Attachment order on recon

order on recon

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION submitted by FCC,IB

order on recon

2004-12-27

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20030827-00179 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2003082700179_411845

Federal Communications Commission nA 04—1056 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matr of Ecrostar sATELLTE LLC (P/a EchoStar Satelite Corporation) Applicationfor Authority to Construct, Launch and Operate a Geosttionary Satelite in the Fixed Satellite Service Using the Extended Ku—Band Frequenciesatthe 101° W.L. Orbital Location ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adpted: December 27, 2004 Released: December 27, 2004 By the Chief, Interational Bureau: 1 INTRODUCTION 1. By this Order, we deny EchoSar Satelite LLC‘s (EchoStar) Petiion for Reconsideration of the Satelite Division‘s (Division) dismissal of EchoSur‘s applieation to constrct, launch, and operate a geosttionary satelitein the Fixed Satelite Service (FSS) using the extended Ku—band at the 101° WL. orbital lcation. We are persuaded that the Division‘s dismissal on the ground that EchoStar‘s filings were incomplete and interally inconsistent was corect. 1. BACKGROUND 2. In August 2003, EchoStar filed an application to construct, launch, and operate a satelite at the 101° W.L. orbital location that would provide Fixed—Satellte Service (FSS) in the 10.70—10.75 GHz and 11.20—11.45 GHz (downlink) and the 12.75—13.00 GHz and 13.15—13.20 GHz (uplink) frequencies In November 2003, EchoStar filed an amendment to its application outlining two system upgrades." On February 9, 2004, the Division dismissed EchoStar‘s spplication" The Division found that EchoStr‘s ! Application of EchoStar Satelite Compontion for Authoriy to Constrct, Launch, and Operte a Geostiionary Satlite in the Fixed Satelite Service Usingthe Alloted Extended Ku—band Frequenciesatthe 101° W.L. Orbial Lecation, File No. SAT—LOA—20038027—00179, Call Sign 82492 (Application). * Amendmentto Appliaton of EchoStarSatellte Comportion for Authority to Constuct, Launch and Operat a Geostationary Satelfte in the Fixed Satllte Service Usingthe Alloted Entended Ku—hand Frequencies at the 101° WL Ofbial Location, File No. SAT—AMD200311112600343, Call Sign 2492 (November 26, 2003) (amendment) * See Leter to David K. Moskowits, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, EchoSar Satellte Coportion ftom Thomas S. Tycz, Chic, Stelite Division, Intemational Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 19 (continued..

Federal Communications Commission ba 04—4056 amended application was not in compliance with Section 25.114(c) of the Commission‘s rules,* which requires all space station applicantst subrmitall applicable items of information liste in its subsections, and Section 25.112@)(1) of the Commission‘s rules," which provides that an application will be unaeceptable for filing if "the applieation is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informational showings, intemal inconsistencies, execution, or other matters of a formal character."" 3. Among other things, Section 25.114(@)(4) requires that each application contain information identifying which antenna beams are connected or switchable to each transponder and tracking, telemety, and control (TT&C) function.® In its Amendment, EchoStar added the abilty to switch the satelite receive beam to a pair ofindependently steerable uplink spot beams and the ability to switch downlink transmissions from the single large coverage beam to a totl of nine fixed spot beams." The Division found that EchoStar filedto provide technical information to indicate which transponders would be connected to which spot beams in cither the uplink or downlink direction " 4. The Division also found that EchoStar made inconsistent frequency assignment requests in its November 2003 Amendment. In both the Application and the Amendment, EchoSta stated that it was requesting authority to operate in the 10.70—10.75 GHz and 11.20—11.45 GHz frequency bands and the 12.75—13.00 GHz and 13.15—13.20 GHe frequency bands. ‘The Channel Frequency Plan outlined in Table A4—1 of Section A4 of the Attachment to the Amendment, however, indicated that two ransponders would operate in the 10.9515—10.9785 GHz and 10.9615—10.988 GHe frequeney bands, which were not requested in either the Application or Amendment. Moreover, the Channel Frequency Plan showed no transponders operating in the 10.70—10.75 GHz: band that was requested in both the Application and Amendment.. Further,in Section II ofthe Amendment, where EchoStar described the proposed changes to the Application, it mentioned neither the addition of new ffequency bands, nor the deletion ofpreviously requested bands" Rather, he Amendment cited only changes in the uplink service (..contined trom previous page) FCC Red 2216 (ntl. Bur, Sat.Div, 2004)(EchoSiar DismissalLetter.. We note that, on Fcbruary9, 2004, afer the dismissal of EchoStar‘s Application and Amendment, another entty, Mobile Satellte Ventures (MSV), iled an amendment to its pending application fo is next genertion MSS system, requesting an additional 50 mepahente of spectrm in each diection for FSS feedelnksto operte in the 10:70—10.75 Gie and 13.18—13.20 GHt fequency bands.. See Moble Satelite Ventures Subsidiry LLC, Amendment to Application for Authoriy to Launch and Operite a Replacement L—band Mobile Stelite Service Stelite at 101° W.L., File No. SAT—AMD—20080200— 00014 (Febrary 9, 2004) (MSV Amendmen} Mobile Satelite Ventires Subsidiary LLC Amendment to Application for Authority to Launch and Operata Replacement L—band Mobile Satllte Service Stelie at 101° W.L, Onder, DA 042985 (released Sept. 15, 2006) (MSF Reinsttement Order)(A detaild history of MSV‘s flings in this matteris provided in the MSY Reintatement Order) trore prsil. haror® prs i2090 ° We note that the RchoStar DismissalLeter ces Section 25.114(@(5)as the subsectionthatcontain the relevant informational requirements. ‘This section of the Commission‘s riles was amended in 2003,and the relevant informational equirements are now contained in Section 25.114(@)4)(i). See Amendment of the Commision‘s Space Sution Licensing Rules and Poliies, Thind Report and Order and Second Further Notce of Propored Aulemaking, 18 ECC Red 12486, 13522 (2003) " Amendment,Atiachment A, Setion A.1,at 1. * We note tat EchoStar could haverequesteda waiver ofthe speciic Section 25.1 4(c\4) requirement and made an approprite waiveshowing. However,EchaSar fled to doso. * Amendment at3

Federal Communications Commission pa or—1ose area,the resulting receive antenna gain decreases and downlink budgct modifications, and the addition of spot beams in both the uplink and downlink transmission paths."" 5. The Division further found that EchoStar did not mention new frequenciesin Section A.1 of the Technical Annex to the Amendment, where it frther desribed the proposed technical changes, In the Amendment, EchoStr stted that none of the changes made to the design of the EchoStar—101 W satellite would increase interference to any other user of the spectrum and that the changes involved increased Aexibilty, increased spectrum efficiency, or both. EchoStar also stated that the stellite would use the 11.2—11.45 GHz and a portion ofthe 10.7—10.75 GHz band for downlink transmissions,but did not mention any use of the 10.95—11.0 GHz frequency band." Moreover, in Section A.24 of the Amendment, EchoStr stated that the power flux density limits of Section 25.208 of the Commission‘s rules were sufficient to protect Fixed Service operations in the 10.7—10.95 GHz frequency band." Given these inconsistencies, the Division was unable to determine precisely which frequency assignments EchoStar was secking."* 6. EchoStar filed a Petiion for Reconsideration of the dismissal ofits amended application" Mobile Sateite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (MSV) filed an Opposition to EchoStar‘s Pettion.". EchoStr filed a Reply t the Oppositon." u. piscussioN A. Positions of the Parties 7. In its Pettion, EchoStar argues thatthe Division should not have dismissed its amended application because it was substantially complete asfiled."" EchoStar contends that its falure to identfy which antenna beams are connected or switchable to each transponder and TT&C function does not render its amended application incomplete because this defect can be corrected without prejudice to anyone." EchoStar further asserts that the discrepancy in the requested frequency assignments was a typographical error that could have been resolved by looking at the application as a whole." EchoStr states thatits amended application, when viewed as a whole, indicates clearly thatit did not intend to change itsrequested frequency assignments with thefiing ofthe Amendment, butinstead intended to use the frequencies specified in its Application" n addition, EchoSter states that the Division improperly *n " See RehoStar Disnissal Leter, 19 FCC Red at 2218 "Amendmentat3. " Amendment, Atachment A, Section A24,at 26 !* See EchoStar Dismissal Leter, 19 FC Red at 218. © Pettionfor Reconsidention, fled March 10, 2004 by EchoStar Satelite LLC. (Behoar Pertion} " Oppositon to Pettionfor Reconsidention, filed March 24, 2004 by Mobile Stelite Ventires Subsidiny LLC (MSV Oppositon. "" Reply to Oppositon to Pettionfor Reconsidention,fled April5, 2004 by EchoGuar Srelite LLC. (EchoSar Repl) " EchoStar Petiion at 24 * d at $, ciing Salzer v. ECC 778 F.2d 869, 872 n7 D.C. Cir 1988) *1 "na m

Federal Communications Commission Da 04—1056 applied a letterperfect standard, in reviewing. the subject amended. application, rather than. the "substantally complete" stndard." 8. In its Opposition, MSV, which has a pending applieation to operate a satellite in, among other bands,the 10.70—10.75/13.15—13.20 GHz bands atthe 101° W.L. orbit location,®" notesthatit agrees that satelite applications should be held to a "substantilly complete," rather than a "leter perfect;" standard."* MSV contends, however,that EchoStar‘s amended application was not substantally complete because it was impossible to determine with certainty which frequencies EchoStar was applying for, as well asthe manner in which ts transpondersand antenna beams were to be connected."" Moreover, MSV assertsthat the inconsistencies and omissions in EchoStar‘s amended application were not "minor,"" EchoStar claims, and statesthat it is essential that frequencies are accurately specified in appliations so that potental applicants have unambiguous noticeasto which frequenciesare availble for assignment."" In addition, MSV notes that, if the Bureau were to adopt a policy requesting applicants to clarify ambiguous information, as EchoStar asserts the Division should have done with it, it would disserve the public interest in an expedited satelite licensing process.. Further, MSV notes thatsuch a policy would be counterto the Commission‘s first—come, firseerved satelitelnsing framework, the primary goal of which isto expedite sateliteliensing." B. Substantialy Complete Standard s We reject BchoStar‘s contention that the Division applied a "ltter—perfect" standard in reviewing its amended application. In the Airst Space Station Reform Order, the Commission specifically rejected the letterperfect standard, deciding instead to continue to require applications to be *substantally complete" when filed.". The Commission defined "substentilly complete" as providing the information which is required by the Commission‘s rules" It explained that requiring sutelite " 14. at 2:5, eiing Amendment of the Comnission‘s Space Sution Licensing Rules and Policies, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Red 3847, 3875—76 4 84 (2002) (Space Staion Reform NPRQ; Amendment of e Commission‘s Space Staion Licensing Rules and Poliies, Fist Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Aulemaking, 18 FCC Red 10760, 10852 § 244 (2003)(Frst Space Staton Rform Order}; nd Amendment ofthe Rules Concemning Cat.Off Procedures for FM and TV Broadcast Sutions, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 84— 750, FCC 85—125, 50 Fed. Rep 19936 (May 13, 1983) ? See MSV Amendment "MSV Oppositon t 5. "1 * 14 at6,citng Applieations ofMobile Phone ofTexas,Inc. For Authoriy to Construct AdditonalFciltes in the Public Land Moble Service on Frequency 15209 Mfiz for Station KLE9O2 at Palo Pinto, Texas, and MCL Airsignl, Inc. For Authoriy to Construct Additional Faciliies in the Public Land Moble Service on Frequency 152.15 Mitz for Suition KKG41I at Weatherford, Texas, Menorandin Opimion Opinion and Order, S ECC Red 3459, 3400 . 14(Com. Car. Bur,1990) (Wobile Phone Order) " MSV Oppositon t 6 "m " 14. at74, citng Applications of PanAmSat Licensee Cory For Authoriy to ConstrictLaunch, and Operate a Hybrid Satelite System in is Separate Intemational Communications Satllte System, Order on Rcconsideratio, 18 roe Red 23016, 23017 3 6 (2002) * FistSpace Staton Reform Order, 18 FCC Red t 10852 9 244, citng Space Station Reform NPRM, 17 ECC Red asersp t * Pirst Space Sarion ReformOrder, 18 CC Red at 10852 9 244, in Space Sttion Reform NPRM, 17 ECC Red arsers 403.

Federal Communications Commission Da 041056 applications to be substantally complete when filed is an important part of its satellte licensing procedures.. In the First Space Station Reform Order, the Commission adopted procedures and rules establishing satelite lcensees® operatingrights clearly and quickly, and as a result, allowed licensces to provide service to the public much sooner than might be possible under its previous Hicensing procedures." Finding defective applications aceeptable for fling is not consistent with the rules and policies adpted by the Commission in the First Space Station Reform Order and only serves to create uncertainty and inefficiencies in the liensing process. More importantly, the Commission explained that the policy againstaccepting applications that do not meet the substantilly complete standard is necessary to discourage speculation," and was needed to ensure that those licensees ready and willing to procecd with their satelte construction plans could do so" 10. It was never intended that any single erzor in the information required to be provided, no matter how minor, would be the basis fora dismissal. Thus, for example, an application which refers t a proposed band use at 5.925—6.425 MHz (instead of the intended 5925—6425 MHz or 5.925—6425 GHz) would be recognized immediately as a typographical error. Under our substantilly complete test, this type of eror,standing alone, would not constitute a suffiient basis for dismissal, as would be the case with a letter perfect standard. However, the erzors in EchoStar‘s amended application cannot be dismissed as typographical errors.. For example, EchoStar fuiled to disclose which antenna beams are connected or switchable to each transponder and TT&C function, which is information that applicants are required to provide under Section 25.114 ofthe Commision‘s rules. C. Completeness of EchoStar‘s Application 11. We disagree that EchoStr‘s amended application met the Commission‘s substantally complete standard..First, we find no merit in EchoStar‘s assertion thaits failure to provide information to identify which antenna beams are connected or switchible to ach transponder and TT&C function is a minor error and is not the kind of defect that should render an application less than substantially complete." EchoStar contends that thisinformation is of litle importance at this stage of the satelite proposal because it will inevitably be shared with other lcenseesin the coordination process." However, Section 25.1 14() ofthe Commision‘s rules clearly and expliitly requires all spacestation applicants to submit with their application tems of information, including the identifcation of which antenna beams are connected or switchable to each transponder and TT&C function."" This information allows the Commission, existing operators and potential applicants to identify which frequencies and locations are impacted by the pending application, which ones are availible and the extent to which the proposed frequency uses and locations require coordination. EchoStar‘sfuilur to provide this required information rendered ts application substantilly incomplete and therefore defective. 12. Second, we reject EchoStar‘s argument that the diserepancies in the requested frequency assignments in its amended application were not of such magnitude as to render its application substantilly incomplete. This frequency information is required to be filed because, iner alte, it is one of the essential technical parameters that is used to determine whether an application is mutually= exclusive with a previously filed application.. Nor is it tresponsibllty of the agency, as EchoStar " Firt SpaceSn Reform Order, 18 ECC Red t 10765—66 44. ®14 a 10852 204. ** See id at 10805—069 112. " EchoStr Replyat 89. " 14 m9. " 1CBRq25146@0@).

Federal Communications Commission na o—10s6 sugzests,to select for an applicant the desired frequenciesfrom among differing frequencies provided in an application.. As the Court in Salzer explained, "[l is not the agency‘s task to select for an applicant the type of operation that will minimize impermissible interference.""" Moreover, even if EchoStar‘s application did not have frequency discrepancies, it would stllbe substantally incomplete because it did not include anterna beam and TT&C information required by Section 25.1 14. 13. Third,allowing EchoStarto cure it deficiencies is notin the public interestor the interest of private parties. The Commission explained in the First Space Station Reform Order that requiring applications to include all the information called for by the Commission‘s rules helps to ensure that the applicant is ready and willing to construct the satellit it proposes in its application."" Under the fis— come, firs—served fling—date prionty procedure now in place for satellt applications such as EchoStar‘s, the Commission will grantthe frst application in the processing "queue" ifthe applicant is qualified and grant would not cause interference to a previously licensed satelite.° Allowing applicants to cure applications after they are filed could adversely impact other applicants filing complete applications that re "second—in—line" t the firsapplieation. Moreover,allowing applicants to "cure" defects, ofthe type noted herein, afer filing could encourage applicants to file incomplete, intemally inconsistent, or otherwise defective applications to receive "fist—inine" status. This is patently inconsistent with the tationale underlyingthe "first—come,firstserved" procedure, which is designed to expedite service to the public. D. Consistency with Precedent 14. We are not persuaded by EchoStir‘s argument that the dismissal of its amended application asincomplete is inconsistent with previous practices._ Since the Airst Space Starion Rgform Order was adapted, the Bureau has stretly enforced its Part 25 rules, which require the Bureau t return as unaceeptable any application that "is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informational showings, [or]internal inconsistencies.""" Indeed, the Bureau has returned 19 applications as defective since it reatfirmed this policy in the First Space Station Reform Order." These actions followed the Commission‘s policy of dismissing applications that do not contain information that is elearly required by the Commission‘s rules. In those unusualinstances where the Commission‘s satelte information requirements have not been clearly set forthin a Commission rule, Order or Public Notice, we issue Public Notices to clarify the rules, but do not dismiss applications that do not contain the relevant information if they were filed before the release of the Public Notice." Thus, contrary to * Sazer, 778 .2d at 877 * See Firs Space Station Reform Order, 18 ECC Red at 10852 4 244 (requiring substatially complee is one of many necessary safepuandsto helpprotect againstspeculativestelitapplicatons) °* See FirstSpace Staion Reform Order, 18 ECC Red t 10792 91 71—73 ty m gasieayt). ® See, eg, Leterfom Thomas S. Tycz, Chi,Satllte Divisio, In‘L. Bur, FCC to Mr. Vicente Rubio Careton, Hispamar Sateltes, SA.(Feb. 24, 2006); Leterfrom Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Sateie Division,k Bu, FCC to Mr. Lon C. Levin, Mobile Stelite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (April 23, 2004; Lener fom Thomas S. Tycz, Chick Sutlite Division,Tar]. Bur, FCC to Mr. Koichiro Matsuftj, Space Communications Corporation (Aprl 22, 2008; Letefrom Thomas S. Tyez,Chief, Satelite Divsion, InL Bur, FCC to David K. Moskowit, EchoSur Satlite Corp. (Dec. 8, 2003); Leter fom Thomas S. Tycz, Chicf, Sitelite Division, In‘l. Bur, ECC to Kalpak Gude, PanmSat Licensee Corp. (Oct22,2003 © See Intemational Bareau Satelite Division Information: Clarificaion of 47 CR § 25.1400b)2) Space Suation Application Inerfrence Analysis, Public Noriee, 19 FCC Red 10682 (2004)Iternational Burea Claifes Direct Broadeast Stelite Space Sation Application Processing Rules, Public Norce, 19 CC Red 1346 (2004) (DBS (contied..)

Federal Communications Commission pa o—10se EchoStar‘s assertion, the Division has followed the Commission‘s policy of dismissing applications that do not comply with it ules." 15. Nevertheless, EchoStar cites two instances in which the Division requested missing information from applicants, rather than dismiss an application.". One of these was in February 2004, when the Bureau requested EchoStar to supply information relating to three EchoStar direct broadeast satelite (DBS) applications that were filed in June 2003.". In requesting this information, the Bureau recognized that the Airst Space Sation Reform Order specifically exempted DBS from its purview."" Indeed, to clarify that the Bureau would hold DBS applicants to the same standard as those applicants covered by the First Space Station Reform Order, it issued a Public Notiee® in January 2004 reminding DBS applicants that they are subject to Part 25‘s application fling requirements. Because of apparent confusion regarding Bureau policy with respect to DBS applicants, the Bureat noted in the Public Notice that DBS applications which were filed before the release ofthe Public Notice that did not meet the filing requirements would not be dismissed but would be subjectto a Commission leter requesting the required information.* Consequently, the Bureau sent EchoStara leter sking for additional information on three DBS applications,all ofwhich were filed before it issued the DBS Public Notice. 16. EchoStar also argues that the Division‘streatment of an application filed by LoralSkynet Network Services, Inc. (Loral) to modify a licensed earth station to add a foreign satelite as a new point of communication is inconsisent with the dismissal of Echostar‘s amended application.. We disagree. Loral‘s application was substantilly complete when filed, in that Loral provided all the information required by the Commission‘srules. The saff did not provide Loral an opportunity to supply additional information that was omitted from is application, bt ather asked Loral to clarify and to reformat certain (..continued rom previous page) Public Notiec; International Bureau Satellte Division Information: Claifcation of 47 CER. § 25.400)@) Inerference Analysis, Public Notie, 18 FCC Red 25099 (2003) "* In this regard, EchoStar‘s reiance on Sabze v. FCC, 778 R2d 869 (D.C. Cir. 1985)is inapposite. Safer involved, in par, applications fled with the Commission to consrest and operite a low power elevision sttion. "The applieations were ejectd by the Commissin, under the aplicable ‘etrperfect" standard, fornotsatisying itsspecific acceptabilty cnteria for such appleations. 778 F.2d at 7I—73. The courtindicatedthat the Commission cannot reasonsbly expect applicationsto be eterperfct when ts instrctionsfor those applications are ambiguous . at 875. Sinee the Commission had failed to provide adequate notceas to how cetain informationshould be filed with the agency, the Salzer court held that the Commission was not entited to reest the applications on the ground thatthey filed to meet these informational requrements. {d. No such Public Notiinfiity exst in the instant case ® EchoStr Reply at $6, citng Leter from Thomas S. Tyez, Chict Sitelite Divisin, In‘1. Bur, FCC to David K. Moskowit, EchoStar Satlite Corp. (Feb. 12, 2004)(Retruary 12" EchoStar Leter), and Leter from Wiliam Howden, Chict, Systems Analysis Brinch, Sitelite Division, In‘l. Bur, FCC to Mr. Stan Edinger, Manager: GovermentRelations, Loral Set Network Services, In. (Dec.1, 2003) (Decenber /7" Zoral Leter). In any event, if tDivision failed to dismis an incomplete applcation it is a well—settedprincipl ofadmninistative law (hat he fict that an agency made an error in one instance does not require the agency to repeat the error See Southeast Telephone, Inc. v. RCC, No. 99—1164, 1999 WL 1215835 (D.C. Cir. Now. 24, 1999) (unpublished opinion) (sating that an ageney need not repeat in a later case an ervor made in a prioe caso); aee also Danicl R. Gootman, Receiver; Dr. Robert Chan, Order, 16 FCC Red 11153, 11154 4 5 (2001); and Nathan Sherman Enerpises,Inc. etal, Order, 16 ECC Red 11150, 11151—52 9 6 (2001) * February 12EchoSur Leter. "m * See DBS Public Notice * See February 12° EchoStar Lever

Federal Communications Commission Da 0t—40s6 information contained in the application.° For example,the earth station sought to communicate with a satellte that contains two payloads (C: and Ku—bands) that are liensed by two different administrations (Tonga and China). The satelite itslf has three different commonly used names, Z., Tongasat C and Telstar 18 forthe C—band payload and Apstar V for the Ku—band. To assist in processing the application the ltter requested that Loral elarify the relaionship between the names and satellite payloads of the spececraf, among other things."" The Division later dismissed Lorals application because Loralfaile to respond sufficiently to that information request —— not because its application was not "substantally complete" when filed.""In contrast, EchoStar‘s application did not contain all oftheinformation required y the Commission‘s rules and thus was not substantally complete when fied. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSE 17. Therefore, we find that the Division properly dismissed EchoStar‘s amended application as incomplete and intemally inconsistent, in accordance with Sections 25.L14(c) and 25.112(a)(1) of the Commission‘s rules." Thus, we affiem the Division‘s decision in the EchoStar Dismissal Leter * see Leter from William Howden, Chi, Systems Analysis Branch, Stelite Division to Stzn Edinger, Manager= Goverament Relations. Lorl Skynet Network Services,Inc. (Oct 16, 2006)(Oetober 16LoralLerer). Where n appleation is substantlly complete, batth reviewing staffhas quesions regarding the nformation, they may ask the applicantt provide additional infrmation. See47 CFR. § 25.111a) "* Additonally, th appliaton listed allof he niety—plas emisiondesignatorsfor transmissions from the earth sttion. Divisio taftherefre requested Loral to provide only the emisson designatorsfoth easiterfring carvierand forthe mostinterfeingcarer. Finally, Divisonstarequested thatLoral provide additional information to support ts asserion in the application that Tonga provides efectve competitve opportunites for US.sitelite operatostoprovide analopous ervices in Tonga, and t reformatcetain nformation cantaied in the applcation for ease ostafreview ® See Decenber 11 Loral Leter. The Deceniber 11 Lettr inconectly rfemed to Lorals fulire to supply "missing" information required by the Commisions DISCO If Order. Amendment ofthe Commision‘s Repulatory Policis to Allow Non—U.S. Licensed Satlites Providing Domesti and IntemationalServie in the United Sates Report and Order, TB Docket No. 96—111,12 FCC Red 24094 (1997) (DISCO 2)._ In DISCO !L, the Commission adopted a rle requiing US. earth station applicants secking to access a foreign stelite t atach, in certin sitiations, an extibi to teir pplications demonstating that U.S. stelite operatos have effective compotive epportuniies o provide anlogous servicei theforein stelites home market(the"BCO—Saten). 47 CBR § 28—137@), To this end, Loral atached an exhibit to is applieationsating that Tonga‘ssitelite marketis open to US. sstellte operstors. Because the Commissions rules do mot require the applicant to provide specifi documentationto ffim market access this extibit was sufcient for parposes of the Commissont information 1ules.. Neverthless, the stff requested additonalinformation pursuant t 47 CFR, § 25.111(a)becausit was not clear whether Lorl had adequately shown tht Tonga‘sstelite market is open to U.S. satelite opertrs. ® 47 cBR 55 28114025.112000)

Federal Communications Commission a 044056 18. Accordingly, TT JS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 40), 301, 302, 303(, 308, 310, and 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1540), 301, 302, 303(), 306, 309, 310, 405 and Sections 1.106 of the Commission‘s rules, 47 CFR. §§ 1.106, that the petiion for reconsideration filed by EchoStar Satelite LLC. on March 17, 2004 IS HEREBY DENIED: FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Chief International Burcau


Document Created: 2004-12-29 11:37:36
Document Modified: 2004-12-29 11:37:36
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC