Attachment ORDER AUTHORIZATION

ORDER AUTHORIZATION

ORDER & AUTHORIZATION submitted by FCC,IB

ORDER AUTHORIZATION

2005-05-23

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20031118-00335 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2003111800335_434078

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Mobile Satellite Ventures ) File No. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066 Subsidiary LLC ) File No. SAT—AMD—20001214—00171 ) File No. SAT—AMD—20010302—00010 Application for Authority to Launch ) File No. SAT—AMD—20031118—00335 and Operate an L—band ) File No. SAT—AMD—20040200—00014 Mobile—Satellite Service Satellite ) File No. SAT—AMD—20040028—00102 at10r® W.L. ) Call ign 82358 ) ) Order and Authorization Adopted: May 23, 200 Released: May 23, 2005 By the Chict, International Bureau 1 TRODUCTION 1. By this Order, we authorize Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (MSV) to launch and operate a second—generation L—band Mobile Satellite Service (MSS)‘ satellte, known as MSV—1, at the 101° W.L. orbit location. The satellite will provide MSS on a common carrier basis within the United States, and between the United States and North America, Central America, the northem part of South America, and the Caribbean. Grant ofthis application will allow MSV to continue to serve its existing customers, expand the range of ts services, and provide competitive communications services to the most rural and remote areas. 11. BACKGROUND 2. MSV is the successor to Motient Services, Inc.(formerly known as AMSC Subsidiary Corporation)." Itis authorized to operate the U.S—licensed L—band MSS satellite, AMSC—1, on up to 20 megsherts of spectrum (10 megshertz in each transmission direction) in the 1525—1544 MHz (space—to—Farth), 1545—1559 MHz (space—to—Rarth), 1626.5—1645.5 MHz (Earth—to—space). * As used in this Order and duthorization, theterm "L—Bang" denotesthe1525—1559Miiz and 1626,5—1600.5 Mitz frequency bands. "MSV is th anly entiy the Commision authoried tIunch and aperate a U S. MSS sytem in the L—band. In Novermber 2001, theCommisson approved th appleation ofMotiet and TML Communications and Companys Limited Pariership (*TMI®) t consoliate their U.S,L—band MSS opentions io a newcompany called Mobie Satlite VentiresLP CMSV LP",. See MorienServicesIn. TMI Communications and Company LP, and Mobile Satlfte Ventures LLC, Order and duthorizaion, 16 FCC Red 20469 (In. Bur,2001)

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 and 1646,5—1660.5 MHz (Earth—to—space) frequency bands for MSS service link operations‘ and in the 10.75—10.95 GHz (space—to—arth) 13.0—13.15 GHz (Earth—to—space) and 13.2—13.25 GHz (Earth—to—space) frequency bands for Fixed—Satellite Service (FSS) feeder link operations.* AMSC—1 was launched into the 101° W.L. orbitlocation in 1995. MSV began offering service from that satelite in 1996. 3. In July 1998, MSV filed an application to launch and operate a satellteto replace AMSC—I at the 101° W.L.orbit location." MSV proposed to use up to 14 megahertz of spectrum in each of the 1626.5—1660.5 MH and 1525—1559 MHz bands for service links. It also proposed to use 100 megahertz of spectrum in the 12.75—13.00 GHz band and 100 megshertz of spectrum in the 11.2—11.45 GHz band for feeder link operations. 4. In December 2000, MSV amended its application to request an additional 150 megahertz of feeder link spectrum in each transmission direction, for a total of 250 megshertz in each direction, in the 11.2—11.45 GH(space—to—Earth) and 12.75—13.00 GHz (Earth—to—space) frequency bands.® n March 2001, MSV filed another amendment to add an ancillary terrestrial component (°ATC®) to ts system." The Commission placed the application, as amended, on Public Notice in March 20015 AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CITA), New ICO Global Communications Ltd., Inmarsat Ventures PLC, Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Deere & Company, Cingular Wireless LLC, Verizon Wireless, and SITA Information Networking Computing Canada, Inc. and Ericsson Inc. filed comments or petitions to deny the ATC component of the application." The commenters objected to MSV‘s ‘See Amendment of Parts 2, 22, 25 ofthe Commission‘ Rulesto Allocate Spectrum forand toEstablish Rules and PoliiesPeraining to the Uie of Frequenciesin a Land Moble Stelit Servie fr the Provision ofVarious Common Carrier Servies, Memorandir GpinionOrder and Authorzaron,4 ECC Red 6041 (1989) CLSY Licensing Orde®) remanded by Aeronautcal Radio,Inc.v. PCC, 928 F2428 (D.C. Cir 1991); Final Decision on Remand,7 ECC Red 266 (1992); afd, Revonmuical Radio,Ic.v. ECC, 983 F2275 (D.C. Cir. 193) see also AMSC Subsidiay Corporation, Memorandars Opinionand Order, 8 FCC Red 4040 (1992) (‘ALicense Modifcation Order") and Esablishing Rulesand Poliisforth use of Spectrur for Mobile Satelte Services in the Upper and Lower L—band, Report and Order,17 ECC Red 2704 (2002) Lower L—Band Report and Orde) "MSFLicensing Order 4 FCC Redat 6048, para. 52. The term "feedelink"refers o indsitliteservice radio links caryingsignals n both directions between a MSS satelite and gteway earh sttions. The gteway carth sttions comneet the MSS ystem withothernetworks, such as e publc switched elephone netvork. * See Application of AMSC Subsidiay Corporatin, Fie No. SAT—LOA—19980702:0006(hul. 2, 1998). ° See Application oMotient Services In. File No SAT—AMD—20001214—00171 (Dec. 14, 2000) " See Application ofMobile Satlite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, ie No. SAT—AMD—20010302.00019 (Mar.2, 2001) The term "ancilary teresial component® mean a terestil communications network used n conjunction witha qualifying satellte network ystem authorized prsuantto Commision ules * See Public Notice, Report No.SAT—00066 (Mar. 19,2001) * Kieomm Satlfte Communications L. also fled comments. Kicomm requestd thatthe Commission not"sam the door" on compettion in the lower L—band. At the time, Kiteomi had pending a Leter ofItent (LODt serve the U.S. market with asatlitelcensed by Austalia thit would use a portion ofth lower L—band. The Bureau subsequently dismissed the LOI because the proposed opentions would inerfere wthexising service t customers. See Kitcomm Satelite Communications Lid, Order, 19 FCC Red 6069 CBu 2004). Kitcomm and Decre also epposed the then—proposed merger of TMI and Morient on the groundgrounds that it would bar any possblity of (continued.. 3

Federal Communications Commission ba Os—1492 request to use the L—band for errestrial services. They believe that this use will result in a reduction of L—band satellite capacity and that such non—conforming use should be addressed in a rulemaking proceeding and not by waiver. 5. On November 4, 2003, MSV submitted a letter‘"requesting that the Commission refrain from applying ts new bond requirement to its appliation. In the Space Station Licensing Reform Order,"\ the Commission replaced the then—existing financial qualification requirements with a requirement that licensee execute a performance bond no later than 30 days after grant."" MSV states that because it wishes to continue to serve its established customers, there is no question about speculation or warchousing. MSV also claims that it would not have been subject to the bond requirementifthe Commission had acted on its application sooner. MSV also argues that itsintent to provide public safety services justifies a waiver ofthe bond requirement. EchoStar opposes MSV‘s request, noting that the Commission intended the new bond requirement to apply to all FSS and MSS satellte licensees secking to operate on spectrum not previously licensed to it." 6. MSV filed a further amendment"" to its application in November 2003 to increase the amount of feeder link spectrum to 450 megahertz within the 12.75—13.25 GHz uplink band and 450 megaherte within the 11.2—11.45/10.75—10.95 downlink bands. The amendment also revised certain technical parameters for its replacement satellte" and deleted the ATC component ofthe Amendment."* MSV requested a waiver of Footnote NG1O4 of Section 2.106 of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, which limits use of these frequencies by GSO satellites (..contimed from previous page) competiion in the United Saes. We addresed these commentsin our Orderorder approving the MoventTM consolidtion and need notaddressthem furtherhere. See note 2 supre. " Leter from Lon Levin, Viee President, MSV to Marlene Donch, Secretay, CC (Nov. 4, 2003) (CASF Leter") t 1 "* Amendmentto the Commission‘s Space Sution Licensing Rulesand Poliis, Airst Report and Order and Notice ofFurther Rulemaking, 1B Docket No.02—34, and Mitiation ofOrbial Debris, Frs Report and Order, 1B Docket No.02:54,18 RCC Redl 10760 (2003)(Space Surion Licensing Rdform Orde") " t at 10826, pare.170. " Leter from Pantlis Michalopoulos, Counsel for EchoStar Satellte Corporation to Mrlene H. Doh Secretuy, ECC (Nov, 14,2003)(‘ReboStarLeter") "* See Appliation of Mobile Satelite VentresSubsidiry LLC, FilNo. SAT:AMD—20031118—00335 (Nov. 18, 2002) © See Appliation of Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiy LLC, File No. SAT—AMD—20031118—00338 (Nov.18, 2003). The most signiicant changes MSV proposed t he technicl prameters ofthe satliteare as fllows:() to inereasethe size of the L—band srvice k antemna;(1)t ncreasethe EquivalentIstropially Radiated Power (cizp) ofthstelite;(i) t nereasethe potenial numberof —band spot beams;and (1)t modify th bascine airinterfice protocalfrom GMR onlyto GMR—2(stelitadapuation ofGSM),S—edma2000 (sutelitadapraon of edma2000), and SWCDMA (saelite adaptationof W—CDMA}. MSV included revised ink bdgets o reflecthese changes " Rathe, MSV applied for separate authority to adan ATC component to itim—orbit AMSC—1 stelie and to include an ATC component on fuure satelftes ncluding MSV—1.. We granted his authoriy in Mobile Stelite Ventires Subsidiry LLC, Orderand duthoriztion, DA 04—3553 (IntBur, 2004)

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 to international services only. MSV also requested a waiver of Section 25.210() ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.210G),to operate with a greater East—Weststation—keeping tolerance. 7. In February 2004, MSV again amended its application to request an additional 50 megahertz of spectrum (in each transmission direction) for feeder links at 10.70—10.75 GHz (space—to—Earth) and 13.15—13.20 GHz (Earth—to—space), for a total of 500 megahertz in each transmission direction."_ In its amendment, MSV requested a further waiver of Footnote NG104 of Section 2.106 ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.FR.§ 2.106, to cover the additional spectrum. It also requested a waiver of Section 25.210() ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.210G), to operate with a greater East—West station—keeping tolerance. 8. PanAmSat Corporation (PanAmSat), Intelsat LLC (Intelsat), and SES Americom, Inc (SES) jointly filed an Opposition to the MSV station—keeping waiver request. They argue that allowing MSV to operate with an East—West station—keeping tolerance of—0.10° would leave less gcostationary satellite orbital space for satellites to be safely and easily co—Located nearby. DIRECTV, inc. filed comments opposing MSV‘s waiver request due to the congestion at the nominal 101° W.L. orbit location where DIRECTV operates four satellites."" In response, MSV states thatits second—generation satellite is bigger than typical satelltes and will therefore expend most ofits available fuel to achieve a geosynchronous orbit. MSV says that it will save fuel if we permit it to operate within a £0.1° station—keeping box and that requiring it to adhere to a +0.05° station—keeping box, which is required by the rules, will reduce the life ofthe satellite by one—half" 9. On April 23, 2004, the Satellite Division sent MSV two leters, one of which dismissed the February 2004 amendment to add 50 megahertz of feeder link spectrum in each transmission direction and the other of which requested additional information concerning the 450 megahertz of feeder link spectrum in each direction previously muxeszed.z‘ We took this dual approach in light ofa Public Notice we issued in December 2003." In that Public Notice, we elarified the analysis applicants must use in the two—degree spacing showing required to be filed with each application for a new space station. We also indicated that we would provide applicants filing applieations before the Public Notice with an opportunity to amend their applications to conform to the clariied requirements but would dismiss applications filed subsequent to the Public Notice that did not contain this analysis." We therefore dismissed " See Appleationof Mobile Sarellte VentresSubsidy LLC, Fie No. SAT—AMD—20040209—00014 (Feb.9, 2009 "Jont Opposion at 1. " DIRECTV comment at 12. ® MSV Response ard 7‘ See Leter o Lon C. Levin, Vie President, Mobil Satelite Ventures Subsidiry LLC, from Thomas S. Tycz, Chict,Satelite Diisin, Interational Bureay, PCC, DA 04—1095 (Apr 23, 2004)CMSFDisnissal Lever®). "" Public Notce, SPB—195, /nermational Bureau Clarifcation of CFR. 47 CFR, 25140 (B)2) Space Staion Application Imerfirence Anabiis, 18 FCC Red 25099 (Dcc.3, 2003) 4

Federal Communications Commission ba os—1402 MSV‘s February 2004 Amendment but invited MSV t file a conforming amendment with respect to its earlier requests. 10. In response, MSV filed an interference analysis for its "pre—2004" frequencies. It also filed a Petition for Reconsideration ofthe Division‘s dismissal of its February 2004 Amendment, claiming it did not understand that it had to submit a two—degree spacing analysis when there were no operating or proposed co—frequeney satellites within two degrees of MSV—1‘s proposed orbit location. EchoStar filed an Opposition to MSV*s Petition for Reconsideration and MSV filed a Reply. In June 2004, to clarify the apparently common confusion about the need to file a two—degree analysis when there are no co—frequency adjacent satellites, we issued a Public Notice clarifying that, in such cases, the applicant must submit an analysis that demonstrates the compatibility of ts system with an identical system at an assumed two degree separation."* We also stated that we would dismiss all applications that did not include this "hypothetical" analysis on a going—forward basis but that we would request this analysis from pending applicants that had not provided one. 11. In light ofour decision to afford several then—pending applicants an opportunity to submit a two—degree spacing analysis pursuant to the June 2004 Public Notice, we granted MSVs Petition for Reconsideration and reinstated MSV‘s February 2004 Amendment."" Consistent with the June 2004 Public Notice, we afforded MSV an opportunity to provide the required two—degree spacing analysis for the spectrum requested in that Amendment. On September 28, 2004, MSV filed this analysis. It also filed further information pertaining to ts request to operate the proposed satellte with an East—West station—keeping tolerance outside the permitted limit"" 12. We placed MSV‘s November 2003, February 2004, and September 2004 amendments on Public Notice on October 8, 2004."" EchoStar fled an Application for Review of the Burcau‘s reinstatement of MSV‘s February 2004 amendment, to which MSV filed an opposition and EchoStar filed a reply."* 1. DISCUSSION A. Processing Procedure 13. MSV states that MSV—I will be a replacement for its AMSC—1 satellteat the 101° W.L. orbit location. Given the huge costs ofbuilding, launching, and maintaining a satellite system, the Commission has provided GSO satellite operators the assurance thatthey will be *‘ Public Notie, $PB—207, 19 FCC Red 10632 Cune 13, 2006) * See Moble Stelite VenniresSubsidiry LLC, Order, 19 FCC Red 18133 (lrl Bur 2004) * see Application of Mobile Stelite VentiresSubsidiryLLC, File No. SAT:AMD—20080928—00192 (Sept 28, 200 7 See Public Notc, Report No. $4P.00248 (Oct 8, 2004) " See Mobile Steite VentresSubsidiry LLC, Amendmentto Applicaion for Authority o Launch and Operte a Replacement MSS Satelite at 101 W.L., dppliationfor Review, ied October 15, 2004 by Echostar SteliteLLC (Echosar Application for Review)

Federal Communications Commission ba os—1492 able to continue to serve their customers once their in—orbit satellite i retired."" While this is the first request for a follow—on NGSO—liksatelit,"" the replacement expectancy is equally applicable here. The Commission considers applications for replacement satellites on a streamlined processing basis and will "grant stamp"the application if the applicant is otherwise qualified."" The Commission has held, however, that a licensee has no replacement expectancy with regard to next—generation satellitesthat increase the system‘s coverage area or use additional frequencies." 14. We disagree with MSV‘s characterization of MSV—1 as a replacement satellite. MSV requests additional spectrum in both the service—link bands and in the feeder—link bands. In the service—link L—band, MSV requests authority to operate MSV—1 on 14 megahertz of spectrum in each direction. AMSC—1, however, is authorized to operate on 10 megahertz in each direction. Thus, MSV is not entitled to a replacement expectancy with respect to the additional 4 megahertz of spectrum in each direction and we would ordinarily subjectthis additional spectrum to the modified processing round procedure established for NGSO—like systems in the Space Station Licensing Reform Order." However, in its Lower L—band Report and Order," the Commission limited MSV‘s L—band operations to 10 megshertz of spectrum in each transmission direction. Citing strides in spectrum—efficient MSS technologies in reducing the amount of spectrum required for an economically viable L—band MSS system, the Commission modified MSV‘s Hicense for AMSC—1 from 14 megahertz ofspectrum in each transmission direction in the "upper® portion ofthe L—band to 10 megshertz of spectrum in each direction across both the "lower" and "upper® L—bands."® The Commission further indicated that if it could coordinate interationally more than 10 megahertz in each direction for a U.S. MSS system,it would first consider applications from other U.S. MSS applicants before considering awarding the additional spectrum to MSV." MSV has not provided any reason for us to revisit this decision. Thus, we deny MSV‘s request for an additional 4 megahertz of L—band spectrum in each direction. In light of this denial, we can now consider the service—link portion ofthe MSV—1 application as a replacement application. This means that we can consider the L—band portion of MSV—1 without instituting a processing round. 15. MSV also requests authority to use previously unauthorized spectrum for its fixed—satellite service (PSS) feeder—links. Because feeder links use directional earth station antennas and can provide co—frequeney, co—coverage service at geostationary satellite orbital * See ex, Licensing of Space Sutions in the Domestc Fixed—Satlite Service, Report and Order; 50 Fed. Rex 36071 (Sept 5,1989), t parn 27. ® While the MSV—1 satlite will operate in peostationary—satelite orbit, we considethe serviceink portion as "NGSOJike" for procesing purposes because the satelite will communicate with user terminals with omaidiretionl atennas. See Space Staion Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at 10773, pars. 21 * Space Station Licensing Reform Order,18 ECC Red at 10856 par 253. * Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at 10857—58, par. 25. " Space Starion Licensing Reform Order, 18 ECC Red al0760, 10782:90, pams. 447. * Lower L—Band Report and Order, 17 ECC Red at 2704, par. 19 ® m * Lower L—Band Report and Order, 7 ECC Red ut 2704, par. 20. 6

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 spacing of two degrees, we consider them as GSO—like for processing purposes."". Thus, we will consider this portion of MSV‘s request pursuant to the processing procedures for new GSO—like satellites. Specifically, MSV‘s request to use additional FSS feederlinks is governed by the first—come first—served policy for GSO—like satellites seforth in Space Station Licensing Reform Order." Under the firs—come first—served procedure, the Commission will grant an application if the proposed satelite will not cause harmful interference to a previously licensed satellite or a satellte proposed in a previously filed appliation and the applicant is otherwise qualiied. The Commission will not take action on subsequent applications until it acts on the mutually exclusive application that is *first—iline." 16. MSV proposes to use 500 megaherte of frequeney in each direction for its feeder link opemuons Of this tota, there is no dispute that MSV is firs—in—line for 450 megsherte in each direction." EchoStar disputes MSV‘s frst—inline status with respectto the 10.70—10.75 GHz (space—to—Rarth) and 13.15—13.20 GHz (Earth—to—space) frequency bands that MSV requested in its Pebruary 9, 2004 amendment, Echostar had previously requested to use the same frequencies as part of ts earlier filed application to construct, launch and operate a satelitat the 101° W.L. orbit location. On February 9, 2004, the Satellite Division dismissed, without prejudice to refiling, EchoStars application as both incomplete and intemally inconsistent: w Later that day, MSV filed its amendment to use this same 100 megshertz ofspectrum (50 megahertz in each direction) on itsproposed satellite at 101° W.L... On February 10, 2004, EchoStar refiled an application that included the same 100 megahertz ofspectrum. The Commission subsequently dismissed MSV‘s February 2004 amendment for failure to file a two— degree interference analysis. As noted, the Commission laterreinstated MSV‘s application given the confusion about the need tofile a two—degree spacing interference analysis when thereare no co—frequency satelltes operating or licensed within two degrees ofthe proposed satellteAs a result, MSV is first—in—line in the processing queue with respect tothis 100 megahertz of spectrum. Further, we disagree with EchoStar that any grant to MSV that precludes others from using this 100 megahertz of spectrum would increase the risk of"warchousing" this spectrum."" The Commission‘s first—come first—served procedure for GSO—like applications—which was "" in cases where a proposed satellte has both "NGSO—like" and "GSO—like" component, such as MSV—1, the Commissionstated it wll consider the proposal as two separateapplications. It wll considethe GSO—like portin under the *stcome, fstservedtprocedire and the NGSO—like portion under the modifed processing round procedire. SpaceSaion Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at10786, paras 57 " pace Staion Licensing Reform Order, 18 ECC Red sel0760, 10810—12, pars 125—131 * For caity of discussionwe inclide in this total the 200 mepahertz in each direction that the Commission has already authorized to AMSC—1 frfeederlinks in the 10.73—10.95 Gitz and 13.0—13.1/13.2—13.25 GHte bands. We recognize that MSV is etiledt a "replacement expectancy"for this spectrim but,asa poctcal mater, we will granit opertingauthorityfor this spectrum on MSV—1 on either a "replacement expectancy" or"frsen—ine" bsis it wfind MSV othervise qualified " Leterto David K. Moskowtz Senior Viee President and Generl Counse, EchoStar Sarllte Corporation fom Thomas Tyee,Chict Stelite Diisin, FCC, DA 04—323 (Feb,9,2004) ("EchoStar Dismissal Leter®)(inding inconsistenciesbetweenrequested frequency bandsand incomplet technical information regardingthe Channel Frequency Plan} * Mobile Satellte Ventuires LLC, Order, 19 FCC Red a18133 © See Leter from Pastelis Michalopoulos, Counsel for EchoStar Satlite Corponation, to Mariene 1. Donch, Secreta, FCC (Mar. 25, 2005)

Federal Communications Commission pa os—1492 designed to give applicants filing first the sole license to operate on the proposed frequencies— contains a variety ofsafeguards to prevent warchousing."" Consequently, MSV is firs—in—line for all ofits proposed 1000 megshertz of feeder link spectrum (500 megsherts in each direction) under the Commission‘s first—come first—served policy*" and we will award it a license to operate on these frequencies if it is qualified." 8. 17. In considering applications to launch and operate a new satellite system, we must determine whether a grant will serve the public interest.. In making this determination, we consider, among other things, whether the applicant is qualiied to launch and operate the satellite. The Commission has previously granted MSV space station licenses, finding that MSV possesses the requisite legal qualifiations to hold a Commission license. Nothing in the record here supgests that we revisit this conclusion. C. Qualifications 1. ATC 18. Several entities challenged MSV‘s request to provide ATC services using MSS frequencies. Those arguments are moot in light of the Commission‘s finding that MSS providers can provide ATC in conjurction with the provision of MSS over MSS frequencies*" and the Commission‘s recent authorization of MSV to provide ATC services in conjunction with ts provision of MSS in the L—band."" ® Among other things,lcensees must post a performance bond wthin 30 days and must adhere to specified cansirction milestones. Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 ECC Red at 10826, ars. 170 "* On October 15, 2004, EchaStar filed an application for eview requesting the Commisson to review ts deciion to reinsate MSV‘s Febriary 2004 amendment EchoStar‘s application foeview is pending. This granto MSV is ofeoure, subject t te outcome ofhat proceeding " EchoStar ecenty suggested that it may be able to coortiate shared use ofthis 50 megaherts with MSV. See LeterLetirs from Pantlis Michalopoulos, Counsel for EchoStar Sateite Corporation, to Marene H. Dortch, Secretry, FCC (Mar, 25, 2005 and Apr. 19, 2005) MSV sttes that it is wiling to discussa sharing arrangement with EchoStar. ee Lettersfrom Jennier A. Manner, Vice President, Regulatory Affirs for MSV to Marlene H Donch, Seeretny, CC (Apr 4, 2005 and Apr. 29, 2005). If the partes reach an agreement, we will eterin a equest that nvolves co—frequency operatins. * Flexiblityfor Delivery of Communications by Mobile Stelite Service Provides in the 2 GHz Band, the L~— Band, and the162.4 GHte Bands; Review ofthe Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non—Geostationry Satelite Orbit Mobil Satlite Service Systems in th1.62.4 GHtz bands, Repot and Orderand Narce ofProposed Rulemaking, 113 Docket Nos, 01—185 and 02—364, 18 RCC Red 1962 (2003), periins foreconsideation pending (47C Acport and Order}, moified su sponte by Order on Reconsideraton, 18 ECC Red 13590 (2003) ® Mobile Saellte VertresSubsidiay LLC, Order and Auchoriatin, DA 04—3553 (ntl Bur. 2004). I this Order and Authorization, we granted MSV‘s request for ATC authoriy, sublct t cerain conditons,and coningent upon the grant of the ther—pending lcense appliation for MSV—1. "The Order and duthoriation also provided that MSV‘s ATC authorty wllexpire concurenty withthe MSV—1 Hense,if gramed 8

Federal Communications Commission ba os—t492 2. East—West Station—keeping Tolerance 19. MSV requests a waiver of Section 25.210() ofthe Commission‘s rules,"" which requires that GSO space stations be maintained within +0.05° oftheir assigned orbital longitude in the eastwest direction, unless specifically authorized by the Commission to operate with a different longitudinal tolerance, and except as provided in Section 25.283(b) (end—oflife disposal) of the Commission‘s rules."" MSV seeks to operate within +0.10° of its assigned nominal GSO orbital ongitude."" According to MSV, a waiver is justified because there are no nearby satellites to which MSV—1*s operations could cause interference."" In addition, MSV states that the costs of complying with a+0.05° east—west station—keeping tolerance (such as increased fuel to maintain a tighter tolerance) outweigh any purported benefits." 20. DIRECTV, Inc. states that the very congested 101° W.L. orbit location is not an appropriate candidate for relaxation ofthe East—West station—keeping rules. DIRECTV notes that it operates four satelltes at the 101° W.L. orbit location and is constrained by international agreement to locate all ofits DBS satelites atthe nominal 101° W.L.. orbital location within a 0.4° "box" bounded by 100.8° W.L. and 101.2° W.L.". DIRECTV observes that MSV seeks to operate in one—half of the "box" in which all DIRECTV satellites must operate. PanAmSat, Intelsat and SES Americom also argue thata larger station—keeping box at 101° W.L. would adversely affect co—Located satellites."" With so many satellites clustered at 101° W.L., they state that some satellites might be foreed to operate in overlapping longitudinal boxes."" In that case, they note that an altemative co—location strategy would be needed to avoid close approaches, which would increase fuel usage for neighboring satelltes, while MSV would conserve fuel attheir expense."" Finally,they acknowledge thatall satelite operators have to endure a fuel penalty in order to comply with the Commission‘s station—keeping rules. In response, MSV argues that the Commission has not applied a ©0.05° East—West station—keeping box to GSO MSS satellites. MSV also cites he large mass of MSV—1 compared to other satellites, which will require that all o ts available fuel will be expended in order to achieve its final geosynchronous orbit. * *«rcrr prag " 47 CBR.§ 28 283 (b. Seealso OrbtalDetris Order, 19 FCC Red at11567. * MSV Applation File No. SAT—AMD—20040209—00014 at 16. We construe this request asone to maintain the MSV sitelite within 20.1° ofits asigned orbital longtude,asasessedatthe nodal pointofthe orbit " MSV ApplicationFile No. SAT—AMD—20040200—00014. ar 17. " MSV ApplicationFile No. SAT—AMD—20080200—00014 at 17 ° DIRECTV comments t 2. * Joint Oppositon at1 " Joint Oppositon at 2 * Join Opposiion t 2. 7 MSV Replyard

Federal Communications Commission pa os—1402 21. The Commission may grant a waiver for good cause shown."" Waiver is appropriateif (1) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and (2) such deviation would better serve the public interest than would strictadherence to the general rule."" Generally, the Commission may grant a waiver of is rules in a particular case only if the relief requested would not undermine the policy objective ofthe rule in question and would otherwise serve the publicinterest.® MSV states that a waiver is justified because there are no other satellites to which it could cause interference. MSV‘s analysis, however, is limited to those systems that are operating co—frequency with the MSV spacecraft and does not include other spacecraft that are not co—frequency, but may be impacted by the extended station—keeping box. Indecd, the operators of several ofthese satelltes have raised concems about MSV‘s proposed station—keeping box. Given this, we find that a waiver would undermine the policy objectives of this rule and would not serve the public interest. Accordingly, we deny MSV‘s waiver request 3. North—South Station—keeping Tolerance 22. To save station—keeping fuel, MSV also requests authority to operate MSV—1 with an initial north—south inclination®" of as much as six degrees." This inclination would decrease under the influence of gravitational forces of the sun and moon and then would begin to increase, thereby fuctuating between sbout zero and six degrees during the expected life ofthe satelit. MSV states that itssatellite will operate consistent with the requirements for inclined orbit satellites set forth in Section 25.280 ofthe Commission‘s rules.". We grant MSV‘s request. We note, however, that granting this request creates a potential for harmful interference between MSV—1‘s Ku—band operations and Ku—band NGSO fixed—satellite service (FSS) satelites. Pursuant to TTU Radio Regulations, GSO satellites such as MSV—1 are protected against interference from NGSO FSS satellites operating in the same band, provided that the GSO satellite‘s north—south inclination is 4.5® o less."* Thus, during those periods in which MSV—1 will operate at an inclination of up to 4.5¢, MSV‘s network will be fully protected from interference from NGSO FSS networks."" During the periods in which MSV—1 will operate at an inclination more than 4.5%, its operations will not be protected from such NGSO operations. MSV will receive only the protection afforded to GSO satellites within a 4.5° north—south station—keeping inclination. We expect MSV to coordinate its operations at these higher " 47 CER. § 13. See also WATT Radio v.FCC,418 F2d 1153 (D.C. ic 1969)(FAIT Radio}; Nontesst Cellaar Tel. Co.v. FCG, 897 Fad 1166 (D.C. Cir 1990) (Wortheast Celluar} " See Northeast Celider, 897 F2mt 1166 °* See MATT Radio 418 E2d at 1157 © The inclination of an orbit is the angle beteen the orbital plane and the Eart‘s equatorial plane, mensured counterclockwise.. A zero inclination ortit would meanthe sutlite is orbiing diectly over the equator an inclination 0f90 degreesis a perfecly polar orit 9 MSV ApplicationFile No SAT—AMD—20080200—00014 a17 947 c 5 2s 260. * See Aricle 22.51, Table 22—4A * See AmendmentofPars 2 and 25 ofhe Commisson‘s Rules tPernit Operation ofNGSO FSS Systems Co— frequency With GSO and Terestial Systems in theKu—Band Frequency Range, First Repor and Order and Further Novice ofProposed Rulemaking, 16 ECC Red 4096 (2000), e 4143—44 10

Federal Communications Commission a os—402 23. inclinations with licensed NGSO FSS operators. Absent a coordination agreement, we require MSV—1‘s operation atinclinations between 4.5° and 6° to be on an unprotected and non—harmful interference basis to NGSO FSS satellites and MSV will receive only the protection afforded to GSO satelltes within the 4.5° North—South station—keeping box."* 4. L—band Operations a. Introduction 24. MSV—1 will have separate antenna systems for the service and feeder links. The service link antenna will use a 24—meter reflector with approximately 400 spot beams for coverage of the contiguous forty—cight states, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, Central America, the northem part of South America and the Caribbean. Under the Intemational Table of Frequency Allocations, the 1525—1535 MHz band is allocated on a co—primary basis®" to MSS and the Space Operation Service in Region 2." ‘The 1535—1550 MHz and 1626.5—1660 MHz bands are allocated on a primary basis to MSS. The 1660—1660.5 MHz band is allocated on a co—primary basis to MSS and the Radio Astronomy Service."" Domestically, he Commission has allocated the 1525—1559 MHz and 1626.5—1660 MHz bands to MSS on a primary basis and the 1660—1660.5 MHz bands on a co—primary basis to MSS and the Radio Astronomy Service."" In addition, there are a number of footnotes tothe allocation table that place additional constraints on MSV*s operations in portions of these bands.. We discuss these in tum. b. Co—Primary Allocati n for the Space Operations Service 25. As noted, the 1.5 GHz downlink band is allocated on a co—primary basis to MSS and the Space Operations Service in Region 2. We remind MSV that it must coordinate its operations with co—primary operations in the 1525—1535 GHz band under the ITU Radio Regulations and that ts operations are not entitled to any protection from interference until it has completed coordination. "* To the extent MSV‘ planned operations n inclined orbit are impocted by denil of ts request for waiver of the eastwes station—kepingrequirement, MSV willneedto seel modifcationof ts authorzatonto reflect any change in planned operations °* Space stations operating in primary services areprotected aginsintrfrencefrom sations ofsecondary services Suitions operting in the secondary servce cannot cause harmful interferenc to or clim protection from harmful interference from sutions of a primary service. Co—primary servies have equal rights o operte in paricular frequences. 47 CR §§ 2.104(0) and 2.105@@). 5 For thealloction of frequencie, theIterational Telecommunication Union (U) has divded the worl into three regions. Region 2 includes North and South America. See 47 CR 2.104 #«1crR 52106 "* See Amendment ofPars2, 25, and 87 f he Commission‘s Rulesto Implement Decisions rom World Radjocommunication Conferences Conserning Frequency Bands Between 28 Mitz and 36 GHt and to Otherwise Update theRules in hisFrequency Range, ET Docket No. 02—305, FCC 03—269 (2003) 11

Federal Communications Commission pa os—1402 c. Passive Research for Extraterrestrial Emissions 26. According to Footnote 5.341 of the ITU Radio Regulations, some countries are conducting passive research in the 1525—1559 MHz band to search for intentional emissions of extraterrestril origin.". The use of the 1525—1559 MHz band by the mobile—satellite service is subject to coordination under Article No. 9.11A ofthe ITU Radio Regulations."" Thus, we require MSV to coordinate its MSS operations in good faith with passive research operations being conducted by other countries. Purther, any radio station authorization for which coordination has not been completed may be subject to additional terms and conditions as required to effect coordination of the frequency assignments of other administrations."" d. Maritime and Acronautical Mobile—Satellite Distress: Communications Services 21. Intemational Footnote 5.353A of the ITU Radio Regulations states that MSS systems operating in the 1530—1544 and 1626.5—1645.5 MHz frequency bands may notinterfere with maritime mobile—satellite service (MMSS) distress, urgeney, and safety communications that are also operating in these frequencies. International Footnote 5.353A protects MMSS distress, urgeney, and safety communications, such as Global Maritime Distress and Safety System ("GMDSS®), by providing priority access and real—time preemptive capability for GMDSS communications. Domestically, to ensure MSS compliance with the provisions of Footnote US315, which is similar to Intemational Footnote 5.353A, the Commission established priority access and preemption requirements and policies for the mobile—satellite service in this band and incorporated these requirements into is rules. * 28. Further, mobile—satellite service operators must comply with International Foomate 5.357A of the ITU Radio Regulations for operations in the 1545—1555 and 1646.5— 1656.5 MHz frequency bands and with Intemational Footnote 5.362A of the ITU Radio Regulations for operations in the 155—1559 MHz and 1656.5—1660.5 MHz bands. They provide that the acronautical mobile—satellte (R) service (AMS(R) 5) shall have priority access and immediate availability over all other MSS operations. AMS(R) S is a mobile satellite service using mobile terminals on—board aircraft. This service can be used to support domestic and interational ai trafic,including air traic control. The (R) indicates that the spectrum is used for aeronautical communications related to the safety and regularity of flights primarily along national and intemational civil ai routes. Further, MSS systems operating in these bands may not cause unaceeptable interference to, or claim protection from, acronautical mobile—satellite (R) service communications with priority 1 to 6 in Article 44 ofthe ITU Radio Regulations."" " InertionalFoomote 5341 to Section 2.106 ofhe Commissin‘s mles, 47 CFR.§2.106 7 See International Footmore 5.354 o Setion 2.106 of the Commission‘s ules, 47 CF R.§2.106. " Seea7 CER3 25.1110). "* Lower L—band Report and Order,17 FCC Red at 2704 "* Aricle 41 of the ITU‘s Radio Regubtionssets foth th ordeof proriy for communiation in thacronsutial mobile service and aeronautical mobilesatlite service..Priorites 1—6 are as folows: 1) distress cal, distress (continued..) 12

Federal Communications Commission ba 05—1492 29. MSV must comply with the Commission‘s rules regarding priority access and real—time preemption because ts Satellite Ground Station Subsystem (GSS) and Mobile Switching Center (MSC) will manage all satellite resources (Ze. frequencies and power) and completely control the allocation of those resources to the mobile user terminals that use the satellte. MSV states that its satellte system will comply with all applicable requirements. As with the current system, the icensee will maintain a reserve pool ofresources that will permit any additional demands of the AMS(R) S and GMDSS network to be met immediately. This AMS(R) S and GMDSS reserve pool will be maintained by retrieving resources from within the MSV network. We believe that the continuation ofthis practice, which has been successful on MSV‘s existing satellit, represents a reasonable approach to mecting MSV‘s prionity and preemption requirements. 30. MSV does not request authority for U.S. fixed—gateway earth stations and mobile carth terminals (METs). Gateway earth stations and METs located in the United States will be Hicensed under separate applications in accordance with Part 25 ofthe Commission‘s rules. Nonetheless, in 1993, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) created a minimum set ofcapabilitiesto ensure that fixed—gateway earth stations and METs operating in the 1545—1559 MHz and 1646.5—1660.5 MHz bands comply with Footnote US308 and ITU Radio Regulations 5.357A and 5.362A." We will require that any U.S, fixed—gateway earth station and METs communicating via MSV—1 meet the minimum set of capabilities set forth in the ©1993 NTIA Recommendations." 31. We also will require that all METs accessing MSV—1 conformto the emission Himitations set forth in Section 25.216(h) and (1) ofthe Commission‘s Rules."" These emission levels were adopted in the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellie proceeding."" These emission levels were designed to protect the Global Navigation Satellte Systems (GNSS)— For all transmissions, limited amount of power radiates outside of the "operating" bandwidth. These "out—of—band" emissions may cause interference into another system. For this reason, the Commission has created rules to gover such emissions."" All METs must comply with the Commission‘s rules dealing with emission limitations."" Further, we anticipate that METs accessing MSV—1 located on aireraft will be type accepted under Part 87 of the Commission‘s ules.""— Finally, International Footote 5.374 ofthe ITU Radio Regulation requires that mobile (..contied from previous page) messages and disress traf; 2) communications precoded by the urpency signal 3)communications elating o radio directionfinding; ) Righ afaty messages 5) metcorlogical messagesand 6) Righrepularity messages. * See Letter to Cheryl Trit, Chief, Common Carier Bureau, FCC, from Richurd D. Parow, Asociste Administator, Offce of Spectrum Management, NTLA, and Gerald Markey, Manager, Spectrum Enginecring Division, FAA,and atischmentto thleter,dated January 14, 1993 1993 NTTA Recommendations*) "ancr® syas21600, 0 "*: See Amendment of Pars 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mcbile Personal Communications by Satefte (GMPCS) Memorandim of Undersanding and Amangements, 1B Docket No.99.67, Report and Onder and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 ECC Red $309 (2002)(modified in GMPCS, Second Report and Order,1B Docket No9—67, 18 FCC Red 24423 2003). "seear CR3 2520200. "arcer g2s200. "arcen s ani, 13

Federal Communications Commission Da 06—1492 earth stations in the mobile—satellite service operating in the bands 1631.5—1634.5 MHz and 1656.5—1660 MHz shall not cause harmfulinterference o stations in the fixed service operating in the countries listed in No. 5.359." Therefore, we require MSV to ensure thatall METs accessing MSV—1 comply with International Footnote 5.374 ofthe ITU Radio Regulation. . Distress and Safety Communications 32. MSV has requested authority to use the 1544—1545 MHz and 1645.5—1646.5 MHz band segments. According to Intemational Footnotes 5.356 and 5.375 ofthe ITU Radio Regulations, the use ofthese bands by the mobile—satelite service is limited to distress and safety communications. MSV proposes to use MSV—1 to provide commercial MSS services to North America, Central America, the northem part South America and the Caribbean. Given the broad range ofcommercial services provided on the MSV system, we will not permit MSV—1 to operate in the 1544—154571645.5—1646.5 MHz bands and potentially disrupt emergency communications in these bands: . Radio Astronomy Service 33. MSV has requested authority to operate in the 1660—1660.5 MHz band segment. The 1660—1660.5 MHz segment is allocated on a co—primary basis to MSS and the Radio Astronomy Service (RAS). International Footote 5.376A ofSection 2.106 of the Commission‘s rules states that mobile earth stations operating in the band 1660—1660.5 MHz shall not cause harmful interference to stations in the radio astronomy service." In addition, Footote US342 of Section 2.106 ofthe Commission‘s rules states that all practicable steps shall be taken to protect the radio astronomy service from harmful interference. We remind MSV thatit must coordinate with co—primary operations in the 1660—1660.5 MHz band and that its operations are not entitled to any protection from interference until it has completed coordination. z. Coordination with other L—band MSS Systems 34. In North America and nearby international airspace and maritime areas,five satellte systems, which all operate in geostationary—satellite orbit (GSO), currently provide service in the L—band‘s 66 megahertz (33 megahertz in each transmission direction) MSS allocation. In 1996, the operators ofthe five North American L—band systems signed a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU). The MoU specified that "[sJpectrum allocations to individual operators will be reviewed annually on the basis of actual usage and short—term projections of future need." Unlike most intemational coordinations that create permanent assignments of specific spectrum, the operators‘assignments can change from year to year based on their marketplace needs. While the most recent operator—to—operator agreement dates from " Also see Iterational Foomore .374 to Setion 2.106 of the Commission‘s ules, 47 C.F.R.§ 2.106 ° ImerationalFoototes 5.356 and 5.375 to Sction 2.106 of he Commission‘s mles, 47 CIFR. §2.106 ** See InerationalFootmote 5.376A in ITU Radio Regulation or Section 2.106 of the Commision‘srles, which stats:*Mobile earth stations operatig in the band 1660—1660.5 MHe shall not cause harmfulinterference to sttions in the radiastronomy servie." "47 CR §2.106, Foomore US342 14

Federal Communications Commission ba os—1492 1999, the five parties have continued to coordinate their operations informally and have been operating interference—free.We expect MSV to continue to operate MSV—1 in accordance with the current arrangement with other MSS providers and in compliance with any subsequent agreement. We also remind MSV that until coordination is completed, its operations will be on a non—harmful interference basis to other lawfully operating satellite or radio faciities and will receive no protection from interference caused by those faciltes. 5. Ku—band Operations a. International Plan 35. MSV‘s fixed—satellite service feeder link and TT&C operations will be conducted in the 10.7—10.95/11.2—11.45/12.75—13.25 GHte frequency bands from earth stations in the United States. According to International Footote 5.441 of the Table of Frequency Allocations,"" use of these bands by geostationary—satellte systems in the fixed—satellite service shall be in accordance with the plan prescribed in Appendix 30B ofthe ITU Radio Regulations. The plan already provides for operation ofa U.S.—licensed satellte at 101° W.L.. Appendix 30B specifiesa procedure for modifying the plan to permit additional FSS uses upon a showing of compatibility with ESS allotments and assignments pursuant to the plan. We have previously modified the plan for 200 megahertz ofspectrum MSV is currently using. MSV did not submit a revised Appendix 30B analysis with ts request for an additional 300 megaherte offeeder link spectrum. Nevertheless, we agree with MSV that it should be able to resolve any excess interference through coordination agreements with affected administrations. Thus, while we grant MSV operating authority for its proposed Ku—band operations, the operating authority is contingent upon the issuance of a favorable ITU finding pursuant to Appendix 30B, Article 6, and Section 111 ofthe ITU‘s Radio Regulations. Untl such a finding is issued, we will allow MSV to operate on this Ku—band. spectrum on a non—harmful interference basis. b. Two—Degree Spacing 36. The Commission‘s FSS satellte licensing policy is predicated upon two—degree orbital spacing between geostationary satellites."" This policy permits the maximum use of the geostationary satellite orbit."" MSV has submitted the technical information specified in the Commission‘srules."" Upon review of this information, we find that MSV—1s FSS feeder link and TT&C operations are two—degree compliant and meet all other technical requirements for these feeder link operations. * ImermationalFoomote 5.441 to Section 2.106 ofthe Commission‘s rles, 47 CFR.§ 2.106. * For more information regarding the Commission‘s two—degreespacing policy,see Licensing Space Stations ithe Domestic FixedSatllte Service, 48 FR. 40233 (Sept 6,1983) " See, eg., Assignment of Orbitl Locations to Space Stations i the Domestic FxedSatelite Service, Orderand Authoriation, 11 ECC Red 13788 (1996), t 13790. Prioe tothe Commisson‘ adaption of the two—degree spacing policy, satlftes in the geosrionarysatelite orbit were usully spaced hree orfour degrees apart By adopting tules hat enabled sateite operators o place their space sttions two degrees apar, the Commission was able to accommodate more geostationary stlites "" Seed7 CER. 55 25.114 and 25 210 is

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 37. Wenote, howeve,that although there are no power—flux—density (‘PPD®)limits in the Commission‘s rules for emissions from a GSO satelltein MSV‘s proposed downlink bands,theITU has established PFD restrictions to preventinterference withterrestrial wireless services."" MSV‘s PFD specifications are consistent with these restrctions." . Waiver of Footnote NG1O4 38. Footnote NG104 of Section 2.106 ofthe Commission‘s rules states that use of the 10.7—11.7 GHz and 12.75—13.25 GHz bands in the United States by the fixed—satellte service in the geostationary—satellite orbit shall be limited tointemational systems."" MSV requests a waiver of this rule for ts feeder link and TT&C operations, which will be conducted from two earth stations in the United States. 39. The Commission previously granted MSV a waiver ofNGIO4 for its current satellite, AMSC—I1, toallow it to use a total of 200 megahertz in each direction for feeder tinks." MSV states thatits proposed operations on MSV~1 will similarly involve only a small number of feeder link earth stations and thus will not hinder the development ofterrestrial fixed services that share the band on a co—primary basis."" Indeed, the Commission recently granted a number of similar waiver requests, including one for MSV‘s MSV—2 satellite. n granting these waivers, the Commission said that allowing small numbers of gateway earth stations to operate in this portion ofthe Ku—band should not increase the frequency coordination burden on terrestrial wireless services significantly more than the burden imposed by existing permitted use ofthose bands by international systems."" 40. Accordingly, we grant MSV‘s request for waiver of Footote NG1O4 for its feeder links and TT&C operations, which will be conducted in the 11.45 GHz and 13.25 GHz frequency bands atits existing gateway earth stations in Reston, Virginia and Alexandria, Virginia. As such, we find that the two TT&C earth stations should not significantly increase the "* SeeSection V of Article 21 of the MTU‘s Radio Regulatons " MSV Application SAT—AMD—20040209—00014 at 18. The Commission has extablished idenical PFD limits for downlinks in th adjacent 1095—11.2 GHt band. See 47 CFR. $ 25208() "47 CR §2.106 Foomore NG1O# " S Licensing Ordeat6082, paras. 64 * For example,the Commission has delined to amend Footnote NGIO# t pernit NGSO FSS user terminals o aperatn this band becausedoing so would permit a biqutous deplayment" ofeath stations that would hamper development ofterestnalservices. Amendment of Pars 2 and 25 ohe Commission‘s Rulesto Prmit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co—Frequency with GSO and TerestalSystems in the Ku—Band Frequency Rango, Pirst Report and Orderand Further NPRM, 16 FCC Red 4096, (2000) (‘K—hand NGSO FSS Order‘). Appontix 30B of the TV Radio Regubtions identfis thefollowingfrequency band forthe iedsuelite service plan: 45001800 vite, 725—7028Mitz,10.70—1095 GHte, 1.20—1.45 Git and 12.75—13.25 Gite. "" Kuband NGSO FSS Ordeat 31 and .65 (refsingto Timit the mamber ofNGSO FSS gateway earth sutions thatcould operate, bt noting that most appicants proposed to deplo lessthan fve gteways), stablishment of Polis and ServiceRulesfothe Mobile Satellte Sevice th 2 GHtz Band, Notice ofProposed Aulemaking, 14 ECC Red 4843 (1999), t 83. n r: Bocing Co., Order andduthoriaton, 18 FCC Red 12317 (2003). See aso Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiry LLC, Order andduthoriation, DA No.08—50 (tBur. 2005 (CMSF—2 Order®) 16

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1402 coordination burden on Fixed—Service applicants. MSV must sll apply for license modifications ofthose two earth stations to request authority to communicate with MSV~1 on the additional spectrum in the 11.45 GHz and 13.25 GHz frequency bands. d.. Protection of Other Services 41. As noted, the Commission has allocated the 10.7—11.7 GHz (space—to—Earth) and 12.75—13.25 GHz (Barth—to—space) frequency bands on a co—primary basis with the Terrestrial Fixed Service."" The Commission has also allocated the 12.75—13.25 GHz (Earth—to—space) band to FSS on a co—primary basis with the Terrestrial Mobile Service."" MSV shall comply with Section 25.203(c)ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(c), which sets forth coordination and other procedures designed to ensure thatthere is no harmful interference between stations operating in co—primary services. In addition, we expect MSV to take the same measures to protectterrestrial fixed and terrestrial mobile services thatit set forth in its application for ts MSV—2 satelite serving South America."" First, MSV shall coordinate ts feeder link stations with errestrialfixed and mobile systems as required by Section 25.203(c) of the Commission‘s rules." In addition, MSV shall have a coordination study conducted on its earth stations to determine their suitability for operation and will apply mitigation techniques to ensure adequate protection ofthe earth stations and terrestril systems. To ensure that its feeder link operation will not impede implementation ofthe Commission‘s spectrum—relocation policy for Fixed Service licensees currently operating in the 18.3—19.3 GHz band, we expect MSV to demonstrate when applying for feeder link earth station licenses that the proposed uplink operation would not interfere with, or equire protection from, the operation of any existing Fixed Service station atits current sit in the event that the Fixed Service station‘s assigned frequencies were to be shifted pursuant to Section 101.8$, Section 101.89, Section 101.91, or Section 101.95 of the Commission‘s rules."" 42. In addition to protecting fixed and mobile services, we also expect MSV to protect other services operating in the bands it will be using. First, the 12.75—13.25 GHz: band is allocated to the space research service (deep space) (space—to—Earth) for reception only at Goldstone, Califoria. * We require MSV to take "all practicable steps" to ensure that its feeder link transmissions will not interfere with this service. Additionally, Footnote NGS3 of Section 2.106 of the Commission‘s rules reserves the 13.15—13.20 GHz band for television pickup and Cable Television Relay Service ("CARS®) inside a 50 kilometer radius ofthe top 100 television markets identifed in Section 76.51 of the Commission‘s rules."" To avoid interfering "«rcrR 52106. "m " ASY—2 Order, DA No.05—50 (rl. Jn. 10, 2005), t pass, 2031 hancrn 52s 2000) mar ceR 5s to185, 1019, 10191, 10195. ‘"ee 47 CFR. §2.106, Foomore US231. !®"MSV stures that i undertands that authoriy for uplink transmissin in any portion ofthe 12.75—13.25 Giteband for which MSV does not already have uthoriy will be withheld pendingadaption ofriles forcordination of uch opention with Broadcast Auniary Service("BAS®) and CARS mobile pickup operations 17

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 with these services, we will not permit MSV to transmit in the 13.15—13.2125 GHz band from a site wliutjhin 50 kilometers of a top 100 television market identified in of the Commission‘s rules. 43. Last, Footnote US211 of Section 2.106 ofthe Commission‘s rules states that space station operators in the 10.7—11.7 GHz band should take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy observations from harmful interference in adjacent bands.""* MSV states that the National Science Foundation has informed it that the protection level required at adio astronomy sites in the 10.6—10.7 GHz band is —160 dBWim*, * MSV has agreed to equip its replacement satelites with a transmitter output filter to limit the emissions in the 10.6—10.7 GHz band at or below this level. Existing in—orbit satelltes i this band employ such a fiter as part of past agreements between the MSS and radio astronomy communities. Consequently, subject to this agreement, we allow MSS to operate itsfeeder link and TT&C functions in the 10.7—10.95 GHz and 11.2—11.45 GHz bands on a non—harmful interference basis to radio astronomy operations in adjacent bands. D. Bond Requirement 44. In its Space Station Licensing Reform Order, the Commission eliminated the financial requirements then in place and replaced them with a bond requirement. * The bond requirement is intended to ensure that licensees are financially able and committed to implementing their liensed systems in timely manner. Under this requirement, any entity asarded a satellitelcense must execute a performance bond in the amount of SS million for each NGSO system and S3 millionfor each GSO satellite,payable to the U.S. Treasury, within 30 days ofthe date ofthe license grant. *" The bond is payable upon fuilure to meet any of the implementation milestones included in every license, where the licensee has not provided adequate justification for extending that milestone. Licensees may reduce the amount ofthe bond upon meeting each milestone. 45. The Commission does not impose a bond on replacement satellites because once a Hicensee has begun to provide service, it expects the licensee will use its replacement satellite to continue to provide service, and would not file the replacement application for speculative purposes. The Commission has held, however, that an existing licensee has no replacement expectancy with regard to next generation satelites that increase the coverage area or use ‘® For example, sineSince Washington, D.C. is onof the 100 top televiion markes identfedin Setion 761 of the Commission‘s riles, MSV will not be able to operte an earth siation in this band within 50 kilometers of Washington, DC. 47 CFR $2.106,Foomore US2I1 ‘® Leter from Lon Levin, Mobile Satelfte Venturesto Marlene H. Dortch, Secreury, FCC (May 12, 2004) !®" Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at 10825—10826, paras.167—171 ‘"" See also Amendment of the Commissin‘s Space Stiion Licening Rules and Poliies, Airst Order on Reconsideration and Fifh Report and Order, 1B Docket No. 02—34, 19 ECC Red 12637 (2003) (Space Staton Reform First Reconsideration Order) (rducing the band amounts from those imposed on an interm basi in the SpaceStation Licensing Reform Order, In the Reconsideration Order, the Commission also determined that GSO MSS Hicenses should be subject to the GSO bond requrement, even though the proposed satlite is considered NGSOlikefor arposes ofdetermining thapproprite processing procedire. 14. at 12655, par 46. 18

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 additional frequencies."" In its Space Station Licensing Reform First Reconsideration Order,""" the Commission clarified that the bond requirement would apply in those circumstances where a satellitelicensee proposes to operate a next—generation system using frequencies not authorized for its current system. 46. MSV asks the Commission to reffain from imposing a bond requirement despite its proposed use of additional spectrum."" MSV states that the Commission has discretion whether or notto apply the policies adopted in the Space Station Licensing Reform Order to applications filed before it adopted the Order.""" MSV notes that the Commission intended the new Hicensing policies to apply to pending applications only if "doing so will help further the goals of this proceeding to expedite service to the public and discourage speculation."""" MSV requests us to consider its MSV—1 satelite pursiantto the rules and policies in place at the time its application was originallyfiled. MSV argues that had the Commission acted when the first pleading eyele ended in 2001, it would not have been subject to the bond requirement. * MSV states that, given this, reating its application under prior satllilicensing rules will have no adverse precedential effect. 47. Altermatively, MSV argues that the Commission should waive the bond requirement. According to MSV, requiring it t posta bond would add substantial and unnecessary costs toits next—generation MSS system particularly since, with ts existing customer base, it has every incentive to construct and launch ts replacement satellie in an expeditious manner.""* Because there is no concemn regarding warchousing, MSV believes a waiver would not undermine the policy underlying the bond requirement.""" MSV notes thatit needs the additional feeder link frequencies to accommodate an "expected" increase in trathic.""" MSV also argues that waiver of the bond requirementis warranted because itsreplacement satellite will continue to provide important public safety services. MSV cites its unique dispatch radio, or "push—to—talk" feature, allows communications to be broadcast to a large group of users simultancously, thereby allowing coordination ofrescue efforts. In contrast, EchoStar argues that the Commission intended the bond requirement to apply to all new satellit licenses other ‘" Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at 10857—58, pra. 258. !" Space Staion Reform Firt Reconsideration Order, 19 FCC Red at 12658, pan. 57 ©* Leter fom Lon Levin VicePresiden, MSV to Marlene Dontch, Seertury, FCC (Nov.4, 2003) (USY Lever) at 1 ©" Space Staton Licensing Reform Order,18 ECC Rod t 10864, arn 275 I" M Lever u6 I" S Leter w® ©"SLeter7. °" MSV Leter a9. "* MV Leter ac$. 19

Federal Communications Commission a os—1402 than DBS and DARS licensees,""" EchoStar further argues that the Commission has made it clear that a follow—on satellite that uses additional frequency bands is not included in a licensce‘s replacement expectancy."" 48. Initially, we disagree with MSV‘s characterization of the Commission‘s statements regarding the applicability ofthe Space Station Licensing Reform Order to pending applications. MSV conffuses the Commission‘s statements with respect to ts icensing procedures and with respect to the safeguards against speculation. The Commission stated that it would not necessarily apply its processing procedures for GSO—like and NGSO—like systems to pending applications. Thus, as MSV notes, the Commission stated it would not apply the "band— spliting" approach to licensing Ka—band NGSO systems because it had alreadydeveloped a convincing record that spectrum sharing by multiple systems in this band was feasible. "" In contrast,the Commission stated that because its safeguards against speculation help limit speculation and warehousing, it would apply those safeguards —— including the bond—posting requirement — to all satellite licenses it issues after the Space Station Licensing Reform Order‘s effective date.""" Moreover, in the Space Station Reform First Reconsideration Order, the Commission specifically considered and rejected arguments that it should treat applications filed before it adapted the Space Station Licensing Reform Order differently than upplications filed after it adopted the Reform Order for purposes ofrequiring a bond.."!" MSV does not provide any basis for revisiting this ssue here. 49 In any case, MSV filed its February 2004 amendment to its MSV—1 application requesting additional feeder link spectrum six months afterthe Space Station Licensing Reform Order‘s effective date. Thus, when it filed this amendment, MSV should have been aware that the Commission would not consider additional frequencies on its second—generation satellite as "replacement" frequencies. 50. Further, MSV has not shown "good cause" for waiving the band requirement. MSV states that,given its existing customer base, it has everyincentive to construct and launch its next—generation satellite in an expeditious manner. We do not, however, question MSV‘s intent to use MSV—1 to serve is existing customers. Rather, we seck assurance that MSV is committed to implementing all of MSV—1‘s requested and authorized spectrum. Por this reason, the Commission has determined that any additional frequencies on a next—generation satellite would be subject to the bond requirement. While MSV claims it needs additional Ku—band frequencies to accommodate an "expected" increase in traffic, this does not qualify as a special circumstance that warrants a waiver ofthe bond requirement. Granting a waiver ofthe bond requirement under these circumstances would effectively undermine the policy underlying the requirement. Indeed, every satellite licensee secking to use additional frequencies to expand its customer base could make the same argument, possibly encouraging applicants to seek access to !‘ EchoStar Leter 2 " RchoStrLeter ats. " Space Staion Licensing Reform Orde, 18 ECC Red ut 10865—66, para. 280 ‘® Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 ECC Red t 10866, parn. 281 "" Amendment of the Commission‘s Space Sation Licnsing Rules and Poliie, Fist Order On Reconsideraion «nd Fifh Report and Order, 1B Docket No. 02:34, 19 ECC Red 12637, 12663—68 (pars. 72)0200%) (Space Staion Refomm Fith Report and Order) 20

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1402 additional spectrum to meet "best case" scenarios that may never materialize or to delay competitors from using that spectrum. By imposing a bond requirement with respect to additional frequencies, we ensure that lcenseesare committed to implementing all ofthe spectrum they have requested and are authorized to use. 51. MSV also fails to show "good cause" for a waiver based on its intent to provide public safety services on MSV—1. We have previously considered and rejected this argument in authorizing the MSV—2 satellite.""" There, we concluded that MSV‘s "push to talk" feature did not justify a waiver ofthe bond requirement, noting that all MSS systems are inherentlyuseful in providing public safety service because the user terminals are small and transportable." Moreover, as is the case here, MSV did not identify any specific "safety" services besides the dispatch radio service. 52. Consequently, we deny MSVs waiver request and requireit to post a $3 million bond within 30 days ofthe release date of this order, If MSV does not post this bond by the required date, this authorization shall be null and void.— Moreover, once MSV has posted the bond, it will become payable if MSV surrenders any of the additional frequencies or if the Commission cancels any portion of the MSV—1 license pertaining to these additional frequencies for failure to meet the milestone schedule. Milestones 53. Itis 1ongstmdm§Commission policy to impose milestones for satellite system implementation upon licensees.""". Milestone schedules are designed to ensure that lcensces are proceeding with construction and will launch their satelltes in a timely manner,and that Hicensees unable or unwilling to proceed with their plans do not hold scare orbit—spectrum resources to the exclusion of other applicants.""" In the Space Statign Licensing Reform Order, the Commission codified this policy in Section 25.164 of ts rules." 54. While we do not impose this full se of milestones on "replacement"satelltes, we do so here given the additional frequencies we are authorizing.. We will not,as MSV requests, find here that the "replacement satellite" milestone schedule will govem if MSV does not I" ASH—2 Order at pan 35. y "" Se, eg., MCI Communications Corp, Memorandio Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Red 233, 233 (paa. 5) (Com Ca. Bur,1987) (MCF Order)(ntingthat milestone schedule i ncluded n ch domestspace sution sutharzation issued by the Commission) se als Noris Satlite Communications, In., Memorandure Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Red 22299 (1997) (Norris Review Order}; Moming Star Satelite Company,LLC. Memorardum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Red 11380 (InI Bur. 2000), affd 16 FCC Red 11550 2001) (Morning Star Reconsideration Order) !®‘See, eg, Advanced Communications Corporation, Memorandion Opinionand Order, 10 FCC Red 13337, 13338 (para. 4)(Bur. 1995) (Adbanced Order), ff411 FCC Red 3309 (1995) (ddbanced Review Onder), afd; Advanced Conmunications Corporation v. CC 84E3 1452 (DC. Cir. 1996) (unpublished order available at 1996 W250460); National Exchange Satelite,.. Memorandurs Opinionand Orde, 7 FCC Red 1990 (Com Car. Bur, 1992) (NexsarOrderAMSC Subsidiry CorpMemorandum Opinon and Order, 8 FCC Red 4040, 4042 (pra. 13)(1993)(AMSC Order); Motorola,Inc. and Teledesic LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Red 16543 (in‘ Bar,2002) (MororoleTeledesic Order) 1 47 CR § 25. 164. See Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at 10828, prn. 173 21

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1402 implement its additional frequencies."*" We will act only on the application before us, thatis, one that requests authority to operate on borh replacement and additional frequency bands. If MSV chooses to change the frequencies on which MSV—1 will operate, it must file a license modification to do so. It may ask us to revisit the milestone schedule at that time. Thus, we require MSV to execute a construction contract for MSV—1 within one year of grant, complete Critical Design Review within two years of grant, begin physical construction within three years of grant, and launch and begin operations within five years of grant. IV. CONCLUSION 55. Consequently, we find that granting MSV‘s application and associated waiver requests, to the extent provided herein,will serve the public interest by allowing MSV to continue to serve its customers with a next—generation system, to expand the range of its service offerings, and to provide additional choices for mobile—satellite service users. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 56. Accordingly, Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC‘s (MSV‘s) application File Nos. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066, Call Sign $2358, as amended by SAT—AMD—20001214— 00171, SAT—AMD—20010302—00019, SAT—AMD—20031 118—00335, SAT—AMD—20040209— 00014, and SAT—AMD—2004092—00102 ARE GRANTED in part, and MSV IS AUTHORIZED to launch and operate its second—generation MSS satellit, known as MSV—1, at 101° W.L. on 10 megahertz ofspectrum in each transmission direction in the 1525—1544/1545—1559 MHz (space— to—Earth) and the 1626.5—1645.5/1646.5—1660.5 MHz (Earth—to—space) frequency bands for mobile—satellite service links, and on 500 megahartz ofspectrum in each transmission direction in the 12.75—13.15/13.20—13.25 GHz (Earth—to—space) and the 10.75—10.95/11.2—11.45 GHz (space—to—Earth) frequency bands for feeder links and tracking, telemetry and control functions, in accordance with the terms, conditions, and technical specifications set forth in its application, this Order, and the Commission‘s Rules. 57. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s request to operate on 14 megahertz of spectrum in each transmission direction within the 1525—1544/1545—1559 MHz (space—to—Earth and the 1626.5—1645.5/1646.5—1660.5 MHz frequency bands for mobile—satellte service links 1S DENIED to the extent set forth herein 58. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s request to operate in the 1544— 1545/1645.5—1646.5 MHz frequency bands, which are limited to distress and safety communications, 1S DENIED. 50. IT JS FURTHER ORDERED that in the absence ofa coordination agreement with other lawully authorized L—band operators, MSV‘s operations in the 1525—1544 MHz, 1545—1559 MHz, 1626.5—1645.5 MHz, and 1646.5—1660.5 MHz. frequency bands will be on a non—harmful interference basis. Consequently, MSV shall not cause harmful interference to any "" See Lettr from Jennifer A. Manner, Vice President, Regulatory Affas for MSV to Marlene H. Dortch Secretry, FCC (Apr. , 2005) (rferencing a Mar. 17, 2005 ex parte meeting with Intemational Bureau staf in which it requested such treamen). See alo Leterfrom Jenifer A. Manner to Marlene . Dontch (Apri29, 2008) 22

Federal Communications Commission pa os—1492 other lawfully operating L—band satellte or radio facility and shall cease operations upon writen notification of such interference. MSV shall also inform the Commission in writing of such notification. Furthermore, MSV must notifyall other operators in these frequency bands thatit will be operating on a non—harmful interference basis. MSV must also notify its customers that its operations are on a non—harmful interference basis. 60. T IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s operations in the 1545—1559 MHz and 1646.5—1660.5 MHz bands shall comply with the real—time access and prionity preemption requirements set forth in International Foototes 5.357A and 5.362A to protect AMS(RJS. 61. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s operations in the 1525—1544 MHz and 1626.5—1645.5 MHz bands shall comply with the real—time access and prionity preemption requirements set forth International Footnote .353A to protect the Global Maritime Distress and Safety Service. 62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s use of the 12.75—13.25 GHz frequency band shall comply with the terms of Footnote US251 to 47 C.F.R, § 2.106 to ensure that MSV— 1‘s Ku—band transmissions will not interfere with space research (deep space) (space—to—Rarth) service at Goldstone, Califomia. 63. TTIS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV may not transmit in the 13.15—13.2125 GHz band from a site within 50 kilometers of a top 100 television market identiied in Section 76.51 of the Commission‘s rules. 64. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the authority for uplink transmission in any portion ofthe 12.75—13.25 GHtz band from any specified site not previously authorized will be withheld pending adoption of rules for coordination of such operation with Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) mobile pickup operations. 65. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Footote NG1O# to 47 C.F.R. §2.106 of the Commission‘s rules IS WAIVED to allow MSV to provide tracking, telemetry, and control functions in the 11.2—11.45 GHz and 12.7—13.25 GHz bands (with the exception of the 13.15— 13.2125 GHz band)to MSV—1 from gateway earth stations located in Reston, Virginia and Alexandria, Virginia. Footote NG1O4 IS ALSO WAIVED toallow MSV to operate feeder links within the United States in the 10.7—10.95 GHz, 11.2—11.45 GHz, and 12.75—13.25 GHz frequency bands. 66. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the authorization for operation in the 10.7— 10.95 GHz, 11.2—11.45 GHz, and the 12.75—13.25 GHz frequency bands pertains only to transmission between a single GSO satelite at 101° W.L.. and a maximum oftwo fixed—satellite service earth stations within the continental United States. 67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s authority to operate in the 10.7—10.95 GHz, 11.2—11.45 GHz, and the 12.75—13.25 GHz bands is on a non—harmful interference basis until the issuance of an ITU finding permitting such additional use pursuant to Appendix 30B of the ITU‘s Radio Regulations. 68. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s use othe 10.7—10.95 GHz and 11.2— 11.45 GHz frequency bands shall comply with the terms of Footote US211 to 47 C.RR. § 23

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 2.106, which urges applicants for airborme or space station assignments to take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy observations in the adjacent bands from harmful interference. 69. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV shall limit satellte emissions in the 10.6— 10.7 GHtz band to —160 dBW/mor less 70. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV shall coordinate with co—primary Radio Astronomy Service stations in the 1660—1660.5 MHz: band and will operate on a non—harmful interference basistothe radio astronomy service until it has completed. this coordination. 71. IT 1 FURTHER ORDERED that MSV shall coordinate with co—primary Space Operations Service stations in the 1525—1535 MHz band in Region 2 and will not be entiled to protection from interference untiit has completed this coordination. 72. TT 18 FURTHER ORDERED that MSV shall coordinate with those countries conducting passive research in the 1525—1559 MHz band and will not be entiled to any protection from interference from passive research radio stations unless it completes coordination with those applicable passive research servic 73. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s request for a waiver of Section 25.210() of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(), t permit MSV to operate its MSV—1 satellte with an East—West station—keeping tolerance of :0.1° IS DENIED. MSV—1 is specifically authorized to operate within an East—West station keeping tolerance of £0.05. 74. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSVmust provide a written statement to the Commission within 60 days ofthe date of this grant that identifies any known satellites located at, or planned to be located at, MSV‘s assigned orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that location such that te station—keeping volume ofthe respective satellites might overlap, and that states the measures that will be taken to prevent in—orbit collsions with such satelites. This statement should address any licensed FCC systems, or any systems applied for and under consideration by the FCC. The statement need not address every filing with the ITU that meets these criteria, but should assess and address any systems reflected in TV filings that are in operation or that MSV believes may be progressing toward launch, e.g. by the appearance ofthe system on a launch vehicle manifest. If MSV elects to rely on coordination with other operators to prevent in—orbit collisions,it shall provide a statement as to the manner in which such coordination will be effected. 75. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED MSV‘s operation at North—South inclinations between 4.5° and 6.0° shall be on an unprotected, non—harmfulinterference basis untl t completes coordination with licensed NGSO FSS operators. 76. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s MSS GSO satellte, MSV—I, shall be operated in full compliance with footnote 27 to Radio Regulation A.22.111 of Article 22, Section III of the ITU‘s Radio Regulations. 77. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s request for waiver ofSection 25.165(a)(2) of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(a)(), IS DENIED and MSV must file a bond with the Commission in the amount of $3,000,000.00, pursuant with the procedures set forth in Public Notice, DA 03—2602, 18 FCC Red 16283 (2003), by June 24, 2005. 24

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 78. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV must construct, launch and place its authorized satelliteinto operation in accordance with the technical parameters and terms and conditions of this authorization by the following dates: As— Enter into a binding non—contingent contract to construct the licensed satellite system by May 26, 2006 B: Complete the Critical Design Review ofthe licensed satellte system by May 26, 2007 Begin the physical construction ofthe satellte by May 26, 2008. Launch and begin operations of the satellte by May 26, 2010. Failure to meet any of these dates shall render this authorization NULL and VOID. 79. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV shall prepare the necessary information, as may be required, for submission to the Intemational Telecommunication Union (ITU) to initiate and complete the advance publication, interational coordination, due diligence, and notification process of this space station, in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations. MSV shall be held responsible for all cost—recovery fees associated with these ITU flings. We also note that no protection from interference caused by radio stations authorized by other administrations is guaranteed unless coordination and notification procedures are timely completed or, with respect to individual administrations, by successfully completing coordination agreements. Any radio station authorization for which coordination has not been completed may be subject to additional terms and conditions as required to effect coordination of the frequency assignments ofother administrations. See 47 C.F.R. § 25.111(b). 80. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV is obliged to comply with the applicable laws, regulations, rules, and licensing procedures ofany countries it proposes to serve. 81. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license term for the MSV—1 satellite, Call Sign $2358, is fifteen years and will begin to run on the date that Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC certifies to the Commission that the satellite has been successfully placed into orbit and its operation fully conforms tothe terms and conditions of thiauthorization. 82. This Order is issued pursuant to Section 0.261 of the Commission‘s rules on delegated authority, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, and is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or applications for review under Section 1.115 ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.115, may be filed within 30 days of the date of the Public Notice announcing that this action was taken. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION oChief International Bureau 25


Document Created: 2005-05-24 15:10:06
Document Modified: 2005-05-24 15:10:06
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC