Attachment petition to deny

petition to deny

PETITION TO DENY submitted by Intelsat

petition to deny

2006-05-22

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20060505-00054 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2006050500054_503093

ORIGINAL D Before the RECEIVE Federal Communication Commission way 2 3 2006 Washington, DC 20554 Fedeal Communcaton Comninon oftes o Secvary In the Matter of ) File Nos. SAT—AMD—20060505—00054 ) SAT—MOD—20050926—00182 New 1CO Satellite Services G.P. ) Amendment to Application to Modify ) 2 GHz MSS License ) PETITION TO DENY OF INTELSAT NORTH AMERICA LLC Intelsat North America LLC ("Intelsat"),by it attomeys and purstant to Section 25.154(a)of the Commission‘s rules, petitions to deny the above—captioned amendment (*Amendment®) of New 1CO Satellite Services G.P. ("1CO®)." In its Amendment, ICO secks to operate an MSS satellte at 92.85° W.L.. and requests deferral ofits request made in the underlying modification application (*Modification®) to conduct launch and early orbit phase ("LEOP®) and emergency telemetry, tracking and command ("TT&C") operations in the conventional C—band.. As the Commission is aware, Intelsat opposed 1CO‘s earlier request to operate ts satellte at 93° W.L.. because ICO‘s emergency TT&C operations in the conventional C—band will cause harmfulinterference into Intelsat‘s 1A—6 satellte, which currently operates at 93° W.L. in the conventional C— and Ku—bands." 1CO‘s amended requestto operate instead at 92.85° W.L..—— which was made without any co—location discussions with Intelsat —— does nothing to eliminate the risk of harmful ‘ See Policy Branch Information Satellite Space Applications Acceptedfor Filing, File No. SAT—AMD—20060505—00054, Public Notice, Rept. No. SAT—00362 (May 19, 2006). * Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC from J. Hindiin, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Counsel to Intelsat North America LLC, File No. SAT—MOD—20050926—00182 (Mar. 27, 2006).

interference into 1A—6‘s operations.. As such, Intelsatrespectfully requests that the Commission deny ICO‘s Amendment and underlying Modification. As Intelsat noted in its earlier opposition, the C—band frequencies that ICO seeks are not available for assignment to 1CO under the Commission‘s frst—come, firs—served procedures." Rather than repeat that argument in its entirety, Intelsatincorporates it herein by reference. Intelsatfurther argued in ts earlier opposition that even assuming the frequencies were available under the Commission‘s first—come, first—served procedures, they could not be assigned to ICO under Commission precedent.* That precedent holds that waivers of Section 25.202(g), which requires TT&C operations to be conducted atthe edge of the allocated service band, are not warranted unless the applicant has coordinated use of the non—service band frequencies with affected parties In apporent response, ICO asks the Commission to defer action on its Section 25.202(g) waiver request "pending completion of frequency coordination with other satellite operators."* 1CO‘s request to defer action assumes that "fregquency coordination with other satellte operators"" is simply a work in progress that will be completed ata later date, at which point ICO‘s waiver request could be granted. 1CO‘s deferzal request, however, °1. at 1—2. *1d. ar2. 5 WB Holdings 1 LLC; Applications to Modify the KaStar System Authorization to Include C—Band Tracking, Telemetry, and Control, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Red 8217 (2002). ® Amendment ofNew ICO Satellite Services G.P. to Application to Modify License, File No. SAT—AMD—20060505—00054, t 3 (filed May 5, 2006) ("ICO Amendment).

misses the point of Intelsat‘s opposition. As Intelsat has explained in a face—to—face meeting with ICO engineers and in a meeting with FCC staff," ICO‘s use of C:—band frequencies will not be coordinated with Intelsat, because they carnor be coordinated. Put simply, co—frequency (or nearly co—frequency), co—pol coordination under co— coverage conditions of any two co—located satellites is not possible. Moreover, as explained to ICO and to FCC staff in the above—referenced mectings, given the high power used for telecommand transmissions, harmful interference into Intelsat‘s co— located satellite may occur even if ICO‘s emergency telecommand transmissions take place in the bands immediately adjacent to the conventional C—band. In its Amendment, ICO notes that the change in location for ICO‘s satellte from 93° W.L. to 92.85° W.L. will ‘simplifyf] stationkeeping operations, and minimize] the Hikelihood of in—orbit collsion with other satelltes."" This statement ignores the larger, more fundamental, issue at hand —— that ICO‘s satellite cannot operate at ither 93° W.L. or.92.85° W.L. in conventional C—band frequencies or in frequencies immediately adjacent to the conventional C—band without causing harmful interference into the telecommand and service operations of the 1A—6 satellite." 1CO‘attemptto simply sweep this threshold interference issue under the rug by asking the Commission to defer action on the waiver request should not be allowed. This " Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, from Susan H. Crandall, Asst. General Counsel, Intelsat Global Service Corp., File No. SAT—MOD—20050926—00182, at 1 (Apr. 20, 2006). *1CO Amendment at 1. * in addition to power level,the polarization of ICO‘s telecommand carrier will influence the required frequency separation of that carrier from the 1A—6 telecommand carrier and the edge of the IA—6 communications band.

is particularly true where, as here, a satelliteis in the process of being buit. Should the Commission defer action on the waiver request,as ICO requests, ICO might proceed to build the satellite with only conventional C—band frequencies for LEOP and emergency TT&C, which frequencies it cannot use at either the 93° W.L. or 92.85° W.L. orbital location without causing harmful interference into TA—6. The public interest would not be served by construction of a satellitethat does not comply with the FCC‘s rules and thus cannot operate in its requested orbital location without causing harmful interference to an existing satellte."" For these reasons, the Commission should deny ICO‘s request to defer action on its request for a waiver of Section 25.202(8) ofthe Commission‘s rules and should deny the waiver request, consistent with precedent. No reasonable amount of time is going to resolve the harmfulinterference that will be caused by ICO‘s satellite in conventional C— band at either the 93° W.L. or 92.85° W.L. orbital location."" Respectfully submitted, QD Hoda= er D. Hindin Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Counselfor Intelsat North America LLC May 22, 2006 * 1CO‘s proposed operations in the conventional C—band also would cause harmful interference into the currently available potential replacement satellites for 1A—6. "* s the Commission is aware, Intelsat has identified to ICO potential center frequencies for 1CO‘s telecommand carriers i the extended C:—band, which, depending on the sense of polarization used, might ensure technical compatibility with collocated Intelsat satellites.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Christopher E. Ryan, do hereby certify that on May 22, 2006 I served a copy of the foregoing PETITION TO DENY OF INTELSAT NORTH AMERICA LLC by U.S. first class mail, postage pre—paid upon the following: Chery! A. Trit Morrison & Foerster LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Suite 550 Washington, DC 20006—1888 Counsel to New ICO Satellite Services G.P.


Document Created: 2006-06-01 09:50:46
Document Modified: 2006-06-01 09:50:46
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC