Attachment ex parte

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

IBFS_SATLOA2003060900113_637448

6 LAW OFFICES GOLDBERG, GODLES, W I E N E R & W R I G H T 1229 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036-241 3 HENRY GOLDBERG (202)429-4900 JOSEPH A. GODLES JONATHAN L. WIENER LAURA A. STEFAN1 DEVENDRA (“DAVE”) KUMAR e-mail: - HENR IETTA WRIGHT general@g2w2.com THOMAS G. GHERARDI, PC. website: www.@W.com COUNSEL - THOMAS S. TYCZ* SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR ‘NOT AN ATTORNEY FILED/ACCEPTED BY HAND NOV 162007 Federal CommunicationsCommission Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Cammission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Ms. Dortch: This is to inform you that, on November 15,2007, Robert Power of Telesat m d Joseph Godles and the undersigned, representing ‘Felesat,met with Aaron Geldberger of Chairman Martin’s office. The purpose of the meeting was to provide anel discuss the attached handout dealing directly with the above referenced proceeding. Piease direct any questions regarding this matter to the und.ersigned.

I P lesatr. Application for Review Authorization granted to EchoStar for a “short-spaced” (tweener) DBS satellite at 86.5W Federal Communications Commission November 14/15, 2007

, Background M Y Telesal. =Echostar DBS satellite at 86.5OW would be short-spaced between two operational Telesat DBS satellites: Nimiq 1 and Nimiq 2 are located at 91OW and 82OW respectively MNimiq 1 and Nimiq 2 have full-CONUS coverage consistent with the ITU Region 2 BSS Plan entries .Both Nimiq satellites have been previously approved by the FCC for U.S. services .Bell ExpressVu’s DTH service occupies both satellites, and reaches 1.8 million subscribers in Canada

EchoStar Will Interfere With Telesat i e / e’s a iM EchoStar itself “has concluded that tweener satellites would pose m . 1 si nificant interference risks to existing DBS services enjo ed by mi lions of consumers.” EchoStar comments on tweener &RM, p. 6 (Dec. 12,2006) EchoStar also expressed “concern[] that the International Bureau’s ... decision to proceed with granting two tweener a plications, including one to Echostar, did not sufficiently address kndamental tinterference issues.” EchoStar comments on’tweener NPRM, p. 3 d Dec.12, 20 6). The International Bureau has acknowled ed that “a number of P 86.5W satellite.” EchoS ar grant, para. 16. cg administrations includin Canada, woul be affected by the EchoStar- EchoStar did not dis Ute the validit of Telesat’s analysis Y demonstrating that !E choStar will in erfere with Telesat EchoStar only claimed it could use beam shaping and power roll-off to reduce interference potential Telesat showed that these techniques do not work if there is co-coverage, as there is here 3

. Echostar’s Application Should H * , Have Been Dismissed e I e-sa tM 9 25.1 14(d)(13)(i) requires that the applicant provide a technical showing that the proposed system could operate satisfactorily if all systems in the BSS Plan were implemented. EchoStar did not make this showing and could not have made it 4

, a Conditioning Echostar's Grant on rn Coordination with Telesat is Insufficient c f e / e's a In cases in which there are substantial interference questions, the Commission will not grant operating authority unless the applicant has coordinated with the affected system The International Bureau would not grant operating authority for a Loral Orion satellite at 12" W.L. because the satellite would interfere with a Eutelsat satellite at 12" W.L. that had ITU date priority (14 FCC Rcd I7665 I . I \ (1999)) After Loral Orion and Eutelsat entered into a coordination agreement. the International Bureau authorized LoGI Orion to operate its satellite at 15" W.L. pursuant to the agreement (15 FCC Rcd 12419 (2000)) EchoStar has not coordinated with Telesat 5

I m L a , a, - c I c I a, a, . 0 3 .r a x S m E I 8 c z..- Loo Ea, U-S a L , m C m 1 0 m- S L 1 a, S a, 0 By -- on W L *a, WO

Conditioning Echostar’s Grant on Coordination with Telesat is Insufficient (cont.) 9 At a minimum the Commission should clarify that EchoStar will not be granted authority to operate prior to obtaining the agreement of affected administrations Ordering clauses in the EchoStar grant are ambiguous on this point Clarification will head off potential controversies with other administrations 7


Document Created: 2008-04-29 15:54:08
Document Modified: 2008-04-29 15:54:08
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC