Attachment 2001Loral Space info

2001Loral Space info

OPPOSITION submitted by Loral Space

Informal Opposition

2001-04-04

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-19950929-00129 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA1995092900129_1031790

RECEIVED Federal Communications Commission APR_ 4 2001 WASHINGTON, D.C. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMIGSIEN OFMICE OF TWE SECRETARY In the Matter of nsl nust Echostar Satellite Corporation File Nos. 167/168—SAT—P/L—95: SAT—LOA— Runi Suc! Rual Sm 19950929—00 1 18/00019: 54—SAT—AMEND— 96 SAT—AMD—19960124—00006: SAT—MOD—20000222—00061/00062 es Ruso s Mess us louer Ruse us taset Ceveh egst es must Ns mlsl Res M N CRest fls Cl Ns No Nt Shut Res Rast Neb Sust Nes Sut Res?) Rurt Nee Sund Suui‘ Sucl Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. File Nos. 3/4—DSS—P/LA—94: SAT—L 1993 1203—00040/0004 1: 174— SAT—LOA—19950929—00124—0013 1 Loral CyberStar, Inc. File Nos. 205—SAT—P/LA—95: SAT—LOA— 19950929—00157; 205/206—SAT—AMEND—95: SAT—AMD—19950929—00 1 57/00 158 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—0014 1: 94—98—SAT—P/LA— 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 FileNos. 00198/00199—SAT—LOA—95: SAT— LOA— 19950929—00 1557001 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— 1994032 1—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 1 55

VisionStar. Inc. File Nos. 200—SAT—P‘LA—95: SA T—LOA— 19950929—00 1 56: SAT—T—C—200012 1 5—00 163 WB Holdings 1 LLC File Nos. 128—SAT—P/LA—95: SAT—LOA— 19950712—00085: 203—SAT—PALA—95: SAT—LOA—19950928—00 108 SAT—T/AC—19990629—0007 1500072 INFORMAL OPPOSITION Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (~Loral"), by its attorneys, submits this informal opposition to the Motion for Stéy of First—Round Licensing Matters ("Motion for Stay") filed by Pegasus De‘velopment Corporation ("Pegasus").‘ Pegasus requests that the Commission stayall first—round licensing matters listed in Attachment A to its Motion for Stay pending action on its simultaneously filed Motion to Consolidate All First—Round and Second—Round Licensing Matters ("Motion to Consolidate")." Pegasus‘ Motion for Stay is frivolous, illogical, legally deficient and wholly without merit; It should be denied. Pegasus‘ Motion for Stay and Motion to Consolidate seek to hold what it characterizes as ~pending" first Ka—band matters hostage to the resolution of the second Ka—band processing round. Ironically, the only reason many of the listed first round matters are "pending" is because of opposition pleadings filed by Pegasus, including various comments regarding certain modifications and petitions for reconsideration of various Commission orders. Not satisfied with filing against most of the Commission‘s decisions in the first round, Pegasus now asks the Commission to stay proceedings that it initiated. Grant of the stay would delay, indefinitely, the progress of licensed operators to provide Ka—band service in the United States. ! Pegasus Development Corporation Motion for Stay of First—Round Licensing Matters (filed Mar. 26, 2001). * Pegasus Development Corporation Motion to Consolidate All First—Round and Second—Round Licensing Matters (filed Mar. 26, 2001).

Pegasus requests that two Loral matters. among numerous otherfirst round issues. be consolidated with the second Ka—band processing round." First, Pegasus requests stay of Loral‘s application to modify the Orion F7 Ka—band authorization at 89° W.L. to add a Ka—band pavyload 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 regarding Loral‘s application. Essentially. Pegasus nowseeks a stay ofits own pleading. Loral would prefer that Pegasus merely withdrawits comments. Second. Pegasus requests a stay of the assignment of the 93° W.L. orbital location to Loral. Pegasus did not oppose the assignment of this orbital slot to Loral, and Loral‘s authorization is no longer subject to appeal. Therefore, under no cirecumstances may it be characterized as "pending." In order to warrant grant ofa stay, Pegasus must convincingly demonstrate each and every one of the following four elements: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm to the movant absent a stay: (3) a stay would cause little harm to othef parties; and (4) a stay would further the public interest." Pegasus fails to establish even one of the four elements. which requires the Commission to deny its request. First. Pegasus fails to prove that it will prevail on the merits. Pegasus claims it has a likelihood to succeed on the merits because "consolidation is the only practical and sensible approach." However, Pegasus has failed to meet the standard for consolidation in its Motion to Consolidate." The Commission generally requires that the actions for which consolidation is Motion for Stay at Attachment A. * See Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass‘n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Motion for Consolidation at 3.

sought have parties or underlying facts or legal issues in common.° The Commission will also consider consolidgfiion whenit will bring a significant increase in administrative efficiency. Neither factor applies in this instance—the actions that have arisen out ofthe first and second Ka—band processing rounds have been diverse in the issues raised and the parties affected. Consolidating these issues would not speed up the second round licensing process: instead it would inherently slowit down by tying up Commission resources. Although all the proceedings Pegasus cites involve the Ka—band. the issues in each proceeding "are sufficiently unique as to render consolidation inappropriate."" Therefore. Pegasus‘s underlying action is completely without merit. and a stay is inappropriate. Second. Pegasus fails to prove that it will suffer irreparable harm. This is the most important of the four factors "without which other factors need not be considered."" Pegasus claims that failure to resolve first roundmatters will delay completion of the second Ka—band processing round, causing second—round applicants to miss ITU deadlines. Pegasus‘ claim is purely speculative and unsubstantiated. Loral‘s Ka—band orbital locations were assigned in the 6 See 47 C.F.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."). The cases cited by Pegasus all address consolidation of various applications, not the consolidation of licenses with applications. Pegasus improperly relies on the "cumulative effect" analysis of In re Applications of First Charleston Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 97 F.C.C.2d 271 (1984). In that case, the Commission consolidated two license applications for hearing following a court order to consider the cumulative effect of the 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. ® See In re DIRECTV, Inc. v. COMCAST Corporation,. Memorandum Opinion and Order, CSR 5112—P. CSR 5244—P, 15 FCC Red. 22802 at «2. n.4 (2000). In re Application of Telmex/Sprint Communications, LLC for International Section 214 Authority, Order, 13 FCC Red. 15678 at § 4 (1998). "The key word in this consideration is irreparable. Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence ofa stay are not enough." Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass‘n,. 259 F. 2d at 925. Lo

lirst round and are simply not available to second round applicants. Indeed. the Commission cxplicit‘l}' instructed second round applicants that ~not all bands or orbital locations proposedby [these applicants] will necessarily be available for authorization or assignment.""" The D.C. Circuit has said that "[blare allegations of what is likely to occur are of no value." because the «11 critical issue is ~whether the harm will in fact occur.~‘‘ Because the harm claimed by Pegasus is purely speculative. it has not shown irreparable harm. Third. grant of a stay will harm other parties. "[HJarm to the parties goes to the very heart of the determination of whether to grant a requested stay.""" Under this prong of the test. the Commission must determine whether "despite showings of probably success and irreparable injury on the part of petitioner, the issuance of a stay would have a serious adverse effect on a»13 other interested persons." Staying pending Loral modification requests will delay construction and launches and have a serious adverse affect. Last. the public interest will not be served by grant of the stay. Pegasus argues that the Commission must act quickly to preserve its international rights to Ka—band spectrum. However. Pegasus provides no evidence that such rights are at risk. This kind of customary declaration is completely inadequate to support a motion for stay. It is impossible to imagine how holding up first round licenses will expedite construction of these satellites or resolve issues outstanding in 10 Ka—Band Satellite Applications Accepted for Filing, Report No. SAT—00012, Public Notice (Mar. 16. 1999). U Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC. 785 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (emphasis in original). ~ In re Application of Satellite Television Corp. for Authority to Construct an Experimental DBS System. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 92 FCC 2d 1053 at § 6 (1982). Here, the Commission denied a motion for stay in a satellite proceeding because granting a stay would delay the ability of the satellite operator to construct, launch and operate its satellite, harming both the licensee and the public. 13 Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass‘n, 259 F. 2d at 925.

the second processing round. Grant of Pegasus‘ Motion for Stay would be therefore entirels inconsistent with the public interest. Pegasus has premised its Motion for Stay on delaythat onlyit has caused. It fails to demonstrate any ofthe four criteria which it must showin order for a stayto be granted. Pegasus‘ Motion for Stay would not serve the public interest and should promptly be denied. LORA/ SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD. Stephen R. Bell Jennifer D. McCarthy Kasey A. Chappelle® WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER Three Lafayette Centre 1155 2 1st Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036—3384 Tel. (202) 328—8000 Its Attorneys April 4. 2001 Not admitted in D.C. n

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L, Dennette Manson, do hereby certify that on this 4th day of April, 2001 copies of the foregoing Informal 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 Commuission 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, NW. Washington, DC 20037 Counselfor Pegasus Development Corporation

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 Counselfor 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 Corporution Washington, DC 20004—1109 Counselfor 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 Counselfor VisionStar Corporation Counselfor 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 Company, 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. Counselfor 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. Counsel for 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 pAznaite JNéanrom *Delivered by hand delivery


Document Created: 2014-01-02 14:40:11
Document Modified: 2014-01-02 14:40:11
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC