Attachment opposition

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20030609-00113 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2003060900113_434686

Before the FEDERAL CoMMUNICATiONs commssion RECEIVED Washington, D.C. 20564 MAY 1 6 2005 Fadea Commincaton In the Matter of Ofceatieomgy""*" EchoStar Satellite LLC. File No. SAT—LOA—20030600—00113 Application to Construct, Launch & Operate a DBS Satelite (‘DBS") Received Atthe 86.5° W.L. Orbital Location MAY 1 9 2005 TELESAT OPPOSITION OF TELESAT CANADA grangh Intornational Bureau Telesst Canada (‘Telesat") wishes to provide the Federal Communications Commission (‘FCC" or "Commission‘) with the fllowing comments on the sbove referenced EchoStar Satellte LL.C. (‘EchoSter®) application for authority to construct, Teunch and operate a Direct Broadcast Satellite (‘DBS") in the 12.2—12.7 GHz and 17.3 — 17.8 GHz frequency bands a the 86.5° WL. orbital Jocation. As detailed further below, EchoStar‘s plenned setellte would cause unseceptable interference to Telesat‘s setelites as proposed. Telesatis a Conadian—licensed satelite operator and is well known to the Commission, having had a number ofts Fixed—Satelite Service ("FSS") satelites placed on the FCC‘s Permited Space Station List! and another recent application pending.* The FCC also recently uthorized a U.S.service provider to re—locate a backup in—orbit DBS satellte (DIRECTV 3, subsequently renamed Nimig 3) to a Conadian censed position to provide critical backup and support for Telesat‘s Nimig 1 and 2 setelltes at 91° and 82° ‘ TlesatConada: Requestfor Declratory Ratng or Pettonfor Wabver on EerthStrtons® Use ofAnlk E1 anddnlkE2 Suelze Cepaciy to Provide Reic Tlecomunicaion Service i the UntedSats,Order, 18 FCC Red 3619, 3653 Ou. 1999) CAnikEI and E2 Ordar") Tlest Cunada: Prtionfor Declaratery RulngFor Inclusion ofdnik FI on thePermitedSpace Staion Lit,Order, 18 FCC Red 24828, 20531l Bar,2002)(‘Anik FI Order‘)Flesat Coneda: PattionorPeclorory Rulngfor Anchaton efANLKF2 on the Permited Space Stion Lis, Ordr, DA 02—2400 (ii‘ Bar re. Dec.18 2002)(¢Anik F2 Order), n the Ank F2 Orderthe Commiation lso granted Telesuthrly t ffer bwo—way broadband services at a—band in the US. market.

W.LThese Nimig satelltes curently provide DBS serviceto the Canadian directto— home (‘DTH") service provider Bell ExpressVa and its more than 1.5 millon subscribers. The 86.5° W.L. orbial position which Echotar secks permission to use in this proceeding falls exactly midway between these two Cansdion positons. With only 4.5 degrees ofseparation from the 82° and 91° W.L. positions, operation ofa DBS satelite at 86.5° W.L. has the potentia to seriously disrupt Telesat‘s and Bell ExpressVa‘s existing Nimig operations. Telesat therefore has a specific, directinterest in the Commission‘s deliberations on this application. Would Be Disruptive To Existing Di ‘As noted above, Telesat operates Nimig 1 (and the leased Nimig 3 satelite) atthe 91° W.L. orbital position, and Nimig 2 atthe 82° W.L. orbital position, providing DBS service to over 1.3 milion houscholds throughout Canada at a satelite and ground network infiestructure cost now wellin excess of a billion dollars. Given that the vast majority of the Canadion population resides within 100 km of the border between Canada and the U.5., much ofthe Cansdian DTH service is taken by subscribers living in close proximity to the border, and indeed the densely populated Southem Ontario region lies peographically south ofmost othe neighboring U.S.states ofNew York and Michigan. Furthermore, the satelites have been designed to provide coverage of the U.S. and have been approved by the Commission for the delivery of DTH services within the U.8." The Nimig networks have also been designed for optimal performance based on the orbital spacing and other technical criteria sgreed to intemationally as part of the Region 2 BSS Plan ("the Plan") with respect to the associated Plan entres, known as CAN—BSS2 and CAN—BSSI for 91° W.L. and 82° W L. respectively. * Tekest Cenada: Pitionfr DecloratoryRalingfo Iclsion oReplacement Steze Ank FIR on the [PermitedSpace Sution Lin, SAT—PPL20080508—00054 (fed May 4,2008) * DIRECTY: Requesfo Specil Terporary Authoriyforthe DIRECTY 3 Savllt, Ordr,e No. SAT— §T2—20030002—00300, DA 0t—1761 Gane 23, 2000 DigtelBroadbandAjpliations Co, Order, Fle No. SES—11C—20020109—00023, Orde, DA 03—1526 (ey7,2003)

"The introduction ofa stellte midway between the two Plan entries with overlapping continental U.S. coverage footprints is the subject mater ofthe Commission‘s Public Notice proceeding regarding reduced orbitalspacing between U.S. DBS satellites:" Telesatporticipated in that proceeding and, in it initl comments explained that the Region 2 Plan allowed for the deployment ofsatelites in a known interference environment such that advanced modulation schemes and minimally sized anterinasto meet customer needs could be achieved." These networks are already in operation providing service t millions of customers. Telesatcoutioned that the introduction ofnew setelites t reduced orbital spacing could upset this balancebetween availible satelite resources, advanced modulation schemes and customer requirements in the context ofa specific adjacent satllite interference environment, and thus serously disrupt existing networks. In its reply comments in that same proceeding Telesat emphasized the need to 1ely on the international coordination process for the proposed introduction of modifications to the BSS Plon,but again eautioned that existing DBS networks must remain protected — protection that may be extremely difficult to achieve in a reduced orbital spacing environment." Telesat further noted thatsimilar expressions ofconcem were articulated in the comments of several other partesto the same proceeding. One of these parties was Bell ExpressVa, Telesats service provider customer at the 82991° W.L. orbitel posiions, who noted that ts network was built on the basis ofthe current Region 2 Plen and that the finencial consequences of now permitting another DBS satelite with only 4.5 degrees separation "would undermine billions of dollers of satelite—based infiastructure:"" Bell ExpressVu went on to state that such action "would ‘be manifestly unfair to the satellte facilities and service providers who have reled on the ITU Region 2 Plan."" Telesot unreservedly agrees with this statement. * ItermationlBureauSecs Conment on Preposals to Perni Reduced Orbial Spacing Beveen US. ‘Direct BrondcasSeteMies,Report No: SPB—196, DA 022908 (De. 16,2000) * Comment ofTelest Canid on Repont No SPB—196, Secon 1 (ild Jn23, 2008 " Reply Comment ofTelsst Caneda on Report NoSFB—196, econ1 (Fc,13, 2004). ! Comment of Bell ExpresaLP on Report No SPB—196 (ild Jan23, 2004 *ma.

Telesst notes that EchoStar iselfhas es recently acknowledged that 4.5 degree spacing raises technical concems. Specifically, in is etter ofMarch 31, 2008 to the FCC outlining topics discussed with Commission staffat a March 25, 2005 meeting, EchoStar indicated as follows: "EchoStar stated that, upon further study, 4.5° spacing between U.S. DBS sutelftes raises certain technical difficultes,especiallyfor ‘multiple feed" carth station dishes (Ze., those designed to receive programming feeds from more than one setelite at a time,""" Telesat echoes this concen. Indeed, this is exaetly the stustion with which Telesat and Bell ExpressVu would be faced — dual feed antennas facing the Nimig 82° W.L. and 91° W.L. orbital positions, should an EchoStar satelite be located at 86.5° W.L., seporated by 4.5 degrees from each, In this situstion, due to the technology ofthe receive carth station antennas and the lack of abilty to selectively discriminate an intermediate interferer suecessful technical coordintion, as required under the ITU Radio Regulations, seems extremely unlikely. Finally Telesatnotes that in the Technical Annex ofts Application and its Febroary 2004 Supplemental Technical Annex, EchoStar acknowedges that the MSPACE results indicate thatthe Canadian assignments at 81° and 91° W.L. would be affected by the operation of ts proposed satelite,and that detailed technical discussions with Canada (and other Administrations) would be required in order to obtain their sgreement."" In this regord, EchoStar frther suggests that "through the proper design of the proposed satelite, including beam shaping and power roll—off, harmful interference to other nesrby planned BSS systems can be avoided.""" However,as Telesat pointed out at page 4 of ts Jenuary 23, 2004 comments in the Report No. SPB—196 proceeding, !* EchoStar lete o FCC Re: Report No. SPB—196 — Reduced Spocing Between U.S. DBS Satlites (dted Mar 31,2009) "see,for exriple,Appliction ofEctoar Sarlit, .LC. o Constrct, Lounch and Operate a DBS Sellie (DBS")atthe 86.4° WL OrbialLocation, File No. SATLOA20030605—00113, Technical uen atpage5 and Anne 1 o Supplemental Techaical Amnex at page A22. * Applcation f EchaStar Satelite, —L.C,to Constct, Lanch and Operatea DBS Satlite (‘DBS") at the865° WL Orbial Lecation, File No. SAT—LOA20030609—00112,page 5.

techniques such as beam shoping and power roll—off carnot be used in co—coverage coordination situations as is the case here. Indeed, to ensure adequate protection for the existing Canadian DBS operations at $2° and 91° WL., very substantialreductions of power levels on the proposed EchoSter satelite would sppear to be the only way that the MSPACE triggers could be removed. Conclusion For all othe above ressons, Telesat is of the view that the Commission should not grant the EchoStar application for use ofthe 86.5° W.L. position at thi ime. The operation of a DBS satelleatthis location only 4.5 degrees away from Telesat‘s existing Nimig satelite operations has the potential to seriously disrupt those networks, o the detriment of Telesat, Bell ExpressV and the millions of Canadian DTH customers now being served. Moreover, this disruption would be completely unjuctiied as these billion dollar networks have been planned and deployed based on technical criteria and orbital spacings agreed to intemationally. Respectfully submitted, Teleset Canada h Ted H. Jgnsey Vice President, Finznce & Treasurer 1601 Telesat Court Oftewa, Ontario Canada, K1B 5P4 May 16, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Nancy Krieger, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Opposition of Telesat Canada was served by firs—class mail, postage prepaid on this 16" day of May 2005 to the following: Pantelis Michalopoulos David K. Moskowite Philip L. Malet Senior Vice President and General Counsel Steptoe & Johnson LLP EchoStar Satellite Corporation 1330 Connecticut Avene, NW 5701 South Santa Fe Washington, DC 20036—1795 Littleton, CO 80120 David R. Goodfriend Director, Legal and Business Affairs EchoStar Satellite Corporation 1233 20° Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, DC 20036


Document Created: 2005-05-19 16:35:00
Document Modified: 2005-05-19 16:35:00
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC