelevant and unlawful
Moreover PSI has admitted to not operating any licensed station under WQA2 16 for
over years since at least 9-11-2001 thus its alleged establishment see its response
to the Request to Provide Information of fill-in stations--if that amorphous term is
assumed to mean construction and operation under FCC rule requirements-- is
unauthorized and illegal vv
2I Footnote
The matters of this FN2 amplfy the need for the instant 80.475b Information
Request
In the above-noted NUSCO-related filings by PSI PSI has not submitted required
declaration or affidavit of an officer in PSI as to its baldly alleged construction at an
Page 140 of 180

unauthorized location non-specific location on the enormously large roof of the old
One World Trade Center that could not be the same coordinates as the WNET antenna
mast was authorized to locate on top of
Without said permits no construction could have possibly taken place these pennits are
thus the threshold facts that must be attested to in declaration or affidavit of

any
construction-coverage-operation of FCC license
Only an officer in company can have the direct personal knowledge needed as to
whether or not PSI in fact entered into and maintained by payments insurance and other
performance legally binding site lease to use said rooftop and also the permit required
from the Port Authority of New York that owned and controlled the building to
construct radio-station facility on the outside rooftop that is different from the site-use
lease and in the buildings designated inside rooms for radio equipment
Under the Commissions Ellis Thompson and Intennountain decisions only the licensee
and not an agent manager may have ultimate control of the station facility and only
the licensee is responsible ultimately any interference that may occur and for operations
in compliance with FCC rules An agent including PSIs alleged construction agent
Touch Tel cannot have direct personal knowledge of whether or not PSI obtained said
site-use agreements since no agent could have executed them only an officer in PSI
could have Even if Touch Tel obtained site lease and the permit from the Port
Authority unless with the providers authority it sub-let these to PSI PSI did not have
the required ultimate control and responsibility just noted and there is no evidence that
such two-step arrangements were made no evidence of even one step But the point here
is who is able to testify with direct personal knowledge to PSI site-use agreements if
there were any no one but an officer in PSI can do that
PSI did not produce copies of any such required site-use agreements nor did it even have
any officer swear with direct personal knowledge that PSI obtained them
In addition no officer in PSI even declared what if any actual relation Touch Tel has
with PSI and what if signing the Declarations attached to PSI

actual role any the person
filings has in any PSI matter
Thus even the bald assertions by PSI as to construction and operation at the licensed site
of WQA2 is without the required threshold foundation Rather at location on

the roof somewhere near the coordinates authorized no change in coordinates to any
degree is permitted in AMTS service without major mod application from well prior to
PSIs alleged date ofactivation of WQA2I6
Respectfully
Warren Ravens
Page 141 of 180

President
AMTS Consortium LLC

2649 Benvenue Ave
Berkeley California
510 841 2220
Page 142 of 180

Warren Havens certify that have on this 28th day of September 2007 caused
to be served by placing into the USPS mail system with first-class postage affixed unless
otherwise noted copy of the foregoing Request for leave to submit 80.475b
Information Request to the following
Office of the Secretary
Filed via IJLS under Call Sign WQA21
Audrey Rasmussen counsel to PSI

Hall Estill Hardwick Gable
Golden Nelson P.C
1120 20th Street N.W
Suite 700 North Building
Washington DC 20036-3406
Electronically Signature on File
Warren Havens
8SF LLCs to PSI 124.08 Page 48 of 67
Page 143 of 180

Before the

In the Matter of
Automated Maritime Telecommunications
System Station WQA216
To Deputy Chief Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
OPPOSITION TO 80.475b
INFORMATION REQUEST
Paging Systems Inc PSI1 by its undersigned attorneys and as provided for in Section
1.45b of the Federal Communications Commissions Commissions or FCCs Rules
submits this its Opposition to the 80.475b Information Request Request filed by AMTS
Consortium LLC ACL on September 28 2007 with Scot Stone Deputy Chief of the Mobility
Division Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Bureau and on the
Universal Licensing System ULS

BACKGROUND
Since ACL was told that no leave to file was required to file and the Request was
still filed under PSIs call sign WQA216 and was served on PSI it is assumed that the referenced
filing encompasses all of the information that ACL is requesting from the FCC Accordingly in
the interest of caution and because no additional filing has been forthcoming PSI is submitting
PSI received service copy by mail on October 2007 and accordingly this Opposition to the 80.475b
Information Request Opposition is filed pursuant to Section 1.4h
3SF LLCs to PSI 114.08 Page 49 of 67
Page 144 of 180

this its Opposition to the 80.475b Information Request Opposition If however an
expanded request is filed later with the FCC PSI reserves the right to file further Opposition
For the reasons argued below the Request must be dismissed or denied on the
public record
basis that
request for information has been and
is that for that
it
already produced
it is also an attempt to elicit prohibited discovery at the FCC whipsaw PSI between state court
and an FCC proceeding and circumvent the FCC prescribed procedure that geographic
licensee file an application pursuant to Section 80.385b if it intends to operate near an
incumbents FCC licensed area
IL INTRODUCTION
ACL is urging the Commission to request information from PSI pursuant to the
provisions of Section 80.475 of its Rules concerning the technical operating specifications for
fill-in transmitters operated under the WQA216 Call Sign It is assumed that ACL wants any
information obtained by the Commission should it grant ACLs request to be passed on to it or
placed in the WQA2 16 station file available for public inspection
This is an informal request pursuant to Section 1.41 since Section 80.475 does not
permit private parties to seek such information Section 80.475 provides that only the
Commission can request it ACL makes vague references to need for this information to
permit it as the geographic licensee to construct and operate facilities ACL as geographic
licensee has wide latitude in constructing facilities within the geographic area It does however
have to protect PSIs incumbent WQA216 facilities
III DISCUSSiON
PSI Has Provided All of The Required Information
-2-
Page 145 of 180

PSI provided all the required information with respect to its operation in the New
York market in Petition to Deny against an application pursuant to Section 80.385b for
Northeast Utilities Service Company NLJSCO PSI described its facility at the former
World Trade Center complete with line losses as well as its operating fill-in facilities Thus
ACL is already aware of PSIs claim for protection for its WQA2 16 service area contour from
the World Trade Center building
Nevertheless attached for the benefit of ACL is an Exhibit showing the technical
specifications from which the service area contour has been calculated pursuant to the
Commissions Regulations and the contours for the fill-in locations PSI will work with ACL
and its consulting engineer to ensure protection to PSIs protected service area contour
The Request is an Attempt to Elicit Prohibited Discovery at the FCC
In the past the Commission has expressed its desire to reduce discovery by
parties in its proceedings In hearing proceedings the presiding officer must set parameters on
pre-hearing procedures The same thing is true in complaint proceedings Here however
ACL has asked for open-ended discovery
The Request is in
essence an attempted end-run around the limitations on
discovery in Commission proceedings This request through Section 1.41 that the Commission
FCC File No 0003026497 which requested the authority pursuant to 80.385b to extend into PSIs
license area
Regarding ACLs comment about PSIs refusal to respond to ACLs previous uncivil and preemptory
request for information PSI points to the referenced correspondence See among other correspondence
Attachment to the above-referenced NtJSCO application It is clear that the referenced request was
simply made to threaten and intimidate
See for example Repon and Order FCC 97-396 12 FCC Rcd 22497 71 1997 The proposals in the
Notice were designed to promote fact-based pleadings and to shift the focus of fact-finding away from
costly time-consuming discovery...
See Section 1.248
See Section 1.729 See in particular Section l.729aThis procedure may not be employed for the
purpose of harassment...
-3-
Page 146 of 180

institute discovery for ACL is indeed extraordinary No citation to Commission or court
precedent was provided by ACL in support of the Request Thus absent specific showing of
immediate need the open-ended information Request to permit ACL as the geographic licensee
to construct and operate facilities requires the Commission to deny it As noted above the
information on the fill-in locations has been provided
The Request Is Intended To Whipsaw PSI in State and Federal Proceedings
Having filed suit in the California Superior Court ACL now intends to pursue
PSI in like manner at the FCC Since it has lost on numerous occasions before the FCC with
respect to PSI it is pushing the litigation envelope even thither by attempting to circumvent the
exclusive jurisdiction and the authority that the FCC has over FCC licensing in state
proceeding Here ACL is asking the Commission to join in on its efforts The Commission
must assert its authority in this matter and deny the Request
II ACL Should File an Application
10 Instead of fishing expedition ACL should do as the rules require and file an
application prthenting its proposed operations The Commissions Rules provide procedures for
the protection of incumbent operations In particular Section 80.3 85 provides details of the
applicable standards ACL is always free to construct and operate facilities no closer than 120
kilometers to an incumbent licensee without further leave of the Commission and without
specific showing of protection If ACL desires to construct short-spaced facilities the protection
criteria is specified in Section 80.385
See Note of the Request
See Report Under Section 1.65 re File No 0002147762 filed on August 23 2007
-4-
SSF LLCs to P51 12.4.08 Page 52 of 67
Page 147 of 180

11 The service area contour for WQA2 16 and its underlying specifications is
described in the attached Exhibit PSI will work with ACL and its consulting engineer to ensure
protection to that service area contour If and when ACL has specific proposals that it wishes to
move forward ACLs consulting engineer should contact the undersigned if any assistance is
desired or needed on the part of ACL PSI will make its consulting engineer available to ensure
that ACLs proposal provides the protection required by the Commissions Rules to the PSI
WQA216 service contour There is no requirement to provide showing of protection under
Section 80.385 to any fill-in transmitters
12 In its claim for needed information on the existing PSI fill-in transmitters under
Call Sign WQA2I ACL provides no specificity In othtr words it has not indicated that it has
proposals ready for specific sites operating on specific frequencies Rather it talks in
vague
terms about plans for the fixture Obviously ACL knows the protection criteria applicable to the
WQA2 16 incumbent service area contour If that contour is protected by definition there
should be no interference problems created by the fill-in locations To the extent that ACL
should experience interference in the fixture to actual operations believed to be created by any of
the then existing PSI fill-ins PSI will assist in eliminating any interference in fact caused by its
operations consistent with its responsibility as licensee However to speculate about the
future is hardly justification for grant of the extraordinary relief requested by ACL
IV CONCLUSION
13 In conclusion the Commission must refuse to permit its

processes to be used for
unauthorized discovery There is no precedent and most importantly no factual justification for
The contour which PSt claims for WQA2 16 has been challenged in the referenced NUSCO application
proceeding However until this matter is resolved ACL when protecting the WQA2 16 contour claimed
by PSI will be able to move forward any of its
plans without delay
-5-
Page 148 of 180

this extraordinary request The Commission cannot permit itself to be pulled into the middle of
vexatious private litigation in the state courts of California Having elected to institute such
litigation in the State of California ACL must be bound by the rules of that process It cannot be
permitted to use the Commissions to the public interest to whipsaw

process contrary parties
between the FCC and the state courts
For all the foregoing reasons the Commission must refuse to invoke its
process for the
benefit of private party
Respectfully submitted
PAGING SYSTEMS INC
By _____________
Rasmussen
Audrey
David Hill
ITS ATIORNEYS
HALL ESTILL HARD WICK GABLE GOLDEN NELSON P.C

Washington D.C 2003 6-3406
Telephone 202 973-1200

Facsimile 202 973-1212
Dated October Il 2007
74137vLl99991400014
-6-
SSF LLCs to PS 12.4.08 Page 54 of 67
Page 149 of 180

EX1UBIT
Engideering Statement
WQ4216 Erotection
WTCt Site
IntroductioO
Norj1iest UtilitisSeMce Company NUSCO proposeste constructa

nmltisite prlvate.communications cility utilitizingAMTS spectrum near thePaging
Systems Inc fhOilttyWQAZI ThiproposedThHJSCO system will caUse interibrencU to

and receWe interferenetfrom.the WQA216 icility Therefore thpropoed1lSCO
yji deesinot mot theprotettion criteria of Section O3S5bl
WQA2-16 Parameters
Site WorldTrade Cfler ItetnQigotLs

Latitude t4O-42434
Lobgitu4Ł WO74Q4i3O
Gri4 Elevation 54 Mcta
Antenna Height AbOsr4 Qround 4w4ii Meters
TtansmiSr 54 Watts Oni put
Combiner and Filters it3i abLosa
Coax 228 meters-LDP5-SUA 7/ 0142dB oss
Coax 13o72 meters FSJ4RN 1/F 031 d$ Loss
JumperCable OS metcrs LOS d8Lpss
Copnectors Various Coax COnnectors O.20dR LOSS
Antenna Oxnni-Directional 8s4adoain
EffectiveRadiated Power 16757Wtts
Method of Cohtdnt Calculation
The Commission rquires thc useofS TV cwve to ealculatethe dIistance to
contour values IbrAIvITS Iheilities BecauseThese curves were designed for receive
ntenna heights assocIated with analog Tvtiflties correctibu fitcttJrof9 dbis
required fUr two-way mOMieihcility calculations The 38 dbuW5050contouritt

service contow fbr AlvilS facilities The20 dbuV/tn5O1Oconthuris theinteirhig
contour dl isaddedto.thcese values in order to use the TV curvesitbr calculating
mobile distanceto-contourvaIues
TheJiejg of the center of radiation COR .above the aver terrain of the bas
facility antenna Was obtaine4 for 360 radialsabbut the base stationSeulWy The Merage
teain wa obtained by computer calculation of the average ofterrajnpeints0J kntaptt
73699Figies9 and9
Page 150 of 180

taken from ta 16 Kin on each of the 360 radials Using this height above ayerage
terrain HAM for each zadlal.am the effective ra4iated powcr ER in the diredtion of
the radial the 5%5G and.50 10 TV curves were used to determine the distance to the
service and intctferh% cOfltouts tespectivel These-diStances taken fbr eaeh.of the 360
radials about the basestation.facilitythen formS seryicetand.intertering contain IfTa
directional antenna was used atthe Iboility the ER in the threction of the radial was
4etermined based on the particulir antenna patterzrandaiitenna orientation. Ifanomni

diteOtional aætbnÆwaE used th ER IS the same in all ditecdons aboutthe trrtnsin it
antenna
Both i$erfrriiigandLservice contOurs were calculated for the protectd World

Trade Center WTC facility and aliNortheast Utilities Service-Company proposed sites
as listed in thelJTCSpedtrumServkesdocument Analysis of InterfŁtence- Potential In
the217 MHz.Band for NottheatUti1ities Mardh 23 2007 The list ofthoso sites taken
froth this dotument ia included in Engineering Appendix
Detenninations
have
As
interfering
is shown in tile
contours that overlap

included plot
WQA21the WTC
Sites Greenwich
Ihcilfty service
axid..NorwalkAWC
contour These
sites do not protect the licensed WQA2I facility In addition the NTJSCO sites CS
Isradgeport Greenwich Monroe NbrwakAWC.Reddin and Southbury receive
ihtetence froth WQAZ16 lit is
unfike1ytht adbqtite communication with thes
NUSCO sites can te maintained nader thpt.Iritetference eOuTditions
The proposed MJSCO system does not meetthe protectibn criteria otSect ion
80385b1.
FitiJu Sites forWTC System
Theinformatin below wasprovided by PagingSysterns11ne for the two sitea

that pto4de fill-in swiCe fOrthe World Ttªde Center Site The intetfeitlng cOntours of
these Site lie within the IicensedWTC sitecontoim The eontourswere.oaiculatedity me
and nieet FCC eritetiS. The method of contour calculation fortitose sites Ia t4entipal
tornethods used frtheWTCsitg FigurcZ provides plot of these site with respec$tp
the- WTC site
TiiEesSauare Site
site Tbnes.Stuaft ftemQiaorLbsS

Latitude 144045-22.4
Longitude W073-59-lt5
3rqund Elevation 14.0 Mrs
Mtennaflelght Above Ground 232S5 Metra
Transmitter System 50 Watts into base of antenna
Antenna Oxnni-flirectional SQ0dBd 0gm

Effective hdjated.Power 9976 Wafts
5SF LLCS to PSI 12.4.08 Page 56 of 67
Page 151 of 180

New Jeney.Site
Site 10 MarceilaAverme Item GinorLoss
Latitude N40-47-154
Longitude W014-i5-16.5
Ground Elevation 19O Meters ________________

Antennafleight Above Groulld 100.0 Meters
Tinsrnitter System 34.14 Watts
Coax 61.057 Meters Andrews LDF5- 1.23 db Loss
SOA
Coax 1.22 MbtrkJuinpŁr Cable 0.20 db Loss
Anteba Oinhi-Directibnal 8.00 4BGahi

EffeetieRaditºdPQwr 155.0 Wafts
Char1e Ellis RE
RegistrElon Nniber 16997
Page 152 of 180

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Gladys Nichols do hereby certilS that on this th day of October 2007 the
foregoing OPPOSITION TO 80.475b INFORMATION REQUEST was served on the
following except as noted by first-class United States mail postage prepaid

persons
Warren Havens
AMTS Consortium LLC
2649 Benvenue Avenue
Suite
Berkeley CA 94704
Scot Stone
Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division

445 Twelfth Street S.W
1sf Gladys Nichols
By Electronic Mail
74137 l99991400014
67
SSF LLCs to PSI 12.4.08 Page 58 of
Page 153 of 180

NEXT
DOCUMENT
SSF LLCS to PSI 12.4.08 Page 59 of 67
Page 154 of 180

gjng Systems Inc.s Form 499-A New York New Jersey and Connecticut are not Listed
Paging Systems Inc PSI holds and alleges to have operated an AMTS licensed station in
New York with alleged contours extending into New Jersey and Connecticut but is not listing
any of these states on its 2008 Form 499-A see attached or previously filed Form 499-A the
most recent previously filed Form 499-A found for PSI via the FCCs online database was for
2004see attached as jurisdictions where it is providing telecommunications services In fact
the PSI Form 499-A only listed California as the sole jurisdiction where PSI is providing
telecommunications services even though PSI alleges to have operating CMRS AMTS stations
in several other states
Call Sign of PSI Alleged New York AMTS Station WQA216
Attached below are the following
PSI April 2008 Form 499-A from FCC online Form 499-A database see
http//lallfoss.fcc.gov/cgb/form499/499a.cfm
PSI April 2004 Form 499-A from FCC online database printed 11/1/07
Note Paging Systems Inc.s Form 499-A below with Registration Current as of date of
April 2004 was printed from the FCCs online Form 499-A database on November 2007
the FCCs Form 499-A online database is available at
http//fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgb/form499/499a.cfm The FCCs online database displays the most
current Form 499-A on file for an entity Therefore at the end of 2007 Paging Systems Inc.s
most current filed Form 499-A was from 2004 even though the Form 499-A is required to be
filed each year
Page 155 of 180

FCC Form 499-A Detailed Results Page of
FCC Home Search Updates E-Filing Initiatives For Consumersj
sr ________
FCC CGB Home 499-A Search Form 499-A Detail FCC site map

Legal Name of Reporting Entity Paging Systems Inc
Doing Business As Paging Systems Inc
Principal Communications Type Paging Messaging
Holding Company
Registration Number CORESID 0001204600 0001546423
Management Company
Headquarters Address P.O Box 4249
City Burlingame
State CA
ZIP Code 940114249
Customer Inquiries Address P.O Box 4249
City Burlingame
State CA
ZIP Code 940114249
Other Trade Names

of Process
Telephone
Extension
Fax
E-mail
City
State
ZIP Code
D.C Agent for Service of Process Audrey Rasmussen

Extension
Fax 2029731212
EMail arasmussen@ halles till .com
Mail or Hand Service of Documents 1120 20th St NW
North Building
Suite 700
City Washington
State DC
ZIP Code 200363406

Chief Executive Officer Cooper
Business Address PM Box 4249
http//fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgb/form499/499detail.cfmFilerNum8 12203 12/2/2008
Page 156 of 180

City Eurlingame
State CA
ZIP Code 94011424
Chairman or Other Senior Officer

Business Address
City
State
ZIP Code

Business Address
City
State
ZIP Code
California

This database reflects filings received by USAC as of Nov 04 2008
FCC Home Search llpdates E-Filing Initiatives For Consumers Find Peop
Washington DC 20554 Try 1-888-TELL-FCC 1-888-835- Required Browser Plug-ins
More FCC Conthet Information.. 5322 Freedom of Information Ad

Fax 1-866-418-0232
E-mail fccinfo@fco.gov
httpf/fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgb/form499/499detail.cfinFilerNum8 12203 12/2/2008
Page 157 of 180

FCC Fom 499-A Detailed Results Page of2
ica FCC Home Search Updates F-Filing Initiatives For Consumers

And People
FCC CGB Home 499-A Search Form 499-A Detail FCC site map

Legal Name of Reporting Entity Paging Systems Inc
Doing Business As Paging Systems Inc
Principal Communications Type Paging Messaging
Holding Company
Registration Number CORESID 00012046-00 0001546423
Management Company
Headquarters Address P.O Box 4249
City Burlingame
State CA
ZIP Code 940114249
Customer Inquiries Address P.O Box 4249
City Burlingame
State CA
ZIP Code 940114249
Other Trade Names

of Process
Telephone
Extension
Fax
Email
City
State
ZIP Code
D.C Agent for Service of Process Audrey Rasmussen

Extension
Fax 2029731212
EMail arasmussen@ballestill.com
Mail or Hand Service of Documents 1120 20th St NW
North Building
Suite 700
City Washington
State DC
ZIP Code 200363406
12203 11/1/2007
http//gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cib/form499/499detail.cfmFilerNum8
Page 158 of 180


Chief Executive Officer Cooper
Business Address P.O Box 4249
City Burlingame
State CA
ZIP Code 940114249
Chairman or Other Senior Officer

Business Address
City
State
ZIP Code

Business Address
City
State
ZIP Code
California

FCC Home Search Updates E-Filinq Initiatives For Consumers Find People
Federal Communications Commission Phone 1-888-CALL-FCC -888-225- Privacy Policy
Washington DC 20554 TTY 1-888--TELL-FCC 1-888-835- q1ired Browser Plug-ins

Fax 1-866-418-0232
E-mail 1ccinfotSfccgpy
http//gullfoss2 .fcc.gov/cib/forxn499/499detail.cfinFilerNum8 12203 11/1/2007
Page 159 of 180

NEXT
DOCUMENT

Page 65 of 67
Page 160 of 180

FCC Rule Section 1.946d
Section 1.946 Construction and coverage requirements
Licensee notification of compliance licensee who commences service or operations
within the construction period or meets its or substantial services obligations

coverage
within the coverage period must notify the Commission by filing FCC Form 601 The
notification must be filed within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable construction
or coverage period Where the authorization is site-specific if service or operations have
begun using some but not all of the authorized transmitters the notification must show
to which specific transmitters it
applies
Note The undersigned parties to the instant letter have conducted research
of FCC paper records and online databases and have not found records of
Form 6Ols having been filed by Paging Systems Inc to comply with the
above rule section for its AMTS stations
S5F LLCs to P51 12.4.08 Page 66 of 67
Page 161 of 180

Warren Havens hereby certify that have on this 4th

day of December 2008 caused
to be served by placing into the USPS mail system with first-class postage affixed and into the
Federal Express package system for overnight delivery and as otherwise noted below copy of
the foregoing letter and its appendix and exhibits to the following
Susan and Robert Cooper
Paging Systems Inc

805 Buriway Road
Burlingame CA 94010
Paging Systems Inc

P0 Box 4249
BURLINGAME CA 94011-4249
ATTN Susan Cooper
Audrey Rasmussen counsel to Paging Systems Inc

Washington D.C 20036-3406

Also via email to arasmussenthallestill.com
KENNETH FRIEDMAN counsel to Paging Systems Inc

MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP
TIMES SQUARE
NEW YORK NY 10036
212 790-4500
212 790-4545 fax

Also via email to kfriedrnanmanatt.com
Is Warren Havens is the electronic version Signature on original and on file
Warren Havens
SSF LLcs to PSI 12.4.08 Page 67 of 67
Page 162 of 180


Verde Systems LLC
2649 Benvenue Avenue
Berkeley CA 94704
Ph 510.841.2220 Warren Havens
Fx 510 740 3412 President
August 30 2009
Paging System Inc
Robert Cooper and Susan Cooper
Paging Systems Inc
P0 Box 4249
Bulingame CA 94011-4249
Paging Systems Inc and Touch Tel Corp

805 Burlway Road
Burlingame CA 94010
Copy to
Counsel to Paging System Inc

1120 20th Street N.W Suite 700 North
Washington DC 20036
Mr and Mrs Cooper
address here Mrs Cooper as the allegedlOO% owner of Paging Systems Inc
as alleged before the FCCe.g in File No 0002665432 and Mr Cooper as her
married husband under California law and also the 100% owner of Touch Tel Corp that
as shown in FCC records and other public materials controls PSIs alleged construction
and operation of its licenses in the AMTS radio service in the 17-220 MHz range
For reasons explained below Skybridge Spectrum Foundation and Verde Systems
LLCs SF and VSL hereby request again that PSI comply with certain FCC Orders
discussed below the Orders that apply to your alleged-valid AMTS B-block stations
including those in the greater San Francisco Bay Area under Call Signs
KCE394 Mt Vaca
WHD866 Grizzly Peak
WHV362 Loma Ridge Los Gatos and
WHW396 Devils Peak Burlingame These four together the
Stations The site names in parentheses above are ones PSI assigned in FCC records
Please comply beginning by responding to the requests in the two Attachments
hereto and delivering the

response back to me by email fax or other means by no later
than the close of business on September 15 2009
Page 163 of 180

If PSI does not fully and timely comply with these simple requests then SSF-VSL
will file suit in an appropriate court for injunctive and other relief and seek shortened
hearing for preliminary injunction.1
In addition or in the alternative if PSI does not comply as just stated then 5SF-
VSL may proceed to used the subject B-block spectrum in the subject San Francisco Bay
Area under SSFs and VSLs respective geographic FCC licenses therefore without the
obligation to provide co-channel interference protection to the Stations as discussed in
Attachment
PSI is aware of the Orders since the Orders either resulted from and/or are
cited in proceedings before the FCC in which PSI is party ii as with most all FCC
orders the Orders were made public by the FCC so that all licensees subject of the
Orders have the required notices and iii SSF-VSL cited these in FCC pleadings of
which PSI was formally served this year and thereafter responded We also cite below
again the Orders and the FCC rules they are based upon
By the requests and assumptions in the Attachments even if PSI fully complies
with the requests SSF andVSL do not waive their pending claims against PSI arising
froth PSIs past failures to comply with the same or similar requests and of other
violations of FCC and other law
Sincerely
Warren Havens
President SSF and VSL
Attachments
cc Litigation legal counsel
SSF-VSL can demonstrate to the court if needed certain valuable economic and
philanthropic opportunities which require PSI compliance with the Requests made herein under
the cited FCC Orders These opportunities if not acted upon soon after September 15 2009 will
be irreparably damaged or filly lost Since this letter is at least the third formal written demand
to PSI on the matters of this letters Requests over the course of several years PSI has had an
abundance of time to comply Complying involves merely providing the most basic records that
an AMTS licensee is required to keep under FCC rules and under any actual operated AMTS
station for PSIs Stations sole authorization for commercial mobile radio services
Page 164 of 180

Attachment
First jfyou comply with the request in Attachment below to immediately surrender to
the FCC the identfled terminated Stations then the request in this Attachment is moot
However this Attachment cannot be effectively responded to without also responding to
Attachment since as described in Attachment PSI Station that failed to meet the
at the deadline automatically terminated

construction-coverage requirement therefore
and did not survive to the suspension date discussed in this Attachment below
The of the Stations is based

following request for actual-station technical details upon
FCC Order and the rules cited in said Order which themselves are FCC Orders as
determined by US Courts in regard to 47 USC 401b

The FCC Declaratory Ruling Order see Ordering Clauses at the end FCC 09-
2009 copy attached Exhibit Attachment and the Orders

793 dated April as the to
in original
and Rules it cites including including the following some footnotes deleted
underling added
conclude. an AMTS geographic licensees obligation to provide

station
co-channel interference protection to an incumbent site-based
be based on the stations .rather

site-based actual operating pgmeters
than maximum permissible operating parameters Finally above
.is consistent with our recent decision.. in original
in original See Northeast Utilities Service Company Order

DA 09-643 IJ 11-12 WTB MD rel Mar 20 2009 As we noted in that
decision we expect incumbent A1vITS licensees to cooperate with
geographic licensees in order to avoid and resolve interference issues.2
This includes at minimum providing upon request sufficient
information to enable geographic licensees to calculate the site-based
stations protected contour Id at 12 citing Ffth Report and Order 17
FCC Rcd at 6704 39 This is

necessary because stations predicted 38
dBu signal contour is function of its ERP see 47 C.F.R 73.699 Figs
10-1 Oc but the power limit for site-based AMTS stations in the rules and
In this regard the FCC previously found in another Order that FCC rule section 80.70a
cited below underlining added applies to AMTS In the Matter of Amendment of the
Commissions Rules Concerning Maritime Communications PR Docket No 92-257 Fourth
Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making FCC 00-370 released
November 16 2000 par 22
80.70 Coast stations which transmit on the same radio channel above 150
MHz rnii minimize interference by reducing radiated power by decreasing
antenna or directional antennas Coast stations at locations

height by installing
separated by less than 241 kilometers 150 miles which transmit on the same
radio channel above 150 IvHlz must also consider time-sharing arrangement...
Page 165 of 180

on their licenses is based on transmitter

output power rather than ERP see
47 C.F.R 80.2 15h5 and determining stations BRP requires
gain and line loss

additional information such as antenna
Request
Separately for each of the four PSI Stations see page above provide the
stations actual operating parameters
the transmitter output power
the additional information such as antenna gain and line loss

needed to calculate the site-based stations protected contour.. 38 dBu signal contour
.a function of its ERP
the specific AMTS B-block channels that you alleged to have in
operation at each Station at this time with regard to

your obligation to minimize
interference by ... time sharing arrangement
As noted below this information must be as of the date of the FCC

Ordered suspension of any ERP and resultant service contour for any station not
previously automatically terminated see Attachment
As shown in FCC proceedings PSI is aware of all of said additional
information needed to determine each Stations ERP which includes the specific
antenna and its azimuth as installed and the other antenna systems components
As indicated above the FCC ordered suspension that with no lapse in time
became permanently bar of any increase in each AMTS sited-based stations including
the subject Stations service contours and thus in its EPR since said contours are direct
function of its ERP including antenna azimuth.3
NOTE the above Order FCC 09-793 makes clear that SSF-VSLs obligation to
co-channel interference protection to the said PSI Station is conditioned on

provide
your providing this information SSF-VSL and associates have requested this for
years in
formal written demands and PSI had refused to respond If PSI does not fully and
truthfully provide this information as requested above and thereafter interferes with the
use by SSF-VSL of the subject AMTS B-block co-channel spectrum in the subject
greater San Francisco Bay Area PSI will be in further violation of FCC and other law
and will cause greater damages including those indicated in footnote herein
The suspension is within In the Matter ofAmendment of the Commissions Rules
Concerning Maritime Communications FR Docket No 92-257 Third Further Notice of
ProposedRule Making FCC 00-3 70 released November 16 2000 The permanent bar in the
same docket just noted is in the Fifth Report and Order FCC 02-74 released April 2002 and
in subsequent Orders effecting all future AMTS licensing by auction of geographic licenses
Page 166 of 180

Attachment
The below request to immediately turn in each of the four Stations see page above
licenses to the FCC for cancellation is based upon the following FCC Orders and the
rules cited in said Orders which themselves are FCC Orders as determined by US Courts
in regard to 47 USC 401b

The FCC Declaratory Ruling Order FCC 09-7 93 and the NUSCO order it
cited and the rules it

cited described in Attachment above
This makes clear that PSI was required to have two or more stations the
theoretical minimum for any overlap at all which is sufficient for the purpose of this
letter with overlapping continuity of service coverage at each stations construction-
coverage deadline under FCC rule section 80.45 7a its form at the time of each said
deadline.4
In the Matter of Paging Systems Inc Order DA 00-2737 released

December 2000
The FCC made clear in other Orders that one or more site-based AMTS stations whose
with regard
service contours was were contained within the service contour of another station
of the subject or multiple stations where

to the subject required coverage navigable waterway
could provide the applicant-designated substantial navigable waterway do
only one coverage to
not qualifly as separate stations here Oualilkd station but are considered one station and
as noted above single-station

AMTS systems fail to meet the continuity of coverage
See Fred Daniel dlb/a Orion Telecom Memorandum Opinion and Order 13 FCC
requirement
Rcd 25313 25315 WTB PSPWD 1998 ajffd Order on Reconsideration 14 FCC Rcd 1050
WTB PSPWD 1999 review denied Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 99-358 rel Nov
24 1999
With regard to this multi-station continuity-of-coverage requirement as you know it
was the sine qua non of the FCC establishing and maintaining the AMTS radio service and PSI
lobbied the FCC to extend special protection from geographic licensed

protection interference
said
stations under 80.385b to PSI so that it could as it alleged continue to provide coverage
to the maritime public See e.g First Report and Order FCC 91-18 Gen Docket No 88-
372 released January 25 1991 68 RR 2d 1046 FCC Rcd 437 1991 FCC LEXIS 368 the
Nationwide Order the Daniels-Orion Orders noted above and lathe matter
of. .Paging Systems Inc Memorandum Opinion and Order DA 98-1368 released July 1998
13 FCC Rcd 17474 the Great Lakes Order for the Great Lakes and Pacific and Atlantic
coastlines continuity of coverage means coverage over marine shipping routes.
Further PSI asserted to the FCC that it would meet this continuity of service coverage as the
FCC stated in PR Docket No 92-257 Second MOO FCC 02-74 17 FCC Rcd 6685 2002 FCC
LEXIS 1648 Released April 2002 underlining added
n78 Psis constitutional takings argument is curious see PSI August 23 Petition
at 6-11 given that the service contour PSI now attacks as unconstitutional is the
same contour that it used in its applications to demonstrate that its proposed
would of service See Applications of Fred Daniel

systems provide continuity
d/b/a Orion Telecom and Paging Systems Inc Memorandum Opinion and
Order 13 FCC Bcd 17474 17478 n.19 WTB PSPWD 1998
Page 167 of 180

This as in
many similar FCC Orders including on AMTS makes clear
that when PSI or other AMTS licensees of site-based stations failed to meet the
construction-coverage requirement by the construction-coverage deadline noted in
above the subject stations automatically terminate without specific Commission

Action
As you know said terminated stations must then under FCC rules including
FCC rule section 80.49a3 and the condition stated on each Stations license be
surrendered to the FCC for cancellation
In regards to the above Orders as fbrther explained in the Orders in footnote
herein at the earliest construction-coverage deadline of the Stations PSI alleged to the
FCC to have constructed5 only one Qualified station in the San Francisco Bay Area and
thus that station automatically terminated without specific Commission action and the
station construction that PSI alleged to have thereafter achieved by the applicable more-
recent construction-coverage deadline was also single-Qualified-station construction thus
also resulting in automatic termination
Thus PSI has never had any AMTS stations in the San Francisco Bay Area that
were validly constructed and maintained instead the Stations all automatically
terminated Accordingly PSI must turn back in the Stations licenses to the FCC for
cancellation
Request
If PSI agrees with the above assertions in this Attachment then immediately by
written notice turn in to the FCC for cancellation by no later than the response date noted
on page above each Stations license and provide copy of each notice to me
If PSI disagrees with the above assertions in Attachment then provide to me by

no later than the response date on page above the actual-station details that PSI
represents to be true and correct required by the FCC in the Orders cited in Attachment
above for each Station at the time of its construction-deadline so that SSF-VSL can
determine using the precise FCC-prescribed engineering methods regarding AMTS site
More accurately PSI merely wrote to the FCC in advance of said Stations deadlines that
on or about the dates of said deadlines PSI intended to commence testing to commence service
which is not an assertion of actual construction and coverage at all or of any action at any
particular date Years after these deadlines in 2004 PSI filled-in FCC form stating yes to
undefined construction of the Stations which is not required report of construction on Form
601 but at that time PSI did not change its initial statement that it would merely commence
testing While the above Request for the limited purpose of this letter gives the benefit of the
doubt to PSI assumes that PSI did not merely commence testing at some undefmed time but
actually constructed valid operating Stations by said deadlines it now appears that said PSI
yes statements to the FCC were since the FCC was asking what stations were constructed
by theft deadlines with the rule-required and PSI failed to provide that
coverage
Page 168 of 180

based stations service contours whether or not PSI by these representations timely
constructed the required coverage with two or more Qualified stations
Page 169 of 180

Call Sign Lat Lon AOL_rn CL_rn AMSL.rn

KCE394 38-24-31.7 122-06-37.9W 55 829 884
KEB295 33-42-39.1 117-32-04.2W 21 1697 1718
KZV69O 43-23-25.4 124-07-50.4W 60 262 322
WHD866 37-51-11.7 122-12-33.9W 43 444 487
WH0660 34-16-09.0 118-14-01.3W 15 1545 1560
WHU327 34-20-55.0 119-20-00.4W 51 597 648
WHU559 48-40-444 122-50-35.7W 122 642 764
WHU9I9 32-52-39.0 116-24-54.0W 15 1879 1894
WHW244 40-43-36.5 123-58-29.2W 808 817
WHW296 45-31-27.4 122-44-52.4W 18 317 335
WHW83O 47-32-56.3 122-47-06.5 30 527 557
WHX281 34-31-36.0 119-58-42.5W 27 1298 1325
WHX782 34-13-33.0 118-04-00.2W 28 1721 1749
WRV516 44-00-06.4 123-06-57.3W 94 396 490
Page 170 of 180

EXHIBIT
Document3
Page 171 of 180

Before the

In the Matter of

Form 601 Application and Amendment File No 0002303355
for Auction No 61 WQGF315 WQGF316

WQGF317 WQGF3I8
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC KA98265 KAF88Q KCE278

Incumbent Stations WHG693
KPB531 KUFY32
WHG7O1 WHG7O2 WHG7O3
WHGYO5 WHG7O6 WHG7O7
WHG7O8 WHG7O9 WHGY1O
WHG711 WHG712 WHG713
WHG714WHC715 WHG 716
WHGY17 WHGY18 WHG719
WH0720 WHG721 WHG722
WHG729 WHC73O WHG731
WHG732 WHG733 WHGY34
WHC735 WH0736 WI-1G737
WHG738 WHG739 WH0740
WHG74I WHG742 WH0743
WHG744 WHC745 WHG746
WHG75O WHG751 WHG752
WHG753 WHG754 WHV733
WHV74O WHV843 WHW848
WHX877 WRD58O WRV3Y4
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC WFN

Maritime Radio Service Station
To Marlene Dortch Secretary
Attention Chief Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Page 172 of 180

COMMENT
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC MCLM by its attorney hereby files its
Comments on the Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition filed in the above captioned matter
filed on April 23 2010 by Warren Havens as president of Environmentel LLC Intelligent
Transportation Monitoring Wireless LLC Verde Systems LLC Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC
and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation collectively Havens in the above captioned matter In
support of its
position MCLM shows the following
MCLM agrees with Scott Stone Deputy Chief Mobility Division that this matter has
not risen to the level where the Commission needs to be involved MCLM is willing and
ready to cooperate in the avoidance of interference to its incumbent systems as soon as Havens
demonstrates real need for this information by telling MCLM in what specific market he
plans to build and where he plans to operate Such evidence could include receipts for
equipment site leases customer requests etc In the meantime Havens is just badgering
MCLM in
every possible way he can imagine
Havens request for nationwide incumbent information to be provided all at once Was
request which was not made in good faith Concurrent with his request Havens informed the
Commission that once get the actual station parameters from MCLM whether via Court
action or FCC action plan to run the coverage studies under the applicable rule to
verify gaps and then revoke the

subject licenses and/or other AMTS licenses of MCLM
and formerly Mobex Petition to Deny in WT Docket No 10-83 at 62 filed April 28 2010
Page 173 of 180

MCLM does remain willing to cooperate fully to avoid or resolve harmful interference if
Havens provides evidence that he is making his

request in good faith for the avoidance of
actual interference to his systems However at the present time MCLM has seen no reason to
believe that Havens will construct any AMTS facilities He has done nothing yet despite
owning AMTS licenses for nearly decade now And in the 220-222 MHz band Havens
requested additional time to construct facilities although he had not constructed anything for
ten years see FCC File Nos 0003990344-379 0003989107-176 FCC File Nos
0003990398-431 0003990344-379 0003990398-431 FCC File Nos 0003223118-153 and
0003223081-114
MCLM looks forward to supplying this information when Havens presents it with
specific market needs MCLM looks forward to cooperating to avoid actual interference to its
systems and to those of Mr Havens
Respectfully submitted
MARITIMECOMMUNICATIONS
LAND MOBILE LLC
Is Dennis Brown
Manassas Virginia 20109-7406

703/365-9437
Dated May 2010
Page 174 of 180

-1st
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
hereby certify that on this sixth day of May 2010 served copy of the foregoing
COMMENT on the
following person by placing copy in the United States Mail first-class
postage prepaid
Warren Havens
Berkeley California 94704
Dennis Brown
Page 175 of 180

EXHIBIT
Document3
Page 176 of 180

Sin Ce rely
Warren Havens
From Scot Stone Scot.Stonefcc.gov

To Warren Havens warren.havens@sbcglobal.net brown
d.c.brown@att.net
Cc jstobaugh@telesaurus1com
Sent Thu April 22 2010 85314 AM
Subject RE Further written demand actual station details per DA 09-793
DA 10-664 or forfeit later asserted protection
Mr Havens
Copying me on your communications with other parties is unnecessary The
Commission will not involve itself in matters that licensees are expected to resolve
between themselves While such matters could later develop into matters for
Commission involvement will not review correspondence between licensees that
does not pertain to specific matter that is pending before the Commission
Scot Stone
From Warren Havens

Sent Thursday April 22 2010 151 AM
To brown
Cc Scot Stone jstobaugh@telesaurus.com
Subject Further written demand actual station details per DA 09-793
DA 10-664 or forfeit later asserted protection
Mr Dennis Brown
Mr and Mrs Donald and Sandra Depriest
Page 177 of 180

On this topic began in emails earlier today below

of DA 09-793 and DA 10-664 the Two Orders --
copy of this email will be served by regular email with Certificate of Service today
In addition copy will be filed under MCLM incumbent station licenses on the FCC ULS
First copy Mr Stone here

since make arguments under the Two Orders he signed
ii since in my view am arguing below in defense of the most fundamental FCC rule on
relation between incumbent and geographic AMTS licensees and
iii since in
any case my position below is meant to reduce further extenuated contests before
the FCC on these matters and allow my companies that bought the majority of the and
block incumbent AMTS spectrum in the nation to use it without further artificial blockage and
evasion by MCLM and do not comment here as to the other AMTS incumbent station
licensee
MCLM as legal entity does not exist in law due to years of violation or the minimum State
law requirements including specifying to outside parties in government and private sectors
the entitys actual controllers and officers and acting in accord therewith to maintain legal
entity separate from its owners and controllers and to provide any entity right of holding
assets action liability protection or other legal right or protection However for purpose of
this email use the term MCLM Also by referencing MCLM incumbent stations below also
do not imply that any are valid under FCC law the evidence you and the FCC know of shows
otherwise apart from the violations of the Two Orders note below
Our LLCs and nonprofit foundation Havens Companies previously issued to MCLM written
demands for the actual MLMC AMTS incumbent station technical parameters-- those
described in DA 09-793 and DA 10-664 the Two Orders that incumbent licensees must
provide to the same-channel geographic licensees for the latter to determine under Sec
80.385b the required protection but no more to be provided to the incumbent stations to
their systems composite service contours based on the actual-station ERP and coverage
pattern of the stations those that existed at the freeze of incumbent licensees service
contours and have been maintained in actual permanent lawful operation ever since then
there is no rule-defined safe harbor in AMTS stations being off the air prior to permanent
discontinuance and we know of no Mobex or MCLM waivers in this regard
MCLM refused to respond to these demands and provide the required information
The Two Orders contain FCC orders not suggestions as the ordering clauses stated Even
if pending on reconsideration if you further appeal these orders are in effect Thus MCLM
has violated these FCC orders and remains in violation and this has caused the Havens
Companies damages and moreover violated FCC purposes of AMTS licensing and rules
including Sec 80.385b and the public interest
MCLMs position in court against my Companies --

one case out of the California Court
Page 178 of 180

system is to be presented in week to the US Supreme Court as MCLM knows and the other
one in USDC in New Jersey waiting on finality of the first case -- is that nothing that MCLM
does of any kind that may damage the Havens Companies or damage the markets under
antitrust law violations can be brought in court-- all claims that touch upon MCLM any way
in
be decided by the FCC Yet before the FCC MCLM will not comply with this most basic rule
as to the division of rights of AMTS geographic vs incumbent licensed stations nor honor
FCC rules on auction disclosures discounts fair bidding etc.
do not have to repeat here these written requests indicated above and the Havens
Companies do not waive past and ongoing damage claims However for the Havens
Companies below
repeat to MCLM again the same written request noted above and
to MCLM of the ramifications
give notice if
you do not comply with the preceding item
request
Please provide this information to me for the Havens Companies by the end of this
week It is information MLCM must have immediately at hand since it is the most
fundamental licensee information and keeping station records is FCC rule requirement also
This includes
All of the MCLM AMTS A-block incumbent stations where any MCLM-alleged
incumbent station service contour extends into or MCLM asserts must be protected under
Sec 80.385b by any of the geographic A-block licenses held by Environmentel LLC
Intelligent Transportation Monitoring Wireless LLC or Skybridge Spectrum Foundation
All of the MCLM AMTS B-block incumbent stations including in the Southeast Gulf
Coast and Mississippi River Basin areas where any MCLM-alleged incumbent station service
contour extends into or MCLM asserts must be protected under Sec 80.385b by any of the
geographic B-block licenses held by Verde Systems LLC or any of the entities in
above
If
you do not provide this information by that time then in addition to other legal
remedies and no waiver of damages caused

with by MCLMs past and ongoing violations of
the Two Orders and other FCC law then Havens Companies will
Proceed with further actions bases on our reasonable assumptions factoring in
relevant information --
such as the transmitter power levels commercially available in
217-220 MHz FCC and other records at the time of the alleged construction and
in
FCC freeze note above less than 50 Transmitter Output power what Mobex itself in
files MCLM maintains
including public UCC filings states as license holder stations other
evidence our agents have investigated such as MCLM stations that are disconnected lack
of lease payments and other causes or token with no interconnect or customers etc etc
and use not more than resulting ERPs far lower than the maximum that could have been
constructed under the granted applications resulting in the subject MCLM incumbent station
systems
Page 179 of 180

For some time we wilt probably use but do not here promise giving the benefit of the
doubt what is reasonable to assume consulting experts and keeping equipment and
engineering files toback our position simple systems was built to warehouse-- attempting
if
for that purpose which is apparent in the public records on Mobex and MCLM to keep
signal on the air to keep the license but with no real commercial intent or results-- spectrum
at low cost That warehousing purpose is what MCLM-Mobexs own UCC filings show and all
over evidence at most points to including all its FCC filings and current business of selling
all of its licenses
We do not have to get and do not seek MCLM permission in advance for our
assumptions and resultant determinations of short-space protection of these MCLM alleged

valid incumbent stations since MCLM has elected to violate the Two Orders and keep secret
the most basic details of its alleged valid public-coast CMRS AMTS station systems
supposedly serving the public coast to coast
Take the position before the FCC third parties and courts and other authorities
that MCLM is not entitled to later assert any particular actual station technical parameters
required to have been given to the Havens Companies under the Two Orders and must be
found --if it can first
prove up that it meet all FCC requirements to keep the subject stations in
the first place including overlapping coverage under the then-current Sec 80.475a the
rules on no permanent discontinuance the rules that required interconnect the licensee and
applicant character qualifications etc.-- to have forfeited any protection under Sec 80.385b
that it could have obtained had it
complied with the requirements of the Two Orders and thus
that the Havens Companies AMTS geographic stations system plans and economic
relations based on the above assumptions caused solely by MCLM violation of the Two
Orders can stand with no modification
Sincerely
Warren Havens
President
Environ mentel LLC

Verde Systems LLC
Berkeley California
www.scribd.com/warren_havens .chttp//www scribd .com/warren_havens
www.atliswireless.com http//www.atliswireless.com
www.tetra-us.us
510841 2220x30
Page 180 of 180

Skybridge v. MCLM, PSI, USDC NJ, 2011 Amended Complaint (SC)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Skybridge v. MCLM, PSI, USDC NJ, 2011 Amended Complaint (SC)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 2:08-cv-03094-KSH-PS Document 51-2 Filed 02/18/11 Page 2 of 36 PageID: 1329

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW

MOBEX NETWORK SERVICES, LLC,

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTI\TE RELIEF

COMES NO'W, Plaintiffs Warren C. Havens ("Havens"), Skybridge Spectrum

Systems, LLC ("Verde Systems")), AMTS Consortium ,LLC('AMTS Consortium") (now

known as Environmentel, LLC ("Environmentel")), Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring,

Communications, Inc. (collectively "Mobex"), Maritime Communicationsiland Mobile, LLC

Doe Nos. 1-20 (collectively "Defendants") state as follows.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

inter alia, from a conspiracy in restraint of trade.

2. Plaintiff Warren C. Havens is an individual residing in Berkeley, California.

(explained below), issued by the Federal-Communications Commission ("FCC") in the

A-utomated Maritime Telecommunications System ("AMTS") radio service, for certain

business plans and operations using all of their FCC licenses.

3. Plaintiff Telesaurus VPC (now known as Verde Systems, LLC) is a Delaware

4. Plaintiff AMTS Consortium (now known as Environmentel, LLC) is a Delaware

spectrum and wireless telecommunications services to governmental and non-governmental

5. Plaintiff Intelligent is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal

wireless telecommunications services to governmental and non-govemmental entities within the

State of New Jersey and other states, including for ITS.

6. Plaintiff Telesaurus Holdings GB is a Delaware limited liability company with its

to provide spectrum and wireless telecommunications services to governmental and non-

7. Plaintiff Skybridge is a Delaware nonprofit corporation with its principal place of

business in Berkeley, California, recognized by the IRS as a tax-exempt corporation under

provide spectrum and wireless telecommunications services to governmental and non-

8. Defendant Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC ('MCLM") is a

all times relevant to this Complaint.

g. Defendant Mobex Network Services LLC ("Mobex-N") is or has been a Delaware

when their identity and participation is ascertained.

Defendants named herein, unless otherwise indicated.

JURISDICTION AND YENUE

damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. $$206-07, and 15 U.S.C. $15.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

16. AMTS T, u Service or "CMRS" (as

co-channel Geographic Licenses).

excessively close-spaced co-channel Geographic-Licensed Stations that may cause radio

license in that geographic area.

Complaint, and to this day.

antenna directionality, if it results in expansion of their service area, or "contouÍ" boundary, in

Rule") is codified at 47 C.F.R. $80.385, which states, in pertinent part:

b) Subject to the requirements of $1 .924 of tknschapter, $$80.215(h), and

Licensee to calculate the above-described technical case-by-case determination (where said

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(attached hereto as Exhibitl), the FCC determined that:

we expect incumbent AMTS fsite-based] licensees to cooperate with IAMTS]

See also,FCC Order DA 09-643 (Exhíbit2) at footnote 12 (|'AMTS site-based

interference issues . . . This includes, at a minimum, providing upon request sufficient

information to enable geographic licensees to calculate the site-based station's protected

to enable geographic licensees to calculate the site-based station's protected contour."').

(Exhibits I, 2 and3 shall be collectively referred to herein as the "Cooperation Orders.")

Orders to ensure mutual non-interference.

parameters, collectively attached hereto as Exhibit4). Defendants have disregarded each of

with respect to the Cooperation Orders.

27. Defendants' refusal to provide Plaintiffs with information regarding Defendants'

Site-Based stations' operating parameters is motivated by an anticompetitive purpose and intent

conditions stated on the subject Defendants' licenses.

called "continuity of coverage" or "continuity of service coverage"). At times relevant to this

coverage deadline (47 C.F.R. $1.946).

31. Given the scarcity of available spectrum for commercial ventures,

essential to prevent unlawful "warehousing" of spectrum. This occurs when aparty

pu{pose of preventing competitors from uillizingthe licensed band and location, by