Attachment opposition

opposition

OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DENY submitted by ICO

opposition

2006-06-06

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

IBFS_SATAMD2006050500054_510544

                                            Before the
                      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CoMMISSION                                  RECEIVED
                                     Washington, D.C. 20554
                                                                                          JUN ~ 6 2006
                                                                                    Faderl Comnunicatos Cone
In the Matter of                                      i                                     Oflbl:'snrmy misen

New ICO Satellite Services G.P.                       )   File Nos.   SAT—MOD—20050926—00182
                                                      )               SAT—AMD—20050927—00186
Application for Modification of Authority for         )               SAT»AMDW-&??S“
Use ofthe 2 GHz Bands to Provide Mobile               )
Satelite Service                                      )                          JUN 0 9 2005
                                                                                 Poley
                                                                              Intomati    Eureau
                           OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DENY

        Pursuant to Section 25.154(c) of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.154(c), New

1CO Satellite Services G.P. (‘ICO®) opposes the petition ("Petition") of Intelsat North America

LLC ("Intelsat"), to deny the above—captioned application, as amended (*Application®),for
modification of ICO‘s 2 GHz mobile satelite service(*MSS®) authorization. Intelsat‘s Petition

makes three basic errors: (1) it ignores the fact that ICO has requested (and Intelsat has not

opposed) authorization to use frequencies orher than C—band frequencies at the 92.85° W.L.

orbital location; (2) it claims C—band coordination is impossible before the parties have even

completed coordination discussions; and (3) it contends that the Commission should

categorically and prematurely forbid the parties from exploring frequency coordination options
because ICO "might" build a satellte in the meantime.

       First, the Commission can and should approve ICO‘s Application while deferring the
waiver request. In its Petition, Intelsat opposes ICO‘s request for waiver of Section of25.202(@)
ofthe Commission‘s rules to permit use of C—band frequencies for transfer orbit and emergency




de—aszons


telemetry, tracking, and command operations ("T&C") and its request to defer action on the
waiver request." Intelsat‘s Petition does not, however, object to ICO‘s request to modify its 2
GHz MSS authorization to permit operation of an MSS satellte at 92.85° W.L. in the 2 GHz

MSS frequency bands and the Ka—band. Because ICO‘request to operate at 92.85° W.L. in the
2 GHz MSS frequency bands and the Ka—band is uncontested, the Commission should grant the
Application while deferring the waiver request
         Second, Intelsat prematurely declares that C—band use cannot be coordinated when the

parties have not yet completed frequency coordination. In its Application, ICO expressly
contemplated that its proposed use of C—band frequencies for transfer orbit and emergency
TT&C operations would be predicated upon "successful coordination" with Intelsat.® 1CO re—
affirmed this intent by amending its Application to seek deferral of Commission action on the
waiver request "pending completion of frequency coordination with other satellite operators.""
This requestis consistent with Intelsat‘s own assertion that "until 1CO has completed

coordination ofits C—band frequencies, its waiver request cannot be granted."" Consequently,
untl frequency coordination with Intelsat has been completed, any conclusion that ICO‘s

proposed C—band TT&C operations will cause harmful interference to Intelsat‘s 1A—6 satellite

would be premature and unwwarranted.



‘ See Intelsat Petitionat 1, 4. Intelsat previously also filed an ex parte letter opposing 1CO‘s
request for waiver of Section 25.202(g). See Letter from Jennifer D. Hindin, Counsel for
Intelsat, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (Mar. 27, 2006) ("Intelsat Letter®).
* See ICO Application, Attachment A, at 4.
* 1CO Amendment to Application, at3 (May 5, 2006).
* Intelsat Letter at 2.



de—aszons


        Finally, Intelsat and the public will suffer no harm if the Commission defers action on
1CO‘s waiver request. Although Intelsat speculates that ICO "might" proceed to build a satellite
that does not comply with the Commission‘s rules, it fils to offer any evidence that ICO plans to
do so or to explain how the mere possibility ofthe construction of a non—compliant satellite
would harm eitheritself or the public interest.® In any event, ICO‘s satellite operations will be

limited by and conducted in compliance with the terms of ts authorization, and in the absence of
Commission action on ICO‘s waiver request, Intelsat‘s interests will not be affected in any way.
        In sum, ICO‘s waiver request is separate and discrete from the remaining uncontested
issues raised in the Application, and thus can be resolved at a later time when both ICO and
Intelsat have had sufficient opportunity to complete frequency coordination discussions.
Commission deferral ofaction on ICO‘s waiver request would allow the Commission to provide
regulatory certainty by granting the uncontested portion of the Application without prejudicing

Intelsat‘s interests.




5 See Intelsat Petition at 4. As the Commission has acknowledged, "an applicant‘s decision to
proceed with construction and incur expenses associated with construction would be taken at ts
own risk and not predispose us to grantits future application." See Streamlining the
Commission‘s Rules and Regulationsfor Satellite Application and Licensing Procedures, 11
FCC Red 21581, 4 6 (1996).


doaszons


        Based upon the foregoing, ICO urges the Commission to grant the Application
expeditiously, except with respectto the request for waiver of Section 25.202(g), which should
be deferred pending completion of frequency coordination with other satellite operators.



                                                 Respectfully submitted,
                                                 NEW 1CO SATELLITE SERVICES G.P.



John Flyan                                       Chery! A. Tri
Executive VicePresident, General Counsel         Phuong N. Pham
& Corporate Secretary                            Morrison & Poerster LLP
1CO Global Communications (Holdings) Ltd.        2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 5500
11700 Plaza America Drive, Suite 1010            Washington, D.C. 20006
Reston, VA 20190
                                                 Its Counsel
Suzanne Hutchings Malloy
Senior Regulatory Counsel
815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 610
Washington, D.C. 20006
June 6, 2006




de—asaons


                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        1, Theresa Rollins,hereby certify that on June 6, 2006, a copy of the foregoing
OPPOSITION was served by electronic mail or,as indicated (*),by U.S. mail upon the
following:
 Karl Kensinger                                      John Martin
Associate Division Chicf, Satellite Division         Senior Engineer, Satellte Division
International Bureau                                 International Bureau
Federal Communications Commission                    Federal Communications Commission
445 12" Street, SW                                   445 12" Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554                                 Washington, DC 20554
Email: Karl.Kensinger@fee.gov                        Email: John.Martin@fee.gov
Steven Spacth                                        Andrea Kelly
International Bureau                                 Chief, Policy Branch
Federal Communications Commission                    Satellite Division
445 12" Street, SW                                   International Bureau
Washington, DC 20554                                 Federal Communications Commission
Email: Steven.Spacth@fec.gov                         445 12" Street, SW
                                                     Washington, DC 20554
                                                     Email: AndreaKelly@fee.gov
Scott Kotler                                        Kathryn MedJey
Chief, System Analysis Branch                       Acting Chief, Engineering Branch
Satellte Division                                   Satellte Division
International Bureau                                International Bureau
Federal Communications Commission                   Federal Communications Commission
445 12" Street, SW                                  445 12Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554                                Washington, DC 20554
Email: ScottKotler@fee.gov                          Email: KathrynMedJey@fec.gov
Kal Krautkramer                                     Sylvia Lam
International Bureau                                International Bureau
Federal Communications Commission                   Federal Communications Commission
445 12" Street, SW                                  445 12" Street,SW
Washington, DC 20554                                Washington, DC 20554
Email: Kal.Krautkramer@fee.gov                      Email: SyiviaLam@fee.gov
Alyssa Roberts                                      Jennifer D. Hindin®
International Bureau                                Wiley, Rein & Fielding
Federal Communications Commission                   1776 K Street, NW
445 12" Street, SW                                  Washington, DC 20006
Washington, DC 20554                                   Counsel to Intelsat North America LLC
Email: AlyssaRoberts@fee.gov


                                           Thefesa Rollins



Document Created: 2006-06-09 17:26:39
Document Modified: 2006-06-09 17:26:39

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