Attachment petition

petition

PETITION TO DENY submitted by SES Americom

petition

2004-09-13

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20040312-00031 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2004031200031_401314

                                                Before the
                     FEDMé g&fidUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                                            ington, D.C. 20554
                           SEP 2 0 2om
Inthe Matter of             Poly Branch             )
                         Intormational Bureau       )
contactMEO Communications, LLC                      ) File Nos. SAT—LOA—19971222—00222
                                                    )            SAT—AMD—20040322—00057
                                                    )            SAT—AMD—20040719—00141
and                                                 )
                                                    )
Northrop Grumman Space & Mission                    ) File Nos. SAT—LOA—19970904—00080/84
 Systems Corporation                                )           SAT—LOA—19971222—00219
                                                    )            SAT—AMD—20031104—00324
                                                    )            SAT—AMD—20040312—0003034
                                                    m            SAT—AMD—20040719—00136/40
                                                    ) Int! Bureau
Applications for Authority to Launch and            )
Operate Geostationary Orbit and                     ) SEP 1 5 200              RECEIVED
Non—Geostationary Orbit Satellites in the           )          j
Fixed—Suellite Service                              ) Front Office               SEP 1 3 zo0
                                                      FadelCommuntaton
                  CONSOLIDATED PETITION TDISMISS OR DENY ore» ';vu;m;ur;mTe
                                   or sEs AMERICOM, INC.
              SES AMERICOM, Inc. (°‘SES AMERICOM®), by itsattomeys and pursuant to
Section 25.154 of the Commission‘s Rules, 47 C.F.R, § 25.145, hereby petitions the Commission

to dismiss or deny the above—captioned applications of contactMEO Communications, LLC
(‘contactMEO®) and Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corporation ("Northrop
Grimman®). Both applicants seek to use Ka—band spectrum in ways that conflict with the
Commission‘s band plan, and neither party has justified a waiver of the band plan requirements.
Under these circumstances, Commission precedent requires thatthe applications be rejected.

.             BACKGROUN
              The amendments at issue here represent significant changes to applications that
were originally filed in 1997. ContaciMEO originally requested authority for a Ka—band system


consisting solely ofnon—geostationary orbit (‘NGSO") spacecraft that were to operate in a
medium earth orbit (‘MEO®). The instant amendment changes the orbital configuration ofthe
proposed NGSO spacecraftto a highly elliptical orbit ("HEO") and adds four geostationary orbit
("GSO") spacecraft to the proposed flect." ContactMEO requests authority for the HEO
satelltes to operate in Ka—band spectrum where NGSO systems are primary, the 28.6—29.1 GHz

and 18.8—19.3 GHz bands, but also requests authority to use spectrum allocated to GSO
operations, at 29.5—30.0 GHz and 19.7—20.2 GHz. 14. at 3. The proposed GSO satellites in the
contactMEO system would operate solely in spectrum allocated to NGSO systems, the 28.6—
29.1 GHz and 18.8—19.3 GHz bands. 1¢.
              Northrop Grumman (previously TRW, Inc.) originally applied for a system
consisting ofboth GSO and NGSO satelltes to be operated in V—band spectrum." That
application was subsequently amended to add Ka—band payloads to the GSO and NGSO
spaceeraft. 14. The applications for authority to operate GSO spacecraft in Ka—band spectrum
were processed and granted, but Northrop Grumman later surrendered the licenses. 1d.at 7—8 n.8.
Now Northrop Grumman is proposing to change the NGSO component ofits system from MEO
to HEO satellites and to have four GSO satellites that would operate in Ka—band and V—band
spectrum. 14. at 1—2. Like contactMEO, Northrop Grumman seeks authority to have ts HEO
satelltes operate in Ka—band spectrum where GSO operations are primary, in addition to the
NGSO—primary portions ofthe Ka—band. J¢.at 5. Northrop Grumman also proposes to have its
GSO spacecraft operate in NGSO—primary Ka—band spectrum. 14.


_     See Amendment of contactMEO Communications, LLC, File No. SAT—AMD—20040322—
00057 (‘contactMEO Amendment‘), Narrative at1—2.
*     See Amendment ofNorthrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corporation, File No.
SAT—AMD—20040312—00030 ("Northrop Grumman Amendment"), Narrative at 7.
                                              2


               The International Bureau initilly dismissed both the contacMEO and Northrop
Grumman applications for failure to provide information required under the Commission‘s
Rules." The applications were subsequently reinstated, however, because the Bureau determined
that the requirements might not have been sufficiently clear.* The Bureau ordered the applicants
to file supplementalinformation and later put the applications as supplemented on public notice."
               SES AMERICOM is a party in interest in these application proceedings as a Ka—
band licensee. SES AMERICOM is preparing to launch AMC—15 and AMC—16, two GSO
spacecraft with Ka—band payloads that will be deployed to the 105° W.L. and 85° W.L. orbital
locations,respectively. As such, SES AMERICOM has a direct interest in ensuring that its
ability t use Ka—band spectrum allocated to GSO operations is not impaired. SES AMERICOM
(through its predecessor GE American Communications, Inc.) also has sought access to NGSO—
primary Ka—band spectrum for its GSO operations, but that application was dismissed because
the Commission had not adopted rulesto permit sharing of the band. Thus, SES AMERICOM

has an interest in any proposal for spectrum use thati
applied to the GB Americom application.



        See letter of Thomas S. Tyez, Chief, Satellite Division, International Bureau, to David
Drucker, Manager, contactMEO Communications, LLC dated May 18, 2004 (DA 04—1386);
letter of Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite Division, International Bureau, to Peter Hadinger,
Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corporation dated May 18, 2004 (DA 04—1387)
*       See letter ofThomas S. Tyez, Chief, Satellte Division, Intemational Bureau, to David
Drucker, Manager, contactMEO Communications, LLC dated June 16, 2004 (DA 04—1722)
(‘contactMEO Reinstatement Letter®);ltter ofThomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite Division,
International Bureau, to Peter Hadinger, Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems
Corporation dated June 16, 2004 (DA 04—1725) ("Northrop Grumman Reinstatement Letter").
5_     See Policy Branch Information, Satellite Space Applications Accepted for Filing, Report
No. SAT—00234 (Aug. 13, 2004).
*      GE American Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Red
14306 (Int‘l Bur. 2001).


11.            THE APPLICATIONS CONFLICT WITH THE
               COMMISSION‘S KA—BAND SPECTRUM RULES

               The Commission‘s band plan for Ka—band spectrum was developed after a lengthy
proceeding with participation by numerous parties representing a broad range of services. In
evaluating various proposals, the Commission explicitly considered whether it was appropriate to
authorize secondary use of spectrum allocated on a primary basis to another service. The
Commission adopted discrete designations for NGSO FSS and GSO FSS systems based on its
determination conceming the feasibility of sharing between the services.
               For example, i its decision concerning the rules applicable to the 18 GHz
downlink band, the Commission noted that ts intial proposal would have allowed "sccondary
use ofthe entire 18 GHz band by terrestrial fixed services, GSOTFSS and NGSOTFSS (in bands
where the particular service did not enjoy cither a primary or co—primary allocation) to provide
fexibility throughoutthe band." However,the Commission concluded that "secondary use of
the 18 GHz band is not viable because it would unreasonably inhibit ubiquitous deployment of
these services and limit the use of spectrum by primary users ofthe bands." Jd. at 13456—57.
               On reconsideration, the Commission affirmed its holding with respect to FSS
spectrum:

                      We find the record in this proceeding to be insufficient to
                      determine whether and how GSO/FSS systems can operate
                      on a secondary basis in NGSOTFSS bands, and whether and
                      how NGSOTFSS systems can operate on a secondary basis
                      in GSO/FSS primary bands. We find that by removing
                      secondary operations in these bands, the Commission has
                      Tessened the potential for harmfulinterference to the
                      primary service in each band and avoided disruptions that
7       Redesignation ofthe 17.7—19.7 GHz Frequency Band, Blanket Licensing ofSatellite
Earth Stations in the 17.7—20.2 GHz and 27.5—30.0 GHz Frequency Bands, and the Allocation of
Additional Spectrum in the 17.3—17.8 GHz and 24,75—25.25 GHz Frequency Bands for Broadcast
Satellite—Service Use, Report and Order, 15 ECC Red 13430, 13456 (2000) (*18 GHe Order®")
(footnote omitted); aff‘d 16 FCC Red 19808 (2001).
                                                a


                         could occur to users of secondary services. Moreover, we
                         find that detailed service rules would have to be developed
                         and adopted before secondary operations could be
                         authorized in primary satellte bands. We find that these
                         rules would be necessary to ensure that the primary service
                         is adequately protected from harmful interference, and that
                         operators ofsecondary service have a reasonable
                         expectation of being able to provide service."
                  Similarly, in establishing allocations in the 28 GHz uplink bands, the Commission
did not provide for any overlap in the portions of the band allocated for primary operations of
GSO and NGSO FSS systems. The Commission observed that its plan "designates co—frequency
sharing in band segments where the Commission and the parties have concluded it is technically

feasible: wo
                  Thus, the Commission‘s Ka—band plan decisions rely on segmentation of
spectrum between GSO and NGSO systems. In considering applications that propose spectrum
use inconsistent with the band plan, the Commission has evaluated "whether the proposed
system can operate in a manner that will not cause harmful interference to any primary services,"
and whether the applicant "has justified any necessary waivers of the Table of Frequency
Allocations."""




*      Redesignation of the 17.7—19.7 GHz Frequency Band, Blanket Licensing of Satellite
Earth Stations in the 17.7—20.2 GHe and 27.5—30.0 GHe Frequency Bands, and the Allocation of
Additional Spectrum in the 17.3—17.8 GHz and 24.75—25.25 GH: Frequency Bands for Broadcast
Satellte—Service Use, First Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Red 19808, 19822 (2001)
(footnote omitted).
*       Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission‘s Rules to Redesignate
the 27.5—29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5—30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to
Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distibution Services and for Fixed Satellite
Services, First Report and Order and Fourth Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Red
19005, 19024 (1999).
C       EchoStar Satellte LLC, MemorandunOpinion and Order, DA 04—1167, Sat. Div. rel
Apr. 29, 2004 ("EchoStar Order") at 1 15.


               The applications here do not satisy these tests. Accordingly, consistent with its

precedentthe Commission must deny the applications.
       A.—     Commission Policies Do Not Permit NGSO Operations
               in Ka—Band Spectrum Allocated to GSO Systems
               The applicants‘ proposals to use GSO spectrum for NGSO operations conflict
with Commission policies. Both contactMEO and Northrop Grumman propose to have their
HEO spacceraft use spectrum at 19.7—20.2 GHz and 29.5—30.0 GHe where GSO systems have
sole primary status."" Recognizing that their proposals do not accord with the Commission‘s

spectrum allocations, each company seeks a waiver ofthe Ka—band plan."". Each argues that it
can operate without interfering with GSO spectrum use because it will comply with equivalent
power flux—density ("EPFD®) limits specified in Article 22 ofthe ITU Radio Regulations.""
               Compliance with international EPFD limits in the Ka—band, however, cannot form
the basis forjustifying a departure from the Commission‘s spectrum allocations. These limits
have not been considered, much less adopted, by the FCC. The Commission is obligated to
make its own determination regarding whether sharing ofGSO Ka—band spectrum by NGSO
systems should be permitted, and if so, under what conditions.
               In similar circumstances, when NGSO use ofKu—band spectrum allocated to GSO
and broadcast—satellite service operations was proposed, the Commission conducted a
rulemaking proceeding to evaluate whether international EPFD limits were appropriate for use in
domestic licensing proceedings. The FCC noted that although the U.S. had participated in the
intemational study group that developed the limits,

ul     The applicants propose to operate in this spectrum on a secondary basis. However, while
NGSO systems have a secondary allocation in the 29.5—30.0 GHz band, there is no NGSO
allocation in the 19.7—20.2 GHz band. See 78 GHz Order at 13435, 13443.
it      See contactMEO Amendment at 16—18; Northrop Grumman Amendment at 26—27,
8      See contactMEO Amendment at 16—17; Northrop Grumman Amendment at 26—27.
                                                6


                      TTU—R study group deliberations are based on the technical
                      input ofmany administrations that often have different
                      domestic spectrum uses thatresult in different potentials for
                      spectrum sharing. The conclusions ofthe study group may
                      have generaltechnical applicability, based on each
                      administration‘s input and the resultant compromise, but
                      may not adequately address specific, domestic sharing
                      conditions. Consequently, it is essential that we develop in
                      this proceeding an independent record regarding the
                      possibility of implementing NGSO FSS in the U.S., given
                      our unique and extensive use ofthe Ku—band. By doing so,
                      we will be able to develop and, if appropriate, adopt
                      technical limits and spectrum sharing criteria suitable for
                      domestic NGSO FSS operations.""
              The Commission has not made this type of detailed examination ofthe domestic
implications ofthe Ka—band EPFD limitsthat were adopted internationally. Neither contactMEO
nor Northrop Grumman provides any justification for applying the EPFD limits domestically in
advance of Commission consideration oftheir suitability for U.S. spectrum policy. Until such
time as the Commission revisitsits prior determination that NGSO systems cannot operate in
GSO Ka—band spectrum on a secondary basis and conducts a rulemaking proceeding to develop
the appropriate conditions for such operation, it cannot consider the contactMEO and Northrop
Grimman proposals
       B.     Commission Precedent Bars GSO Use of Ka—Band
              Spectrum Allocated to NGSO Systems
              The applicants‘ proposals to use NGSO spectrum for GSO operations are also
fundamentally inconsistent with Commission policies and must be denied.. Both parties seck




!*_ _  Amendment ofParts2 and 25 of the Commission‘s Rules to Permit Operation ofNGSO
FSS Systems Co—Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku—Band Frequency Range
and Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2—
12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadeast Satellite Licensees and their Affiliates, Notice ofProposed
Rulemaking, 14 FCC Red 1131, 1141 (1998).


authority for GSO spaceeraft to operate in Ka—band spectrum allocated on a sole primary basis to
NGSO services at 18.8—19.3 GHz and 28.6—29.1 GHz..
                 In applying its Ka—band allocation rules, the Commission has consistently rejected
proposals secking authority to operate GSO spacecraft in NGSO Ka—band spectrum. Most
recently, the Satellte Division accepted arguments made by Northrop Grumman and denied
applications filed by EchoStar Satellite LLC (*Echotar") for authority to operate four GSO
satellites using Ka—band frequencies designated for NGSO operations. See EchoStar Order, DA
04—1167 aty 4.
                 In evaluating the EchoStar appliations, the Division noted that the Ka—band plan
adopted by the Commission relied on segmentation of spectrum to ensure that GSO and NGSO
operations could operate without interference. 7d. at § 11. In its band plan decisions, the
Division said, the Commission had *already addressed the issue of GSO/NGSO sharing in the
Ka—band and determined that shoring is not now possible." Jd. at 9 14. EchoStar had filed a
petition for rulemaking seeking changes in the band plan to allow co—primary GSO operations in
the relevant band, and had also requested a waiver of the band plan.. In support ofthe waiver,
EchoStar committed to ceasing operations upon notification from an NGSO operator that it was
experiencing harmful interference. 1d.at $ 16.
                 The Division concluded, however, that this commitment was not sufficient. 14. It
cited to an earlier decision involving Astrolink, in which the International Bureau held that
"before GSO FSS systems could operate on a non—harmful interference basis relative to NGSO

FSS systems, an interference protection level must be established to protect NGSO FSS


!*     The applicants propose to use this spectrum on a secondary basis. However, while GSO
systems have a secondary allocation in the 28.6—29.1 GHz band, there is no GSO allocation in
the 18.8—19.3 GHz band. See 18 GH: Order at 13435, 13483.
                                                 8


 eperations and such studies have not been completed.""" "Absent NGSO FSS protection

 criteria," the Division said, "the Commission cannotfully assess the impact that proposed GSO
 and NGSO shating will have on NGSO FSS operations.""" The Division concluded that
 EchoStar had failed to demonstrate that it could operate on a non—harmful interference basis to
NGSO systems. 1d.
               Neither applicant here provides anyjustification that could warrant different
outcome than the one reached in the EchoStar decision. Each company submitsa technical
showing that purports to demonstrate that no unaceeptable interference would be caused to
NGSO systems.‘* But as the Division observed in EchoStar, the Commission has not set
protection criteria for NGSO systems. An applicant cannot possibly show that its operations
satisfy interference protection levels that have not yet been established.
               Furthermore, in each case here, the mechanism to protect NGSO operations is to
terminate GSO use ofthe spectrum during *in—line" interference events. That approach is
fundamentally no different than EchoStar‘s commitment to cease operations in order to avoid
interference to NGSOs, which the Satellite Division has already found is insufficient to warrant
departure from the band plan.
               Northrop Grumman and contactMEO also attempt to characterize their proposed
GSO spacecraft as simply a "GSO plane" of their NGSO systems, and argue that they should




       14. at§ 17 (citing Astrolink International, LLC, Order and Authorization, 16 ECC Red
20124, 20127 (In‘l Bur. 2001).
!*=    EchoStar Orderat § 17.
!*     Amendment of contactMEO, File No. SAT—AMD—20040719—00141 ("contactMEO
Supplement®), Narrative at 2—4 & Annex 3; Amendment ofNorthrop Grumman, File No. SAT—
AMD—20040719—00140 ("Northrop Grumman Supplement), Narrative at 3—5 & Annex 3.
                                                 9


therefore be treated as NGSO satellites."" The Commission‘s rules, however, define the relevant

terms. A "geosynchronous satellte"is an "earth satelite whose period ofrevolution is equal to
the period ofrotation of the Earth aboutits axis." 47 C.F.R. § 2.1(c). Similarly, a "geostationary
sutellite" is a "geosynchronous satellite whose circular and direct orbitlies in the plane ofthe
Earth‘s equator and which thus remains fixed relative tothe Barth; by extension, a satellite which

remains approximately fixed relative to the Earth." /d. Both the Northrop Grumman and
contactMEO GSO satellites clearly fit these definitions. In fact, by ordering the applicants to
submit two—degree spacing analyses, which are required only for GSO spaceraft, he Division
has already recognized these satellites for what they are."" The applicants‘ creative attempts to
define their geostationary orbit stellites as elements of a non—geostationary constellation cannot
change the nature ofthe spaceeraft or their orbits.
               In opposing the EchoStar applications, Northrop Grumman emphasized that the
Commission had not yet acted on EchoStar‘s petition for a rulemaking to effectuate an across—
the—board change in spectrum allocations. Allowing EchoStar‘s applications to remain pending
while rule changes were considered, Northrop Grumman stated, "would be prejudicial t other
potential GSO FSS applicants that might wish to apply should the rules be modified.""" By the
same analysis,the Commission cannot allow contactMEO and Northrop Grumman to obtain date
priority over other prospective applicants to use NGSO spectrum on GSO satellites while it



*      ContactMEO Supplement, Narzative at 2—3; Northrop Grumman Supplement, Narrative at
3.
*      See contactMEO Reinstatement Letter at 2—3; Northrop Grumman Reinstatement Letter at
23.
4      Consolidated Petition to Dismiss of Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems
Corporation, File Nos. SAT—LOA—20030827—00180/00182/00185/00187, filed Oct. 24, 2003, at
3.

                                                10


 weighs whether to modify its spectrum policies."" For these reasons, the Commission must

 dismiss the contactMEO and Northrop Grumman proposals.

 mm.            concL.usion
                The contactMEO and Northrop Grumman proposals for use of Ka—band spectrum
 directly conflict with the Commission‘s allocation rules, and neither applicant has justified a
 waiver of Commission requirements. Accordingly, Commission precedent mandates that these
 applications be denied or dismissed.
                                               Respectfully submitted,

                                               ses amERICOM, INC.
Nancy J. Eskenazi                              By: 7.            / /
Vice President &                               Peter A. Rohrbach
 Assoc. General Counsel                        Karis A. Hastings
SES AMERICOM, Inc                              Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.
Four Research Way                              555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Princcton, NJ 08540                            Washington, D.C. 20004
                                               (202) 637—5600

 September 13, 2004




it      As noted sbove, EchoStar has requested that the Commission conduct a rulemaking
regarding GSO operation in Ka—band spectrum where NGSO systems are primary. SES
Americom supported the commencement of such a rulemaking. See Comments ofSES
AMERICOM, Inc., RM No. 10767 (Oct.27, 2003).
                                                 1


                                 CERTIEICATE or SERVICE
                       1, Cecelia Bumett, do hereby certify that on this 13" day ofSeptember,
2004, copies ofthe foregoing "Consolidated Petition to Dismiss or Deny of SES Americom,
Inc." were served to the following parties by first class mail:




Mr. David M. Drucker
Manager, contectMEO
 Communications, LLC
2539 N. Highway 67
Sedalia, CO 80135
Mr. Peter Hadinger
Northrop Grumman Space &
 Mission Systems Corporation
1000 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Mr. Norman P. Leventhal
Mr. Stephen D. Baruch
Mr. David S. Keir
Leventhal, Senter & Lerman
2000 K Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, D.C, 20006



Document Created: 2004-10-15 13:24:20
Document Modified: 2004-10-15 13:24:20

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC