Attachment response

response

REPLY submitted by MSV

response

2005-04-04

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-19980702-00066 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA1998070200066_426432

MSV pupLucate {#BHay Satellte Vontures uo mone: rmamene se maioam E1A namorgmsnpcon April 4, 2005 ]‘&in l]:lm‘d Dtl:i"grymh R RECEIVED . Marlene H. Dor f Secretary eceived Federal Communications Commisilip p hPR — 4 2005 445 12th Street, S.W. 7 2005 dn CommuntcatonsCommisn Washington, D.C. 20554 Poley Btanch . Ateestesvey Re: Mobile Satellite Ventures Suiasldury LLC Call Sign $2358; File Nos. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066; SAT—AMD— 20001214—00171; File No. SAT—AMD—20010302—00019; SAT—AMD— 20031118—00335; SAT—AMD—20040209—00014; SAT—AMD—20040928— 00192 EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. Call Sign $2492; File No. SAT—LOA—20030827—00179; File No. SAT—AMD— 20031126—00343 Dear Ms. Dortch: Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (*MSV") hereby responds to the letter submitted by EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. ("EchoStar") on March 25, 2008 in the above—captioned. proceeding.‘ MSV urges the International Bureau (*Bureau") to immediately grant it first—in— line application for a replacement satellie. MSV has pending an application to launch and operate a replacement Mobile Satellte Service (‘MSS®) satelliat 101°W using 500 MHz" ofPlanned Ku—band frequencies for feeder links." MSV is firs—in—line for these frequencies in the Bureau‘s first—come, first—served satellite processing queue. Of these frequencies, 200 MHz are already licensed to MSV for use by its current satellite. ‘ See Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulas, Counsel for EchoStar,to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, File No. SAT—LOA—20030827—00179 et al (March 25, 2005) (*EchoStar Letter®) * References to bandwidth in this letter refer to ts use in both directions and with both horizontal and vertical polarizations. * See Applications of MSV, File Nos. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066; SAT—AMD—20001214— 00171; File No. SAT—AMD—20010302—00019; SAT—AMD—20031118—00335; SAT—AMD— 20040209—00014; SAT—AMD—20040928—00192.

Ms. Marlene H. Dortch April 4, 2005 Page2 In 2003, EchoStarfiled an application for 300 MHz of Planned Ku—band frequencies at 101°W.". EchoStaris second—in—line for these frequencies in the Bureau‘s first—come, first—served satellite processing queue.. EchoStar claims that it can share the same frequencies with MSV at 101°W by locating uplinks outside of the United States and bypointing downlink spot beams in areas where MSV does not locate its feeder link earth stations.". EchoStar has stated thatits sharing proposal depends upon MSV and EchoStar entering into a sharing agreement.° On March 17, 2005, MSV met with Bureau stafft discuss its proposal that the Bureau make clear in granting MSV‘s application that only those frequencies for which MSV is not already licensed at 101°W will be treated as non—replacement frequencies for purposes of enforcement of the Commission‘s milestones. EchoStar‘s recent letter does not oppose MSV‘s proposal. EchoStar Letter at 1. The only request Echostar makes in its lette is that the Bureau ensure that grant ofMSV‘s first—in—line application does not preclude grant of EchoStar‘s peading second—in—line application. 14. at 2. Contrary to EchoStar‘s claim, its second—in—line application is mutually exclusive with MSV‘s first—in—line application, thereby precluding the Bureau from granting both. EchoStar has failed to provide evidence to either the Bureau or MSV demonstrating how MSV and EchoStar can share the same frequencies atthe same orbitallocation without resulting in harmful interference to MSV and withoutlimiting MSV‘s flexibility in designing its next—generation system." EchoStar has conceded that ts sharing proposal is contingent upon conclusion of a coordination agreement with MSV detailing the conditions for shoring." While MSV has stated its willingness to discuss the potential for coordination with EchoStar," EchoStar has never initiated coordination discussions with MSV.‘*. At this point, EchoStar‘s sharing proposal is simply too speculative and undefined for the Bureau to grant EchoStar a license. * See Application of EchoStar, File No. SAT—LOA—20030827—00179 (fled August 27, 2003); EchoStar, Amendment, File No. SAT—AMD—20031 126—00343 (November 26, 2003) ("EchoStar Amendment®). * EchoStar Amendment, Technical Annex 7, 24—26. 5 See id. " See Application ofGlobalstar, L.P. for Authority to Launch and Operate a Mobile—Satellie Service System in the 2 GHz Band, Order andAuthorization, 16 FCC Red 13739, DA 01—1634 (Chict, Intl Bur. and Acting Chief, OET; July 17, 2001) (dismissing proposal to share Ku—band frequencies at 101°W because applicant failed to demonstrate feasibility of sharing). * See EchoStar Amendment, Technical Annezx at7, 24—26. * See Response of MSV, File No. SAT—LOA—20040210—00015 (May 21, 2004), at 5 (‘MSV agrees that the possibility ofsharing frequencies with EchoStar is worth exploring"). ‘° At MSV‘s urging, representatives of MSV and EchoStar conducted a conference call in December 2003 to discuss EchoStar‘s sharing proposal. ‘The parties subsequently entered into a Foomote continued on next page

Ms. Marlene H. Dortch April 4, 2005 Page3 EchoStar‘s sharing proposal presumes that EchoStar will locate its uplinks outside of the United States and that EchoStar will point its spot beam downlinks in areas where MSV does not locate a feeder ink earth station. See EchoStar Amendment, Technical Annez at 7, 24—26. EchoStar, however, has never committed to complying with these assumptions. Indeed, its application contemplates the possibility of locating uplinks in the United States and using CONUS—wide downlink beamms. 4. at 2, Technical Annex at 5—6, 8—9. Even ifEchoStar were to make these commitments, EchoStar‘s sharing proposal would stll prelude MSV from locating feeder link earth stations in areas where EchoStar points its spot beams, thus limiting MSV‘s flexibility to deploy additional feeder link earth stations in the future. There is no Commission policy or precedent requiring a first—in—line applicant to compromise its system design to accommodate a second—in—line applicant. Given that the two applications are mutually exclusive, dismissal of EchoStar‘s second— in—line application upon grant of MSV‘s prior application is mandated by Commission policies." In adopting its new satellite licensing rules, the Commission explained that it would dismiss pending conflicting applications in the satellite queue when the first—in—line application is granted."" The Commission explained that this policy would resultin faster service to the public. Dismissal of EchoStar‘s second—in—line application, however, need not preclude EchoStar from operating its proposed system at 101°W. MSV continues to be willing to discuss the potential to share frequencies with EchoStar. EchoStar would be free to file a new application if Foomote continued from previous page nondisclosure agreement in March 2004. Since that time, EchoStar has never requested to continue sharing discussions. "" EchoStar did not request a waiver ofthis policy in filingits second—in—line application. ‘" See Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, TB Docket No. 02—34, 18 FCC Red 10760, 4 113 (2003) ("We decide not to keep subsequently filed applications on fil. In other words, ifan application reaches the front ofthe queue that conflicts with a previously granted Hicense, we will deny the application rather than keeping the application on file in case the lead applicant does not construct its satellite system."). " 14. 113 (*we will deny applications that conflict with previously granted applications because it is more likely to result in faster service to the public, and it will not disadvantage any party that may wish to apply for that orbit location if it becomes available. Under a single queue approach, we could reassign the orbit location just as quickly, or perhaps more quickly,ifwe accept new applications at the time the location becomes available... . Thus, all parties potentially interested in providing satellite service from the orbit location at issue have an equal opportunity to apply for the license when that orbit location becomes available.").

Ms. Marlene H. Dortch April 4, 2008 Page4 and when the sharing negotiations are successful. The Commission‘s policies support this approach. EchoStar can also explore using Appendi30B Planned Ku—band frequencies at other orbital locations. At orbital locations where Planned Ku—band frequencies are not assigned, EchoStar will be firs—in—line, thus avoiding the need to coordinate with other operators, Relative to other Fixed Satellite Service ("FSS") bands, the Planned Ku—band is not heavily used in the geostationary (°GSO") orbital are, primarily because FSS use of the band in the United States is restrited to protect co—primary terrestrial users."® While 101°W is the orbitallocation assigned to the United States under the Appendix 30B plan, EchoStar could pursue a Planned Ku—band Hicense at another orbital location assigned to another administration by proposing an amendment to the Appendix 30B plan.*. In its application, EchoStar notes that the 101°W orbital location provides high elevation angles to all of CONUS,"" but the same can be said for other orbital Tocations in the GSO orbitalare where Planned Ku—band frequencies are unassigned. "* See Promoting Eficient Use ofSpectrum Through Elimination ofBarriers to the Development ofSecondary Markets, WT Docket No. 00—230, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 ECC Red 20604 (2003). "" See 47 CF.R. § 2.106, foomote NG104; Bocing, Order andAuthorization, DA 03—2073 (Chicf, in‘ Bur. and Chief, OET, June 24, 2003), at1 15 ("The Commission adopted the NG104 restriction for the purpose of limiting the number of earth stations with which terrestrial Fixed Service applicants would have to coordinate in order to obtain licenses for operation in the 10.7— 11.7 GHe and 12.75—13.25 GHz bands.") ("Boeing 2 GHz Order"). ‘* See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Order andAuthorization, DA 05—50 (January 10, 2005) (granting license to use Planned Ku—band frequencies at 63.5°W pursuant to amendment to Appendix 30B plan}; Boeing 2 GHOrder (granting license to use Planned Ku— band frequencies at 120°W pursuant to amendment to Appendix 30B plan). ‘" EchoStar Amendment, Technical Annex at 2—3.

Ms. Marlene H. Dortch April 4, 2005 Page S For the aforementioned reasons, MSV respectfully requests that the Bureau immediately grant ts firs—in—line application for a replacement satellteat 101°W. Respectfully submitted, Tennifer A. Manner Vice President, Regulatory Affairs MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES sUBSIDIARY LLC 10802 Park Ridge Boulevard Reston, Virginia 20191 (703) 390—2700 Bruce D. Jacobs David S. Konczal Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037—1128 (202) 663—3000 Counsel for Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC cs: Fem Jarmulncek Robert Nelson Cassandra Thomes Thomas Tycz Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel for EchoStar


Document Created: 2005-04-07 16:40:06
Document Modified: 2005-04-07 16:40:06
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC