Attachment comments

comments

COMMENT submitted by SES

comments

2008-08-01

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20051118-00246 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2005111800246_690788

                                     Before the
                      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION                            AUG   - 1 2008
                               Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                          1
                                          1
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC                  1    Call Signs S2242 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-19970605-
                                          )    00049 et al.), S2243 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-19970605-
                                          )    00050 et al.), S2244 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-19970605-
                                          )    0005 1 et al.), S2711 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-20060908-
                                          )    00099 et al.) & S2712 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-
                                          )    20060908-00 100 et al.)
                                          )
EchoStar Satellite Operating L.L.C.        1   Call Signs S2440 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-20020328-
                                           1   00050 et al.), S2441 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-20020328-
                                           )   0005 1 et al.), S2442 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-20020328-
                                           )   00052 et a,.), S2723 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-20070 105-
                                           )   00001 et al.) & S2725 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-20070105-
                                           )   00003 et al.)
                                           )
Intelsat North America LLC                 1   Call Signs S2659 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-20050210-
                                           )   00028 et al.), S2660 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-20050210-
                                           )   00029 et al.), S266 1 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-200502 10-
                                           )   00030 et al.) & S2662 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-20050210-
and                                        )   00031 et al.)
                                           )
Pegasus Development DBS Corporation        )   Call Signs S2698 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-20060412-
                                           )   00042 et al.), S2699 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-200604 12-
Applications for Authority to Launch       )   00043 et al.) & S2700 (File Nos. SAT-LOA-200604 12-
and Operate 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-        )   00044 et al.)
Satellite Service Space Stations           )


                          COMMENTS OF SES AMERICOM, INC.

               SES Americom, Inc. (“SES Americom”), by its attorneys and pursuant to

Section 25.154 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. tj 25.154, hereby submits its comments on

the above-captioned applications of DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC (“DIRECTV”), EchoStar

Satellite Operating L.L.C. (“EchoStar”), Intelsat North America LLC (“Intelsat”), and Pegasus

Development DBS Corporation (“Pegasus”) for Commission licenses to launch and operate new

space stations in the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (“BSS”) (collectively, the “BSS


Applications”). * In acting on the BSS Applications, the Commission should remind the applicants

that, consistent with long-standing law and policy, any authority granted is subject to the outcome

of international coordination.

               SES Americom has been active in the Commission’s proceedings to adopt rules for

17/24 GHz BSS, supporting policies that will facilitate the introduction of additional video service

delivery options for U.S. consumers. SES Americom has emphasized that its business plans

include the deployment of 17/24 GHz spacecraft to serve the U.S., and we have urged the

Commission to ensure that new entrants can compete with DBS incumbents on a level playing

field.2

               SES Americom is moving forward with its plans to build spacecraft with 17/24 GHz

payloads. Once the current freeze is lifted, SES Americom plans to seek authority to serve the U.S.

using 17/24 GHz spectrum. Our facilities will provide the framework for additional competition in

the direct-to-premise distribution of video and other services, to the great benefit of U.S. consumers.

               In that regard, SES Americom will be requesting U.S. market access for satellites

that will operate pursuant to non-U. S. authorizations under standard Commission policies. Those

policies conform to international coordination obligations applicable to all International

Telecommunication Union (“ITU”) member countries. Consistent with those policies, the

Commission should state explicitly in any licenses granted pursuant to the BSS Applications that

absent successful coordination, the licensees are not entitled to interference protection from

systems licensed by an administration with ITU priority. In addition, the Commission should make



                        -~

1
    Appendix 1 hereto contains a complete listing of the call signs and file numbers of the BSS
Applications.
2
    See, e.g., Comments of SES Americom, Inc., IB Dkt No. 06-123 (filed Oct. 16,2006) at 2, 5-9;
Reply Comments of SES Americom, Inc., IB Dkt No. 06-123 (filed Nov. 15,2006) at 6, 12-14.

                                                  2


clear that a licensee’s authority to operate is dependent on the outcome of coordination under ITU

policies.

               As SES Americom has previously observed, the coordination requirements and

procedures specified in the ITU Radio Regulations have the force of treaty and apply to

Commission licensees as a matter of law, whether a license includes a specific coordination

condition or not.3 The Commission has recognized that “[tlhe United States is under a treaty

obligation, in connection with its membership in the ITU, to coordinate all U.S. authorized satellite

services intemati~nally.”~
                         The obligation to coordinate is also codified in Section 25.1 11 of its

rules, which provides that:

                       No protection from interference caused by radio stations
                       authorized by other Administrations is guaranteed unless
                       coordination 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 with other
                       Administrations. 47 C.F.R. $25.1 11(b).

This rule is referenced in the standard conditions that are typically included in a satellite license

grant. 5




     See Comments of SES Americom, Inc. on Petition for Reconsideration of Telesat Canada, IB
Dkt No. 06-123, filed Feb. 11,2008 at 3-5.
     Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the
2 7.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish
Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, 12
FCC Rcd 223 10,22335 (1997).
     See, e.g., File No. SAT-LOA-20070314-00051, granted July 18,2007, at 7 5.

                                                    3


               When it adopted the first-come, first-served licensing process for geostationary

satellites, the Commission reiterated its policy that licenses granted are subject to the outcome of

international coordination:

                       The Commission is not responsible for the outcome of any
                       particular satellite coordination and does not guarantee the
                       success or failure of the required international coordination.
                       Moreover, we expect U.S. licensees to abide by international
                       regulations when their systems are coordinated. This may
                       mean that the U.S. licensee may not be able to operate its
                       system if the coordination cannot be appropriately completed.
                       Indeed, with the first-come, first served approach, we assign
                       applicants to the orbit location that is requested.
                       Consequently, the applicant assumed the coordination risk
                       when choosing that particular orbit location at the time it
                       submitted its application?

This is the licensing framework for processing of the instant BSS Applications.

               The Commission has expressly applied these coordination policies in the BSS

context. For example, Echostar's application for a new DBS license at the 86.5" W.L. orbital

location was granted subject to express conditions relating to coordination pursuant to ITU

requirement^.^ Absent coordination, EchoStar was prohibited from exceeding the applicable
interference limits with respect to affected operators. In addition, until the successful completion of

coordination, EchoStar was required to notify its customers that its operations were subject to

coordination with other networks and that EchoStar might be required to modify or discontinue

services to conform to coordination agreements. Id. at 7 28.



    Amendment ofthe Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 10760 (2003) at 7 96 (footnotes
omitted). See also id. at 7 295 (FCC can license operations on a temporary basis at an orbit
location where another Administration has ITU priority, but makes such grants subject to the
outcome of international coordination).
7
     EchoStar Satellite L.L. C., Application to Construct, Launch and Operate a Direct Broadcast
Satellite at the 86.5" W L . Orbital Location, Order and Authorization, DA 06-2440,21 FCC Rcd
14045 (IB 2006).

                                                   4


                Any grants of the BSS Applications here are subject to similar conditions as a matter

of law. As discussed above, the obligation to comply with ITU coordination rules and procedures

will apply to any licenses granted, whether conditions to that effect are included or not. However,

as the Commission has recently observed, including conditions in the applicable authorization, even

when the underlying policy is clear, serves the public interest by “removing any uncertainty as to

the applicability of Commission policy” in an individual case.8

                Accordingly, SES Americom requests that any grants of the above-captioned BSS

 Applications of DIRECTV, Echostar, Intelsat, and Pegasus include an express reminder of

 international coordination requirements. Specifically, the licensees should be advised that unless

 coordination is completed, they are not entitled to interference protection from networks operating

 pursuant to ITU filings with date priority. The licensees should also be notified that absent

 successful international coordination, their operations may have to be modified or terminated to

 accommodate a network with priority, and they should be required to make a disclosure to that

 effect to their customers.

                                               Respectfully submitted,

                                               SES AMERICOM, INC.

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

 August 1,2008



      Star One S.A., Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Add the Star One C5 Satellite at 68” W.L. to
 the Permitted Space Station List, Order on Reconsideration, DA 08-1645 (Sat. Div., rel. July 14,
 2008) at 7 5.

                                                   5


                        APPENDIX 1: BSS APPLICATIONS

DIRECTV Applications
  Call Sign                             File Numbers
   S2242     SAT-LOA-19970605-00049; SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00226;
             SAT-AMD-20080114-00015; & SAT-AMD-2008032 1-00078
   S2243     SAT-LOA-19970605-00050; SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00225;
             SAT-AMD-20080114-00016; & SAT-AMD-2008032 1-00079
   S2244     SAT-LOA- 19970605-00051; SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00224;
             SAT-AMD-20080114-00017; & SAT-AMD-2008032 1-00080
   S2711     SAT-LOA-20060908-00099; SAT-AMD-20080 1 14-00013;
             & SAT-AMD-20080321-00076
   S27 12    SAT-LOA-20060908-00 100; SAT-AMD-20080114-00014;
             & SAT-AMD-20080321-00077

EchoStar Atmlications

    S2440       SAT-LOA-20020328-00050; SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00247;
                SAT-AMD-20080114-00018: & SAT-AMD-20080213-00044
    S244 1      SAT-LOA-20020328-0005 1; SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00246;
                SAT-AMD-20080114-00019; & SAT-AMD-200802 13-00042
    S2442       SAT-LOA-20020328-00052; SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00245;
                SAT-AMD-20080114-00020: & SAT-AMD-20080213-00043
    S2723       SAT-LOA-20070 105-00001; & SAT-AMD-20080 1 14-00021
    S2725       SAT-LOA-20070105-00003; SAT-AMD-20080114-00022;
                & SAT-AMD-20080213-00045


  Call Sign                                 File Numbers
   S2659        SAT-LOA-20050210-00028; SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00241;
                SAT-AMD-20080 114-00011; SAT-AMD-200806 17-00126;
                & SAT-AMD-20080701-00134
    S2660       SAT-LOA-200502 10-00029; SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00240;
                SAT-AMD-20080 114-00012; SAT-AMD-20080617-00125;
                & SAT-AMD-20080701-00135
    S2661       SAT-LOA-20050210-00030; SAT-AMD-2005 1 118-00239;
                SAT-AMD-20080 1 14-00009; SAT-AMD-200806 17-00 124;
                & SAT-AMD-20080701-00137
    S2662       SAT-LOA-200502 10-00031; SAT-AMD-2005 1118-00238;
                SAT-AMD-20080114-00008; SAT-AMD-200806 17-00123;
                & SAT-AMD-20080701-00138


Call Sign                              File Numbers
 S2698      SAT-LOA-20060412-00042; SAT-AMD-20080 1 14-00025;
            & SAT-AMD-20080118-00029
 S2699      SAT-LOA-200604 12-00043; & SAT-AMD-200801 14-00024
 S2700      SAT-LOA-20060412-00044: & SAT-AMD-20080114-00023




                                    2


                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

               I, Cecelia Burnett, hereby certify that on this 1st day of August, 2008, I caused to

be served copies of the foregoing “Comments of SES Americom, Inc.”              following parties

by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid:
                                                 /‘,



                                                       Cecelia M. Burnitt


William Wiltshire                                 Susan H. Crandall
Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP                   Intelsat Corporation
1200 18th Street, N.W.                            3400 International Drive, N. W.
Washington, DC 20036                              Washington, DC 20008-3006
Counsel to DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC               Counsel to Intelsat North America LLC

Pantelis Michalopoulos                            Tony Lin
Steptoe & Johnson LLP                             Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave., N.W.                       2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036                              Washington, DC 20037
Counsel to EchoStar Satellite Operating           Counsel to Pegasus Development DBS
L. L. c.                                          Corporation



Document Created: 2009-01-27 16:52:45
Document Modified: 2009-01-27 16:52:45

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