Echostar Reply -- DI

REPLY submitted by EchoStar Corporation

EchoStar Reply Comments

2008-11-24

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20080114-00015 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2008011400015_680267

                                     Before the
                      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                               Washington, D.C. 20554




                                                 rafiierfiiefiiefiefiedfiiedfiedieedinetieestittcd
In the Matter of:

DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC                                                                             File Nos. SAT—LOA—19970605—00049
                                                                                                             SAT—AMD—20051118—00226
To Amend its Pending Application for a                                                                       SAT—AMD—20080114—00015
17/24 GHz BSS Authorization at the                                                                           SAT—AMD—20080916—00188
Nominal 107° W.L. Orbital Location                                                                           Call Sign $2242




                                      REPLY COMMENTS

       EchoStar Corporation ("EchoStar") replies to the Response filed by DIRECTV

Enterprises, LLC ("DIRECTV") on November 10, 2008,‘ as well as two brief letters filed by

Intelsat North America LLC ("Intelsat") and Pegasus Development DBS Corporation

(“Pegasus).2

       DIRECTV tries to set up a strawman to shoot at by presenting EchoStar‘s objections as

broader than they in fact are. To be clear, there are neither legal nor policy issues with Intelsat‘s

decision to drop its application at 99° W.L., or with Pegasus‘s decision to drop its application at

91° W.L. Nor has EchoStar registered concern with the objective of the three parties to


       ‘ Response of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, File No. SAT—AMD—20080916—00188 (filed
Nov. 10, 2008) ("Response").

       * See Letter from Susan H. Crandall, Assistant General Counsel, Intelsat Corp. to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, filed in File No. SAT—AMD—20080916—00188 (filed Nov. 12,
2008); Letter from Bruce D. Jacobs and Tony Lin, Counsel for Pegasus Development DBS Corp.,
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, filed in File No. SAT—AMD—20080916—00188 (filed Nov.
10, 2008).


"rationalize" 17/24 GHz BSS band with a single applicant per slot wherever feasible. Rather

EchoStar‘s objections are focused on the proposed assignment of DIRECTV‘s pending

application at 107° W.L. to Pegasus. That part of the three applicants‘ "Rationalization

Agreement" raises legal and policy problems, requires rule waivers for which no good cause is

apparent, would prejudice EchoStar by consigning it to one third of a slot occupied by two

companies, and illustrates the inefficiencies of a partial settlement that excludes one applicant.

        Further demonstrating the irregular character of its request, DIRECTV asks that Pegasus

and itself be treated, variously, as one (for purposes of determining the number of performance

bonds), and as two (for purposes of spectrum computation). DIRECTV, Pegasus, and EchoStar

each have a pending application for 17/24 GHz BSS spectrum at the 107° W.L. orbital

location. Pursuant to the 17/24 GHz BSS orders, the three applications are considered

simultaneously filed and mutually exclusive." As a result, under the Commission‘s rules," each

applicant would ordinarily receive one—third of the spectrum that is the subject of all three

applications." DIRECTV is attempting to give its one—third to Pegasus, yet the rules do not

provide an avenue for doing so. Not only are assignments of places in the satellite queue

forbidden;" but, as EchoStar has previously noted, the Commission‘s rules require satellite

spectrum that is the subject of multiple mutually exclusive applications to be divided evenly


       3 See 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order, 22 FCC Red 8842, at 4| 143 (2007); 17/24 GHz
BSS Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Red 8842, at         33 (2007).

       * See 47 C.F.R. § 25.158(d)(4).
        ° To be precise, the 400 MHz of spectrum in the 17.3—17.7 GHz band would be split one—
third each among EchoStar, DIRECTV and Pegasus because all three have applied for that
spectrum. In contrast, the 100 MHz of spectrum in the 17.7—17.8 GHz band would only be split
two ways among EchoStar and Pegasus because DIRECTV has conceded that it did not apply for
that spectrum. See Response at 6.

