Attachment Telesat reply to exp

Telesat reply to exp

REPLY submitted by Telesat Canada

Reply

2002-02-08

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20010518-00045 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2001051800045_906939

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 — = RECEEV EL} PS3 MAIL i#A * a f *4 3§1/fed FEB — 8 2002 $ 4 9 5 ESERAL COMMUNICATIOHS COMMISSIO o OFFICE OF THE SECRETAN In the Matter of 0045 DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. """"File No. SAT—LOA—20010518—0 Application to Launch and Operate a Direct Broadcast Satellite Service Space Station TELESAT CANADA REPLY TO EX PARTE RESPONSE OF DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, INC. Telesat Canada ("Telesat"), by its attorneys, files this reply to the ex parte response of DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. ("DIRECTV") to correct two factual inaccuracies.‘ First, DIRECTV‘s belief that coordination with Telesat is an optional goodwill gesture is plainly wrong." The International Telecommunication Union ("ITU") rules require DIRECTV to coordinate the DIRECTV 48 satellite with Canadian systems. This obligation is reflected in the DIRECTV 48 Order and DIRECTV‘s own application.‘ DIRECTV‘s August 14, 2001 amendment does not alter this international requirement. t Telesat simultaneously is filing a request for dismissal of DIRECTV‘s ex parte response or, alternatively, approval to file this reply. & Ex Parte Response ofDIRECTVY Enterprises, Inc. at 1<2 (filed Jan. 28, 2002). 3 DIRECTY 48 Order, 2001 FCC LEXIS 5801, DA 01—2402, [ 6 (Oct. 26, 2001) (noting that the "technical parameters of DIRECTV‘s DBS system vary from those set forth for U.S. assignments in the Region 2 broadcasting satellite service (BSS) plans and its associated Feeder Link Plan"); DIRECTY Application for Authority to Launch and Operate DIRECTYV 48 (USABBS— 13), at 4, section III (filed May 18, 2001) ("[i)nterference analyses performed in accordance with ITU Radio Regulations Appendices $30 and $30A determined that coordination with Canada and Mexico is required per Section 2 of Annex 1 of Appendix $30").

o3 Second, DIRECTV‘s amendment to the DIRECTV 48 application was not filed on the "same day" nor in respénse to Telesat‘s email providing a compromise coordination solution or suggesting that coordination be turned over to the administrations.* In fact, DIRECTV filed its amendment on August 14, 2001, three days before Telesat sent its coordination email on August 17, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Telesat Canada y yQBDHhekas Carl R. Frank Jennifer D. Hindin of Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP 1776 K Street, NW. Washington, DC 20006—2304 (202) 719—7000 February 8, 2002 Its Attorneys _ * Ex Parte Response ofDIRECTVY Enterprises, Inc. at 2—3. and Exhibit 1.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply was delivered via first—class mail, on this 8 day of February 2002 to each of the following: Gary M. Epstein Tom Tycz* James H. Barker ‘ Rockie Patterson* Latham & Watkins Jennifer Gilsenan* 555 11‘" Street, N.W. Steven Spaeth* Suite 1100 Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20004 445 12"" Street, S.W. Counselfor DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. Washington, DC 20554 Claudia L Cartagena *via hand—delivery


Document Created: 2011-07-20 17:35:24
Document Modified: 2011-07-20 17:35:24
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC