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_638686

LAW OFF1C ES GOLDBERG, GODLES, WIENER & WRIGHT 1229 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTONl D.C. 20036-241 3 HENRY GOLDBERG (202) 429c4900 JOSEPH A. GODLES TELECOPIER: JONATHAN L. WIENER (202) 429.491 2 LAURA A. STEFAN1 EX PARTE OR LATE FILED DEVENDRA (“DAVE”) KUMAR e-mail: general@ g2w2.com HENRIETTA WRIGHT website: www.g2w2.com THOMAS G. GHERARDI, PC. COUNSEL - THOMAS S. TYCZ* SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR ‘NOT AN ATTORNEY November 15,2007 BY HAND 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 Rod Porter, Robert Nelson, Karl Kensinger, and Andrea Kelly of the International Bureau. 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. Respectfully, Henry Goldberg Attorney for Telesat cc: Rod Porter Robert Nelson Karl Kensinger Andrea Kelly

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

I I Background =Echostar DBS satellite at 86.5OW would be short-spaced between two operational Telesat DBS satellites: Nimiq 1 and Nimiq 2 are located at 91°W and 82OW respectively =Nimiq 1 and Nimiq 2 have full-CONUS coverage consistent with the ITU Region 2 BSS Plan entries mBoth 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

I L m 5 0 s 0 zw 852 a- a €% 9 1 9- m :a,$? r L c cn 34 - a, a, S cn c a, cn .. I . 1 a, La, I-. aa, m 3U c U 0m Q) t a, a a, c +J CI Ea, c m =- 0 9 s .+.lr SL Oa, * t a z0 L 0- -- s W'Z E 0 c) I W

. Echostar’s Application Should . m Y % Have Been Dismissed ( r e I e s a tlL4 25.1 14(d)(l3)(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. m EchoStar did not make this showing and could not have made it 4

. e Conditioning Echostar's Grant on 8 a b Coordination with Telesat is Insufficient C T e I e s a tlM 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 0 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 17665 (1999)) 9 After Loral Orion and Eutelsat entered into a coordination aareement. the International Bureau authorized L o d 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 Conditioning Echostar’s Grant on Coordination B b with Telesat is Insufficient (cont.) Te / e-sa fi, a EchoStar also has an unsatisfied coordination obligation under the Commission’s DBS policies When a DBS amlicant submits a technical ProPosal that would exceed ITU threshold technical limits’. as EchoStar did the Commission has “stress[ed that the burden shall be on the applicant to show that he a reement of the affecte’d’ Administration s) can be It i! o tained.” I 7 FCC Rcd 1I331, 11381 (2 02). 6 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 aareement or make the U required showing 6

I Conditioning Echostar’s Grant on Coordination 8 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: 2008-04-30 15:35:53
Document Modified: 2008-04-30 15:35:53
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC