Attachment opposition

opposition

OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION submitted by PanAmSat Corporation; SES Americom, Inc.

opposition

2005-07-07

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

IBFS_SATLOA1998070200066_442395

         ‘3NI bN021H3NVS3S (INV
‘ N O I L W O W 0 3 LVSINVNVd d o NOILISOdd0


       MSV does not provide a valid basis for the Bureau to “clarify” or reconsider its

determination that MSV-I must comply with Section 25.210Cj) absent grant of a waiver. MSV-1

will use feeder link spectrum set aside for fixed-satellite services and can therefore legitimately

be considered subject to Section 25.2106). Exempting spacecraft like MSV-1 from the rule

would undermine one of the purposes of the stationkeeping requirement, which is to prevent

harmful interference among adjacent satellites using FSS frequencies.

        The Bureau’s action with respect to MSV-1 was also consistent with its previous

decisions regarding requests for authority to operate MSS and DARS satellites with a +/- 0.1

degree EasVWest stationkeeping tolerance? MSV provides no reason for the Bureau to depart

from that precedent here.

        Thus, the Bureau properly treated MSV’s request to operate MSV-1 with a +/- 0.1 degree

EastWest stationkeeping tolerance as requiring a waiver of the Commission’s rules and properly

denied that waiver. If MSV wishes to pursue a greater stationkeeping tolerance for MSV-1 it

must submit a new application for modification of its license and provide an adequate

justification for waiver of Section 25.2106).

        If MSV seeks such a modification, and the Commission finds sufficient justification is

 provided for consideration of a waiver, the application should, at a minimum, be considered

                                                                            ’
 under the framework established in the recent SN-4 Modification Order. In that decision, SES

 Americom was authorized to operate its Satcom SN-4 spacecraft with a +/- 0.1 degree EastWest

 -
 9
         See XM Radio Inc., Order and Authorization, DA 05-1 80 (Sat. Div. rel. Jan. 26,2005) at
 77 27-29 (denying XM request for waiver of Section 25.2106) without prejudice to re-filing if
 XM can show that greater stationkeeping tolerance would not adversely affect operations of
 nearby satellites); Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Order and Authorization, DA 05-50
 (Int’l Bur. rel. Jan 10, 2005) at T
                                   I[11-13 (denying request for waiver of Section 25.2106) for
 MSV-2).7
 3
         SESAmericom, Inc., Order and Authorization, DA 05-1812 (Sat. Div. rel. June 28,2005)
 (“SN-4 ModiJication Order”.

                                                   2


stationkeeping tolerance for the remainder of its license term. The Satellite Division waived

Section 25.21 O(i) based on SES Americom's demonstration that the increased stationkeeping box

would not cause harmful interference to adjacent operators or result in an overlap between the

SN-4 stationkeeping volume and that of any other satellite. SN-4 ModiJcation Order at 7 14.

However, the authority was subject to the condition that if a spacecraft is launched or relocated

into a nearby position such that its stationkeeping volume would overlap with that of SN-4, SES

Americom must resume stationkeeping with a +/- 0.05 degree EastIWest tolerance or coordinate

the larger stationkeeping box with the new operator. Id. Further, although a relaxation of the +/-

0.05 degree stationkeeping requirement under this framework can be authorized in specific

circumstances, it should be seen as the exception and not as the rule..

        This condition on the SN-4 modification ensures that the waiver of the stationkeeping

rule does not prejudice future compliant operations. If MSV seeks and is granted a waiver of

Section 25.210u) for MSV-1, its operations should, at a minimum, be subject to the same

condition to protect both existing and future spacecraft assigned to 101" W.L.

        For the foregoing reasons, MSV's Petition should be denied.

                                      Respectfully submitted,

PANAMSAT CORPORATION                           SES AMERICOM, INC.

By: /s/ Kaluak Gude                            By: /s/ Nancv J. Eskenazi

Kalpak Gude                                    Nancy J. Eskenazi
Vice President &                               Vice President &
 Associate General Counsel                       Associate General Counsel
PANAMSAT CORPORATION                           SES AMERICOM, Inc.
1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 440                 Four Research Way
Washington, D.C. 20006                         Princeton, NJ 08540

 July 7,2005




                                                  3


                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


               I, Kim Baum, hereby certify that on this 7'h day of July, 2005, a copy of the above
Opposition to Petition for Clarification or Partial Reconsideration was sent by first class mail,
postage prepaid, to the following:


       Ms. Jennifer Manner                           Mr. Bruce D. Jacobs
       VP Regulatory Affairs                         Mr. David S. Konczal
       Mobile Satellite Ventures LP                  Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLC
       10802 Park Ridge Blvd                         2300 N Street, NW
       Reston, VA 20191                              Washington, DC 20037




                                                             /s/Kim Baum
                                                            Kim Baum



Document Created: 2005-07-13 11:28:19
Document Modified: 2005-07-13 11:28:19

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC