Re: Lightsquared = Dillusional [sic]
In the 2005 ruling, the FCC also stated:
"We clarify that “integrated service” as used in this proceeding and required by 47 C.F.R. §25.149(b)(4) forbids MSS/ATC operators from offering ATC-only subscriptions. We reiterate our intention not to allow ATC to become a stand-alone system. The purpose of ATC is to enhance MSS coverage, enabling MSS operators to extend service into areas that they were previously unable to serve, such as the interiors of buildings and high-traffic density urban areas. We will not permit MSS/ATC operators to offer ATC-only subscriptions, because ATC systems would then be terrestrial mobile systems separate from their MSS systems. We therefore clarify that “integrated service” as used in this proceeding and required by 47 C.F.R. § 25.147(b)(4) forbids MSS/ATC operators from offering ATC only subscriptions."
Which basically forbid what LS is trying to do. And while the FCC did not provide a hard cap on stations (believing that the economics of satellite communications would naturally limit it to a small number), ATC deployment was always subject to Federal regulations CFR 25.255
"If harmful interference is caused to other services by ancillary MSS ATC
operations, either from ATC base stations or mobile terminals, the MSS
ATC operator must resolve any such interference. If the MSS ATC operator
claims to have resolved the interference and other operators claim that
interference has not been resolved, then the parties to the dispute may
petition the Commission for a resolution of their claims.""