Attachment 1990Petition to Deny

1990Petition to Deny

PETITION TO DENY submitted by GE American

Petition to Deny

1990-04-30

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-19900215-00008 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA1990021500008_1058748

Before the RECENED ©FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION gton,. Washington , D. C. 20554 0 APR s3 0 1990 % mies msyIAF— GAAvrild al Communications Commission §3 33:&*'r“"“$ *: 'wQF“mommmwwmw f tute g" 158 6 & : Piled fat ied ®hP tu&4 C td [§ E7 ( * i mra To ’ "tut ho ho o o h t Nt l Nes Ned NetaaP Nee Suugh In the Matter of the Application of J HUGHES COMMUNICATION GALAXY, INC. and SATELLITE TRANSPONDER LEASING CORPORATION For Authority to Construct and Launch File No. 20— One Hybrid Domestic Communications DSS—P/LA—90 Satellite, Galaxy VII(H), to Operate in Both the C and Ku Bands to Serve as a Replacement for the SBS8—4 Satellite and as a Substitute for the Galazxy VI Satellite PETITIONTO_DENY GE American Communications, Inc. ("GE Americom") hereby petitions to deny the above—captioned application of Hughes Communications Galazy, Inc. ("HCG") and Satellite Transponder Leasing Corporation ("STLC") for o authority to construct,-launch and operate a new hybrid domestic communications satellite at 91° W.L., to be designated Galazy VII(H). The application states that Galaxy VII(H) will be a "replacefi;nt“ for STLC‘s current SBS—4 satellite at Ku—band and a "substitute" for HCG‘s Galaxy VI satellite (formerly Westar VI—S) at C—band. The application raises a number of serious questions concerning HCG‘s intentions regarding its use of orbital positions and the future location of certain

of its satellites which, we believe, require denial. These are enumerated herein. > HCG states that it plans to launch Galaxy VI into 91° W.L. in June 1990 as the replacement for Westar III in C=band at that location. Apparently, Galaxy VI will stay at 91° W.L. only until "late 1991" when it will be shifted to 99° wW.L. (HCG Application, p.10, n.l2) Thus, it appears that the C—band position at 91° W.L, will be left open for at least a year until December 1992 (and possibly longer) when the Galaxy VII(H) satellite covered by this application would become available.* As the Commission is aware, HCG already has been granted an 1l8—month extension of time to launch Galaxzy VI and position it at 91° W.L., over the objection of another party, UnionCorp., 3 FCC Rod 6792, 6794 (released * Indeed, HCG seems to be trying to "bootstrap" itself into an argument for early Commission authorization of Galaxy VII(H) by maintaining that a need exists to restore C—band service at 91° W.L. as soon as possible since it will be moving Galaxzy VI out of that position,. However, there has been no C~band service provided by HCG at 91° W.L. since at least June 1989 and no plans on HCG‘s part to restore such service on a permanent basis earlier than 1993 .

Nov. 25, 1988), on the principal ground that that gatellite represented "a logical replacement" for the Westar III C—band satellite operatindqat that location.* 1t now appears that, at most, Galazy VI will be at 91° for 18 months before moving elsewhere, leaving ng permanent C—=band capacity at 91° until very late 1992 or early 1993, when Galaxy VII(CH) becomes available, assuming this application were granted and timely implemented. The approach being taken by HCG vioilates the letter and intent of the Commission‘s policy against "warchousing" of orbital siots. 1985OrhitalAssionment Order, 50 Fed. Reg. 3§228 (Aug. 30, 1985), at Para 21. As recently stated by the COmmiSSiOn:';We do not allow licensees to hold locations for satellites that they may appiy for in the future." > Assianment Order, 5 FCC Red. 179, 182 (released January 11, 1990). By holding the 91° W.L. position at C—band for the new Galazy VII(H) satellite, being applied forcthe first time «According to a member of the Commission‘s staff, Westar III is not now in commercial use, has not been for some time and is considered "retired." Therefore, service continuity in C—band at 91° W.L. has been lost already and HCG has no plan to restore it on a permanent basis for approximately 3 more years. The PCC‘s Oof June 30, 1989 shows all Westar III transponders as being inactive as of June 22, 1989. wee _>

here, rather than using it for Galazy VI, HCG would be getting the very advantage which-fihis polilcy was intanded to discourage were this application to be granted in its present form. The 91° W.L. position at C—band is now effectively vacanmt, has been vacant for approximately a year and, except for the relatively brief period Galazy VI now will spen@ there, will be vacant until 1993.* The approach being taken in this application also would give HCG the additional advantage of getting another desirable hybrid location outside of a reqgular orbital assignment processing round. Accordingly, there is ample justification for the Com&ission to require that 91° W.L. be returned to the pool for reassignment. Certainly, there is no justification for HCG to keep this position under its control from 1989 to 1993, without a fully—operational C—band satellite being committed permanently for use there. HCG appears to be pursuing a strategy designed to retain desirable orbital positions, such as 91° W.L., notwithstanding their underuse or nonugse, while continuing to ask for new ones.** This strategy involves more than " Since Westar III was very lightly loaded for an extanded period prior to its removal from active service, HCG in reality has been holding this spot "in regerve" for an even longer period. ** For example, in the 1990ProcessingOrder, HCG received the C—band position at 81° W.L., previously assigned to GE Americom, for Galaxy 5—B. 5 FCC Red at 182, on indragts 0s n Piitenm Snfi cdinnidfie ies rleltPcs ie l es

routine, nonecontroversial actions, as HCG would have them characterized. HCG‘s requests to ieilign its satellites in this application should be looked at to insure compliance with the policies against warehousing and awarding of orbital assignments oqutside of a regular procesging round. Otherwise, HCG will be able to keep increasging its already disproportionate share of prime arc locationgs,* deprive other sapplicants of the opportunity to use these locations and thereby place an undue restraint on competition in the domestic satellite market. 2. ] 30 «_ UnwarrantedandWouldRequireRelocationofanActiveGE AmericomSatellite. After Galaxy VI is moved out of 99°, following its "temporary" stay there from "late 1991" until "mid—199%3" (HCG Applicaticn at 9—10), HCG contends that "folne potential orbital location for Galazxy VI is 72°, where it could serve as a replacemént for HCG‘s Galaxy II satellite...." (HCG Application at 10) As the Commission is aware, 72° W.L. at C—band is the present orbital * Of the 10 C—band and Ku—band eastern arc positions between 91° and 99°, six are now assigned to HCG (or will be after the completion of the HCG takeover of STLC).

location of GE Americom‘s operational Satcom 2R satellite, which has a currently—projected end—of—life of January, 1995. As the Commission further és-aware, Galazy II is assigned to and operating at 74° wW.L. We strongly object to, and formally seek denial of, any request by HCG to acquire the C—band position at 72° W.L. as a "home" for Galaxy VI while that position is occupied by Satcom 2R or a replacement.* Satcom 2R is a major carrier of U.S. Government traffic and an important link in various Defenge Department communications systems. There is no public interest justification to move this satellite prior—to its end—of—life to accommodate HCG. If HCG is seeking any position for Galaxy VI, other than 74° W.L., such action should be taken only as part of a new processing round, in which the assignment of Galaxzy VI will be considered on its merits together with assignment requests of others. Certainly, as GE Americom stressed in its comments of February 26, 1990, in * It may be that HCG‘s reference to 72° W.L. as a potential location for Galaxy VI in 1993 was made in error. However, since SBS—~—6 is now at that location, we cannot ignore the possibility that HCG is attempting to create a potential hybrid location for itself at 72°.

connection with HCG‘s request to move Galaxy VI to 99° wW.L. (File No. 13—DS8—ML—90), HCG should not, by virtue of having an in—orbit satellite, receivea preference over other applicants in obtaining another orbital location.* Despite HCG‘s statements that it would not seek any such preference (Reply of March 13, 1990 in connection with Filse No. 13—DSS—ML=90 at 2), it continues to pursue a strategy to improve its orbital assignments by these means. 3. SBS—4 Processing The way the HCG Appilication is drafted, it appears that the SBS—4 satellite, now at 91° W.L. will be retired when Galazxy VII(H) becomes"éperational. The application states in several places that, at Ku—band, Galaxy VII(H) will be "merely for replacement" of §SBS—4 and does not indicate any follow—on use for SBS~4 or ask for another orbital position for that satellite. It is * HCG acknowledges that, were it to seek another location for Galaxzy VI, this would "trigger" a new processing round. HCG Application at 12, n. 15.

our understanding, however, that SBS—4 should have at least a year or more of life left.after the proposed operational date of Galazy VII(HQ'ih early 1993.* While no other orbital assignment for SBS—4 presently is being sought, based on the other actions being taken by HCG in this application, the Commission should take appropriate measures to assure that HCG does not receive any preference in obtaining such an asgignment if it should seek one at a later date. Certainly, HCG should not be allowed to place $BS—4 "temporarily" at another prime location that may be open at the time of launch of Galaxzy VII(H) as part of an sttempt to hold onto that location for another yet unféquested permanent satellite to be positioned there years later. As in the casecof Galaxy VI, if an already assiqgned orbital location qgnnot be found for SBS—4, a request by HCG for a new or additional orbital location for that satellite should only be congidered as part of a new processing round. «The generally accepted end—of—life for §BS—4 within the industry is August 1994 (Broadcagsting, July 17, 1989, p.38). The approximate lifespan of SBS—4 is confirmed by filings of Salomon Brothers, the satellite‘s owner, in connection with GE Americom‘s application to locate the K—3 satellite at 91° W.L. See Reply Comments of Salomon Brothers Holding Co., Inc., dated April 4, 1988, in sconnection with Filse Nos. 1970—DS8&—MP/ML—86 atal., at 13.

4. Conclusion This application involves a sigqgnificant change from HCG‘s previously—filed plans —for the use of 91° W.L., on which the Commission based its determinstion to continue HCG‘s# right to retain that position at CG—band. Under the circumstances, this application should not be granted. Rather, in order to be congistent with Commission policies governing the assignment of the U.S. orbital arc, the Commission should require that 91° W.L. be returned to the pool of orbital positions available for agsszignment in a new processing round. Certainly, HCG should not be allowed to use the present procseding to parlay its already advantageous position with respect to orbital location aésiqnments into an even stronger one, without going through thevrigors of the Commission‘s comparative processing progadures. Official notice fiay be taken of all facts upon which this Petition to Deny relies. Respectfully submitted, GE AMBEBRICAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC,. ¢ By Philip V. Otero y _Chanby, n P Charles M. Lehrhnaupt Its Attorneys —— Four Research Way ‘Princeton, N. J. 08540 (609) 987—4013 April 30, 1990 """ ~~l t itegdnte

I, VERONICA F., KILKEARY, hereby certify that on this 30th day of April, 1990, copies of the foregoing "COMMENTS OF GE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,." were mailed, postage prepaid, to the following: * James R. Keegan, Esq. Chief, Domestic Facilities Division Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2025 M Street N.W., Room 6324 Washinyton, D.C. 20554 Cecily C. Holiday, Esq. Chief, Satellite Radio Branch Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2025 M. Street, N.W., Room 6324 Washington, D.C. 20554 Mr. Eddy W. Hartenstein Senior Vice President Hughes Communications Galaxzxy, Inc. 1990 Grand Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245 Gary M. Epstein, Esq. James F. Rogers, Esq. John P. Janka, Esq. Latham & Watkins Suite 1300 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 * Hand Delivery

William D. English, Esq. Satellite Transponder Leaging Corporation 8280 Greensboro Drive Suite 605 McLean, VA 22102 Doprmeae % VERONICA F KILK


Document Created: 2014-08-20 16:53:19
Document Modified: 2014-08-20 16:53:19
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC