Attachment attachment A

attachment A

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD submitted by EchoStar

Attachment A

2005-08-05

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

IBFS_SATLOA1998070200066_449486

                                    STEPTOE &JOHNSON«=
                                           atrorners at caw

 Pancels Mictalopootos                                  Received
 Philp L Mater                                                                    1310 Comnecteut Aenve. NY
 202423000                                              AUG 1 1 2005               Washingon. DC 200361795
 prichalogsteptoecom
 proler@iteptoccom                                      Rilles Bransh                        Ter2024293000
                                                                   m                          ac2024293002
                                                                  Bwege                        * mepoecom

                                                                RECEIVED
August 5, 2005
                                                                   AUG ~ 5 2005
BY HAND DELIVERY
                                                             Faden Communcaton Commsn
Marlene H. Dortch                                                   Ofteot Secray
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re:     Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC
        File Nos. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066, SAT—AMD—20001214—00171, SAT—AMD—20010302—
        00019, SAT—AMD—20031118—00335, SAT—AMD—20040209—00014 and
        SAT—AMD—20040928—00192
        Call Sign $2358

Dear Ms. Dortch:

                On June 22, 2005, EchoStar Satelite L.L.C. ("EchoStar")filed a Petition for Clariication
and/or Reconsideration (*EchoStar Petition®) ofthe International Bureau‘s decision to grant Mobile
Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC‘s (°MSV‘s") above—referenced application and associated
amendments to operate an L—band Mobile Satelite Service("MSS®) satellite with extended Ku—band
feeder links at the 101° W.L. orbit location.‘

                 In EchoStar‘s Reply to MSV‘s Opposition to EchoStar‘sPetition, EchoStar indicated that
it would soon be filing an Application for Review of the Intemational Bureau‘s recent decision denying
an EchoStar application to operate atthe 101° W.L. orbital location.®. EchoStar stated that


        ‘ See In the Matter ofMobile Sarellte Ventures Subsidiary LLC, DA 05—1492 (rel. May 23,
2005) ("MSY Order").
       * See In the Matter ofEchoStar Satellte LLC, DA 05—1955 (rel. Tly 6, 2005) (*EchoStar
Order®). See EchoStar Reply, filed in File No. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066 er al. (July 21, 2005). This
Reply is the subject of a pending Motion to Strike filed by MSV, and Opposition filed by EchoStar. See
                                                                                         (Continued...)



washinctow        +.     wew york   +/   rwotnix    +    tos anorits       +/   tonpon        +.   srusstis


Marlene H. Dortch
August 5, 2005
Page 2

accompanying that forthcoming Application for Review would also be a preliminary sharing analysis
between EchoStar and MSV that the International Bureau may also find relevant i its consideration of
the EchoStar Petition. EchoStar indicated that it would provide a copy of this sharing analysis for the
record in the above—captioned proceedings when the analysis was completed and submitted with
EchoStar‘s Application for Review."

               Accordingly, enclosed as Attachment A to this leter,please find a copy of the following
sharing analysis for inclusion in the record of this proceeding: "MSV—EchoStar Sharing Analysis,"
prepared by Dr. Richard J. Barnett, Telecomm Strategies Inc.
                 Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue further.

                                                       Sinccrcly,
                                                                    io L. Malat use
                                                       Pamchs :chaloponlos
                                                       Philip L. Malet
                                                       Counsel to EchoStar Satellite LLC
ee:——   Donald Abelson, International Bureau
        Cassandra Thomas, International Bureau
        Fem Jarmulnck, International Burcau
        Robert Nelson, International Bureau
        Jennifer Manner, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, MSV (by first class mail, postage prepaid)
        Bruce D. Jacobs and David S. Konezal, Counsel to MSV (by first class mail, postage prepaid)
        David Bair, Vice President, Project Operations, EchoStar (by first class mail, postage prepaid)



MSV Motion to Strike Reply of EchoStar SatellteL.L.C., filed in SAT—LOA—19980702—00066 er al.
(Aug. 1. 2003); see EchoStar Opposition to Motion to Strike, filed in SAT—LOA—19980702—00066 er al
(Aug. 5, 2003)

        * EchoStar Reply at 4. While EchoStar in its Reply indicated that it would be filing this sharing
analysis with ts forthcoming Application for Review, it ultimately decided to file a Petition for
Reconsideration ofthe EchoStar Order instead of an Application for Review. Accordingly, the shoring
analysis was attached to this Petition for Reconsideration. See Petition for Reconsideration, fled in File
No. SAT—LOA—20040210—00015 eral. (Aug. 5, 2005).


                                                  ATTACHMENT A


                                      MSV—EchoStar Sharing Analysis



    A.1       Introduction


        MSV‘s planned use of the extended Ku—band at 101°W.L. for its MSS feeder links is
 compatible with EchoStar‘s FSS use of the same frequencies and same orbital location for spot
 beam DTH services." Sharing of the frequencies would be based on geographic separation of the
 spot beams in both systems. Such an arrangement would constitute efficient use of the Ku—band
 FSS spectrum.

       The analysis presented below is intended to demonstrate the feasibility of this shoring
arrangement between MSV and EchoStar. It is not intended to derive the final sharting
conditions, which are best established through bilateral coordination between the parties.


A.2          MSV‘s Ku—Band Feeder Links


             In the November 2003, February 2004 and September 2004 Amendments to its FCC

application for a next generation MSS satellite, MSV has provided scant information conceming
its Ku—band feeder links:®         MSV showed an illustrative Ku—band feeder link beam with broad
North American coverage, but also stated that ®... Ku—band feeder link spot beams may also be
formed by the satellite in the event spatial frequency reuse of the available feeder link spectrum


      ‘The Ku—hand frequency ranges under considetion hee are thosein the U Appondix 30 B Plan,which are
      10.7—10.95 GHHeand 11.2—11.45 GHte downlink, and 12.75—12.25 GHte uplink
*         See Applications of Mobile Satllte Ventures Subsidhry LLC, ile No. SAT—AMD—20081118:00895 (Nov. 18,
      2003 Fie No. SAT—AMD2004020900014 (Reb.9, 2005);File No. SATAMD2004092800192 (Gepu 28,
      2000


    becomes necessary ...."".. More recently MSV has stated that it intends to use an ATC self—
interference cancellation systemin its next generation satellite in order to protect its MSS
operations from its own ATC operations.‘ MSV has stated that its interference cancellation
scheme will *... require MSV to employ greater re—use of its feeder link frequencies than it
would otherwise . MSV will accomplish this by deploying additional gateway earth stations at
 a relatively modest additional cost....""

        To date MSV has not clarified the details of ts feeder link design, such as the design of
the spot beam coverage or the number and location of feeder link earth. stations. Its
authorization, however, expressly is conditioned on operating up to two feeder link earth stations
with its new satellite. Currently MSV is authorized bythe FCC to operate onl two feeder link
earth stations located in Reston, VA and Alexandria, VA. However, these two locations are too
close to each other to allow for spatial re—use of the feeder link frequencies using satellite spot
beams. Therefore, in the sharing analysis below it is assumed that one of the feeder link spot
beams will point towards the Washington DC area (and hence be used with the Reston and/or
Alexandria earth stations), and a second spot beamwill be pointed towards a distant location,
which was arbitrarily selected as being Houston, TX. Candidate spot beam coverage to
implement this scheme is shown in Figure 2—1 below.*




*     See Appliations of Mobil Satlite Venturs Subsidiry LLC, File No SATE—AMD200811800335 (Nov. 18,
      2003); File No SAT—AMD—20040209—00014 (Feb.9, 2009
*     See Consoliated Oppositon t and Comments on PettionsforReconsideration a1.C p7—8 (August20, 2003);
      Replyof Mobile Stelite VenuresSubsidiry LLC a technicl Appendix 1.2 (eptember2 2003);
      Applications of Mobile Satelfte Ventures Subsidlry LLC, File No. SAT—AMD—20031 11800335 at Technical
      Appendixp.11 (Nov. 18, 2003); MSV ex—parte Janvary 22, 2006); Response of Mobile Satelite Ventures
      Subsidiary LLC to Opposition o Inmarsat Ventures Lt at 17—18 (Apri14, 2004)
*     See Respanse of Mobile Satelfte Ventures Subsidhry LLC to Oppositon of Inmarsat Ventures Lid. at Sction
      11.2, Aprl14,2004
      Not thatthe contourshown e —2,—3,—4,—6,—4,—10,—14 and —20 dB relative to beam peak. The —14 dB
      contour is usd in he analysi in ltersections ofts document


                 Figure 2—1 — Candidate MSV Feeder Link Spot Beam Coverage




       A satellite reflector of 2 meters in diameter is assumed, which results in a peak gain of
approximately 45 dBi at the downlink frequencies. This gain is significantly higher than the
broad North American beam originally shown in MSV‘s Amendment, which was 29 dBi,
allowing for a reduction in satellite transmit power on the feeder downlink.
        There is an inconsistency in the MSV Amendments (common to both the November 2003
and February 2004 Amendments) regarding the actual feeder downlink EIRP and PFD levels. In
Table 1—6 of the MSV Amendment, the maximum feeder downlink PFD at the Earth‘s surface is
stated to be in the range —167.3 to —168.7 dBW/m°/4kHz, depending on elevation angle, although
no back—up analysis is shown to support this.. This is inconsistent with the MSV link budget
given in Table 1—12 ofthe MSV Amendment, which shows a feeder downlink EIRP of 20.5 dBW
per carer (50 kHz bandwidih). Such an EIRP level corresponds to a PFD of 152.
dBW/m‘/4kHz which is at least 14.8 dB higher than the PFD values stated by MSV in its Table
1—6. This analysis assumes that the MSV link budget is correct and that the proposed feeder
downlink EIRP densityis 20.5 dBW/SOkHz.


       Regarding the MSV feeder uplink, Table 1—13 of the MSV Amendment shows a feeder
uplink EIRP of 61 dBW per carrier (200 kHz bandwidth). This will be assumed in the sharing
analysis below.


A.3    EchoStar‘s Spot Beam Downlinks


      In its FCC Amendment for 101°W, EchoStar proposes downlink spot beams with a peak
EIRP of 57 dBW (in 27 MHz). Typically, service could be provided down to EIRP levels of 50
dBW in the dryer rain regions. These parameters will be used in the sharing analysis below.


AA     EchoStar‘s Feeder Uplinks


        EchoStar‘s planned satelite at 101°W will have reconfigurable uplink beam capability,
including both fixed and steerable satellte receive beams. ‘The spot beams are steerable such that
uplinks can be received from any part of the visible Earth, subject to appropriate regulatory
constraints. These spot beams are relatively large (39.5 dBi}, but they could be made smaller to
further facilitate sharing with MSV. In the sharing analysis belowit will be assumed that these
beams have 45 dBi peak gain, and operate with an earth station EIRP level of 80.6 dBW (in 27
MHz), as given in the link budgets of the EchoStar 101 W° FCC application, as amended.


A.5—   Downlink Sharing Analysis

       Table 5—1 below shows the analysis of downlink interference from MSV into EchoStar.
The MSV downlink EIRP is assumed to be as given in Section A.2 above, and the minimum


EchoStar downlink EIRP as given in Section A.3 above. The results show that a C/l of 16.2 dB
is achieved outside of the —14 dB gain contour of the candidate MSV downlink spot beam."
                   Table 5—1 — Downlink Interference Analysis (MSV > EchoStar)
                            Parameter                                  Unite      Value
          MSV downink EIRP por carrer {r 50 kiiz)                        205 dewisoitte
          MSV downink EIRP density (por Ho)                              265 doWhie
          N: EchoStar downlnk EIRP (per 27 Miiz)                         soo dawreriiie
          Min. EchoStar downink EIRP densty (por He)                     4s coWhie
          Resuling Ginto EchoStar at MSV beam poak                         22| o
          Resuling GMinto EchoSiar at MSV —14 dB contour                  162 «o


      Table 5—2 below shows the analysis of downlink interference from EchoStar into MSV.
The maximum EchoStar downlink EIRP is assumed to be as given in Section A.3 above, and the
minimum MSV downlink EIRP as given in Section A.2 above. The results showthat a C/I of
16.8 dB is achieved outside of the —26 dB gain contour of the EchoStar downlink spot beam.®

                  Table 5:2 — Downlink Interference Analysis (EchoStar > MSV)
                               Parameter                       Unite       Value
            Mex. EchoStr downink EIRP (por 27 Miiz)               sro dawromitte
            Max EchoStar downink EIRP (per Hz)                   —i7a doWhte
            MSV downlnk EIRP (per 50ko                                   2os aewisoitie
            MSV downink EIRP (por Ho)                                    265 dBWhiz
            Resuling Ginto MSV at EchoStar beam peak                      <2| sn
            Resuling GLinto MSV at EchoStar—26 d8 contour                 168 c




   EEchoSaris ot necessail proposingtat 162 d be the crieionfordownlinkineference fromMSV into
   EEchoStar, although operation at ts C leveli learly a possibiliy, pariculaly fonewly stablished EchoStar
   services
   Similary, EchoStar is not necessarily proposing that 168 B be th crierion for downlink interfrence from
   EEchaar into MSV,although opertionatthis / leveis clealy a possblit. paicularly for MSV‘s nouly
   establshed linkso ts next peneration satelit, T is noted that this evel of adicent stelitinterference is
   Jowerthanthe MSV—1 sitelitinrasystem intecfrence (C/ of 127 dB).


       Figure 5—1 below shows some example EchoStar downlink spot beams superimposed on
the assumed MSV spot beams. The four EchoStar beams to the center and west of CONUS are

all well isolated from the MSV spot beams, showing the significant amounts of territory that can
be served by EchoStar that are well removed from the MSV feeder link beams and earth stations.
The EchoStar beam to the south—east has deliberately been located relatively close to one ofthe
MSV beams. Note, however, that even in this case the MSV receiving earth station is outside of
the —26 dB gain contour of the EchoStar spot beam and so a C/Iof greater than 16.8 dB would be
achieved for the MSV feeder downlink. For this EchoStar spot beam the —14 dB gain contour of
the MSV beam intersects approximately one third of the main service area of the EchoStar beam,
but useful EchoStar service could be achieved over a significant area of the beam due to the fact
that the EchoStar EIRP is well above the assumed minimum of 50 dBW over the main part ofthe
EchoStar beam.
           Figure 5—1 — Example EchoStar Spot Beams and Assumed MSV Spot Beams




                                   Blue=EchoSur; Red=MSV


A.6—    Uplink Sharing Analysis

     Table 6—1 below shows the analysis of uplink interference from MSV into EchoStar. The
MSV uplink EIRP is assumed to be as given in Section A.2 above, and the EchoStar uplink EIRP
as given in Section A.4 above. The results show that a C/I of greater than 18.3 dB is achieved

provided the MSV feeder link earth stations are located outside ofthe —20 dB gain contour of the
EchoStar uplink spot beam."
                     Table 6—1 — Uplink Interference Analysis (MSV > EchoStar)
                                  Parameter                                        Ynite         Yalze
 MSV upink EIR_ (par200 kitz)                                                        6110 dewraookie
 MSV upink EIRP densiy (per Hz)                                                       20 dowhte
 Echotar upink EIRP (por 27 NHe)                                                     sos cowrerme
 EchoStar upink EIRP density (per H2)                                                 63 ownie
 Resuling C1 into EchoStar t MSV Eis located at EchoStar beam poak                   EHIE3
 Resuling C1 into EchoStaif MSV Eis located at EchoStar—20 dB contour                2s o


       Table 6—2 below shows the analysis of uplink interference from EchoStar into MSV using
the same assumptions as for Table 6—1 above. The results show that a C/I of 21.7 dB is achieved
provided the EchoStar feeder link earth stations are located outside ofthe —20 dB gain contour of
the MSV uplink spot beam."




   EEchaar is not necessrily proposing that 18.3 d be the criterion to e usedfor uplik inerfrencefom MSV
   into EchoStr,although operationatthis C/ leveis lealy a possblt. paticulaly for newly esuablished
   EchaStarservices
°: EchaSar is not necessaril proposing that 217 dB be the criteionto e used foruplnk intrferencefrom
   EchaSa into MSV,althoush opertionatthis C/ leveis clealy a possblit, panicularly for MSV‘s newly
   establishedlinks o ts nextpenertion satelit, 1 is noted that hi evel o adjcent seitinterfrence is
                                       ystem inerference (CH of 147 dB),


                    Table 6—2 — Uplink Interference Analysis (EchoStar > MSV)
                                 Parameter                                 Unite     Yalue
 EchoStar uplink EIRP {per 27 NHa)                                            so6 dawrzmuke
 EchoStar uplink EIRP densiy (por Hz)                                          63 dowhte
 MGV uplink EIRP (por 200 kiz                                                 610 dewrodkiz
 MGV uplink EIAP density (per Hz)                                              a0 doWhte
 Resuting GM ito EchoStar it MSV ES is located at EchoStar beam poak           17 s
 Resuling GLinto EchoStar it MSV ES is located at EchoStar—20 dB contour      217 as

       Two uplink sharing scenarios are addressed below in terms of the location of the
EchoStar uplinks.. The first is shown in Figure 6—1 where the EchoStar uplinks are located
outside of the USA, as illustrated in the EchoStar 10W FCC application, as amended..In this
case there is ample geographic separation of the beams between MSV and EchoStar to meet the
levels computed in Tables 6—1 and 6—2 above.In fact the isolation is likely to be much greater
than 30 dB, rather than the 20 dB assumed in these tables, resulting in C/I levels of the order of
30 dB. Note also that the 20 dB contour of the EchoStar beam only enters a very small area of
CONUS in southem Texas along the Mexican border, thereby placing negligible constraints on
the possible location ofthe MSV feeder link earth stations.


                   Figure 6—1 — Scenario of EchoStar Uplinks Outside of the USA


         B




          —                                                                 ©
                                                revsoninre?
       The second scenario is shown in Figure 6—2 where the EchoStar uplinks are located inside
the USA at Cheyenne, WY and Gilbert, AZ." . In this case there is also more than sufficient
geographic separation of the beams between MSV and EchoStar and likely isolation and hence
C/1 levels would be in the region of 30 dB or more.. Note that with this scenario there would be

considerable flexibility for MSV to locate ts 2"" feeder link earth station anywhere within large



5* ‘These two sites arealeady esablshed EchoStar uplink ies used withother EchoStar satlites


parts of CONUS provided it maintains a certain geographic distance from Cheyenne, WY and
Gilbert, AZ.
                       Figure 6—2 — Scenario of EchoStar Uplinks in the USA




A7     Possible Use of Additional MSV Feeder Link Earth Stations


        MSV has indicated that it might choose to use up to three or four additional feeder link
earth station sites in order to obtain higher levels of frequency re—use.". Although this would
restrict the fexibility for EchoStars use of the band, sharing would still be visble as
demonstrated in Figures 7—1 below, which shows the downlink situation (similar results apply in
the case of the uplink). Two additional feeder link sites have been arbitrarily located at Chicago



©*— See MSV Oppostion to Peitionfor Clarifcationandor Reconsideatonat 4—5 uy 7, 2008). EchoStardoes
   not conced thatthe FCC should modifythe two feeder nk conditin n the MSV authorization; wthout
   possibleretitions onthefiurelocation ofadditonal earth stations.. Similar restrictions were placed on MSS
   feeder linksin the 29 GHz band o accommedate LMDS sations. Rulemaking to Amend Pars 1 2, 21 and 25
   othe Commision‘ Ruleto Redesignate the 27.5—29.5 GHiz Frequency Band.to Rellocae the 295300 GHHz
   Frequency Band, to Establsh Rales and PolicesforLocal Mulipoint Distibution Sevice andfor Fised
   Sarelte Sevices11 FCC Red. 19005, 19083 (1996)

                                                    10


and San Diego, which ensure adequate isolation from the other two assumed MSV feeder link
sites at Washington DC and Houston. Many example EchoStar beams are shown in Figure 7—1,
all of which achieve the 26 dB isolation from the MSV feeder link earth station sites.. This
illustrates well that EchoStar and MSV would be able to share the band even with a higher level
of frequency reuse in the MSV system.
           Figure 7—1 — Downlink Example with Four MSV Feeder Link Earth Stations




                                    Blue= EchoStar Red =MSV


A.8    Conclusions


        In this sharing analysis it has been demonstrated that, with EchoStar and MSV‘s
particular requirements for use of the Appendix 30B Ku—band, shoring is possible using co—
frequency collocated satellites, without placing undue constraints on either party. Such sharing is
feasible because of the use of spot beams by both MSV and EchoStar. Spot beams in the MSV
system apparently are necessary in order to permit MSV to implement the ATC interference


                                                11


cancellation system that it intends to deploy. In the EchoStar system spot beams are an important
means for efficiently transmitting its programming to restricted geographic areas.

       Although the analysis presented here clearly shows the feasibity of sharing. coordination
between the partis is necessary to arrive at the optimum arrangements for both parties.




                                                12


                           CERTIFICATION      OF PERSON      RESPONSIBLE

                        FOR PREPARING ENGINEERING INFORMATION




       1 hereby certify that I am the technically qualified person responsible for preparation of
the engineering information contained in this pleading, that 1 am familiar with Part 25 of the
Commission‘s Rules, that 1 have either prepared or reviewed the enginecting information
submitted in this pleading, and thatit is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and
belief.




                                                    Pubad Aom
                                                    Richard J. Bamett, PhD, BS
                                                    Telecomm Strategies Inc.
                                                    6404 Highland Drive
                                                    Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815
                                                    (s01) 656—8960




          Dated:. August 5, 2005




                                               13



Document Created: 2005-08-11 17:35:21
Document Modified: 2005-08-11 17:35:21

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