Attachment comments

comments

COMMENT submitted by Pegasus

comments

2008-08-01

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20051118-00240 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2005111800240_661113

                                                                                              ORIGINAL
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
2300 N Street, NW   I Washington, DC 20037-1122 I tel202.663.8000I   fax 202.663.8007




                                                                                               Tony Lin
                                                                                       tel202.663.8452
                                                                              tony.lin@pillsburylaw.corn

August 1,2008

Via Courier
Marlene H. Dortch
Federal Communications Commission                                                       AUG - 1 2008
445 12th Street, S.W.
                                                                               Federal Cormunications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554                                                               Office of the Secretary

         Re:        Pegasus Development DBS Corporation
                    See File Nos. listed in the attached Exhibit A

Dear Ms. Dortch:

        In connection with the 17/24 GHz applications listed in the attached Exhibit
A, Pegasus Development DBS Corporation (“Pegasus”) hereby comments and seeks
clarification that: * (i) the Commission’s rules do not permit DIRECTV Enterprises
LLC (“DIRECTV”) to operate a satellite at 118.4”W at full power with full
interference protection; (ii) the current 17/24 GHz applicants may exchange spectrum
interests before licensing; and (iii) following any such exchange or any post-licensing
transfer or assignment, no licensee will be required to post or maintain more than one
$3 million bond for any one satellite system at an orbital location.

       DirecTV’s applicationfor 11 8.4”W. DIRECTV has applied to operate a 17/24
GHz satellite at 118.4”W at full power and with full interference protection.2 Pegasus
has a pending application to operate at full power with full interference protection at



   The applications were placed on public notice on July 2,2008, and comments are due by August 1,
   2008. See Public Notice, Report No. SAT-00535 (July 2,2008); Public Notice, Report No. SAT-
   00537 (July 11,2008).
   See e.g., File No. SAT-AMD-20080114-00017 (Call Sign S2244), Application Narrative, at p. 5
   (“DIRECTV proposes to operate [at the 118.4”W offset location] at full power and with full
   interference protection.”); p. 11 (“DIRECTV is applying for an orbital location that is offset 0.6”
   from an Appendix F slot [and] seeks to operate at full power and with full interference protection).




www.pillsburylaw.com


Marlene H. Dortch
August 1,2008
Page 2




115.0”W,3which is an Appendix F orbital 10cation.~Because the pending
applications for adjacent satellites are considered simultaneously filed and Pegasus
has proposed to locate its satellite at an Appendix F location, while DIRECTV has
not, the Commission’s rules prohibit DIRECTV’s proposed full power, full protection
operations at 118.4”W.5 Pegasus does not object to the operation of the DIRECTV
satellite at 119”W at full power with full interference protection or to the operation of
the satellite at 118.4”W at reduced power with reduced interference protection in
relation to Pegasus’ proposed satellite at 115”W.6

        Pre-licensing exchanges of spectrum. Pegasus urges the Commission to
clarify that pre-licensing exchanges of application spectrum interests among or
between current 17/24 GHz applicants are permissible under the FCC’s rules,’
including specifically that such exchanges are not contrary to the prohibition against




    See File No. SAT-AMD-20080114-00023 (Call Sign S2700), Application Narrative, at p. 20
    (“Pegasus requests authority to operate the proposed satellites at full power with full interference
    protection (i.e. a full-power Appendix F space station) at the following orbital locations: 9 1.O”W,
    1O7.O0W,and 115.0”W.”).
    Appendix F orbital locations range from 43”W to 179”W, inclusive, and are spaced four degrees
    apart. See In the Matter of The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-
    Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band
    Internationally, and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed Satellite Services Providing
    Feeder Links to the Broadcast-Satellite Service and for the Satellite Services Operating Bi-
    directionally in the 17.3-1 7.8 GHz Frequency Band, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8842, at
    Appendix F (2007) (“I 7/24 GHz Order”);Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 17951, at
    Appendix B (2007) (“I 7/24 GHz Order on Reconsideration”).
    See 17/24 GHz Order on Reconsideration, at 7 26 (grant of an Appendix F satellite application will
    prevent the grant of a simultaneously filed full power, full interference protection application to
    operate a satellite at an offset location less than 4” away); 7 34 (establishing second filing window
    “in cases where an application for authority to operate at an offset location at full power conflicts
    with [a simultaneously filed] application for an Appendix F location”); 7 36 (“Any applicant
    proposing a full-power, offset space station that conflicts with an application for an adjacent
    Appendix F space station will have thirty days after the deadline for amended applications . . . to
    amend its application.”).
6
    See 17/24 GHz Order on Reconsideration, at 7 34; see also 47 C.F.R. $3 25.140(b)(4)(ii);
    25.140(~)(3).
    See 47 C.F.R.   9   1.2 (Commission has authority to issue declaratory ruling in order to eliminate
    uncertainty).




www.pillsburylaw.com


Marlene H. Dortch
August 1,2008
Page 3




transferring one’s place in the application queue. Permitting such transactions would
allow licensees to deploy more efficient and cost effective satellites, reduce potential
orbital congestion, and is consistent with the Commission’s goal in the 17/24 GHz
Order for the current applicants “to reach a compromise regarding their orbital
assignment requests and minimize, or avoid, mutually exclusive situation^."^
Moreover, because the applicants would be essentially exchanging 17/24 GHz
spectrum at different orbital locations and no entity, other than the current applicants,
would obtain any 17/24 GHz spectrum as a result of such transactions, the purpose for
prohibiting transfers of applications in the queue, to prevent speculation and
trafficking, would not be undermined. lo

        Bond requirements. Pegasus also urges the Commission to clarify that, as a
result of any such exchange, it would not impose more than a single $3 million bond
requirement for a 17/24 GHz licensee’s satellite system at a single orbital location.
For example, if Pegasus were to obtain the 17/24 GHz spectrum interests of
DIRECTV and EchoStar Satellite Operating L.L.C. (“Echostar”) at 107”W,upon
licensing, Pegasus would be required to post only one $3 million bond for its satellite
system at that location and not three $3 million bonds. Similarly, the Commission
should clarify that, post-licensing, a licensee may obtain the 17/24 GHz spectrum
rights of other licensees at the same orbital location without having to post or
maintain more than a single $3 million bond. For example, if Pegasus, DIRECTV,
and EchoStar were each licensed at 107”W, and Pegasus subsequently were to acquire
the 17/24 GHz licenses of DIRECTV and EchoStar for use with a Pegasus satellite at
that location, it should be required to post or maintain only one $3 million bond for its
satellite system at that location, rather than three such bonds. l 1 Requiring a licensee




  See 47 C.F.R. 5 25.158(c). Applicants would still seek prior approval of the Commission for such
  transactions.
  17/24 GHz Order, at 9 146.
lo SeeIn the Matter of Amendment of the Commission ’s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, 18
  FCC Rcd 10760, at 79 240-236 (2003) (“[Wlithout this prohibition, it is possible that some parties
  would file satellite applications simply to obtain a place in a queue to sell to another party willing
  and able to implement its proposed satellite system.”).
  Any bonds already posted for the other satellite systems should be returned.




www.pillsburylaw.com


Marlene H. Dortch
August 1,2008
Page 4




to post or maintain more than one $3 million bond for a single satellite system at an
orbital location would be unfair and serve no usefbl purpose.12

       Because resolution of these uncertainties could facilitate deployment of 17/24
GHz satellite systems, Pegasus asks that the Commission clarify the above issues as
soon as possible. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions.

                                           Very truly yours,




                                       ' TonyLin
Attachment




         the Matter of Telesat Canada, 22 FCC Rcd 588, at 7 14 (2007) (granting waiver request of
l 2 See In
  bond requirement because another entity had already posted a bond for the same satellite).




www.pillsburylaw.com


                                  EXHIBIT A

                                      File Nos.
~~




     SAT-LOA-19970605-00049 (S2242)        SAT-LOA-19970605-00050 (S2243)
     SAT-AMD-20051118-00226 (S2242)        SAT-AMD-20051118-00225 (S2243)
     SAT-AMD-20080114-00015 (S2242)        SAT-AMD-20080114-00016 (S2243)

     SAT-LOA-20060412-00042 (S2698)        SAT-LOA-20070105-00003 (S2725)
     SAT-AMD-20080114-00025 (S2698)        SAT-AMD-20080114-00022 (S2725)
     SAT-AMD-20080118-00029 (S2698)        SAT-AMD-20080213-00045 (S2725)

     SAT-LOA-20050210-00029 (S2660)        SAT-LOA-20050210-00030 (S2661)
     SAT-AMD-20051118-00240 (S2660)        SAT-AMD-20051118-00239 (S2661)
     SAT-AMD-20080114-00012 (S2660)        SAT-AMD-20080114-00009 (S2661)
     SAT-AMD-20080701-00135 (S2660)        SAT-AMD-20080617-00124 (S2661)
     SAT-AMD-20080617-00125 (S2660)        SAT-AMD-20080701-00137 (S266 1)
     SAT-AMD-20080701-00134 (S2660)

     SAT-LOA-19970605-00051 (S2244)        SAT-LOA-20020328-00052 (S2442)
     SAT-AMD-20051118-00224 (S2244)        SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00245 (S2442)
     SAT-AMD-20080114-00017 (S2244)        SAT-AMD-20080114-00020 (S2442)
     SAT-AMD-20080321-00080 (S2244)        SAT-AMD-200802 13-00043 (S2442)

     SAT-LOA-20020328-00050 (S2440)         SAT-LOA-20020328-00051 (S2441)
     SAT-AMD-20051118-00247 (S2440)         SAT-AMD-20051118-00246 (S2441)
     SAT-AMD-20080114-00018 (S2440)         SAT-AMD-20080114-00019 (S244 1)
     SAT-AMD-20080213-00044 (S2440)         SAT-AMD-20080213-00042 (S244 1)

     SAT-LOA-20050210-00031 (S2662)         SAT-LOA-20050210-00028 (S2659)
     SAT-AMD-20051118-00238 (S2662)         SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00241 (S2659)
     SAT-AMD-20080114-00008 (S2662)         SAT-AMD-20080 114-00009 (S2659)
     SAT-AMD-20080617-00123 (S2662)         SAT-AMD-20080617-00126 (S2659)
     SAT-AMD-20080701-00138 (S2662)         SAT-AMD-20080701-00134 (S2659)

     SAT-LOA-20060908-00100 (S2712)         SAT-LOA-20060908-00099 (S27 11)
     SAT-AMD-20080114-00014 (S2712)         SAT-AMD-20080114-00013 (S2711)
     SAT-AMD-20080321-00077 (S27 12)

     SAT-LOA-20070105-00001 (S2723)         SAT-LOA-20060412-00043 (S2699)
     SAT-AMD-20080114-00021 (S2723)         SAT-AMD-20080114-00024 (S2699)

     SAT-LOA-20060412-00044 (S2700)
     SAT-AMD-20080114-00023 (S2700)


                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I, Renee Williams, hereby certify that on this lSfday of August 2008, I served a
true copy of the foregoing by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the
following:

Fern Jermulnek*                               Steven Spaeth"
Federal Communications Commissions            Federal Communications Commissions
445 lzthStreet, S.W.                          445 lPhStreet, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554                        Washington, D.C. 20554

Andrea Kelly*                                 Pantelis Michalopoulos
Federal Communications Commission             Steptoe & Johnson LLP
445 lYhStreet, S.W.                           1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554                        Washington, D.C. 20036
                                              Counsel for EchoStar Satellite Operating
                                              L.L. c.

William M. Wiltshire                          Susan H. Crandall
Michael D. Nilsson                            Intelsat Corporation
Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP               3400 International Drive, N.W.
1200 18thStreet, N.W.                         Washington, D.C. 20008-3006
Washington, D.C. 20036
Counselfor DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC




                                             Rene6 Williams

*By Hand Delivery



Document Created: 2008-08-04 13:09:31
Document Modified: 2008-08-04 13:09:31

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