Attachment corrected order

corrected order

ORDER & AUTHORIZATION submitted by FCC,IB

corrected order

2005-05-23

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

IBFS_SATLOA1998070200066_434960

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Mobile Satellite Ventures File No. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066 Subsidiary LLC File No. SAT—AMD—20001214—00171 File No. SAT—AMD—20010302—00019 Application for Authority to Launch File No. SAT—AMD—20031118—00335 and Operate an L—band File No. SAT—AMD—20040209—00014 Mobile—Satellite Service Satellite File No. SAT—AMD—20040928—00192 at 101° W.L. Call Sign $2358 Order and Authorization Adopted: May 23, 2005 Released: May 23, 2005 By the Chief, International Bureau L INTRODUCTION 1. By this Order, we authorize Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (MSV) to launch and operate a second—generation L—band Mobile Satellite Service (MSS)‘ stellite, known as MSV—I1, at the 101° W.L orbit location. The satellite will provide MSS on a common carrier basis within the United States, and between the United States and North America, Central America,the northem part of South America, and the Caribbean. Grant ofthis appliation will allow MSV to continue to serve itsexisting customers, expand the range of ts services, and provide competitive communications services to the most rural and remote areas. 1t BACKGROUND 2. MSV is the successor to Motient Services,Inc. (formerly known as AMSC Subsidiary Corpora[lon),z Itis authorized to operate the U.S.—licensed L—band MSS satellite, AMSC—1, on up to 20 megahertz of spectrum (10 megahertz in each transmission direction) in the 1525—1544 MHz (space—to—Barth), 1545—1559 MHz (space—to—Earth), 1626.5—1645.5 MHz (Earth—to—space), * As used in this Order and Authorization, th erm *LBand" denotesthe 1525—1559 Mitz and 1626—16005 Mite frequency bands "MSV is the onlyentity the Commission authorized to launchand opertea U.S. MSS system in theL—band. In November 2001, the Commissionapproved the aplication ofMotentand TMI Communications and Company, Limted Partershi (‘TM) o consolidae ther US.L—band MSS operation mta new company called Mobile Satlite Ventures LP CMSV LP"). See Motient Services Inc, TMI Communications and Company LP,and Mobile Satlite Ventures LLC, Order andAuthorizaion,16 FCC Red 20469 (In. Bur 2001)

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 and 1646.5—1660.5 MHz (Earth—to—space) frequency bands for MSS service link operations® and in the 10.75—10.95 GHz (space—to—Rarth) 13.0—13.15 GHz (Earth—to—space) and 13.2—13.25 GHz (Earth—to—space) frequency bands for Fixed—Satellite Service (FSS) feeder link operations." AMSC—I1 was launched into the 101° W.L. orbit location in 1995. MSV began offering service from that satelite in 1996. 3. In July 1998, MSV filed an application to launch and operate a satellte to replace AMSC—I at the 101° W.L. orbit location." MSV proposed to use up to 14 megahertz of spectrum in each of the 1626.5—1660.5 MHz and 1525—1559 MHz bands for service links. It also proposed to use 100 megahertz of spectrum in the 12.75—13.00 GHz band and 100 megahertz of spectrum in the 1.2—1145 GHz band for feeder link operations. 4. In December 2000, MSV amended its application trequest an additional 150 megaherte of feeder link spectrum in each transmission direction, for a total of 250 megahertz in each direction, in the 11.2—11.45 GH(space—to—Earth) and 12.75—13.00 GHe (Barth—to—space) frequency bands.® In March 2001, MSV filed another amendment to add an ancillary terrestial component ("ATC®)toits system." The Commission placed the application, as amended, on Public Notice in March 2001." AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Cellular Telecommunications and Interet Association (CTTA), New ICO Global Communications Ltd. Inmarsat Ventures PLC, Acronautical Radio,Inc., Deere & Company, Cingular Wireless LLC, Verizon Wireless, and SITA Information Networking Computing Canada, Inc. and Ericsson Inc. filed comments or petitions to deny the ATC component ofthe application." The commenters objected to MSV‘s "See Amendmenof Pars2,22, 25 o tCommission‘s Rules to Allocte Spectrum for and to Estblih Rulesand Polics Petaining to the Use of Frequencies in a Land Mobile Satefte ServicefortheProvisn of Vaious Common Carier Services, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authoriation, 4 PCC Red 6041 (1989)CMSY Licensing Order")remanded by Aeronautical Radio, nc v. FCC, 928 F2d 428 (D.C. Ci, 1991FinalDeciton on Renand, 7 FCC Red 266 (1992); offd, Aeronautical Radi, o. v. FCC, 983 Rad 275 (D.C. Ci. 1993); see also AMSC Subsidlry Corporation, Menorandiun Opinian and Order8 FCC Red 4040 (1993) CMSV License Modifcation Order®) and Establshing Rules and Poliiesfor tus ofSpectrum for Mobile SatelteSevices in the Upper and LowerL—band. Report and Order,17 FCC Red 2704 (2002) ("Lower L—Band Report and Order) "MSV Licensing Order4 FCC Red at 6048pra. 52. The tom "feaderlnk" efesto fiedsateliteserviceradio linkscaryingsignals in both directions betweena MSS stelit and gateway earth stations. The gteway earth sttions connectthe MSS system with other networks, such as the public switched elephone netvork. * See Application of AMSC Subsidiry Corporation, File No. SAT—LOA—19980702.0006 (Jol.2, 1998 * See Applicationof MotentServices Inc. Fie No. SAT—AMD—20001214—00171 (Dec.14, 2000) " See Applicaion of Mobile Satelite Ventires SubsidiaryLLC, File No. SAT—AMD—20010302.00019 (Mor. 2. 2001) The rerm "ancilaryterestrl component* means a erestialcommunicatons ntwork used in conjunction witha qualifingsatlite network system authorized pursuant to Commissionrules * See Public Notice, Report No. SAT—00066 (Mar. 19,2001) * Kicomm Satlite Communiations Lid.lso file comments. Kitcomm requested that the Commission tm the door" on competition in thlover L—band. At the time, Kitcomm had pendinga Leter oInent(LOD to serve the U.S. matket with a satelite Tcensed by Austrla that would use a portion of the lover Lband. ‘The Bureau subsequentlydismissed the LOL becausethe proposed opertions would intrfee with exiting service to catomers See Kitcomm Sutelite Communications L1., Order, 19 FCC Red 6069 (In] Bur. 2005). Kitcomm and Deere also epposed the then—proposed merger of TMI and Motienon the groundarounds hat it would ba any possibilty of (coninued.. 3

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 request to use the L—band for terrestrial services. They believe that this use will result in a reduction of L—band satellite capacity and that such non—conforming use should be addressed in a rulemaking proceeding and not by waiver. 5. On November 4, 2003, MSV submitted a etter®" requesting that the Commission refrain from applying its new bond requirement to its application. In the Space Station Licensing Reform Order, the Commission replaced the then—existing financial qualification requirements. with a requirement thata licensee execute a performance bond no later than 30 days after grant."" MSV states that because it wishes to continue to serve its established customers, there is no question sbout speculation or warchousing. MSV also claims that it would not have been subject to the bond requirement if the Commission had acted on its application sooner. MSV also argues that itsintent to provide public safety services justifies a waiver of the bond requirement. EchoStar opposes MSV‘s request, noting that the Commission intended the new bond requirement to apply to all FSS and MSS satellie licensees seeking to operatc on spectrum not previously licensed to it 6. MSV filed a further amendment"® to ts application in November 2003 to increase the amount of feeder link spectrum to 450 megsherte within the 12.75—13.25 GH uplink band and 450 measherte within the 11.2—11.45/10.75—10.95 downlink bands. The amendment also revised certain technical parameters for is replacement satellite‘" and deleted the ATC component of the Amendment."* MSV requested a waiver of Footnote NGIO4 of Section 2.106 of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.RR. § 2.106, which limits use ofthese frequencies by GSO satellites (..continued from previous page) comperition in the Unted Stes.. We addresied these comments in our Orderorder approving the MorieatTMI cansolidtion and need na address them further here. Seenote 2 supre. " Leter from Lon Levin,Vie President, MSV to Marlene DortchSecrety, RCC (Nov. 4, 2003)(@MSV Lee")at 1 "* Amendment o he Commission‘s Space Sttion Licnsing Rules and Policies, Fist Repor and Order and Notice ofFurher Rulemaking, TB Docket No. 02:34, and Mitigation of Orbital Debris, First Reportand Order, 1B Docket No.02:54,18 RCC Red. 10760 (2003) (‘Space Sterion LicesingReform Order") " tdat 10826, prs. 170. " Leterfrom Pantlis Michalopootos, Counse! for EchoStar Satlite Corporation o Marlene H. Dontch, Secreury, FCC (Nov 14,2003)(EchoSiar Leter®) "* See Applcationof Mobile Satlfte Ventures Subsiiary LLC, ile No. SAT—AMD—20031118—00335 (Nov.18, 2002 ©‘ See Applicaon ofMobil Satlite Ventires SubsidiaryLLC, ile No. SAT—AMD—20031 18—00035 (Nov. 18. 2003) The mostsignificant changes MSV proposed to thectnical parametrsof th stelitareasfolous: 0 to inerease thsizeof th Lband servie lik anterna() to incease the Bquivalent soropically Radited Pover i) ofthe sateliteGi) to increse theptenta number of L—band spot beams;and (i)to modify the bscline airinerfice protocalfrom GMR onlyto GMR—2(stelteadaptation ofGSM, $—dm2000 (srelie adapation of edma2000), and SWCDMA (stelite adapuation of W—CDMA}. MSV icluded revsed link bdgets o reflectthese changes © Rather, MSV appliedfor separate authoriy t add an ATC component t ts imorbit AMSC—1 stlite and to include an ATC component on future satlites, including MSV—1. We gramted this authoriy in Mobie Satlite Venturs Subsidiary LLC, Order and Authoriation, DA 043553 (Itl Bur. 200%) 3

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 to international services only. MSV also requested a waiver of Section 25.210() of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.FR. § 25.210(), to operate with a greater East—Weststation—keeping tolerance. 7. In February 2004, MSV again amended its application to request an additional 50 megahertz of spectrum (in each transmission diection) for feeder links at 10.70—10.75 GHz (space—to—Earth) and 13.15—13.20 GHz (Earth—to—space),for a total of 500 megahertz in each transmission direction."" In its amendment, MSV requested a further waiver of Footnote NG1O4 of Section 2.106 of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R, § 2.106, to cover the additional spectrum. It also requested a waiver of Section 25.210() of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.ER. § 25.210(), to operate with a greater East—West station—keeping tolerance. 8. PanAmSat Corporation (PanAmSat), Intelsat LLC (Intelsat), and SES Americom, Inc (SES) jointly filed an Opposition to the MSV station—keeping waiver request. They argue that allowing MSV to operate with an East—West station—keeping tolerance of +0.10° would leave less geostationary satellite orbital space for satellites to be safely and easily co—Located nearby."" DIRECTV, Inc. filed comments opposing MSV‘s waiver request due to the congestion at the nominal 101° WL. orbit location where DIRECTV operates four satelltes." In response, MSV states that ts second—generation satellte is bigger than typical satellites and will therefore expend most ofits available fuel to achieve a geosynchronous orbit. MSV says that it will save fuel if we permit it to operate within a £0.1° station—keeping box and that requiring it to adhere to a £0.05° station—keeping box, which is required by the rules, will reduce the ifeofthe satellite by one—hall." 9. On April 23, 2004, the Satellite Division sent MSV two letters, one of which dismissed the February 2004 amendment to add 50 megahertz of feeder link spectrum in each transmission direction and the other of which requested additional information conceming the 450 megaherte of feeder link spectrum in each direction previously requested."" We took this dual approach in light of a Public Notice we issued in December 2003: ". n that Public Notice, we clarified the analysis applicants must use in the two—degree spacing showing required to be filed with each application for a new space station. ‘We also indicated that we would provide applicants filing applications before the Public Notice with an opportunity to amend their applications to conform to the clarified requirements but would dismiss applications fled subsequent to the Public Notice that did not contain this analysis.. We therefore dismissed © See Application of Mobil Satlite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, File No. SAT—AMD—20040209—00014 (Feb.9, 2000 " Joint Oppostionat 1 " DIRECTV comment t 12 "MSV Respone ats * See Leter to Lon C Levin,Vie President, Mobile Stelite Ventires Subsidiry LLC, from Thomas 5. Tycz, Chict, Stelite Division,InernationalBureas, FCC, DA 041095 (Apr. 23, 2004) CMSYDismissof Lener") " Public Notice, SPB—195, Itemmaional Bureau Clarfication of CFR. 47 CFR. 25.140 (BY2) Space Staion Application Interference Analysis, 18 FCC Red 25099 (De. 3, 2000) P u.

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 MSV‘s February 2004 Amendment butinvited MSV to file a conforming amendment with respect to its earlier requests 10. In response, MSV filed an interference analysis for its"pre—2004" frequencies. It also filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Division‘s dismissal of ts February 2004 Amendment,claiming it did not understand that it had to submit a two—degree spacing analysis when there were no operating or proposed co—frequency satellites within two degrees of MSV—1‘s proposed orbit location. EchoStarfiled an Opposition to MSV‘s Petition for Reconsideration and MSV filed a Reply. In June 2004,to clarify the apparently common confusion about the need to file a two—degree analysis when there are no co—frequency adjacent satellits, we issued a Public Notice claifying that, in such cases,the applicant must submit an analysis that demonstrates the compatiblity of its system with an identical system at an assumed two degree separation."* We also stated that we would dismiss all applications that did not include this "hypothetical" analysis on a going—forward basis but that we would request this analysis from pending applicants that had not provided one. 11. In light of our decision to afford several then—pending applicants an opportunity to submit a two—degree spacing analysis pursuant to the June 2004 Public Notice, we granted MSV‘s Petition for Reconsideration and reinstated MSV‘s February 2004 Amendment." Consistent with the June 2004 Public Notice, we afforded MSV an opportunity to provide the required two—degree spacing analysis for tspectrum requested in that Amendment. On September 28, 2004, MSV filed this analysis. Italso filed further information pertaining toits request to operate the proposed satelite with an East—West station—keeping tolerance outside the permitted limit." 12. We placed MSV‘s November 2003, February 2004, and September 2004 amendments on Public Notice on October 8, 2004."" EchoStar filed an Application for Review of the Bureau‘s reinstatement of MSV‘s February 2004 amendment, to which MSV filed an opposition and EchoStarfileda reply."* mt DISCUSSION A. Processing Procedure 13. MSV states that MSV—I1 will be a replacement for its AMSC—1 satellte athe 101° W.L.orbit location. Given the huge costs of building, launching, and maintaining a satellite system, the Commission has provided GSO satellte operators the assurance that they will be * Public Notee, $PB—207, 19 FCC Red 10682 (lune 13,2004) * se Mobile Satelte VentiresSubsidry LLC, Order, 19 FCC Red 18133 (l Bur. 2004) * see Appliation of Mobile Satellte Vertres SubsidarLLC, Fie No. SAT—AMD2004092800192 (Sep. 28, 2000 "" See Publi Notic, Report No.SAT—00248 (Oct.8,2004) "" see Mobile Satellte Ventres Subsidy LLC, Amendment to Appliation for Authoriyto Launch and Operate a Replacement MSS Stelitat 101 WIL, Applicaton or Review, ied October15, 2004 by Echostr Srelte LLC (Echostar Appliation for Review)

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 able to continue to serve their customers oncetheirin—orbit satellite is retired."" While this is the first request for a follow—on NGSOlike satellte," the replacement expectancy is equally applicable here. ‘The Commission considers applications for replacement satelltes on a streamlined processing basis and will "grant stamp"" the application if the applicantis otherwise qualified."" The Commission has held, however, that a icensee has no replacement expectancy with regard to next—generation satellites thatincrease the system‘s coverage area or use additional frequencies."" 14. We disagree with MSV‘s characterization of MSV—I as a replacement sutellite. MSV requests additional spectrum in both the service—link bands and in the feeder—link bands. In the service—link L—band, MSV requests authority to operate MSV—1 on 14 megahertz of spectrum in each direction. AMSC—I, however,is authorized to operate on 10 megahertz in each direction. Thus, MSV is not entitled to a replacement expectancy with respect to the additional 4 megahertz of spectrum in each direction and we would ordinarily subject this additional spectrum to the modified processing round procedure established for NGSO—like systems in the Space Starion Licensing Reform Order."" However, in ts Lower L—band Report and Order,"" the Commission limited MSV‘s L—band operations to 10 megahertz of spectrum in each transmission direction. Citing strides in spectrum—efficient MSS technologies in reducing the amount of spectrum required for an economically viable L—band MSS system, the Commission modified MSV‘s Hicense for AMSC—1 from 14 megahertz of spectrum in each transmission direction in the "upper®portion of the L—band to 10 megahertz of spectrum in each direction across both the "lower" and "upper® L—bands." The Commission furtherindicated that if it could coordinate intermationally more than 10 megahertz in each direction for a U.S. MSS system,it would first consider applications from other U.S. MSS applicants before considering awarding the additional spectrum to MSV."* MSV has not provided any reason for us torevisit this decision. Thus, we deny MSV‘s request for an additional 4 megahertz of L—band spectrum in each direction. In light of this denial, we can now consider the service—link portion of the MSV—1 application as a replacement application. This means that we can consider the L—band portion of MSV—1 without insttuting a processing round. 15. MSV also requests authorityto use previously unauthorized spectrum for ts fixed—satellite service (FSS) feeder—links. Because feeder links use directional earth station antennas and can provide co—frequeney, co—coverage service at geostationary satelite orbital * See ex.. Licensing of Space Sations in the Domest Fixed—Satlite Service, Report and Order, 50 Fed. Rep 36071 (Sept5, 1985at para. 27. ® While the MSV—1 satelte will operate in reostaionry—sitelite oxbi, we consider the serviceink portion as "NGSO—lke" for processing purposes: because the satelte will communicate with wser terminals with omnidiretionalantennas. See Space Staion Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at 10773, prs. 21 " Space SationLicensing Reform Order, 8 FCC Red at 10856, pra 253 "" Space StionLicesing Reform Order, 8 ECC Red at 10857—58,para. 258 ®Space Sution Licensing Reform Order,18 ECC Red atl0760, 10782—90, pams. 467. "* Lower L—Band Report and Order, 17 FCC Red at 2704 prs. 19. "m * Lower L—Band Reportand Order, 17 FCC Red t 2704,pun, 20 6

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 spacing of two degrees, we consider them as GSO—like for processing purposes."" Thus, we will consider this portion of MSV‘s request pursuant tothe processing procedures for new GSO—like satellites. Specifially, MSV‘s request to use additional FSS feeder links is governed by the first—come first—served policy for GSO—like satellites set forth in Space Station Licensing Reform Order."" Under the first—come first—served procedure, the Commission will grant an application if the proposed satellite will not cause harmful interference to a previously licensed satellte or a satelite proposed in a previously filed application and the applicant is otherwise qualified. The Commission will nottake action on subsequent applications until it acts on the mutually exclusive application that is "first—in—line." 16. MSV proposes to use 500 meghertz offrequency in each direction for its feeder link operations. Of this total, here is no dispute that MSV is first—in—line for 450 megahertz in each direction."" EchoStar disputes MSV‘sfirst—in—line status with respect to the 10.70—10.75 GHz (space—to—Rarth) and 13.15—13.20 GHz (Earth—to—space) frequency bands that MSV requested in ts February 9, 2004 amendment. Echostar had previously requested to use the same frequencies as part ofits earlierfiled application to construct, lunch and operate a satellie at the 101° W.L. orbit location. On February 9, 2004, the Satellite Division dismissed, without prejudice to refiling, EchoStar‘s application as both incomplete and intemally inconsistent* Later that day, MSV filed its amendment to use this same 100 megshertz of spectrum (50 megshertz in each direction) on its proposed satellit at 101° W.L.. On February 10, 2004, EchoStar refiled an application that included the same 100 megahertz of spectrum. The Commission subsequently dismissed MSV‘s February 2004 amendment for failure to file a two— degree interference analysis.. As noted, the Commission later reinstated MSV‘s application given the confusion about the need tofile a two—degree spacing interference analysis when there are no co—frequency satellites operating or licensed within two degrees of the proposed satellie."" As a result, MSV is firs—in—line in the processing quee with respect to this 100 megshertz of spectrum. Further, we disagree with EchoStar that any grant to MSV that precludes others from using this 100 megahertz of spectrum would increase the risk of "warchousing"this spectrum.:" The Commission‘s first—come first—served procedure for GSOlike applications—which was "" in cass where a proposed satlite has both "NGSOike" and "GSOike" components, such as MSV—1, the Commission stted it will considerthe proposalas two separite aplication. 1t willconsider he GSO—like portion under the "fistcome, fistserved‘procedure and the NGSOlike portion under the modified processing round procedure. Space Station icensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at 10786, pras. 57 ® Space Stion Licening Reform Order, 8 ECC Red atl0760, 10810—12, paras 125—131 * For clartyof discussion, we include in this toul the 200 megaherts in each direcionthat the Commission has already uthorizedto AMSC—1 for feeder—inks in the10.75—1095 GiHte and 13.0—13.15/132—13.25 Gite bands. We recognie that MSV is entied to a "replacement expectancy" forthis spectrum but, as a proctial mattr, wwill grantitopertingauthorityfor his spectum on MSV—1 on cithe a ‘eplacement expectancy" o"lrs—iine" basis it e find MSV otherwise qualifed. "* Lettrto David K, MoskowtzSenir Viee President and General Counse. EchoStar Satlite Corporation rom Thomas Tyez, Chiet, Stllte Division, FCC, DA Ot323 (Feb9, 2006)(‘EchoSur DismissalLeter®) (inding inconsisencies betweerequested fequency bands and incompletc technicaliformation regarding the Channel Frequency Plan) * Mobil Satelite Ventires LLC, Order, 19 FCC Red at 18133 © See Leter from Panelis ichalopoutas, Counsel for EchoSur Sarelte Corporati . to Marlere H. Dorch, Secretay, FCC (Mar. 25, 2005

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 designed to give applicants filing first the sole license toap:flle on the proposed frequencies— contains a variety of safeguards to prevent warchousing.® Consequently, MSV is firs—in—line for all of its proposed 1000 megahertz of feeder link spectrum (500 megahertz in each direction) under the Commission‘s first—come first—served policy* and we will award it a lcense to operate on these frequencies if it is qualified.® B. lifications 17. In considering applications to launch and operate a new satellite system, we must determine whether a grant will serve the public interest.. In making this determination, we consider, among other things, whether the applicant is qualified to launch and operate the satellte. The Commission has previously granted MSV space station licenses, finding that MSV possesses the requisie legal qualifications to hold a Commission license. Nothing in the record here suggests that we revisit this conclusion. C. Oualifications 1. ATC 18. Several entities challenged MSV‘s request to provide ATC services using MSS frequencies. Those arguments are moot in light of the Commission‘s finding that MSS providers can provide ATC in conjunction with the provision of MSS over MSS frequencies*" and the Commission‘s recent authorization of MSV to provide ATC services in conjunction with its provision of MSS in the L—band. ® Among other things,lcensees must post a performance bond within 30 diys and must adhere to spcifed construction milestones.. SpaceStation Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at10826, pars. 170. "* On October 15, 2004, EchaSta fild an applcationfor review requesting the Commission t review ts decision to reinsate MSV‘s Febrvary 2004 amendment.. EchoSuar‘sappliationfo review is pending.. This grantto MSV isof eourse, siblect o he outcome of that proceeding © EchoStar recently suppested that it may be able to coortinte shared use of this 50 mepaherte with MSV. See LeterLaters from Patelis Michalopoulos, Counsel for EchoStar Satlite Corporation, to Marlene 1. Dorth, Secretay, FCC (Mar. 25, 2008 and Apr. 19, 2005), MSV states that it is willig to discussa sharing armangement with EchoSuar. See Letrsfrom Jennifer A. Mamnr, Vice President, Repultory Afis for MSV to Marlne H. Dorch, Secrry, FCC (Apr. 4, 2005 and Apr 29,2005). If the paies reach an agreement, we will enteain a request hainvolves co—frguency operations. * Fleublty for Delivery of Communications by Moble Satlite Service Providers i the 2 GHtz Band, he L~ Band, and the 1.62.4 GHtz Bands; Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non—Geostaionary Satlite Orbi Mobile Satelite Service Systems in the 1.62.4 GHfz bands, Report and Order and Notice ofProposed Rulenaking, 1B Docket Nos.OI—185 and 02:364, 18 FCC Red 1962 (2003), pettions for econsidertion pending (ATC Report and Order, modifind sua sponte by Order on Reconsideraion, 18 FCC Red 13590 (2003) © Mobil Satlite Ventures Subsidry LLC, Order and Auhorizaion, DA O4—3553(In! Bur.2004tn this Order and Authorization, we granted MSV‘s requestfor ATC authorty, subjecto ceniain condtlons, and contingent upon the grant of th them—pending licenaplication for MSV—1, "The Onder and Autorizarion also provided that MSV‘s ATC authority will xpire concurrenty with he MSV—1 license if granted:

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 2. East—West Station—keeping Tolerance 19. MSV requests a waiver of Section 25.210() of the Commission‘s rules,"* which requires that GSO space stations be maintained within 20.05° of their assigned orbitallongitude in the east/west direction, unless specifically authorized by the Commission to operate with a different longitudinal tolerance, and exceptas provided in Section 25.283(b)(end—oflife disposal) of the Commission‘s rules."" MSV seeks to operate within +0.10° of its assigned nominal GSO orbital longitude.®" According to MSV, waiver is justiied because there are no nearby satellites to which MSV—I‘s operations could cause interference."" In addition, MSV states that the costs of complying with a +0.05° east—west station—keeping tolerance (such as increased fuel to maintain a tighter tolerance) outweigh any purported benefits. 20. DIRECTV, Inc. states that the very congested 101° W.L.orbitlocation is not an appropriate candidate for relaxation of the East—Weststation—keeping rules. DIRECTV notes that it operates four satellites at the 101° W.L. orbit location and is constrained by intemational agreement to locate all ofits DBS satellites atthe nominal 101° W.L. orbital location within a 0.4° "box" bounded by 100.8° W.L. and 101.2° W.L®" DIRECTV observes that MSV seeks to operate in one—half of the "box‘" in which all DIRECTV satelites must operate. PanAmSat, Intelsat and SES Americom also argue that a larger station—keeping box at 101° WL. would adversely affect co—located satelltes." With so many satelltes clustered at 101° W.L., they state that some satellites might be forced to operate in overlapping longitudinal boxes." In that case, they note that an alterative co—location strategy would be needed to avoid close approaches, which would increase fuel usage for neighboring satellites, while MSV would conserve fuel at thir expense."" Finally, they acknowledgethatall stellite operators have to endure a fuel penaltyin order to comply with the Commission‘s station—keeping rules. In response, MSV argues that the Commission has not applied a +0.05° East—West station—keeping box to GSO MSS satellites. MSV also cites the large mass of MSV—1 compared to other satelltes, which will require thatal of its available fuel will be expended in order to achieve its final geosynchronous orbit. "@r ceRi5210 " 47 CER. § 25283 (. See also Orbil Debris Order, 19 FCC Red t 11567. * MSV Applicaton File No. SAT—AMD—20040209—00014 at 16. We consiru this request as one to maintain the MSV sarelite within 20.1%of ts assigned orbial longitude, asassessd athe nodal point ofthe orbit " MSV Applicaton Fie No. SAT:—AMD—20040209—00014 at 17. 7 MSV Applicaton Fie No. SAT:—AMD—20040209—00014 at 17. ° DIRECTV commens at2 " Join Opposion at L " Joit Opposition at 2. " Joit Opposition at2. 7 MSV Replyard.

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 21. The Commission may grant a waiver for good cause shown."" Waiver is appropriate if (1) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and (2) such deviation would better serve the publicinterest than would strit adherence o the general rule."" Generally, the Commission may grant a waiver of ts rules in a particular case only i the relief requested would not undermine the policy objective of the rule in question and would otherwise serve the public interest.® MSV states that a waiver is justified because there are no other satelites to which it could cause interference. MSV‘s analysis, however,islimited to those systems that are operating co—frequency with the MSV spacecraft and does notinclude other spacecraft that are not co—frequency, but may be impacted by the extended station—keeping box. Indeed. the operators of several of these satelltes have raised concerns about MSV‘s proposed station—keeping box. Given this, we find that a waiver would undermine the policy objectives of this rule and would not serve the public interest. Accordingly, we deny MSV‘s waiver request. 3. North—South Station—keeping Tolerance 22. To save station—keeping fuel, MSV also requests authority to operate MSV—1 with an initial north—south inclination®‘ of as much as six degrees."" This inclination would decrease under the influence of gravitational forces of the sun and moon and then would begin to increase, thercby Auctuating between sbout zero and six degrees during the expected life of te satellite. MSV states that its satellite will operate consistent with the requirements for inclined orbit satelltes set forth in Section 25.280 of the Commission‘s rules.®" We grant MSV‘s request. We note, however, that granting this request creates a potential for harmful interference between MSV—I1‘s Ku—band operations and Ku—band NGSO fixed—satellte service (FSS) satellites. Pursuant to TTU Radio Regulations, GSO satellites such as MSV—1 are protected against interference from NGSO FSS satelltes operating in the same band, provided that the GSO satellte‘snorth—south inclination is 4.5° or ess,®* Thus, during those periods in which MSV—1 will operate at an inclination of up to 4.5%, MSV‘s network will be fully protected from interference from NGSO FSS networks.®. During the periods in which MSV—1 will operate at an inclination more than 4.5°, ts operations will not be protected from such NGSO operations. MSV will receive only the protection afforded to GSO satellites within a 4.5° north—south station—keeping inclination. We expect MSV to coordinate its operations at these higher " 47 CFR, § 13. Seealto WATT Radio v. FCC, 418 F2d 1153 (D.C. Ci.1969)(WAFT Andio) Northeas Cellar Tel. Co. . FCC, 97 2d 1166 (D.C. Cir.1990) (Nortens Cellr, " See Northeast Celdar, 897 F2d at 166. ® see WAFT Radio, 418 F24 mt 157. * The inlination of an orbit is the angle between the orbial plane and the Earh‘s equatorial plane, measured counterclockwise.. A zero inclination orbit would mean the satelite is orbting diectly overthe equatoan inclinationof 90 degres is aperfctly polar orbi. ©MSV Applicaion File NoSAT—AMD—20040200—00014a17. 947 cr 525 260. * SeAricle221, Table 2248. © see Amendment oPars 2 and 25 ofthe Commission‘s Rulesto Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co— frequency With GSO and Teresra Systems ithe KuBand Frequency Range, PisReport and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 16 ECC Red 4096 (200), t 4143—44. 10

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 23. inclinations with licensed NGSO FSS operators. Absent a coordination agreement, we require MSV—I‘s operation at inclinations between 4.5° and 6° to be on an unprotected and non—harmfulinterference basis to NGSO FSS satelites and MSV will receive only the protection afforded to GSO satellites within the 4.5° North—South station—keeping box."* 4. L—band Operations a. Introduction 24. MSV—1 will have separate antenna systems for the service and feeder links. The service link antenna will use a 24—meter reflector with approximately 400 spot beams for coverage of the contiguous forty—tight states, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, Central America, the northem part of South America and the Caribbean. Under the International Table of Frequency Allocations, the 1525—1535 MHz bandis allocated on a co—primary basis®" to MSS and the Space Operation Service in Region 2." The 1535—1559 MHz and 1626.5—1660 MHz bands are allocated on a primary basis to MSS. The 1660—1660.5 MHz bandis allocated on a co—primary basis to MSS and the Radio Astronomy Service." Domestically, the Commission has allocated the 1525—1559 MHz and 1626.5—1660 MHz bands to MSS on a primary basis and the 1660—1660.5 MHz bands on a co—primary basis to MSS and the Radio Astronomy Service."" In addition, there are a number of footnotes to the allocation table that place additional constraints on MSV‘s operations in portions ofthese bands. We discuss these in tum. b. Co—Primary Allocation for the Space Operations Service 25. As noted, the 1.5 GHzdownlink band is allocated on a co—primary basis to MSS and the Space Operations Service in Region 2. We remind MSV thatit must coordinate its operations with co—primary operations in the 1525—1535 GHz band under the ITU Radio Regulations and that its operations are not entitled to any protection from interference until it has completed coordination. * To the extent MSV‘s planned operations in inclined orbitar impacted by denial ofis requestfor waiver of the eastwest statiokeeping requrement, MSV will ned to seck modlfiation of ts authoriztion toreflect any change in planned operations. °* Spacestations opertingin primarysrvices ar protected aguins ineferencefrom sttions of secondary services. Stations operating in the secondary sevice cannot caue hamfulimerfrence to or claim protectonfrom harmful interferenc from sttions of a primary service. Co—pimary services have equal rights to operate in panicular frequencies. 47CR §§2.104(@)and 2.108() 5 For the alloction of fequencis,the Inteational Telecommunication Union (ITU) has diided the world into threeregions. Region 2 includes North and South Amerca. See 47 CFR.§2.104 ##rcrr 52106 " See Amendment of Pars 2, 25 and 87 ofthe Commission‘s RulestoImplement Decision fom World Radiocommunication Conferences ConcerningFrequency Bands Retween28 MH and 36 GHz andto Otheruise UpdatetheRule in this Frequency Range, ET Docker No.02:308, CC 03—269 (2003). 11

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 c. Passive Research for Extraterrestrial Emissions 26. According to Foomote 5.341 ofthe ITU Radio Regulations, some countries are conducting passive research in the 1525—1559 MHz band to search for intentional emissions of extraterrestrial origin."" The use of the 1525—1559 MHz band by the mobile—satellite service is subject to coordination under Article No. 9.11A of the TTU Radio Regulations."" Thus, we require MSV to coordinate its MSS operations in good faith with passive research operations being conducted by other countries. Further, any radio station authorization for which coordination has not been completed may be subject to additionalterms and conditions as required to effect coordination of the frequency assignments of other administrations."" d. Maritime and Acronautical Mobile—Satellite Distress Communications Services 27. International Footnote 5.353A of the ITU Radio Regulations states that MSS systems operating in the 1530—1544 and 1626.5—1645.5 MH frequency bands may not interfere with maritime mobile—satelite service (MMSS) distress, urgeney, and safety communications that are also operating in these frequencies. International Foomote 5.353A protects MMSS distress, urgency, and safety communications, such as Global Maritime Distress and Safety System ("GMDSS®), by providing prionty access and real—time preemptive capability for GMDSS communications. Domestically, to ensure MSS compliance with the provisions of Foomote US31, which is similar to Intemational Footnote .353A, the Commission established priority access and preemption requirements and policies for the mobile—satellite service in this band and incorporated these requirements into itsrules."" 28. Further, mobile—satelite service operators must comply with Intemational Foomote 5.357A ofthe ITU Radio Regulations for operations in the 1545—1555 and 1646.5— 1656.5 MHz frequency bands and with International Footnote 5.362A ofthe ITU Radio Regulations for operations in the 155—1559 MHz and 1656.5—1660.5 MHz bands. They provide that the acronautical mobile—sateie (R) service (AMS(R) S) shall have priority access and immediate availability over all other MSS operations, AMS(R) S is a mobile satellite service using mobile terminals on—board aireraft. This service can be used to support domestic and intemational air traffi, including air traffic control. The (R) indicates that the spectrum is used for acronautical communications related to the safety and regularity of flights primarily along national and international civil air routes. Further, MSS systems operating in these bands may not cause unacceptable interference to, or claim protection from, aeronautical mobile—satellite (R) service communications with priority 1 to 6 in Article 44 of the TTU Radio Regulations."" " InermationalFoomote S.341 to Section 2.106 ofthe Commission‘s rles, 47 CR. $ 2.106. "* se Inemational Footmote 5.354 o Section 2.106 otCommission‘s mles, 47 CR §2.106. ? See 47 CER $25.11100) "* LoweLband Report and Order,17 FCC Red at 2704 " Aricle 4.1 o the MTU‘s Radio Reulations stsforth the order of priority for communicationin the acronsutial mobile service and aeronsutical mobilesteliteservice.. Prionites 1—6 areas follows: 1) distress call, ditess (contimed.. 12

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 29. MSV must comply with the Commission‘s rules regarding prionity access and real—time preemption because its Satellite Ground Station Subsystem (GSS) and Mobile Switching Center (MSC) will manage all stelliteresources (%e., frequencies and power) and completely control the allocation of those resources to the mobile user terminals that use the satellte. MSV states that ts satelite system will comply with all applicable requirements. As with the current system, the licensee will maintain a reserve pool of resources that will permit any additional demands ofthe AMS(R) $ and GMDSS network to be met immediately. This AMS(R) S and GMDSS reserve pool will be maintained by retrieving resources from within the MSV network. We believe that the continuation ofthis practice, which has been successful on MSV‘s existing satellite, represents a reasonable approach to meeting MSV‘s priority and preemption requirements. 30. MSV does not request authority for U.S. fixed—gateway earth stations and mobile earth terminals (METs). Gateway earth stations and METs located in the United States will be Hicensed under separate applications in accordance with Part 25 of the Commission‘s rules. Nonetheless, in 1993, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) created a minimum set of capabiliies to ensure that fixed—gateway earth stations and METs operating in the 1545—1559 MHz and 1646.5—1660.5 MHz bands comply with Footnote US308 and ITU Radio Regulations 5.357A and 5.362A."* We will reguire that any U.. fixed—gateway earth station and METs communicating via MSV—1 meet the minimum set of capabilities set forth in the ©1993 NTIA Recommendations." 31. We also willrequirethat all METs accessing MSV—1 conform to the emission Himitations set forth in Section 25.216 of the Commission‘s Rules."" These emission levels were adopted in the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite proceeding."* These emission levels were designed to protect the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). For all transmissions,a limited amount of power radiates outside ofthe "operating" bandwidth. These "out—of—band" emissions may cause interference into another system.. For this reason,the Commission has created rules to govern such emissions,"" All METs must comply with the Commission‘s rules dealing with emission limitations." Further, we anticipate that METs accessing MSV—1 located on aireraft will be type accepted under Part 87 of the Commission‘s ules."" Finally, International Footmote 5.374 ofthe TTU Radio Regulation requires that mobile contined from previous page) messages and disress taffi; 2) communications preceded by the urgency signa; 3) communications relatng to radio directionfinding; 4) fightsafety messages; 5) meteorolopieal messages; and 6) lightrepulaty messapes. * See Letter to Cheryl Trit, Chicf, Common Carier Bureas, FCC, from Richard D. Parlow, Associte Administator, Offce of Spectrum Management, NTIA, and Gerald Markey, Manager, Spectrum Bnginecting Division, FAA.ad atachment t theleter, dated anvary 14, 1993 (*1993 NTIA Recommendations"). 7 a7 oh. s252160, 0. "*: See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satlite (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understandingand Arrangement, 1B Docket No99.67, Repor and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulenaking, 17 FCC Red 8309 (2002) {modified in GMPCS, Second Report and Order,1 Docket No. 99.67, 18 FCC Red 24423 (2003). " seed7 CER§ 252020 "«7 cr® 5252000 "arcrr onl 13

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 earth stations in the mobile—satellte service operating in the bands 1631.5—1634.5 MHz and 1656.5—1660 MHz shall not cause harmful nterference to stations in the fixed service operating in the countries listed in No. 5.350."° Therefore, we require MSV to ensure thatall METs accessing MSV—I comply with Interational Footnote 5.374 of the TTU Radio Regulation. ¢. Distress and Safety Communications 32. MSV has requested authority to use the 1544—1545 MHe and 1645.5—1646.5 MHz band segments. According to International Footnotes 5.356 and 5.375 of the TTU Radio Regulations, the use of these bands by the mobile—satellite serviceis limited to distress and safety communications." MSV proposes to use MSV—1 to provide commercial MSS services to North America, Central America, the northem part South America and the Caribbean. Given the broad range of commercial services provided on the MSV system, we will not permit MSV—1 to operate in the 1544—1545/1645.5—1646.5 MHz bands and potentially disrupt emergency communications in these bands . Radio Astronomy Service 33. MSV has requested authority to operate in the 1660—1660.5 MHz band segment. The 1660—1660.5 MHz segment is allocated on a co—primary basis to MSS and the Radio Astronomy Service (RAS). International Footnote 5.376A of Section 2.106 of the Commission‘s rules states that mobile earth stations operating in the band 1660—1660.5 MHz shall not cause harmful interference to stations in the radio astronomy service."" In addition, Footnote US342 of Section 2.106 of the Commission‘s rules states thatall precticable steps shall be taken to protect the radio astronomy service from harmful interference."" We remind MSV that it must coordinate with co—primary operations in the 1660—1660.5 MHz band and that ts operations are not entiled to any protection from interference until t has completed coordination. g. Coordin fon with other L—band MSS Systems 34. In North America and nearby intemational airspace and maritime areas,five satellte systems, which all operate in geostationary—satelite orbit (GSO), currently provide service in the L—band‘s 66 megahertz (33 megahertz in each transmission direction) MSS allocation. In 1996, the operators of the five North American L—band systems signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The MoU specified that "[sJpectrum allocations to individual operators will be reviewed annually on the basis of actual usage and short—term projections of future need." Unlike mostintemational coordinations that create permanent assignments of specific spectrum, the operators‘ assignments can change from year to year based on their marketplace needs. While the most recent operator—to—operator agreement dates from " Alsosee Intemational Foomote 5.374 to Setion 2.106 ofthe Commisson‘s riles, 47 CER. §2.106. ° Inemational Footnotes 5.356 and .375t Section 2106 of the Commission‘srles, 47 CRR.§2.106 *‘ See Interational Footmat5.376A in TTU Radio Regulation o Section 2106 ofthe Commisson‘srles, wich sttes: *Mobils earth stations operting in th band 1060—1660.5 Mitzshall mt cause harmful imerfrence to stationitheradioasronomy service." " 47 CER. $2.106, Foomore US342 14

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 1999, he five parties have continued to coordinate their operations informally and have been operating interference—free. We expect MSV to continue to operate MSV—1 in accordance with the current arrangement with other MSS providers and in compliance with any subsequent agreement. We also remind MSV that until coordination is completed, its operations will be on a non—harmfulinterference basis to other lawfully operating satellite or radio faciliies and will receive no protection from interference caused by those facilities. 5. Ku—band Operations a. International Plan 35. MSV‘s fixed—satelliteservice feeder link and TT&C operations will be conducted in the 10.7—10.95/11.2—11.45/12.75—13.25 GHe frequency bands from earth stations in the United States. According to Intemational Footote 5.441 of the Table of Frequency Allocations," use of these bands by geostationary—satellite systems in the fixed—satelite service shall be in accordance with the plan prescribed in Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations. The plan already provides for operation of a U.S—licensed satellite at 101° W.L. Appendix 30B specifies a procedure for modifying the plan to permit additional FSS uses upon a showing of compatibility with FSS allotments and assignments pursuant to the plan. We have previously modiied the plan for 200 megsherte of spectrum MSV is currently using.. MSV did not submit a revised Appendixc 30B analysis with is request for an additional 300 megahertz of feeder link spectrum. Nevertheless, we agree with MSV that it should be able toresolve any excess interference through coordination agreements with affected administrations. Thus, while we grant MSV operating authority forits proposed Ku—band operations, the operating authority is contingent upon the issuance ofa favorable ITU finding pursuant to Appendix 30B, Article 6, and Section 1II ofthe ITU‘s Radio Regulations. Until such a finding is issued, we will allow MSV to operate on this Ku—band spectrum on a non—harmful interference basis. b. Two—Degree Spacing 36. The Commission‘s FSS satellite icensing policy is predicated upon two—degree orbital spacing between geostationary satellits."" This policy permits the maximum use ofthe geostationary satellite orbit."" MSV has submitted the technical information specified in the Commission‘s rules."" Upon review of this information, we find that MSV—1‘s FSS feeder link and TT&C operations are two—degree compliant and meetall other technical requirements for these feeder link operations. " InermationalFoomote 5.441 to Section 2.106 ofthe Commissin‘s mles,47 CR §2.106. * For more information regarding the Commissions two—degree spacing policy, see Licensing Space Stionsin the Domestic Fixed—Satelite Service, 48 RR. 40233 (Gept 6, 1983) "* See, ea.. Assinment of Orbitl Locations to Space Sttios in the Domest Fixed—Satllte Service,Order and Authorization, 11 FCC Red 13788 (1996), t 13790. Prioto the Commission‘s adoption of th two—degrecspacing policy, satelites in the geostrionary satlite orbit were usually spaced thre or four degrees apat. By adopting rules that enabled sutelite opertorsto place thir space stations tw degrees apar, the Commission was able to accommodate more gcostationary stelltes. * see 47 CFR. 5§ 25.114 and 25 210. 1s

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 37. We note, however, that although there are no power—flux—density (‘PFD")limits in the Commission‘s rules for emissions from a GSO satelite in MSV‘s proposed downlink bands, the TT has established PFD restrictions to prevent interference with terrestrial wireless services."" MSV‘s PFD specifications are consistent with these restrictions." . Waiver of Footnote NG104 38. Footnote NGIO4 of Section 2.106 of the Commission‘s rules states that use of the 10.7—11.7 GHz and 12.75—13.25 GHz bands in the United States by the fixed—satellite service in the geostationary—satellte orbit shall be limited to international systems."" MSV requests a waiver of this rule for its feder link and TT&C operations, which will be conducted from two earth stations in the United States. 39. The Commission previously granted MSV a waiver of NGIO4 for ts current sutellite, AMSC—1, to allow it to use a total of 200 megahertz in each direction for feeder links."" MSV states thatits proposed operations on MSV—1 will similarly involve only a small number of feeder link earth stations and thus will not hinderthe development ofterrestral fixed services that share the band on a co—primary basis."* Indeed, the Commission recently granted a number of similar waiver requests, including one for MSV‘s MSV—2 satellte. In granting these waivers, the Commission said that allowing small numbers of gateway earth stations to operate in this portion of the Ku—band should not increase the frequency coordination burden on terrestral wireless services significantly more than the burden imposed by existing permitted use of those bands by international systems." 40. Accordingly, we grant MSV‘s request for waiver of Pootnote NGIO4 for its feeder links and TT&C operations, which will be conducted in the 1145 GHz and 13.25 GHz frequency bands at ts existing gateway earth stations in Reston, Virginia and Alexandia, Virginia. As such, we find that the two TT&C earth stations should not significantly increase the * se Section V of Anicle21 ofth ITU‘s Radio Regubations. "MSV Application SAT—AMD—200#0209—00014 at 18. The Commission has established idenical PFD limits for dovnlinks in thadjacen1095—11.2 GHz band. See 47 CR§ 28 2080 " 47 CFR.§2.106 Foomote NGIO4. " MSV Licensing Order t 6052, paras. 1—72. * For example, the Commission has delined to amend Footrote NGIOH o pernit NGSO FSS userterminals to eperatin this band because doin so would permita "ubiquitousdeployment"of earth stations that would hamper developmentoftemestialservices. Amendment ofPars 2 and 25 ofthe Commisson‘s Rules to Permit Operaton of NGSO FSS Systems Co—Frequency with GSO and Terresrial Systems in the Ku—Band Frequency Range. P Report and Order and Further NPRM, 16 FCC Red 406. 2000)(‘Ki—band NGSO FSS Order").Appendix 308 of the TT Radio Repubtions idenifies the following fequency bands fr th fixedstelit srvice plan: 48004800 Ail, 6r25—7005 Mite,107041095 Gife, 1120—11.45 Gite and 12.75—13.28 Gie: " Kiband NGSO FSS Order at931 an165 (refusing o limit he numberof NGSO FSS gateway earthstatins that could operate, but noting that mostapplicans proposed to deploy ess than five ateways). Establishment of Policies and Service Rulesfohe Mobile Satllte Service in th 2 GHtz Band, NotceoProposed Rulenaking, 14 ECC Red 4843 (1999at 153.Inte: Bocing Co, Order and Auttorizaion, 18 ECC Red 12317 2003). See also Mobile Stelite Ventires Subsidiry LLC, Order andAuhorizerion, DA No. 0550 (In! Bur. 2005 (CMSV—2 Onter®) 16

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 coordination burden on Fixed—Service applicants. MSV must stll apply for lcense modifications of those two earth stations to request authority to communicate with MSV—1 on the additional spectrum in the 11.45 GHz and 13.25 GHe frequency bands. d. Protection of Other Services 41. As noted, the Commission has allocated the 10.7—11.7 GHz (space—to—Earth) and 12.75—13.25 GHe (Earth—to—space) frequency bands on a co—primary basis with the Terrestral Fixed Service."® The Commission has also allocated the 12.75—13.25 GHz (Earth—to—space) band to FSS on a co—primary basis with the Terrestrial Mobile Service.""" MSV shall comply with Section 25.203(c)of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R, § 25.203(c), which sets forth coordination and other procedures designed to ensure that tere is no harmful interference between stations operating in co—primary services. In addition, we expect MSV to take the same measures to protect terrestril fixed and terrestral mobile services that it set forth in its application for ts MSV—2 satellite serving South America."" First, MSV shall coordinate its feeder link stations with terrestrialfixed and mobile systems as required by Section 25.203(c) of the Commission‘s rules." In addition, MSV shall have a coordination study conducted on its earth stations to determine their suitabilty for operation and will apply mitigation techniques to ensure adequate protection ofthe earth stations and terrestrial systems. To ensure thatits feeder link operation will not impede implementation of the Commission‘s spectrum—relocation policy for Fixed Service licensees currently operating in the 18.3—19.3 GHz band, we expect MSV to demonstrate when applying for feeder link earth station licenses that the proposed uplink operation would not interfere with,or require protection from, the operation of any existing Fixed Service station at its current site in the event that the Fixed Service station‘s assigned frequencies were to be shified pursuant to Section 101.85, Section 101.89, Section 101.91, or Section 101.95 of the Commission‘s rules. !"" 42. In addition to protecting fixed and mobilservices, we also expect MSV to protect other services operating in the bands it wll be using. Firs, the 12.75—13.25 GHz band is allocated to the space research service (deep space) (space—to—Earth) for reception only at Goldstone, Califomia.‘"" We require MSV to take "all practicable steps" to ensure that its feeder link transmissions will not interfere with this service. Additionally, Footnote NGS3 of Section 2.106 of the Commission‘s rules reserves the 13.15—13.20 GHz band for television pickup and Cable Television Relay Service (*CARS") inside a 50 kilometer radius of the top 100 television markets identified in Section 76.51 ofthe Commission‘s rules.."" To avoid interfering "«rcerg2106 "wm " MSYV—2 Order, DA No.05—30(rl. Jan.10,2009), at paras29.31. "arcBR g252000) marcrr. gs 10.85, 101.89, 10191, 10195 "See 47 CFR. §2.106, Foomore Us251 ‘*"MSV storesthat it understands thatauthorityfor uplink transmisionin any portion of the 12.75—13.25 Giz band for which MSV does not aleady have authority wllbe witihed perding adoption oalesforcoortination of such operation with Broadeast Auniiary Service (‘BAS")and CARS mobilpickup operations 17

Federal Communications Commission Da 0s—1492 with these services, we will not permit MSV to transmit in the 13.15—13.2125 GH band from a site wlxgfln 50 kilometers of a top 100 television market identified in of the Commission‘s rules. 43. Last, Footnote US211 of Section 2.106 of the Commission‘s rules states that space station operators in the 10.7—11.7 GHz band should take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy observations from harmfulinterference in adjacent bands.""" MSV states that the National Science Foundation has informed it that the protection level required at radio astronomy sites in the 10.6—10.7 GHz band is —160 dBW/m, "®" MSV has agreed to equip its replacement satellites with a transmitter output flter to limit the emissions in the 10.6—10.7 GHz: band at or below this level. Existing in—orbit satelites in this band employ such a flter as part of past agreements between the MSS and radio astronomy communities. Consequently, subject to this agreement, we allow MSS to operate its feeder link and TT&C functions in the 10.7—10.95 GHz and 11.2—11.45 GHz bands on a non—harmfulinterference basis to radio astronomy operations in adjacent bands. D. Bond Requirement 44. In its Space Station Licensing Reform Order, the Commission liminated the financial requirements then in place and replaced them with a bond requirement.‘" The bond requirement is intended to ensure thatlcenseesare financially able and committed to implementing their lcensed systems in a timely manner. Under this requirement, any entity awarded a satelite license must execute a performance bond in the amount of $5 million for each NGSO system and $3 million for each GSO satellite, payable to the U.3. Treasury, within 30 days of the date of the license grant."""— The bond is payable upon failure to meet any of the implementation milestones included in every license, where the licensee has not provided adequate justification for extending that milestone. Licensees may reduce the amount of the bond upon meeting each milestone. 45. The Commission does not impose a bond on replacement satellites because once a Hicensee has begun to provide service, it expects the licensee will use its replacement satellte to continue to provide service, and would not file the replacement application for speculative purposes. The Commission has held, however, that an existing licensee has no replacement expectancy with regard to next generation satellites that increase the coverage area or use ‘* For example,sinceSince WashingtonD.C. is one ofth 100 top television marketsidentied in Section 7651 of the Commisson‘srules, MSV will nt be able to operate an earth stion in this band within 50 kilometers of WashingionDC. *‘ 47 CFR.§2.106, Foomore US2IL. ‘*Lenerfrom Lon Levin, Mobile Satllte Ventures to Marlene H. Dontch, Screary, PCC (May 12, 2004 ‘* Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at 10625—10826, pras. 167—171 "" See also Amendmemt of the Commission‘s Space Suation Licensing Rules and Poliies, FirsOnder on Reconsideration and Fifh Report and Onde, 1B Docket No, 0234, 19 FCC Red 12637 2003)(Space Staion ReformFist Reconsideration Order)(reducingthe bond amountsfrom thos imposed on an inerim basis in the Space Staion Licensing Reform Onder). In the Reconsideration Order, he Commissionalso determined that GSO MSS licenseesshould be subjectto the GSO bond requirement,even though the proposed satelite is considered NGSOlike forpurposes ofdetermining the approprate procesing procedure. 14.at 12635, ara. 4. 18

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 additional frequencies.""" Inits Space Station Licensing Reform First Reconsideration Order,""" the Commission clarified that the bond requirement would apply in those circumstances where a satellte licensee proposes o operate a next—generation system using frequencies not authorized for ts current system. 46. MSV asks the Commission to refrain from imposing a bond requirement despite its proposed use of additional spectrum.""" MSV states that the Commission has discretion whether or not to apply the policies adopted in the Space Station Licensing Reform Order to applications filed before it adopted the Order.""" MSV notes that the Commission intended the new licensing policies to apply to pending applications only if "doing so will help further the goals of this proceeding to expedite service tothe public and discourage speculation."""" MSV requests us to considerits MSV—1 satellite pursuant to the rules and policies in place atthe time its application was originally filed. MSV argues that had the Commission acted when the first pleading ycle ended in 2001, it would not have been subject t the bond requirement."" MSV states that, given this,treating its application under prior satellte lcensing rules will have no adverse precedential effect 47. Alteratively, MSV argues that the Commission should waive the bond requirement. According to MSV, requiring it to post a bond would add substantial and unnecessary costs to its next—generation MSS system particularly since, with its existing customer base, it has every incentive to construct and launch its replacement satellte in an expeditious manner.""" Because there is no concem regarding warchousing, MSV believes a waiver would not undermine the policy underlying the bond requirement."" MSV notes that it needs the additional feeder link frequencies to accommodate an "expected" increase in trafic."" MSV also argues that waiver of the bond requirement is warranted because its replacement satellite will continue to provide important public safety services. MSV cites its unique disparch radio, or "push—to—talk" feature, allows communications to be broadcast to a large group of users simultancously, thereby allowing coordination of rescue efforts. In contrast, EchoStar argues that the Commission intended the bond requirement to apply to all new satellite icenses other "" Space Strion Licensing Reforn Orde, 18 FCC Red at10857—58, prn.258 ‘* Space Saion Reform Fist Reconsideration Order, 19 ECC Red at 12688, pra. 57 " Lener from Lon Levin,Vi President, MSV to Marlene Dortch, Secretay, RCC (Nov. 4, 2003) (MSV Later)at 1 "" SpaceSrion Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at 10864, para 275 !"MV Leter at6 !" MV Leter at8 1 MV Leter7. ! MV Lever at9 !* MSV Lever a8. 19

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 than DBS and DARS licensees.""" EchoStar further argues that the Commission has made it clear thata followon satellte that uses additional frequency bands is not included in a licensee‘s replacement expectancy.."" 48. Initially, we disagree with MSV‘s characterization ofthe Commission‘s statements regarding the applicability of tSpace Station Licensing Reform Order to pending applications. MSV confuses the Commission‘s statements with respect to ts icensing procedures and with respect o the safeguards against speculation. ‘The Commission stated that it would not necessarily apply its processing procedures for GSO—like and NGSO—like systems to pending applications. Thus, as MSV notes, the Commission stated it would not apply the "band— spliting" approach to licensing Ka—band NGSO systems because it had already developed a convincing record that spectrum sharing by multiple systems in this band was feasible.""" In contrast, the Commission stated that because its safeguards against speculation help 1 speculation and warehousing,it would apply those safegards —— including the bond—posting requirement ——to all satellte licenses it issues after the Space Station Licensing Reform Order‘s effective date.""" Moreover, in the Space Station Reform First Reconsideration Order, the Commission specifically considered and rejected arguments that it should treat applications filed before it adopted the Space Station Licensing Reform Order differently than applications filed after it adopted the Reform Order for purposes of requiring a bond.""" MSV does not provide any basis for revisiting thisissue here. 49. In any case, MSV filed its February 2004 amendment to its MSV—1 application requesting additional feeder link spectrum six months affer the Space Station Licensing Reform Order‘s effective date. Thus, when it filed this amendment, MSV should have been aware that the Commission would not consider additional frequencies on its second—generation satellite as "replacement" frequencies. 50. Further, MSV has not shown "good eause" for waiving the bond requirement MSV states that,given its existing customer base, it has every incentive to construct and launch its next—generation satellte in an expeditious manner. We do not, however, question MSV‘s intent to use MSV—1 to serve ts existing customers. Rather, we seek assurance that MSV is committed to implementing all of MSV—1‘s requested and authorized spectrum. For this reason, the Commission has determined that any additional frequencies on a next—generation satellite would be subject to the bond requirement. While MSV claimsit needs aditional Ku—band frequencies to accommodate an "expected"increase in traffc, this does not qualify as a special circummstance that warrants a waiver of the bond requirement. Granting a waiver of the bond requirement under these circumstances would effectively undermine the policy underlying the requirement. Indeed, every satellit licensee secking to use additional frequencies to expand its customer base could make the same argument, possibly encouraging applicants to seek access to M EchoStar Leter at2 " EchoStar Leter at5. © space Strion Licensing Reforn Order, 18 FCC Red at10865—66,para, 280. ©® Space Staion Licensing Reforn Order, 18 PCC Red at10866,prn 281 "" Amendment othe Commissin‘s Space Sution Licensing Rules and Poliies, irst Order On Reconsideration And Fift Repor and Order, 1B Docket No.02.34, 19 FCC Red 12627, 12663—64 (par. 72)2004)(Space Starion Refor Fith Report and Orden: 20

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 additional spectrum to meet "best case" scenarios that may never materialize or to delay competitors from using that spectrum. By imposing a bond requirement with respect to additional frequencies, we ensure that licensees are committed to implementing all of the spectrum they have requested and are authorized to use. 51. MSV also fails to show "good cause" for a waiver based on its intent to provide public safety services on MSV—1. We have previously considered and rejected this argument in authorizing the MSV—2 satelite.""" There, we concluded that MSV‘s "push to talk" feature did not justify a waiver of the bond requirement, noting that all MSS systems are inherentlyuseful in providing public safety service because the user terminals are small and transportable." Moreover, as is the case here, MSV did not identify any specific "safety" services besides the dispatch radio service. 52. Consequently, we deny MSV‘s waiver request and require it to post a $3 million bond within 30 days of the release date of this order. If MSV does not post this bond by the required date, this authorization shall be null and void. Moreover, once MSV has posted the bond,it will become payable if MSV surrenders any of the additional frequencies or if the Commission cancels any portion ofthe MSV—1 license pertaining to these additional frequencies for failure to meet the milestone schedule, E. Milestones 53. Itis longstanding Commission policy to impose milestones for satellte system implementation upon licensees.""" Milestone schedules are designed to ensure that licensees are proceeding with construction and will aunch their satelites in a timely manner, and that licensees unable or unvwilling to proceedwith their plans do not hold scare orbit—spectrum resources to the exclusion of other applicants. * In the Space Station Licensing Reform Order, the Commission codified this policy in Section 25.164 of ts rules.""" 54. While we do not impose this full set of milestones on "replacement" satelites, we do so here given the additional frequencies we are authorizing. We will not, as MSV requests, find here that the "replacement satellte" milestone schedule will govem if MSV does not ! ASV—2 Order t pan 35. ®n " Se, e , MCI Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinionand Order, 2 PCC Red 233, 233 (para. 5) (Com Car. Bur 1987) (MCT Order) (noting thata mleston schedule i ncluded in ach domestic space ution authoriztion ised by the Commissiony see also Noris Satlite Communications,In., Memorandiun Opinon and Order, 12 ECC Red 22299 (197) (Noris Review Order}; Moming Str Stelite Company, LL C MemorandurOpinionand Order, 13 FCC Red 11350 (It‘ Bur,200), afd, 16 PCC Red 11580 (2001)(Momming Star Reconsideration Order, !" Se, e., Advanced Communications Corporation, Memorandare Opinionand Order, 10 FCC Red 13337, 13338 (para. ) (n‘! Bur.1999) (Advanced Order) af"d, 11 FCC Red 3399 (1999) (Advanced Review Order) af. Adsanced Communications Corporation v. FCC, 84 F.¥d 1452 (DC. Cir 1996)(urpublishedorder availbleat 1996 W 250460); National Exchange Stelite,Inc, Memorandam Opinionand Order, 7 PCC Red 1990 (Com. Car. Bur. 1992) (Nexsa Order; AMSC Subsidiry Corp.. Memorandum Opinion and Order,8 FCC Red 4040, 4042(ra. 13)(1993)(AMSC Order); Motooia, Ic.and Teledeic LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order,17 CC Red 16543 (InI Bu. 2002)(Motorola/Teledesic Orden) !% 47 CFR. § 25.164.See Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Red at 10828, para. 173 21

Federal Communications Commission ba os—1492 implement ts additional frequencies.""" We will act only on the application before us, that is, one that requests authority to operate on borh replacement and additional frequency bands. If MSV chooses to change the frequencies on which MSV—1 will operate,it must filea license modification to do so. 1t may ask us to revisit the milestone schedule at thattime. Thus, we require MSV to execute a construction contract for MSV—1 within one year of grant, complete Critical Design Review within two years of grant, begin physical construction within three years of grant, and launch and begin operations within five years of grant. IV. CONCLUSION 55. Consequently, we find that granting MSV‘s application and associated waiver requests,to the extent provided herein, will serve the public interest by allowing MSV to continue to serve ts customers with a next—generation system, to expand the range of ts service offerings, and to provide additional choices for mobile—satelite service users. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 56. Accordingly, Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC‘s (MSV‘s) application File Nos. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066, Call Sign $2358, as amended by SAT—AMD—20001214— 00171, SAT—AMD—20010302—00019, SAT—AMD—20031 118—00335, SAT—AMD—20040200— 00014, and SAT—AMD—20040928—00192 ARE GRANTED in part, and MSV IS AUTHORIZED to launch and operate its second—generation MSS satelite, known as MSV—1,at 101° W.L. on 10 megahertz of spectrum in each transmission direction in the 1525—1544/1545—1550 MHz (space— to—Earth) and the 1626.5—1645.5/1646.5—1660.5 MHz (Earth—to—space) frequency bands for mobile—satelliteservice links, and on 500 megahartz of spectrum in each transmission direction in the 12.75—13.15/13.20—13.25 GHz (Earth—to—space) and the 10.75—10.95/11.2—11.45 GHz (space—to—Earth) frequency bands for feeder links and tracking, tlemetry and control functions, in accordance with the terms, conditions, and technical specifications set forth in its application, this Order, and the Commission‘s Rules. 57. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s request to operate on 14 megaherte of spectrum in each transmission direction within the 1525—1544/1545—1559 MHz (space—to—Earth) and the 1626.5—1645.5/1646.5—1660.5 MHz frequency bands for mobile—satellite service links 18 DENIED to the extent set forth herein. 58. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s request to operate in the 1544— 1545/1645.5—1646.5 MHz frequency bands, which are limited to distress and safety communications, IS DENIED. 59 TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that i the absence of a coordination agreement with other lawfully authorized L—band operators, MSV‘s operations in the 1525—1544 MHz, 1545—1559 MHz, 1626.5—1645.5 MHz, and 1646.5—1660.5 MHz frequency bands will be on a non—harmful interference basis. Consequently, MSV shall not cause harmful interference to any "" See Letter from Jennifer A. Manner, Viee President, Repultory Affiirs for MSV to Marlene H. Donch, Secretay, RCC (Apr. 4. 2005) (rferencing a Mar. 17, 2005 ex parte meeting with Inernational Bureau stff in which it requested such tratmeng. . See aso Letter from Jennifer A. Manner to Marlene H. Dorch (April 29, 2m9 22

Federal Communications Commission Da 05—1492 other lawfully operating L—band satellite or radio facility and shall cease operations upon written notification of such interference. MSV shall also inform the Commission in writing of such notification. Furthermore, MSV must notify all other operators in these frequency bands that it will b operating on a non—harmful interference basis. MSV must also notify its customers that its operations are on a non—harmfulinterference basis. 60. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s operations in the 1545—1559 MHz and 1646.5—1660.5 MHz bands shall comply with the real—time access and priority preemption requirements set forth in Intermational Footnotes 5.357A and 5.362A to protect AMS[RJS. 61. TT JS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s operations in the 1525—1544 MHz and 1626.5—1645.5 MHz bands shall comply with the real—time access and prionity preemption requirements set forth Interational Footnote 5.353A. to protect the Global Maritime Distress and Safety Service. 62. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s use of the 12.75—13.25 GHz frequency band shall comply with the terms of Foomote US251 to 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 to ensure that MSV— 1‘s Ku—band transmissions will not interfere with space research (deep space) (space—to—Earth) service at Goldstone, California. 63. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV may not transmit in the 13.15—13.2125 GHz band from a site within 50 kilometers of a top 100 television market identifed in Section 7651 of the Commission‘s rles. 64. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED thathe authority for uplink transmission in any portion of the 12.75—13.25 GHz band from any specified site not previously authorized will be withheld pending adoption of rules for coordination of such operation with Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) mobile pickup operations. 65. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Footnote NGI04 to 47 C.FR. §2.106 ofthe Commission‘s rules IS WAIVED to allow MSV to provide tracking, tlemetry, and control functions in the 11.2—11.45 GHz and 12.7—13.25 GHz bands (with the exception of the 13.15— 13.2125 GHz band) to MSV—1 from gateway earth stations located in Reston, Virginia and Alexandria, Virginia. Footnote NG104 1 ALSO WAIVED to allow MSV to operate feederlinks within the United States in the 10.7—10.95 GHz, 11.2—11.45 GHz, and 12.75—13.25 GHe frequency bands. 66. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED thatthe authorization for operation in the 10.7— 10.95 GHz, 11.2—11.45 GHz, and the 12.75—13.25 GHz frequency bands pertains only to transmission between a single GSO satellte at 101° W.L. and a maximum of two fixed—satellite service earth stations within the continental United States. 67. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s authority to operate in the 10.7—10.95 GHz, 11.2—11.45 GHz, and the 12.75—13.25 GHz bands is on a non—harmful interference basis untilthe issuance of an ITU finding permitting such additional use pursuant to Appendix 30B of the ITU‘s Radio Regulations. 68. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s use of the 10.7—10.95 GHz and 11.2— 11.45 GHz frequency bands shall comply with the terms of Footnote US211 to 47 C.F.R. § 23

Federal Communications Commision DA 05—1492 2.106, which urges applicants for aitbome or space station assignments to take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy observations in the adjacent bands from harmful interference. 69. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV shall limit satelite emissions in the 10.6— 10.7 GHz band to —160 dBW/mor lss. 70. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV shall coordinate with co—primary Radio Astronomy Service stations in the 1660—1660.5 MHz band and will operate on a non—harmful interference basis tothe radio astronomy service until it has completed this coordination. 71. TS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV shall coordinate with co—primary Space Operations Service stations in the 1525—1535 MHz band in Region 2 and will not be entitled to protection from interference until it has completed this coordination. 72. T IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV shall coordinate with those countries conducting passive research in the 1525—1559 MHz band and will not be entitled to any protection from interference from passive research radio stations unless it completes coordination with those applicable passive research services. 73. TT JS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s request for a waiver of Section 25.210() of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.FR. § 25.210(), to permit MSV to operate its MSV—1 satelite with an East—West station—keeping tolerance of :0.1° 18 DENIED. MSV—1 is specifically authorized to operate within an East—West station keeping tolerance of 20.05. 74. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV must provide a written statement to the Commission within 60 days of the date of this grant thatidentfies any known satelltes located at, or planned to be located at, MSV‘s assigned orbital location, or assigned in the vicinity of that location such that the station—keeping volume ofthe respective satelltes might overlap, and that states the measures that will be taken to prevent in—orbit collisions with such satellites. This statement should address any licensed FCC systems, or any systems applied for and under consideration by the FCC. The statement need not address every filing with the ITU that meets these criteria,but should assess and address any systems reflected in TTU filings that are in operation or that MSV believes may be progressing toward launch, e.3.by the appearance ofthe system on a Iaunch vehicle manifest. If MSV electsto rely on coordination with other operators to prevent in—orbit collisions, it shall provide a statement as to the manner in which such coordination will be effected. 75. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED MSV‘s operation at North—South inclinations between 4.5° and 6.0° shall be on an unprotected, non—harmful interference basis until it completes coordination with licensed NGSO FSS operators. 76. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s MSS GSO satellite, MSV—I, shall be operated in full compliance with footote 27 to Radio Regulation A.22.IIL1 of Article 22, Section III ofthe ITU‘s Radio Regulations. 77. IT 18 FURTHER ORDERED that MSV‘s request for waiver of Section 25.165(a)(2) of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.FR. § 25.165(a)(2), 18 DENTED and MSV must file a bond with the Commission in the amount of $3,000,000.00, pursuant with the procedures set forth in Public Notice, DA 03—2602, 18 ECC Red 16283 (2003), by June 24, 2005. a

Federal Communications Commission DA 05—1492 78. TTIS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV must construct,launch and place its authorized satellte io operation in accordance with the technical parameters and terms and conditions of this authorization by the following dates: As— Enter into a binding non—contingent contract to construct the licensed satellite system by May 26, 2006 B: Complete the Critical Design Review of the licensed satellite system by May 26, 2007 Begin the physical construction ofthe satellte by May 26, 2008. D; Launch and begin operations ofthe satellte by May 26, 2010. Failure to meet any of these dates shall render this authorization NULL and VOID. 79. TTIS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV shall prepare the necessary information, as may be required, for submission to the International Telecommunication Union (TTU) to initiate and complete the advance publication, international coordination, due diligence, and notification process ofthis space station,in accordance with the TTU Radio Regulations. MSV shall be held responsible forall cost—recovery fees associated with these TTU flings. We also note that no protection from interference caused by radio stations authorized by other administrations is gvaranteed unless coordination and notification procedures are timely completed or, with respect t individual administrations, by successfully completing coordination agreements.. Any radio station authorization for which coordination has not been completed may be subject to additional terms and conditions as required to effect coordination of the frequency assignments of other administrations. See 47 C.ER.§ 25.1 11(b). 80. TT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MSV is obliged to comply with the applicable laws, regulations, rules, and licensing procedures of any countries it proposes to serve. 81. TT JS FURTHER ORDERED that the license term for the MSV—1 satellite, Call Sign $2358, is fifteen years and will begin to run on the date that Mobile Satelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC certifies to the Commission that the satelite has been successfully placed into orbit and its operation fully conforms to the terms and conditions of this authorization. 82. ‘This Orderis issued purstant to Section 0.261 of the Commission‘s rules on delegated authority, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, and is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or applications for review under Section 1.115 ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.FR. §§ 1.106, 1.115, may be filed within 30 days of the date of the Public Notice announcing that this action was taken. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Donald Abelson Chief International Bureau 2s


Document Created: 2005-06-03 12:40:31
Document Modified: 2005-06-03 12:40:31
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC