Attachment letter

letter

REPLY submitted by EchoStar

letter

2005-04-19

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20010302-00019 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2001030200019_428576

STEPTOE &JOHNSON« arrorneys at taw Pancels Michalopootos 1110 Connectiue Avenue. NW mansens Washingon. Do 200361795 scememepne on ‘te2022203000 f rox2024202002 fepreen Received arR 9 1 200 iey Branch RECEIVED April§ 19, 2005 intomatonal Bureed APR 1 9 2005 redeal Communceton Connison Via HAND DELIVERY Offect Searniry Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, W.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Mobile Satellie Ventures Subsidiary LLC File Nos. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066, SAT—AMD—20001214—00171, File No. SAT—AMD— 20010302—00019, SAT—AMD—20031 1 18—00335, SAT—AMD—20040209—00014; SAT—AMD— 20040928—00192; Call Sign 2358 EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. File Nos. SAT—LOA—20030827—00179, SAT—AMD—20031 126—00343; Call Sign $2492 Dear Ms. Dortch, EchoStar Satellite LL..C. (*EchoStar") hereby responds to the April 4, 2005 letter of Mobile Satellte Ventures Subsidiary LLC (°MSV") filed in connection with the above applications." In light ofMSV‘s assertion that these applications are mutually exelusive (a conclusion that EchoStar disputes), EchoStar can no longer take no position on the proposed "two—track" reatment of MSV*s pending replacement application for its L—band authorization at 101° W.L., which includes a request for additional alloted, extended Ku—band frequencies. As EchoStar explained in ts March 25, 2008 lettr, the reason for this is simple. ‘ Letter from Jennifer Manner, MSV to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (Apr. 4., 2005) ("April 4, 200 Letter®), washmaron +. new vork + rwornix +. tos anorits + tonpon + srusstis

STEPTOE &JOHNSON« Marlene H. Dortch April 19, 2005 Page 2 If grant of MSV‘s feeder ink proposal were deemed to preclude other users of the allotted extended Ku—band spectrum at 101° W.L., the two tracks requested by MSV would raise an intolerably high risk that this spectrum will be warchoused. Once MSV‘s request for additional frequencies is decoupled from its replacement satellite application, the business consequences to MSV of noncompliancewith the FCC‘s milestone requirements for the allotted extended Ku—band frequencies would be significantly lessened. For example,in the event that MSV is unable to obtain funding for a satellite that utlizes the additional frequencies, it would be able to give up its authorization for the additional frequencies with litle risk to ts existing L~Ku—band MSS operations. Accordingly, if the Commission were to accept MSV*s contention that there is mutual exclusivity, it should treat MSV*s entire "replacement" application as a fresh application because it requests additional frequencies. This ensures that the risk of warchousing described above is minimized and that MSV has the proper incentives to timely utilize all of te spectrum thatit has asked for. Moreover, MSV‘s premise that the two applications are mutually exclusive is incorrect. As previously submitted, EchoStar believes that both ts and MSV‘s proposed use of the allotted, extended Ku—bandfrequencies at 101° W.L. can be coordinated. Indeed, MSV has acknowledged at least the possibility of sharing in both an earlier filing? and in its April 4,2005 letter," and its backtracking from that acknowledgment is counterproductive. MSV now attempts to discount the possibility of coordination by raising several immaterial objections. First, in its April 4, 2005 letter, MSV asserts that EchoStar‘s sharing proposal "is simply too speculative and undefined for the Bureau to grant EchoStar a license."". However, the same letter goes on to summarize EchoStar‘s sharing proposalin some detail —— namely, the spatial separation of EchoStar‘s spot beams from MSV*s feeder link earth station locations so as to avoid interference." A more specific proposalis not possible at this ime because MSV‘s feeder link earth station locations have not yet been finalized. Second, MSV also complains that grant of EchoStar‘s application would limit itsflexibilityin the deployment of additional feeder link earth stations in the future. It is not clear how many additional feeder link earth stations there will be (especially since the establishment ofadditional earth stations would likely require requests for waivers of footnote NG104), but MSV‘s concems can be easily addressed —— upon MSV obtaining authority for an additional feeder link earth station and with due notice to EchoStar, EchoStar would simply tum off * Comments of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC at 6 (*MSV agrees with EchoStar that sharing may be possible ... ) filed in SAT—LOA—20040210—00015 (filed Apr. 26, 2003). * April 4, 2005 Letter at 3 (°MSV continues to be willing to discuss the potential to share frequencies with EchoStar.") * 1. ar2 14. at3. This proposalis not only discussed in the Technical Annex referred to by MSV, but also in the

STEPTOE &JOHNSON« Mariene H. Dortch April 19, 2005 Page3 the spot beam(s)that would potentially interfere with MSV‘s operations.® The grant ofa license to EchoStar subject to coordination with MSV would thus permit uninhibited use ofthe spectrum by MSV for its feeder link operations and productive use ofthe spectrum by EchoStar. Thus, if the Commission were to accept EchoStar‘s contention that sharing is possible and that the applications are not mutually exclusive, it should proceed to grant EchoStar‘s application subject to coordination with MSV in the manner described above. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions about the above. Yours sincerely, Fuuleaa t %'(7“—6’ /fim . Pantelis Michalopoulos Counselfor EchoStar Satellite L LC. Copy to: Thomas Tyez, International Bureau Fem Jarmulnck, Intemational Bureau Robert Nelson, International Bureau Cassandra Thomas, Intemational Bureau Jennifer Manner, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC Bruce Jacobs and David Konzcal, Shaw Pittman LLP * This would be the case for the allotted, extended Ku—band frequencies for which MSV has priority.


Document Created: 2005-04-21 14:16:27
Document Modified: 2005-04-21 14:16:27
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC