Attachment letter

letter

LETTER submitted by Pegasus

letter

2008-11-10

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20051118-00226 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2005111800226_680281

 pmshu[u                                                                                     ORIGINAL
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
2300 N Street, NWV | Washington, DC 20037—1122 | tel 202.663.8000 | fax 202.663.8007




       CALL SIGN: $2242
       SAT—LOA—19970605—00049                                                                             .
       SAT—AMD—20051118—00226                                                                       Tony Lin
       SAT—AMD—20080114—00015                                                          —_   tel 202.663.8452
                                                                              tony.lin@pillsburylaw.com


November 10, 2008

Via Courier
Marlene H. Dortch                                                                              F”_ED/A
Federal Communications Commission                                                                       CCEPTED
445 12th Street, S.W.                                                                              NoV 1 0 2008
Washington, D.C. 20554
                                                                                            Federal Communications
                                                                                                                     Commission
         Re:      DIRECTV Amendment Application                                                         of the Secretary
                   SAT—AMD—20080916—00188; Call Sign $2242

Dear Ms. Dortch:

Pegasus Development DBS Corporation ("Pegasus") by its attorneys hereby submits
this letter in support of the Response of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC ("DIRECTV")
(November 10, 2008) to the Comments of EchoStar Corporation ("EchoStar")
(October 27, 2008) regarding the above—referenced 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite
Service amendment application. The gravamen of EchoStar‘s complaint is that the
private agreement between DIRECTV, Intelsat North America LLC, and Pegasus did
not include EchoStar and that its inclusion in those discussions could have resulted in
a more optimal outcome.‘ But, the fact that EchoStar was not included in that
agreement provides no basis to delay grant of the amendment application. As
explained in the DIRECTV Response, EchoStar is not prejudiced by the amendment
application — its assignment of spectrum would be exactly the same whether the FCC




  Indeed, EchoStar effectively concedes that the proposed transaction, if consummated, would result in
  a more efficient and valuable division of spectrum. See Comments, at 2 ("EchoStar concurs that
  U.S. RBW slots are of greater value and competitive significance if a single applicant is able to
  control all the frequencies at a given location. Specifically, providers would have the ability to
  defray the substantial costs of constructing a satellite over more transponders and total capacity.").




www.pillsburylaw.com                                                                            400996659v1


Marlene H. Dortch
November 10, 2008
Page 2




grants the amendment application or not. Accordingly, its arguments in that regard
necessarily fail."

EchoStar does not oppose the requested clarification that Pegasus should be subject to
a single $3 million performance bond for having a combined authorization at 107°
W.L. As explained in the application, requiring Pegasus, which would hold
consolidated applications at a single orbital slot (for only a portion of the available
bandwidth), to post twice the $3 million amount would be highly inequitable and
unnecessary to serve the purpose of the performance bond. Accordingly, if the
amendment application is granted, the Commission should clarify (and/or grant any
necessary waiver) that Pegasus is required to post only a single $3 million bond for its
combined authorization at the 107° W.L. orbital location.

Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions.

                                          Very truly yours,




                                          %bs
                                          Tony Lin




* As explained in the DIRECTV Response, EchoStar‘s procedural arguments are also flawed.




www.pillsburylaw.com                                                                 400996659v1


                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I, Renee Williams, hereby certify that on this 10th day of November 2008 I served
a true copy of the foregoing by first—class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the
following:

Andrea Kelly*           .                    William M. Wiltshire
Federal Communications Commission            Michael D. Nilsson
445 12"" Street, S.W.                        Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
Washington, D.C. 20554                       1200 18"" Street, N.W.
                                             Washington, D.C. 20036
                                             Counselfor DIRECTVY Enterprises, LLC

Susan Crandall                               Pantelis Michalopoulos
Intelsat North America LLC                   Chung Hsiang Mah
3400 International Drive, N.W.               Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Washington, D.C. 20008—3006                  1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
                                             Washington, D.C. 20036
                                             Counselfor EchoStar Corporation




                                            RenedWilliams"

*By Hand Delivery .



Document Created: 2008-11-18 14:21:58
Document Modified: 2008-11-18 14:21:58

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