Attachment 2009AtContact respon

2009AtContact respon

REPLY submitted by AtContact

response

2009-05-08

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20080930-00194 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2008093000194_1118807

                                                   James M. Talens        *
                                                                                FILED/ACCEPTED
                                                    Attorney—at—Law                  MA¥ =8 2008
                                       6017 Woodley Road, McLean, VA 22101
                                                                              Federal Communications Commission
                                                           703.241.1144               Office of the Secretary

                                                           May 8. 2009
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12"" Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20554

    Re: AtContact Communications, LLC, File Nos. SAT—MOD—20080813—00155
    ($2346); SAT—AMD—20080930—00195 (S2680);SAT=AMD=20080505:00098(S2381);
    SAT—AMD—20080930—00194 ($2682); SAT—MOD—20060511—00057 (S2683).

 Dear Ms. Dortch:

This responds to a letter from Intelsat North America LLC ("Intelsat") that was submitted
on May 1, 2009, intervening in AtContact Communications, LLC‘s ("AtContact") effort
at securing relief from the Commission as outlined in AtContact‘s letters of February 6,
2009 and April 22, 2009.‘ For the reasons stated below, Intelsat‘s interest in this matter
is without standing, and its submission is without merit and should be rejected forthwith.

At the outset, there is no demonstrated nexus in any matter referenced above that
warrants Intelsat‘s intervention in this proceeding. Intelsat is neither a competitor nor an
affected licensee in the Ka—band, it is not a financial institution affected by AtContact‘s
needs, and it is not a protector of the public interest. To the contrary, the obvious purpose
of Intelsat‘s submission is to delay or disrupt AtContact‘s progress toward launch and
operation of a state—of—the art Ka—band satellites system that ultimately will serve as a
competitor to Intelsat‘s orbital oligopoly. This follows Intelsat‘s repeated efforts at
soliciting and taking AtContact‘s teleport customers while imposing huge increases on
bandwidth it sells to AtContact. Nonetheless, AtContact responds herein to the assertions
raised by Intelsat.




* Admitted to practice in the District of Columbia only.




4          See letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission
from James M. Talens, Counsel for AtContact (February 6, 2009), and follow—up letter
dated April 22, 2009 (with attachment letter from David M. Drucker, Manager,
AtContact).


 Importantly, it should be noted that Intelsat did not comment on AtContact‘s request for
 immediate relief with regard to approval of AtContact‘s October 15, 2008 milestone
submission. Both in its February 6 and April 22 letters, AtContact asks for separation of
that milestone approval from the other issues discussed. AtContact now again asks that
the milestone matter be bifurcated and resolved immediately under delegated authority
given there are no non—routine issues involved.

Intelsat asserts that AtContact does not provide specific factual justification for its waiver
requests of the milestone and bond requirements associated with its two remaining
satellites. Perhaps Intelsat did not fully apprehend the detailed discussion and
justifications provided in the February 6 letter. To assist Intelsat, AtContact notes that it
presented nearly eight pages of explanation, precedent and justification for the narrow,
limited waivers it seeks. Those justifications support a finding that the public interest
will be served by grant of the requested waivers, using specific criteria contained in the
Commission‘s rules and in case precedents." Such grant is consistent with long—standing
Commission precedent and the public interest. Moreover, grant clearly does not
undermine the purpose of the rule in question because, as explained in the February 6
letter, there is simply no element of warehousing of satellite spectrum at issue.

AtContact as a United States satellite company faces financing challenges unlike at any
other time in our collective national memory. Fulfillment of the promise of AtContact‘s
license at its two remaining satellite slots requires regulatory flexibility and support, as
well as new, creative collaborations with other private sector entities. Unlike Intelsat,
which was conceived by international cooperative financing and propelled later by public
financing at a market peak, AtContact faces the worst conditions to obtain financing since
satellite technology was born.




2       See, e.g., ICO Satellite Services G.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC
Red 19696 (Int‘l Bur. 2005)(adopting intermediate milestones where applicant proposed
a two year construction schedule, and physical construction had not yet begun), and see
In the Matter ofRainbow DBS Company LLC, Consent to Withdraw and Unconditionally
Release Bonds and Requestfor Waiver ofthe Bond Requirements, File Nos. SAT—LOA—
20030827—00172, SAT—LOA—20030827—00248, SAT—LOA—20030827—00175, SAT—LOA—
20030827—00249, SAT—LOA—20030827—00173, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC
07—11 (rel. Mar. 2, 2007) (granting Rainbow waiver of the bond requirement and
allowing it to withdraw and unconditionally release the bonds submitted to satisfy a
condition of its Ka—band service licenses); see also Letter to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, from David A. Deitch, S.V.P and
General Counsel, Rainbow DBS Company, LLC, January 30, 2006. The economic and
finance markets have vastly degraded since this matter was considered. See Letter of
February 6, 2009, supra, at 3.


Finally, contrary to Intelsat‘s simplistic claim, there is no inconsistency in AtContact‘s
need to work with other companies in order to proceed with its construction plans. In
fact, David Drucker, Manager of AtContact, is co—founder of EchoStar and founder of
WildBlue, both financed in vastly better times. Indeed, neither company is providing any
significant capital until the Commission grants AtContact the relief it requests in the
February 6 letter. Other companies cited by Intelsat are either already established and
operating companies or are linked to foreign, government—partnerships for which taxation
is the source of funding. In short, Intelsat‘s effort at disposing of AtContact‘s claims is
belied by the history of the companies it cites as well as current world financial realities.
It is unfortunate that Intelsat finds it necessary to resort to patently in apropos
comparisons to combat a possible future competitor.

AtContact again asks the International Bureau to move forward expeditiously, rejecting
Intelsat‘s assertions and finding that AtContact‘s waiver requests are fully justified and in
the public interest.

                                                        Respectfully submitted,




                                                       James M. Talens
                                                       Counsel to AtContact
                                                         Communications, LLC

Copies via electronic means:

J. Giusti, IB
R. Nelson, 1B
Stephen Duall, IB
F. Jarmulnek, B
A. Roberts, 1B


                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICK

I, James M. Talens, do hereby certify that on May 7, 2009, I served a copy of the
foregoing letter upon the following parties by U.S. first—class mail, postage pre—paid:


Kalpak S. Gude
Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
Intelsat Corporation
3400 International Drive, NW
Washington, DC 20008—3006


                                                                   0


                                                Jé/mes M. Talens


                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James M. Talens, do hereby certify that on May 7, 2009, I served a copy of the
foregoing letter upon the following parties by U.S. first—class mail, postage pre—paid:


Kalpak S. Gude
Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
Intelsat Corporation
3400 International Drive, NW
Washington, DC 20008—3006




                                                James M. Talens



Document Created: 2015-09-16 11:28:04
Document Modified: 2015-09-16 11:28:04

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