       647 C.F.R. § 25.158(c).


among the number of applicants rather than the number of applications.‘ DIRECTV ignores this

latter rule and insists instead that its 107° W.L. application be treated separately for purposes of

spectrum division, even after the application is assigned to Pegasus, to ensure that Pegasus

receives two—thirds of the spectrum at 107° W.L. This contrasts sharply with how DIRECTV

and Pegasus are asking the Commission to treat the two applications when it comes to the

performance bonds that they must post once the applications are granted. For that purpose,

DIRECTV and Pegasus seek to be viewed as a single entity at 107° W.L. in order to avoid

having to make two bond payments. DIRECTV and Pegasus cannot have it both ways, and have

failed to offer a clear explanation of these issues in their filings.

        DIRECTV dedicates the bulk of its filing to an attempt to portray EchoStar as an

obstructionist.© This charge does not withstand scrutiny, as EchoStar readily agrees that

DIRECTV and the other two applicants at the split 17/24 GHz BSS slots are under no obligation

to seek a global solution to rationalize all of the split 17/24 GHz BSS slots." But the failure to

even attempt to negotiate a global solution is relevant to DIRECTV‘s waiver requests, which

        ‘ See EchoStar Corporation, Comments at 7—8, filed in File Nos. SAT—AMD—20080916—
00188 (filed Oct. 27, 2008). See also 47 C.F.R. § 25.158(d)(4) (requiring equal division among
the mutually exclusive licensees); First Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red
10760, at "| 135 (requiring spectrum to be divided "evenly among the applicants in cases where
two or more applicants file mutually exclusive applications at the same thousandth of a second")
(emphasis added); 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order at «[ 143 ("where two or ore applications are
mutually exclusive, we will divide the available spectrum equally among the applicants"); 17/24
GHz BSS Order on Reconsideration at « 33 ("In the event two or more applicants requested
authority to operate at the same orbital location, we directed the Bureau to consider the
applications concurrently and, if the applicants were qualified, to license them to operate in an
equal portion of the spectrum.").

        8 Response at 2—5.

         ° In this regard, EchoStar has never suggested that DIRECTV would have to drop two
applications in order to make a global solution work. Any number of different variables or
proposed slot divisions could have been considered in global negotiations between the four
parties.


require a good cause showing and a demonstration that the proposed Rationalization Agreement

is in the public interest."" A demonstration that all affected parties were consulted and an effort

to achieve a global and equitable fix to the split 17/24 GHz BSS slots would obviously weigh in

favor of a waiver. But an arrangement (such as the one proposed) under which DIRECTV would

receive all the spectrum at one ofits two core slots and which leaves its primary competitor with

two encumbered orbital slots would not. But for DIRECTV‘s waiver and clarification requests,

EchoStar would be entitled to half of the 17/24 GHz BSS spectrum at 107° W.L. rather than one—

third. Thus, the practical effect of DIRECTV‘s request is to strip EchoStar of spectrum

rights. This is certainly in the private interests of DIRECTV and Pegasus, but it is not in the

public‘s interest.

                                              Respectfully submitted,

                                                    uols MikiArpal> —[De,
Linda Kinney                                   Pantelis Michalopoulos          t
Vice President, Law and Regulation             Chung Hsiang Mah
Brad Gillen                                    Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Director and Senior Counsel                     1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
EchoStar Corporation                           Washington, D.C. 20036
1233 20th Street, NW., Suite 302               (202) 429—3000
Washington, DC 20036—2396                      Counselfor EchoStar Corporation
(202) 293—0981

November 24, 2008




        9 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.


                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


I, Chung Hsiang Mah, hereby certify that on November 24, 2008, I caused true and correct
copies of the foregoing to be served on the following by first—class mail:

                              William M. Wiltshire
                              Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
                              1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W.
                              12th Floor
                               Washington, D.C. 20036—2506
                               Counselfor DIRECTY Enterprises LLC

                              Tony Lin
                              Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
                               2300 N Street, NW.
                               Washington, D.C. 20037—1122
                               Counselfor Pegasus Development
                                 DBS Corporation

                              Susan Crandall
                              Intelsat North America LLC
                               3400 International Drive, N.W.
                              Washington, D.C. 20008—3006
                               Counselfor Intelsat North America LLC




                                                                PA



                                                        C        Ss1 ang Mah



Document Created: 2008-11-24 15:18:21
Document Modified: 2008-11-24 15:18:21

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