Attachment ex parte

ex parte

Ex PARTE PRESENTATION NOTIFICATION LETTER submitted by DIRECTV

ex parte

2008-10-06

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20080908-00166 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2008090800166_679856

HARRIS, 1200 EIGHTEENTH STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20036 WILTSHIRE & Tel 202.730.1300 rax 202730.130 WWW.HARRISWILTSHIRE. COM G RAN N IS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW October 6, 2008 BY HAND DELIVERY FILED/ACCEPTED Marlene H. Dortch Office of the Secretary Oct — 62008 Federa}hCommunlcatlons Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12 Street, S.W. Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: DIRECTY Enterprises, LLC FCC File No. SAT—AMD—20080908—00166 (Call Sign $2244) Dear Ms. Dortch: In a recent ex parte submission,‘ Pegasus Development DBS Corporation ("Pegasus") challenged the methodology used by DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC ("DIRECTV") to demonstrate that its proposed 17/24 GHz BSS system at the 118.4° W.L. orbital location would cause no more interference to Pegasus‘s proposed system at 115° W.L. than if the DIRECTV system were located at the 119° W.L. "on grid" slot. Pegasus‘s challenge arises from a critique of the methodology used by DIRECTV to determine the effect ofits system. However, the methodology used by DIRECTV reflects the industry standard used in countless applications before the Commission — including applications submitted by Pegasus itself. Pegasus‘s individual preference for its approach is no basis for denying an application that reflects standard practice in the industry. In light of Pegasus‘s application at 115° W.L., DIRECTV recently amended its application to reduce the peak EIRP of its system at 118.4° W.L. by 0.1 dB (from 63.0 dBW to 62.9 dBW) to maintain the interference environment for Pegasus, and agreed to accept any increased interference that results from Pegasus‘s operations less than four degrees away — as required under Section 25.262(d) of the Commission‘s rules." Pegasus contends that DIRECTV would need to reduce the EIRP ofits proposed satellite by up to ‘ See Letter from Bruce Jacobs to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC File Nos. SAT—AMD—20080908—00166 et al. (dated Sept. 26, 2008) ("Pegasus Letter"). * See Application Narrative, FCC File No. SAT—AMD—20080908—00166, at 2—3 (filed Sept. 8, 2008).

HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP Marlene H. Dortch October 6, 2008 Page 2 of 4 2.5 dB in order to ensure that interference to Pegasus‘s system is no greater than that which would be caused by a system operating at the "on grid" location of 119° W.L." Although Pegasus agrees with most of DIRECTV‘s analysis, a footnote in its submission reveals that the 2.5 dB disparity arises from two aspects of the methodology for calculating the power flux—density ("PFD") on the Earth‘s surface on which DIRECTV and Pegasus differ.* Specifically, Pegasus contends that (1) the calculation should use the noise bandwidth of the satellite signal (30 MHz) rather than the transponder bandwidth corresponding to the emission designator (36 MHz); and (2) the calculation should not include atmospheric losses. While a PFD value certainly could be calculated in this way, such a methodology is byno means required —— and in fact would be inconsistent with both industry norms and Pegasus‘s own past practices. On the first point, for example, in three applications for Ka—band space station authorizations, Pegasus used the emission designator bandwidth in demonstrating that its system would comply with the PFD limits in Section 25.138 for blanket earth station licensing in the band." Specifically, the narrative of each application includes a listing of emission designators in Table 7 and a PFD calculation in Table 4, which are reproduced below. TABLE 4. Typical Dowalink Emission Parametess For Yarious Services (The worst—case sontheast area is based on Crane Model rain estimates for subscriber tinks. All links assume adjacent satellite interference at the approximate level of —118 dB W/imMBz.]) Forward Forward Retusn Return Service CONUS Spot Beam Spot Beam {Spot or Service Service Service COXTS) Frequency. GHz 19.8 19.3 19.8 19.$ Access Method TDM TOM TDBMFDMA COMAAJFDMA Power info Antenaa. 30.1 15.3 —8.3 7.7 Satellite Anteana 32.6 49.4 49.4 49.4 Gsain, peak, dBi EIRP Density, peak. —17.0 —33.1 ~17.3 —18.1 dPXx~HBz Bandwidth, MHz 237 137 $.466 33.0 PFD. db WMHzn"* —119.3 —121.3 —119.3 —120.3 Receiving Aatennia. 0.66 1.66 32.3 3.5 meters Max EIRP, dBW 66.7 64.6 4119 37.1 ES Temp.,. K 140 140 140 140 (G—‘T. dBHK 13.1 16.0 33.8 32.6 Pegasus Letter at 3. * 1d., n.10. °* See FCC File Nos. SAT—LOA—20031119—00336, —00337, and —00338.

HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP Marlene H. Dortch October 6, 2008 Page 3 of 4 TABLE 7. List Of Emission Designators Bandwidth Designator 237 MHz B37MGIT 437 B37MGIW 33 33M0GTIC 512 KHz MPKGDX 0 MHz HSuoxON i MHz 1MQOFSD 130 KHz 1°KG°D The bandwidths used in the PFD calculations are 237 MHz and 33 MHz — which correspond precisely to the emission designator bandwidths for 237MG1T/237MGIW and 33M0G7C, respectively, found in Table 7. In a cursory review of space station applications filed with the Commission over just the last five years, DIRECTV also found the emission designator bandwidth used as the normalizing bandwidth to derive power density in applications filed by such well—established operators as SES Americom, EchoStar, ICO, and Hughes.6 Thus, it is clear that the methodology used by DIRECTV in this case is well accepted by the satellite industry — including Pegasus. On the second point, Pegasus asserts that "the FCC‘s rules require the assumption of free—space propagation conditions in calculating PFD limits.""‘ Tellingly, Pegasus cites no specific Commission rule in support ofits assertion. Indeed, the reason for this becomes apparent as Pegasus later admits that "the FCC‘s rules do not expressly require the assumption of free space conditions for the 17.3—17.7 GHz band" which is the subject of this application.© Pegasus fails to recognize the critical importance of assessing atmospheric losses in evaluating satellite system performance, as reflected by the adoption of a series of International Telecommunication Union Recommendations on the subject." As highlighted in these ITU—R Recommendations, accounting for propagation impairments is particularly important for systems operating at frequencies above 10 GHz, which are more susceptible to such impairments. DIRECTV calculated atmospheric losses according to Rec. ITU—R P.618—8."" DIRECTV stands by the atmospheric calculation used in its amended application. ° See FCC File Nos. SAT—LOA—20031218—00358, Technical Appendix, Section 6.1 and Annex 8, Section 1 (SES Americom); SAT—LOA—20040803—00154, Technical Description, Sections A.11 and A.15 (EchoStar); SAT—MOD—20050110—00004, Appendix A, Sections A.11 and A.15 (ICO); and SAT— LO1—20080603—00118, Attachment A at 7 and Table A.10—2 (Hughes). Pegasus Letter at 3 n.10. 8 1d. See, e.g., Rec. ITU—R P.618—8 ("Propagation data and prediction methods required for the design of Earth—space telecommunication systems") (citing related and supporting ITU—R Recommendations). This methodology yielded a total atmospheric loss of 1.598 dB for Miami at 99.7% availability.

HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP Marlene H. Dortch October 6, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Thus, the additional reduction in DIRECTV‘s peak EIRP that Pegasus claims must be made arises directly and solely from Pegasus‘s preference for using the noise bandwidth for the PFD calculation and for ignoring atmospheric losses. Far from being required under the Commission‘s rules, neither of these approaches is consistent with industry practice — including Pegasus‘s own past applications. Accordingly, the Commission should reject Pegasus‘s assertions on these two points and grant DIRECTV application as amended. Sincerely yours, William M. Wiltshire Counselfor DIRECTVY Enterprises, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this 6th day of October, 2008, a copy of the foregoing was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Bruce D. Jacobs Tony Lin Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037—1122 Andrea Kelly* International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Kext }?l‘_;( Reyr(old * by e—mail


Document Created: 2008-11-20 10:49:58
Document Modified: 2008-11-20 10:49:58
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC