Attachment 2001Loral Opposition

2001Loral Opposition

OPPOSITION submitted by Loral Space

Opposition to Motion to Consolidate

2001-04-10

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-19950929-00126 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA1995092900126_1031630

RECEIVED | 2 . s APR 1 0 2001 Federal Communications Commussion WASHINGTON, D.C. *To re o ecerpipge COMMUNICA COMILUSEI In the Matter of owz mo/ No/ m Wws Nce Nn Nn Nue! Nund! ue‘ Nuse Nume! Nue! Nuet! Nue! Nued! Nut! Nue! Ned Ww ut Num! No Nee Nt Nuue! Snd Nuul! Nue! Nu! Suul Nund! Nue! Ned Snd Nus! Nt Num! Nu! Nut Nt Nu/ EchoStar Satellite Corporation File Nos. 167/168—SAT—P/L—95: SAT—LOA— 19950929—00118/00019: 54—SAT—AMEND— 96 SAT—AMD—19960124—00006: SAT—MOD—20000222—00061/00062 Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. File Nos. 3/4—DSS—P/LA—94; SAT LOA— 1993 1203—00040/0004 1: 174—179 LA SAT—LOA—19950929—00124—0013] Loral CyberStar, Inc. File Nos. 205—SAT—P/LA—95; SAT—LOA— 19950929—00157; 205/206—SAT—AMEND—95: SAT—AMD—19950929—00 1 57/00158 Morning Star Satellite Company, LLC File Nos. 190—193—SAT—P/LA—95; SAT—LOA—19950929—00120—00 123 Motorola, Inc. File Nos. 163—166—SAT—P/LA—95; SAT—LOA— 19950929—00145—00148; 157—SAT—P/LA— 96(72) SAT—LOA—19960904—001 1 1: 29—SAT—AMEND—97; SAT—AMD—19961204—00141; 94—98—SAT—P/L A— 97;, SAT—LOA—19970715—00060—00064: 79—SAT—P/LA—97(63); SAT—LOA—19970613—00053: SAT—AMD—19980729—00067 NetSat 28 Company, LLC File Nos. 194—SAT—P/LA—95; SAT—LOA— 19950929—00150; SAT—T/C—19990727 PanAmSat Corporation File Nos. 00198/00199—SAT—LOA—95; SAT— LOA— 19950929—00155/00 1 54; 00202—SAT—AMEND—95: SAT—AMD—19950929—00 1 09; SAT—MOD—19980521—00070 Teledesic LLC File Nos. 22—DSS—P/LA—94; SAT—LOA— 19940321—00012; 43—SAT—AMEND—95; SAT—AMD—19941230—00099; 127—SAT—AMEND—95; SAT—AMD—19950713—00086; 195— SAT ML—97; SAT—MOD—19970926—00 155

VisionStar. Inc. File Nos. 200—SAT—P/LA—95: SAT—LOA— 19950929—00156: SAT—T—C—2000 12 15—00 163 WB Holdings 1 LLC File Nos. 128—SAT—P/LA—95: SAT—LOA— 19950712—00085: 203—SAT—P/L A—95: SAT—LOA—19950928—00 108 SAT—T/C—19990629—00071/00072 OPPOSITION Loral Space & Communications Ltd. ("Loral"), by its attorneys. submits this opposition to the Motion to Consolidate All First—Round and Second—Round Licensing Matters (~Motion to Consolidate" or "Motion") filed by Pegasus Development Corporation ("Pegasus").‘ Pegasus‘ Motion to Convsolidate is illogical. legally deficient and wholly without merit. It should be denied. I. Pegasus has failed to meet the Commission‘s standard for consolidation. Although Pegasus complains that progress has not been made on second—round Ka—band licensing issues, it fails to explain how the relief it requests will achieve that result. Consolidation will do nothing but delay the progress of first round Ka—band licensees to implement their systems and provide service to the public. Such a result would inhibit rather than increase administrative efficiéency, and is certainly not in the public interest. Pegasus fails to satisfy the standard the Commission has established for consolidation. Pegasus attempts to sidestep this problem by instead citing the standard and precedent for consolidation of applications. not the far more unwieldy proposition of consolidation oflicenses Pegasus Development Corporation, Motion to Consolidate All First—Round and Second—Round Licensing Matters (filed Mar. 26, 2001). Pegasus simultaneously filed a Motion for Stay of FCC action on all Ka— band matters listed in Attachment A to its Motion. Loral has opposed the Motion for Stay. Oppositions were also filed by Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., WB Holdings 1 LLC, Teledesic LLC. EchoStar Satellite Corporation and PanAmSat Corp.

with applications requested by Pegasus.2 And yet Pegasus‘s proposal to consolidate first round proceedings withsecond—round application proceedings fails even to meet the Commission‘s standard for consolidation of applications. That standard generally requires that the actions for which consolidation is sought have parties and/or legal or factual issues in common." None of those factors applyto the proceedings involved here—the actions that have arisen out ofthe first and second Ka—band processing rounds have been diverse in both the issues raised and the parties affected. Pegasus has made no attempt to explain howthe proceedings it proposes to consolidate involve the same parties or factual or legal issues. That the proceedings Pegasus cites involve the Ka—band generally. although several address Ka—band licensing in the first processing round and the others address issues that were raised after the processing round‘s close, simply is not enough to justify consolidation under the Commission‘s standards. The factual and legal issues and the parties involved in each proceeding "are sufficiently unique as to render consolidation inappropriate."" Each issue can and should be resolved independently of the other proceedings, affording no basis for consc;lidation. Pegasus glosses over the lack of commonality brought about by its request by mischaracterizing all the proceedings listed in Attachment A as "pending." In fact, it has proposed that the Commission consolidate licenses that have already been granted or are in — different stages of processing. In some of the proceedings that Pegasus seeks to consolidate, like See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.201, 1.227 (2000). See 47 CF.R. § 1.227(a) (2000) ("The Commission . . . will, where such action will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends ofjustice, consolidate for hearing . . . any cases which involve the same applicant or involve substantially the same issues."). 5 See In re DIRECTV, Inc. v. COMCAST Corporation, CSR 51 12—P, CSR 5244—P, Memorandum Opinion und Order, 15 FCC Red. 22802 at 2, n.4 (2000). D

the proceedings that led to Loral‘s authorization at 93° W.L.. the Commission has alreadyissued a final order. while in others the Commission has yet to issue a public notice." Ironically. the only reason most ofthe listed first round matters are "pending‘ is because of opposition pleadings filed by Pegasus. The Commission will consider consolidation when it will bring about a significant increase in administrative efficiency.© But consolidating these procedurally and substantively distinct Ka—band issues and staying all Commission action on first round matters (as Pegasus also requests)7 will not speed up the second round licensing process: it will instead freeze all Ka—band proceedings and throw both the first and second Ka—band processing rounds into a chaotic stalemate. In most cases the window has closed on pleadings regarding these matters. Further.’ consolidation would permit the parties involved in every underlying proceeding to have procedural rights with respect to all other parties‘ applications and the right to judicial appeal on all matters. The Commission is precluded from reaching this very result in other actions. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.227(b). Under the hearing consolidation rules, the Commission is precluded from consolidating applications that were filed outside of various deadlines set in the rules. For example, any mutually exclusive application must be filed within 5 days of publication of an earlier application on Public Notice for the Commission to consolidate the two. See id. at 1.227(b)(2). These deadlines are imposed for good reason: consolidation of proceedings at different stages can serve only to slow the process. Consolidation of all the proceedings in the Ka—band would do so exponentially, bringing the entire Ka—band licensing scheme to a standstill. Pegasus improperly relies on the "cumulative effect" analysis of In re Applications of First Charleston Corp.. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 97 F.C.C.2d4 271 (1984). In that case, the Commission consolidated two license applications for hearing following a court order to consider the cumulative effect ofthe applications on a third station. See id. at 272—73. First Charleston is not an addition to the requirement of similarity of parties, facts or issues. It is instead an elaboration on the procedure by which the Commission consolidates hearings on license applications that are mutually exclusive. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.227(b). As such, it bears little relation to the consolidation Pegasus requests here. Pegasus Development Corporation Motion for Stay of First—Round Licensing Matters (filed Mar. 26. 2001). ba

41. Pegasus has failed to identify proceedings for which consolidation is appropriate. Moreox'er: i{t is impossible to determine. based on Pegasus® Motion to Consolidate. exactly what proceedings Pegasus wishes to consolidate. The Motion identifies three proceedings as "keyfirst—round licensing matters®~: (1) Netsat‘s application for reviewofthe revocation ofits license for 95° W.L.. (2) Motorola‘s apparent abandonment of its Ka—band satellite plans. and (3) Visionstar‘s transfer of control épplication.g Attachment A to the Motion lists other first Ka—band processing round issues Pegasus has identified as "relevant." but which are completely unrelated to the three "key" matters discussed in Pegasus® Motion. Further. the caption to the Motion includes file numbers for proceedings that appear in neither the text of the Motion nor its attachments. Pegasus requests that two Loral matters, among numerous other first round issues, be | consolidated with the second Ka—band processing round." First, Pegasus includes Loral‘s application to modify the Orion F7 Ka—band authorization at 89° W.L. to add a Ka—band payload to Telstar 8. Despite the fact that it has not applied for the 89° W.L. orbital slot in the second round, Pegasus filed comments objecting to Loral‘s modification application. Loral‘s underlying license to construct, launch and operate a Ka—band satellite at 89° W.L., however is final. The mere fact that a party has filed comments regarding a subsequent technical modification pending before the Commission does not place the underlying license in jeopardy. Loral‘s Ka—band authorization at 89° W.L. is not available to second round applicants. Similarly, while Pegasus mischaracterizes as "pending" the assignment ofthe 93° W.L. orbital location to Loral, the Commission formally assigned this orbital location to Loral on See Motion to Consolidate at 3. See Motion for Stay at Attachment A.

~ [1 & Ds neel & Sosae! . January 30. 2001."‘" Pegasus did not oppose this assignment. and Loral‘s authorization is no longer subject to reconsideration or appeal. Grant ofthe 93° W.L. orbital location to Loral is a Final order. and under no cireumstances mayit be characterized as "pending." Even if Pegasus‘s arguments for consolidation had any merit. this particular order could not be consolidated with other proceedings. The Commission may not consolidate an order that is final. Pegasus‘s Motion to Consolidate is completely without merit. and the Commission should promptly deny it. LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD. By: M@ V@K z> ——Z__ m&_.l ~ Stephen R. Bell Jennifer D. McCarthy Kasey A. Chappelle® WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER Three Lafayette Centre 1155 21st Street, N.W. Washington. D.C. 20036—3384 Tel. (202) 328—8000 Its Attorneys April 10. 2001 10 See In re CyberStar Licensee LLC, File Nos. 109—SAT—P/LA—95, 1 10—SAT—P—95, 187—SAT—AMEND—95, 188/189—SAT—P/LA—95, 102/103—SAT—AMEND—96, 103/104/105—SAT—ML—98, Order and Authorizution, DA 01—223 (rel. Jan. 31, 2001). The underlying license for this Loral Ka—band slot was granted May 8. 1997. See In re Loral Space & Communications Ltd. Application for Authority to Construct, Launch and Operate a Ka—Band Satellite System in the Fixed—Satellite Service. Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Red. 1379 (1997). Not admitted in D.C.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. Dennette Manson. do herebycertify that on this 10th day of April. 2001 copies ofthe foregoing Opposition of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. were delivered by postage pre— paid first class mail, unless otherwise indicated, to the following parties: Donald Abelson. Chief* Thomas S. Tycz, Chief* International Bureau Satellite and Radiocommunications Division Federal Communications Commission International Bureau 445 12"" Street. SW Federal Communications Commission Washington. DC 20554 445 12"" Street, SW Washington. DC 20554 Fern Jarmulnek. Chief* Alyssa Roberts* Satellite Policy Branch Satellite Policy Branch Federal Communications Commission International Bureau 445 12"" Street. SW Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 445 12"" Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Jennifer Gilsenan* Selina Khan* Satellite Policy Branch Satellite Policy Branch International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12"" Street. SW 445 12"" Street, SW Washington. DC 20554 Washington. DC 20554 Cassandra Thomas. Deputy Chief* Bruce D. Jacobs Satellite and Radiocommunications Div. Kathryn R. Schmeltzer International Bureau Dawn Sciarrino Federal Communications Commission Tony Lin 445 12" Street, SW Shaw Pittman Washington. DC 20554 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Counselfor Pegasus Development Corporution

Gary M. Epstein _ William M. Wiltshire John P. Janka Harris. Wiltshire & Grannis LLP Arthur S. Landerholm 1200 18"" Street. NW Latham & Watkins Suite 1200 | 1001 Pennsylvania Ave.. NW Washington. DC 20036 Suite 1300 Counsel for Wildblue Communications. Inc. Washington. DC 20004 Counsel for Hughes Communications, Inc. David M. Brown Joseph A. Godles General Counsel W. Kenneth Ferree Wildblue Communications, Inc. Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright 4600 Syracuse Street 1229 Nineteenth Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Denver. CO 80237 Counsel for PanAmSat Corporation Peter A. Rohrbach Pantelis Michalopoulos Karis A. Hastings Phonda Rivens Bolton Yaron Don Steptoe & Johnson LLP Hogan & Hartson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Columbia Square Washington, DC 20036—1795 555 Thirteenth Street. NW Counselfor EchoStar VisionStar Corporation Washington. DC 20004—1109 Counsel for GE Americom Philip L. Malet Mark A. Grannis Jonathan B. Mirsky James M. Talens Fred B. Campbell ‘ Steptoe & Johnson LLP Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW 1200 18"" Street, NW Washington. DC 20036—1795 Suite 1200 Counsel for Motorola Corporation Washington, DC 20036 Counselfor Teledesic LLC Michael R. Gardner, P.C. Raymond G. Bender, Jr. The Law Offices of Michael R. Gardner. P.C. Carlos M. Nalda Attorneys at Law Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW 1200 New Hampshire Avenue. NW Suite 710 Suite 800 Washington. DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036 . Counsel for VisionStar Corporation Counsel for Astrolink International LLC

Norman P. Leventhal Robert A. Mazer Stephen D. Baruch Albert Schuldiner David S. Keir Vinson & Elkins LLP Leventhal. Senter &Lerman PLLC 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW 2000 K Street. NW. Suite 600 Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Washingtion. DC 20004—1008 Counsel for TRW, Inc. Counselfor NetSat 28 Compuny, LLC James U. Troup Tara K. Guinta Brian D. Robinson Coudert Brothers Arter & Hadden LLP Attorneys at Law 1801 K Street. NW 1627 I Street. NW Suite 400K Washington, DC 20006—40007 Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Pacific Century Group, Inc. Counsel for CALI Data Systems, Inc. _ Brian D. Weimer Todd M. Stansbury Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP Wiley, Rein & Fielding 1440 New York Avenue. NW 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20006 Counsel for Celsat America, Inc. Counselfor DirectCom Networks. Inc. Lauren J. Blevin Gerald Musarra, Vice President Wilkinson. Barker & Knauer, LLP Trade & Regulatory Affairs 2300 N Street, NW Lockheed Martin Corporation Suite 700 Crystal Square 2, Suite 403 Washington. DC 20037 1725 Jefferson Davis Highway Counselfor Lockheed Martin Corporation Arlington, VA 22202 Francis L. Young William D. Wallace Young & Jatlow Crowell & Moring. LLP 2300 N Street, NW 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20004 Washington, DC 20037 Counselfor Globalstar. L.P. Counselfor Morning Star Satellite Company. LLC *Delivered by hand delivery


Document Created: 2014-01-02 14:42:21
Document Modified: 2014-01-02 14:42:21
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC