Attachment 2001Teledesic Opposi

2001Teledesic Opposi

OPPOSITION submitted by Teledesic

Opposition to Pegasus Motion for Stay

2001-04-04

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-19950929-00130 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA1995092900130_1032037

RECEIVED BEFORE THE APR 4 2001 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 meommeom OFMICE OF TWE SGERPTMARY In the Matter of NNN NNN N N N N y EchoStar Satellite Corporation File Nos. 167/168—SAT—P/L—95 SAT—LOA—19950929—00 1 18/000 19 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 I/ rough 179—SAT—P/LA—95 w N Nh N N N N N N NNN N N N N N N N Nh N NR N N N N NNN SAT—LOA—19950929—00 12. through 00 13 1 Loral CyberStar, Inc. File Nos. 205—SAT—P/LA—95 SAT—LOA—19950929—00 157 205/206—SAT—AMEND—95 SAT—AMD—19950929—00157/00 158 Morning Star Satellite Company, LLC File Nos. 190 through 193—SAT—P/LA—95 SAT—LOA—19950929—00 120 through 00 123 Motorola, Inc. File Nos. 163 through 166—SAT—P/LA—95 SAT—LOA—19950929—00 1 45 through 00 148 157—SAT—P/LA—96(72) SAT—LOA—19960904—001 1 1 29—SAT—AMEND—97 SAT—AMD—19961204—00 141 94 through 98—SAT—P/LA—97 SAT—LOA—19970715—00060 through 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—00 150 SAT—T/C—19990727

PamAmSat Corporation File Nos. 00198/00199—SAT—LOA—95 N Nh h Nt Nt Nt Nt Nt Nt No Nt Nt Ne Nt Ne N Ni N Ni N N N m yz SAT—LOA—19950929—00155/00 154 00202—SAT—AMEND—95 SAT—AMD—19950929—00 109 SAT—MOD—19980521—00070 Teledesic LLC File Nos. 22—DSS—P/LA—94 SAT—LOA—19940321—000 12 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—00 156 SAT—T/C—20001215—00 163 WB Holdings 1 LLC File Nos. 128—SAT—P/LA—95 SAT—LOA—19950712—00085 203—SAT—P/LA—95 SAT—LOA—19950928—00 108 SAT—T/C—19990629—00071/00072 TELEDESIC LLC‘S OPPOSITION TO PEGASUS‘S MOTION FOR STAY OF FIRST—ROUND LICENSING MATTERS Teledesic LLC submits this opposition to the motion for stay filed by Pegasus Development Corporation on March 26, 2001. The motion seeks to stay all first-rofind licensing matters pertaining to the GSO Ka—band orbital spectrum, pending action on the related motion by Pegasus to consolidate the first and second GSO Ka—band satellite processing rounds. These motions are yet another attempt by Pegasus to use the regulatory process to expropriate first—round orbital slots. Moreover, the motion for stay can only delay rather than expedite the Commission‘s licensing proceedings. The motion for stay should therefore be summarily dismissed.

DISCUSSION 1. THERE Is No LIKELIHOOD WHATSOEVER THAT PEGASUS WILL SUCCEED ON THE MERITS. The first question in evaluating Pegasus‘s motion is to consider whether there is a substantial likelihood that Pegasus will succeed on the merits, or in other words, be successful in consolidating the first and second rounds. The answer is a resounding "No." First, the relief Pegasus seeks is entirely unprecedented, and flies in the face of long—standing satellite licensing procedures. Processing rounds, which are defined by their applicable cut—off dates, are designed to permit the Commission to define the class of appfications it must deal with before resolving any of them. This process evolved in response to the Supreme Court‘s decision in Ashbacker.‘ The processing round system has many drawbacks, but in general the problems result from having too many issues to resolve concurrently; the rounds are overinciusive rather than underinclusive. Processing rounds will not provide the necessary procedural regularity if an applicant that is dissatisfied with the orbital slots available in its round can simply insert itself into an earlier round via a "motion to consolidate." The mere availability of such relief—which. granting the stay would necessarily provide by indicating there is a substantial likelihood that Pegasus will prevail on the merits—would throw satellite processing rounds into utter chaos, especially here, where the first round is complete and satellites are already under construction. Second, there is no justification whatsoever for consolidating the first and second rounds. It is ludicrous to suggest, as does Pegasus, that consolidating the Ka—band rounds will somehow speed up the resolution of Ka—band licensing matters. Indeed, one of the principal drawbacks of the entire processing round regime is that it requires the Commission to address all matters within the round — the easy ones as well as the hard ones — at the same time, rather

III. Grantincg TtHE Stay Wourp Harm First Rounp Licensees. Pegasus blithely concludes that granting the stay would not harm others because consolidation would promote prompt resolution of outstanding matters. But, Pegasus provides no explanation as to how a stay would speed up these matters or how continuing to resolve first round licensing matters while its motion for consolidation is pending will cause delay. The lack of explanation may be due to the fact that there is none — it is axiomatic that the stay will delay all matters affecting first r;ound applicants, abnd that an unnecessary delay will harm first round licensees. Indeed, the mere filing of this frivolous motion for stay will tie up additional Commission resources, and may delay resolution of pending first round matters. Unfortunately, that may be the whole point of this sordid affair. IV. A StaAy Is Not in tHE Pusuic IntEeREsTt. Pegasus‘s public interest argument is, like its other arguments, based on alleged delays in the first and second processing rounds, and fails for the reasons set forth above. CcONCLUSION Pegasus has failed to show any grounds for granting a stay. Its motion should therefore be denied. Respectfu“y submitted, *Zi% Suzanne utchlngs W Senior Regulatory Counsel TELEDESIC CORPORATION 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 202—721—0962 Dated: April 4, 2001

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karen R. Stephens, do hereby certify that copies of the foregoing pleading have been sent by first class mail on this 4th day of April 2001, to the following: Bruce D. Jacobs Stephen D. Baruch Kathryn R. Schmeltzer Philip A. Bonomo Dawn Sciarrino | Leventhal, Senter & Lerman PLLC Tony Lin 2000 K Street, NW, Suite 600 Shaw Pittman Washington, DC 20006 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Todd Stansbury Jennifer Hindin Wiley, Rein & Fielding 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 _T P dbpec Karen R/Etephens / ‘


Document Created: 2014-01-02 14:41:12
Document Modified: 2014-01-02 14:41:12
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC