Attachment 1990Reply of GE may

1990Reply of GE may

REPLY submitted by GE American

Reply

1990-05-30

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

IBFS_SATLOA1990021500008_1058755

Before the RECEIVED FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION _ 90 Washington, D.C. 20554 MmaAy 3 0 19 °eM frrum. ns Commission Federal Communicatio Office of the Secretary BC y o N o o h i No n it n Sn uP mt C > In the Matter of the Application of 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, Galazy VII(H), to Operate in Both the C and Ku Bands to Serve as a Replacement for the SBS—4 Satellite and as a Substitute for the Galaxy VI Satellite REP ICAT GE American Communicationsg, Inc. ("GE Americom") hereby replies to the opposition* of Hughes Communications Galazxy, Inc. ("HCG") to GE Americom‘s Petition to Deny the above—captioned application of HCG and Satellite Transponder Leasing Corporation ("STLC") for authority to construct, launch and operate a new hybrid domestic communications satellite at 91° W.L., to be designated CGalazxy VII(H). The central issue in this proceeding is whether HCG‘s proposed acquisition of a 50—state hybrid position at 91° W.L. comports with applicable Commission policies requiring * Although HCG‘s pleading is styled a "reply," it is functionally the equivalent of an "opposition." See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.45.

comparative awards of orbital positions and prohibiting the "warehousing" of orbital locations for extended periods. HCG is trying to store the C—band position at 91° W.L. for years without committing a permanent satellite to that position, thereby keeping 91° W.L. "off the market" and away from others who might use it to compete with HCG. The Commission should not allow this result. HCG is proposing to operate an as yet unlaunched C—bang satellite, Galazxy VI, in at least three different places in a space of approximately three yearg* as part of a plan to retain control of both the C and Ku—band positions at 91° W.L., without making permanent use of the C—band position there until Galaxy VII(H) begins operation in 1993. HCG intends to hold the C—band position at 91° W.L. asgigned to Galaxy VI——which is now open and has been open for at least a year——even though Galaxy VI only will reside there temporarily before moving‘to 99° W.L.** Thus, if allowed to proceed with its plan, HCG would be able to keep both the C and Ku—band positions at both the 91° W.L. and 99° W.L. orbital locations, which would then become hybrid positions for two prospective HCG satellites, Galaxy VII(H) and Galazy IV(H), which are not scheduled to become operational until 1993. * Galaxky VI has been dubbed in the trade press "the wandering satellite." SatelliteNews, April 16, 1990, p. 10. #* 99° W.L. is now open at Ku—band and will be until Galazy IV(H) becomes operational.

In defense of its "non—use" of 91° W.L., HCG asserts "launch problems" preventing it from getting Galazxy VI into orbit earlier and the general benefits of hybrid satellite technology, Neither of these asserted defenses, however, alters the fact that the 50—state C—band position at 91° W.L., which has been vacant since at least June 1989, will be uncovered by a permanent replacement satellite for approzimately three more years. The proposed use of Galaxy VI at 99° W.L. is entirely the product of a voluntary decision by HCG——it is not the result of circumstances beyond HCG‘s control, such as the 1986 Challenger @isaster or the Arianespace launch failure earlier this year (HCG Reply at 5). But, even accepting HCG‘s argument on its face, Gelays in commercial launch vehicle availability, at most, explain why Galazy VI could not be placed into its assigned position at 91° wW.L. at an earlier date; they do not explain (or justify) the need to move that satellite out of 91° W.L. to 99° W.L. next year and somewhere else as yet undetermined in 1993. The "bottom line" is that HCG‘s proposal is pnot driven by a force majeure event, such as the loss or failure of a satellite, Rather, it is part of a pre—conceived plan designed to abet HCG‘s commercial position at the expense of its competitors. What HCG is proposing is to take advantage of a situation it created to acquire a hybrid position at 91° W.L. outside of

a regular orbital assignment processing round. Nor is HCG entitled to any special considGeration because SBS—4 is now operating in Ku—band at 91° W.L. If HCG is prepared to retire {(or move) SBS—4 to make room for its own hybrid, it should not be heard to object to taking thelsame action to accommodate another operator‘s satellite were this orbital position given to someone else. In sum, the practical effect of a qrant of HCG‘s request would be to give it a 50—state hybrid orbital location on a "sole—source" basis. HCG‘s other argument is that introduction of hybrid satellite technology will provide "public interest benefits." The flaw with this argument is that it is not respongive to the issue raised by GE Americom——namely, whether HCG is entitled to 91° W.L. for hybrid use based on the tactics it is pursuing here. There is nothing unique about hybrid satellite technology in general or the particular use of that technology HCG is proposing. Another applicant could provide the same (or similar) services ugsing a hybrid satellite at the 91° W.L. orbital location were if ayilbe it. Indeed, if a 50—state hybrid location became available, GE Americom would be interested in acquiring it for the H—1 hybrid satellite, now assigned to 79° W.L. HCG attempts to dismiss as "premature" GE Americém's legitimate concern that HCG not be allowed to use SBS—~4 to repeat at a later date the scheme it is pursuing here with

Galazy VI. Since HCG is, by its own voluntary action, propogsing to use SB5—4‘s present slot for another satellite, Galaxy VII(H}, there is ample justification for the Commission to adopt appropriate measures now to assure that HCG not be allowed to acquire a new location for SBS—4 cutside of a comparative processing round. Certainly, HCG should not be given any procedural advantage over others by virtue of the fact that SBS~4‘s life is expected to extend beyond the proposed 1993 deployment date of Galazy VII(H). As pointed out in our Petition to Deny, HCG‘s instant application involves a significant change from its previous plans for the use of 91° W.L. on which the Commission allowed it to retain that position, over opposition, at C—band. Galazxy VI was authorized in November 1988 to operate at 91° W.L. on the basis that it would function there as a "treplacement satellite" for Westar I%I1 (WesternUnionCorp., 3 FCC Roed 6792, 6794). However, because of the retirement of Westar III in or about June, 1989, any claim by HCG to that position based on service continuity has been lost. In conclusion, the Commission should not permit HCG to gain an unfair competitive advantage from a situation it itgelf is creating by allowing it to acquire an additional highly—desirable 50—state hybrid pogsition in this manner, outside of a comparative processgsing round. There is nothing unique about hybrid satellite technology (indeed, every other

U.S. domestic satellite operator either is operating or is authorized to operate hybrid satellites) and HCG clearly is entitled to no special preference in the Commission‘s consideration because it is proposing to install a hybrid rather than separate C and Ku—band satellites at 91° W.L. Accordingly, the instant HCG application should be denied and 91° W.L. made available for reassiqgnment, through the Commission‘s normal procedures for allocating orbital positions, as a hybrid position for use in the same approximate time frame as proposed by HCG, Respectfully Submitted, GE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ay PA /( V. Ota hegCpL Philip V. Otero AfaibBe / Charles M. Lehcshaupt Its Attorneys Four Research Way Princeton, N. J. 08540 (609) 987—4013 May 30, 1990

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I., GWENDOLYN WARDELL—O‘NEAL, hereby certify that on this 30th day of May, 1990, copies of the foregoing "REPLY 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 wWashington, D.C. 20554 Cecily C. Holiday, Bsaq. 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 Galaxzy, Inc. 1990 Grand Avenue E1 Seqgundo, CA 90245 Gary M. Epstein, Esq. James F. Rogers, Esq. John P. Janka, Esq. Lathamn & Watkins suite 1300 1001 Penngylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 * Hand Delivery oi set io WiceoyBa se ols o. nbRreml o nneflteipsasipicet . Cc logemljedelooth

William F. English, E8sq. Satellite Transponder Leasing Corporation 8280 Greensboro Drive Suite 605 McLean, VA 22102 GWENDOLYM WARDELL—ONEAL


Document Created: 2014-08-20 16:51:29
Document Modified: 2014-08-20 16:51:29
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC