Attachment reply

reply

REPLY TO OPPOSITION submitted by ContactMEO Communications

reply

2004-10-08

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20040719-00137 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2004071900137_405340

RECElvEep Before the OCT — 8 z0n FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION faay Washington, DC 20554 W In re the Applications of P ) sAT—LoA—19970904—00080/84 Northrop Grumman Space & Mission ) SAT—LOA—19971222—00219 Systems Corporation ) sxrephiD—20081104—00324 ) 20040719—0136/40 For Authority to Launch and Operate ) s Geostationary and Non—Geostationary ) gct 1 9 2004 Int Bureau Satelites in the Fixed—Satellite Service ) Py Branch OCT 1 3 2004 intomational Bureas & e REPLY TO CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION Front Office ContactMEO Communications, LLC ("@contact") hercby fil its Reply to the Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny or Dismiss (*Opposition"") filed by Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corporation through its Northrop Grumman Space Technology sector ("NGST" or "Northrop"). For the reasons stated below, @contact concurs with the compelling analyses and conclusions articulated by Northrop in response to the Petition to Deny and the Consolidated Petition to Dismiss or Deny ("Petitions") filed respectively by EchoStar Satellite LLC ("EchoStar") and SES Americom, Inc. (‘SES Americom") jointly, «Petitioners") in the above—captioned proceedings. Petitioners filed virtuallyidentical pleadings in response to @contact‘s own application for authority to launch and operate a non—geostationary orbit (NGSO") Fixed Satellte System ("FSS®)in the Ka—band." In both sets of pleadings, Petitioners ! Application for Authority to Launch and Operate Geostationary and Non— Geostationary Orbit Fixed Satellite System in the Ka—Band, File Nos. SAT—LOA—

taise many of the same issues thatthe International Bureau (*Bureau‘") resolved in its Denial Decision in response to EchoStar‘s fatally fawed Ka—band application.* NGST completely refates Petitioners‘ argument that EchoStar‘s NGSO applications are "similarly situated" to those filed by NGST. For example, NGST correetly observes (as @contact also observed in ts Opposition with regard to the same argument), EchoStar mischaracterizesits own applications as "dismissed." whereas they were, in fact, denied." Among other insufficiencies in its applications, EchoStar asserted that it would turn offits GSO spacecraftif interference to NGSO systems occurred, but it provided absolutely nothing to supportits claim — even after NGST and Hughes noted this defect in their petiions to deny EchoStar‘s original applications. NGST, on the 19971222—00222, SAT—AMD—20040322—00057, SAT—AMD—20040719—00141. EchoStar included an argument regarding priority in certain orbitallocations. As @contact demonstrated, however, EchoStar provided no logical olegal basis for reinstatement of its applications, and it suggested that were EchoStar to refile ts applications it would need to protect all NGSO system satellites from harmfulinterference. @contact Opposition at $—9. * Memorandum Opinion and Order, In the Matter ofEchoStar Satellite LLC, Applicationsfor Authority to Construct, Launch and Operate Geostationary Satellites In the FixedSatellite Service Using the Ka and/or Extended Ku—Bands atthe 83° WL., 113° WL, and 121° WL. Orbital Locations, DA 04—1167 (rel. Apr. 29. 2004) ("Denial Decision") (denying EchoStar‘s applications to use NGSO FSS Ka—band frequencies for GSO FSS satellites, denying EchoStar‘s failure to show good cause for waiver of the NGSO FSS spectrum designation, denying EchoStar‘s application to use the extended Ku—band, denying EchoStar‘s application to operate Ka—band GSO satellitesat 121° W.L. and 83° W.L., denying EchoStar‘s request for waiver of footnote NG 165 of 47 C.ER. Section 2.106, and denying applications of EchoStar to operate hybrid GSO satellites at 105° W.L.and 83° W.L.), petition for reconsideration filed June 1, 2004. As @contact noted in its Opposition to petitions to Deny or Dismiss, filed September 28, 2004, "EchoStar‘s arguments in large part amount to no more than a lte—filed second petiion for reconsideration...." @contact Opposition at 1. * @contact Opposition at 4—7, NGST Opposition at 4—8.

other hand, demonstrated (as did @contact) how their GSO satelites, operating as part ofan NGSO system, will be capable ofoperating compatibly with other NGSO systems and how, contingently, the same spacecraft could be operated as GSO satellites on a completely secondary basis with respect to Commission—authorized NGSO FSS systems. Rather than follow EchoStar‘s strategy offiling applications while trying to commence a ule change, NGST designed its system (as has @contact)to comply with existing rules, with a request for waiver ofthe allocation rules to permit secondary, non—harmful interference GSO operation in the 18.8—19.3 GHz bands. NGST correctly states, therefore, that the Bureau‘s conclusion that EchoStar did not show it could operate compatibly with NGSO systems wasjustification for denial. But, it notes, this was decided only after complete processing, not at the acceptance for filing stage as Petitioners supgest. NGST‘s analysis and characterization ofthe differences between EchoStar‘s applications and its own filings are irefutably correct. The two sets of applications are simply not "similarly situated." NGST also correctly states that EchoStar‘s Petition represents a "supplement to its Petition for Reconsideration of the EchoSter Denial Order" and that "EchoStar‘s arguments directed to its pending petition for Rulemaking are misplaced and should be ignored." * Further, NGST reveals SES Americom‘s factually flawed argument regarding harmful interference in the Ka—band, showing that a non—GSO FSS system operating at or below the Ka—band EPFD limits will not cause unaeceptable or harmful * NGST Opposition t 8.

interference to a co—frequency GSO FSS network." NGST demonstrates that the Commission in fact has endorsed the Ka—band EPFD limits.® Also, contrary to SES Americom‘s contention, NGST adds that the Bureau‘s Denial Decision is not controlling with regard to NGST even if it were assumed, arguendo, that NGST‘s GSO satellites operating in the NGSO band are GSO satellites. This is because, NGST correctly concludes, "EchoStar‘s application was rightfully denied because EchoStar had completely failed to demonstrate how its proposed satellites could operate on a secondary basis with non—GSO FSS systems."" s T4. at9—13. s 14. at 11—12. 1 14. t 14.

@contact supports fully the arguments and conclusions NGST presents in its Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny or Dismiss. Respectfully submitted, contaciMEO Communications, LLC Tames M. Talens 6017 Woodley Road MeLean, Virginia 22101 Counselfor contacMEO Communications, LLC David M. Drucker, Manager contactMEO Communications, LLC 2539 N. Highway 67 Sedalia, C 80135 303.c88.5162 October 8, 2004

CERTIFICATE OF SERVI 1, James M. Talens, do hereby certify that on this 8" day of October, 2004, copies of the foregoing "Reply to Opposition® were served on the following parties by hand delivery, United States Postal Service (indicated by *) or electronically (indicated by **): fames M. Talens Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Pantelis Michalopoutos® Federal Communications Commission Philip L. Malet 445 12" Street, S.W. Lee C. Milstein Washington, DC 20554 Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connectiout Aven, NW Thomas S. Tycz Washington, DC 20036 Satellte Division, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Peter A. Robrbach* 236 Massachusetts Avene, N.E Karis A. Hastings Suite 110 Hogan & Hartson LLP. Washington, DC 20002 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Nancy J. Eskenazi® Vice President & Peter Hadinger®* ‘Assoc. General Counsel Northrop Grumman SES Americom, Inc. 1000 Wilson Bivd, Suite 2300 Four Research Way Arlington, VA 22200 Princcton, NJ 08540 Stephen D. Baruch** David K. Moskowite* David S. Keir EchoStar Satellite LLC Leventhal, Senter & Lerman, PLLC 9601 South Meridian Boulevard 2000 K Street, NW Suite 600 Englewood, CO 80112 Washington, DC 20006


Document Created: 2004-10-20 15:07:23
Document Modified: 2004-10-20 15:07:23
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC