Attachment 1999PanAmSat petit t

1999PanAmSat petit t

PETITION submitted by PanAmSat

Petition To Deny Or Require

1999-06-28

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-19990511-00052 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD1999051100052_1073425

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of COLUMBIA COMMUNICATIONS File Nos. SAT—MOD—19990511—000 imp CORPORATION SAT—AMD—19990511—00052 *B4 Application For Modification Of Authorization To Launch And Operate A C—Band Satellite At 47 Degrees W.L. RECEIVELD Amendment To Application To JUN 2 8 1999 Construct, Launch And Operate ’ A Ku—band Satellite at 49 Degrees W.L. EEDERAL COMMURICATIONS COMmMIGGIOM orkice or hE secretany PETITION TO DENY OR REQUIRE A FINANCIAL SHOWING PanAmSat Corporation ("PanAmSat"), by its attorneys, hereby requests that the Commission either deny the above—referenced application of Columbia Communications Corporation ("Columbia") or require Columbia to demonstrate that it is financially qualified. BACKGROUND The 47° W.L. orbital location is underutilized, and has been for some time. At Ku—band, Loral Orion has held an unused authorization for 47° W.L. for more than fourteen years.! Indeed, the United States may be at risk of losing its rights to this slot internationally due to Loral Orion‘s long—term failure to bring a Ku—band satellite into use at 47° W.L. At C—band, pursuant to special temporary authority, Columbia has operated a limited, 12—transponder payload on NASA‘s TDRS—6 since 1996.2 Earlier this year Columbia was licensed to launch a new, replacement C—band satellite at this orbital location.} To date, however, it does not appear that Columbia has made meaningful progress towards this end4 1 Orion Satellite Corp. (now Loral Orion, Inc.) was granted conditional authority to launch and operate a Ku—band satellite at 47° W.L. in 1985 and received final authority in 1991. Orfon Satellite Corp., File No. CSS—83—002—P, Mimeo No. 6871 (released Sept. 6, 1985); Orion Satellite Corp., 6 FCC Red 4201 (1991). 2 See Columbia Communications Corp., 11 FCC Red 8639 (Int‘l Bur. 1996). 3 Columbia Communications Corporation, DA 99—134 (released January 11, 1999). 4 See Columbia Application at 11 (Columbia has not yet executed a construction contract for its 47° W.L. satellite or finalized the design of that satellite).

2. In its application, Columbia asks the Commission to expand in three respects its existing rights to the 47° W.L. orbital location. First, it asks the Commission to grant it permanent authority to operate the TDRS—6 satellite at 47° W.L. for the remainder of the satellite‘s useful life. Second, Columbia requests authority to modify its current authorization to launch and operate a C—band satellite at 47° W.L. to add operations in Ku—band. Finally, Columbia asks that the Commission toll the implementation milestones for its authorized 47° W.L. satellite until the Commission acts on Columbia‘s modification request. There are a number of threshold issues associated with Columbia‘s Ku—band modification request. In order to grant Columbia‘s application, the Commission first would need to revoke Loral Orion‘s authorization to launch and operate a Ku—band satellite at 47° W.L.5 Second, it would need to permit Columbia to amend its application to construct, launch and operate a Ku—band satellite at 49° W.L., which Columbia filed in 1987, in order to locate the satellite at 47° W.L. and revise its technical characteristics. Third, the Commission would need to determine that Columbia‘s request to add a Ku—band payload to its 47° W.L. C—band satellite properly can be achieved via an amendment to Columbia‘s 49° W.L. application and, thus, is not subject to competing applications under the policies announced in the DISCO I Report and Order.© Fourth, the Commission would need to waive the freeze on Atlantic Ocean Region satellite applications to the extent required to process Columbia‘s application as amended." Finally, the Commission would need to waive its financial qualification requirements or require Columbia to make a full financial showing for its proposed hybrid satellite.8 5 Columbia filed a petition in March of this year asking the FCC to revoke Loral Orion‘s authorization. Columbia Petition to Revoke Authorization, File No. CSS—83—002—P—(M) (filed Mar. 19, 1999). 6 Under the policies announced in DISCO I, separate system applications that were pending at the time the DISCO I Report and Order was adopted are to be processed outside of processing rounds, while applications filed after the adoption date of the DISCO II Report and Order are to be considered in consolidated FSS processing rounds. Amendment of the Communications Regulatory Policies Governing Domestic Fixed Satellites and Separate International Satellite Systems, 11 FCC Red 2429 (1996) at Y 44. Columbia has argued that its applicationfor Ku—band authority at 47° W.L. is not subject to competing applications because its 49° W.L. application was filed prior to adoption of the DISCO I Report and Order. Columbia Application at n.15.. The Commission must determine the status that should be afforded to Columbia‘s 49°/47° Ku—band application under DISCO I in order to determine whether Columbia‘s application is subject to competing applications. 7 See Processing of Pending Applications for Space Stations to Provide International Communications Service, FCC 85—296 (released June 6, 1985). 8 See Columbia Application at 11 (failing to submit financial qualifications for the proposed hybrid satellite).

—4— Any decision involving the Ku—band frequencies at 47° W.L. thus presents a situation in which a grant to an under—financed applicant may preclude a fully capitalized applicant from implementing its plans, and may delay service to the public. When — as here — these circumstances exist, the Commission‘s policy is to require a financial showing.!! — Columbia should not be allowed to bypass the Commission‘s financial qualification requirements under the guise that it is merely requesting a change in an existing authorization, rather than applying for a new authorization. Columbia‘s modification request would expand substantially its spectrum rights and make it impossible for another qualified applicant to locate a Ku—band satellite at 47° W.L. The only reason Columbia did not have to make a Ku—band financial showing initially, moreover, is thatit chose to bifurcate its C—band and Ku—band requests, applying originally for a C—band—only satellite and only now coming forward with a Ku—band proposal. Columbia could just as easily have requested authority to launch and operate a C/Ku—band hybrid satellite in the first instance, and the fact that Columbia elected not to do so should not entitle Columbia to evade the Commission‘s financial requirements. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should require Columbia to demonstrate its financial ability to meet construction, launch, and first—year operating costs for its proposed hybrid satellite. If it cannot do so, its request to add a Ku—band payload to its authorized C—band satellite should be denied. II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT IssUE A LICENSE FOR COLUMBIA‘s TDRS—6 OPERATIONS. Columbia has been operating the TDRS—6 C—band capacity pursuant to a grant of special temporary authority for nearly three years, and the record indicates that this satellite has only a few months, or perhaps a year, remaining in its useful life."2 Despite these facts, Columbia now requests that the Commission issue it a "license" to operate its TDRS—6 capacity for the satellite‘s remaining lifetime. At this late date, it would not serve the public interest for the Commission to transform Columbia‘s STA into a license. Columbia cites no precedent for licensing a satellite that is rapidly approaching its end—of—life, and there is no public interest justification for doing so. Columbia‘s request, moreover, suffers from a series of 11 E.g. Columbia Communications Corporation, DA 99—134 at 4 13. 12 See Columbia Communications Corporation, DA 99—134 at J 3 (according to Columbia, the TDRS—6 satellite is expected to reach the end of its useful life by the year 2000).

—5— procedural deficiencies: most notably, it does not appear to have been placed on public notice,!3 Columbia has not submitted an application for the TDRS—6 satellite that complies with Sections 25.114 and 25.140 of the Commission‘s rules, and there is no suitable license term for a satellite with so little usable life remaining. For all of these reasons, Columbia‘s request for a TDRS—6 license should be denied. III. COLUMBIA‘S APPLICATION RAISES INTERFERENCE CONCERNS. At best, it will be difficult to coordinate Columbia‘s proposed satellite at 47° W.L. with PanAmSat‘s operations at 45° W.L., and PanAmSat is concerned that Columbia will cause interference to PanAmSat. Recognizing that the Commission‘s policies require that the parties in the first instance attempt to coordinate, PanAmSat is not filing a technical analysis at this time. PanAmSat did not, however, want to remain silent and have its silence be misconstrued as a lack of concern. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, the Commission should: (1) require Columbia to make a financial showing, and deny Columbia‘s request to launch and operate a new Ku— band payload if Columbia cannot demonstrate that it is financially qualified; and (2) deny Columbia‘s request for a license to operate the C—band payload on TDRS—6. Respectfully submitted, PANAMSAT CORPORATION /s / Joseph A. Godles Joseph A. Godles Mary J. Dent GOLDBERG, GODLES, WIENER & WRIGHT 1229 Nineteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429—4900 Its Attorneys June 24, 1999 13 See Report No. SAT—00018, "Satellite Policy Branch Information, Applications Accepted for Filing (May 27, 1999).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to . Deny or Require a Financial Showing was sent by first—class mail, postage prepaid, this 28th day of June, 1999, to each of the following: Mr. David S. Keir, Esq. . Leventhal Senter & Lerman, PLLC 2000 K Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 /s/ Susan Jamieson Susan Jamieson


Document Created: 2015-01-16 15:34:08
Document Modified: 2015-01-16 15:34:08
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC