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_637457

LAW OFFICES GOLDBERG, GODLES, W I E N E R & W R I G H T 1229 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036-2413 HENRY GOLDBERG (202) 429-4900 JOSEPH A. GODLES TELECOPIER: JONATHAN L. WIENER LAURA A. STEFAN1 EX PARTE OR LATE FILED (202) 429-4912 DEVENDRA ("DAVE") KUMAR e-mail: general63 g2w2.com HENRIETTA WRIGHT website: www.g2w2.com THOMAS G. GHERARDI, l?C. COUNSEL THOMAS S. TYCZ* SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR 'NOT AN ATTORNEY November 15,2007 BY HAND NOV 1 52007 Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. File No. SAT-LOA-20030609-00113 Ex Parte Dear Ms. Dortch: This is to inform you that, on November 14,2007, Robert Power of Telesat, Joseph Godles and the undersigned, representing Telesat, met with John Branscome of Commissioner Copps' office. The purpose of the meeting was to provide and discuss the attached handout dealing directly with the above referenced proceeding. Please direct any questions regarding this matter to the undersigned. Respectfullv, Henry Goldberg Attorney for Telesaf cc: John Branscome

1 I 1 eles 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 II =Echostar DBS satellite at 86.5OW would be short-spaced between two operational Telesat DBS satellites: Nimiq 1-andNimiq 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 4- Telesat re /e’s a t, EchoStar itself “has concluded that tweener satellites . would pose si nificant interference risks to existing DBS services enjo ed by 9 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 P one to Echostar, did not sufficiently address ... undamental finterference issues.” EchoStar comments on tweener NPRM, p. 3 Dec.12, 20 6). d 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 # 1 s Have Been Dismissed C T e I e s a b. 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

Conditioning Echostar's Grant on Coordination with Telesat is Insufficient e / e's a i 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" WmLm because the satellite would interfere with a Eutelsat satellite at 12" WmLm that had ITU date priority (14 FCC Rcd 17665 (1999)) After Loral Orion and Eutelsat entered into a coordination agreement, the International Bureau authorized Loral Orion to operate its satellite at 15" WmLm pursuant to the agreement'(15 FCC Rcd 12419 (2000)) EchoStar has not coordinated with Telesat 5

. . I Conditioning Echostar’s Grant on Coordination I ”* 8 with Telesat is Insufficient (cont.) TeIe’sa EchoStar also has an unsatisfied coordination obligation under the Commission’s DBS policies When a DBS a licant submits a technical proposal that Y would exceed I U threshold technical limits, as EchoStar did the Commission has “stress[ed that the burden shall be on the applicant to show that he It 8 6 a reement of the affected Administration s) can be o tained.” 17 FCC Rcd 11331, 11381 (2 02). In the absence of an actual agreement with potentially affected administrations, an applicant is required to demonstrate that such an agreement can be obtained, for example, by “extensive technical analyses demonstrating that the impact on the services of affected Administrations is negligible.” DA 05-354, at 4 (Feb. 17, 2005) EchoStar did not enter into an agreement or make the required showing 6

Conditioning Echostar’s Grant on Coordination with Telesat is Insufficient (cont.) 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 15:48:32
Document Modified: 2008-04-29 15:48:32
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC