Attachment reply

reply

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERA submitted by Mobile

reply

2005-07-19

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20001214-00171 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2000121400171_446144

Before the ORI@iAeD Federal Communications Commission juL 1 9 2005 Washington, D.C. 20554 y edun Communiceton ConBson In the Matter of ottce t Seruett Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC File No. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066 File No. SAT—AMD—20001214—00171 Appliation for Authority to Launch and File No. SAT—AMD—20010302—00019 Operate an L—band Mobile Satellite Service File No. SAT—AMD—20031118—00335 Satellite at 101° W.L. File No. SAT—AMD—20040209—00014 File No. SAT—AMD—20040928—00192 Reply to Opposition to Petition for Clarification or Partial Reconsideration Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (*MSV") hereby files this Reply to the Opposition ofPanAmSat Corporation ("PanAmSat") and SES Americom, Inc. (°SES")! to MSV*s Petition for Clarification or Partial Reconsideration ("Petition")" ofthe International Bureau‘s ("Bureau‘") decision granting MSV a license for a next—generation L—band Mobile Satelite Service (*MSS") satellite at 101°W ("MSV—1")." In its Petition, MSV asked the Bureau to clarify that the rule requiring Fixed Satellite Service ("FSS") satelltes to operate with £0.05° East—West station keeping does not apply to MSV—1, an MSS satellte, and that MSV is thus permitted to operate MSV—1 with +0.1° East—West station keeping box subject to coordination with other operators at 101°W.* PanAmSat and SES object t this request, arguing that MSV—1 ‘ See Opposition of PanAmSat Corporation and SES Americom, Inc., File Nos. SAT—LOA— 19980702—00066 et al. (July 7, 2005) ("Opposition"). * See MSV, Petition for Clariication and Partial Reconsideration, File Nos. SAT—LOA— 19980702—00066 et al (June 22, 2008) (*Periion"). * See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Order and Authorization, DA 05—1492 (May 23, 2005) (°MSV—1 Decision"). * As MSV has explained previously, the unique mass of ts satelite and the significant solar pressure on the satellite necessitates a wider station keeping box than other satelltes. See MSV, Response, File No. SAT—AMD—20040928—00192 (January 10, 2005), at 3—4 and Technical Appendix.

should operate with +0.05° East—West station keeping because it will include an FSS payload for feeder links. Opposition at 2. PanAmSat and SES fail o recognize or address that the Commission has already considered in a rulemaking the issue of whether to require MSS satelltes to operate with +0.05° East—West station keeping." In June 2004, the Commission adopted a decision in which it decided not to impose this requirement on MSS satellites.® The Commission acknowledged that MSS satellites include an FSS payload for feeder link operations but stllrefrained from imposing £0.05° East—West station keeping on MSS satelites." As such, there is no rule requiring MSS satellites to operate with £0.05° East—West station keeping. Despite the unsubstantiated claims of PanAmSat and SES, MSV‘s requested clarification will not result in harmful interference or an overlap with the station—keeping volume ofother satelltes. MSV is asking the Bureau to clarify that MSV can operate MSV—1 with +0.1° East— West station keeping provided MSV coordinates with operators at 101°W. Any issues pertaining to harmfulinterference or overlap of station—keeping volume can be resolved during coordination among the affected operators." 5 See Mitigation ofOrbital Debris, Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, TB Docket No. 02—34, FCC 02—80, 17 FCC Red 5586 (2002). * See Mitigation ofOrbital Debris, Second Report and Order, 1B Docket No. 02—54, FCC 04—130 (June 21, 2004),at § 44 (*We decline, at this time, to adopt changes to Section 25.210() to specify a longitudinal tolerance of+0.05° for all space stations, including MSS and remote sensing space stations.") " 1. * MSV notes that there are no satelltes using MSV‘s Appendix 30B Ku—band frequencies within over 5 degrees of 101°W; thus, PanAmSat‘s and SES‘s claims of "harmful interference" resulting from a widerstation keeping box are unfounded.

For the foregoing reasons, MSV asks that the Bureau deny the Opposition of PanAmSat and SES and proceed to issue MSV‘s requested clarification. Respectfully submitted, LC Xber Bruce D. Jacobs £2%—/Z&~ Tennifer A. Manner David S. Konczal Vie President, Regulatory PILLSBURY WiNTHROP MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES SHAW PITTMAN LLP SUBSIDIARY LLC 2300 N Street, NW 10802 Parkridge Boulevard Washington, DC 20037—1128 Reston, Virginia 20191 (202) 663—3000 (703) 390—2700 Dated: July 19, 2005

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Sylvia A. Davis, a secretary with the law firm ofPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, hereby certify that on this 19th day ofJuly 2005, served a true copy of the foregoing by first—class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Thomas Tycz* Cassandra Thomas* International Bureau International Burcau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12® Street, SW 445 12" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Fem Jarmulnel® Robert Nelson® International Bureau Interational Bureau Federal Communiations Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12® Street, SW. 445 12® Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Steve Spacth® Kalpak Gude International Bureau Vice President & Associate General Counsel Federal Communications Commission PanAmSat Corporation 445 12® Street, SW. 1801 K Street, N.W,, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20006 Pantels Michalopoulos Naney J. Eskenazi Steptoe & Johnson LLP Vice President & Associate General Counsel 1330 Connectiout Avene NW. SES Americom,Inc. Washington, D.C. 20036 Four Research Way Princcton, NJ 08540 Counsel for EchoStar Satllite LLC Sylg:a tk 4‘ *By hand delivery Deesmens: isusst i


Document Created: 2005-07-28 16:31:24
Document Modified: 2005-07-28 16:31:24
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC