Attachment letter

letter

LETTER submitted by Mobile Satellite Ventures

letter

2005-06-15

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

IBFS_SATLOA2003082700179_438191

                                                                               _ _ORIGINAL
                                                                               Rohntty Nss
Mobile Satelite SV
        M Ventures io                                                          move
                                                                               fhe  mm
                                                                               Ets imanseranavicon

                                             June 15, 2005
                                                                ived
    Via Hand Delivery                                  Receiv        RECEIVED — FoG
    Mr. Donald Abelson                                  juu 3 0 2005
    Chief, International Bureau                                               JuN 1 5 2005
    Federal Communications Commission                        i arwu"\wm”m              6
    445 12th Street, SW                                intormationalB3           makatenconniesin
    Washington, D.C. 20554

           RE:     EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.
                   Call Sign S2615; File No. SAT—LOA—20040210—00015
                   Call Sign §2492; File No. SAT—LOA—20030827—00179, File No. SAT—
                   AMD—20031126—00343

    Dear Mr. Abelson:

           Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (*MSV") hereby requests that the Intemational
    Burea(*Bureau‘") immediately dismiss EchoBtar‘s mutually exclusive second—in—line
    application for Planned Ku—band frequencies at 101°W as required by the Commission‘s
    policies. Immediate dismissal of EchoStar‘s application is essential to provide MSV with the
    certainty needed to develop its next—generation system.
           In February 2004, EchoStar filed an application for 300 MHz of Planned Ku—band
    frequencies at 101°W.". EchoStar was second—in—line for these frequencies in the Bureau‘s first—
    come, first—served satellite processing queue behind an application filed by MSV for the same
    frequencies." EchoStar claimed thatit could share these frequencies with MSV but only if
    EchoStar and MSV first entered into a sharing agreement.

              On May23, 2005, the Bureau granted MSV‘s first—i—line application." In adopting its
    satellitelicensing rules in August 2003, the Commission explained that it would dismiss pending

    ‘ See Application ofEchoStar Satellite LLC, File No. SAT—LOA—20040210—00015 (Rebruary 10,
    2004) (*EchoStar Application").
    * See Applications of MSV, File Nos. SAT—LOA—19980702—00066; SAT—AMD—20001214—
    00171; File No. SAT—AMD—20010302—00019; SAT—AMD—20031118—00335; SAT—AMD—
    20040209—00014; SAT—AMD—20040928—00192.

    ° See EchoStar Application, Technical Annex 7, 24—26.
    * See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, Order andAuthorization, DA 05—1492 (May 23,
    2005) (CMSY—1 Grant‘)


Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
June 15, 2005
Page 2
conflicting applications in the satellite queue when the first—in—line application is granted." The
Commission explained that this policy would resultin faster service to the public® Because
MSV‘s now—granted first—in—line application is mutvally exclusive with EchoStar‘s second—in—
line application, the Commission‘s policies mandate that the Bureau dismiss EchoStar‘s second—
incline application."
         Indecd, in granting MSV‘s application, the Bureau noted that it would only consider
EchoStar‘s proposal after EchoStar reaches a coordination agreement with MSV.* While MSV
has stated its willingness to discuss the potentialfor sharing with EchoStar, EchoStar has only
recently attempted to discuss coordination with MSV.
        Immediate dismissal ofEchoStar‘s application is essential t provide MSV with the
certainty needed to develop its next—generation system. As it stands, the pending second—in—line
EchoStar application creates uncertainty as to whether MSV can modify its licensed system
without losing priority in the Bureau‘s first—come, first—served queue."

5 See Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report
and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, TB Docket No. 02—34, 18 FCC Red
10760, 9 113 (2003) ("We decide not to keep subsequently filed applications on file. In other
words, ifan application reaches the front ofthe queue that conflicts with a previously granted
Hicense, we will deny the application rather than keeping the application on file n case the lead
applicant does not construct its satellite system.").
© Id. (‘[Wie will deny applications that conflict with previously granted applications because it is
more likely to result in faster service to the public, and it will not disadvantage any party that
may wish to apply for that orbit location if it becomes available. Under a single quene approach,
we could reassign the orbit location just as quickly, or perhaps more quickly, if we accept new
applications at the time the location becomes available. ... Thus,all parties potentially
interested in providing satellite service from the orbit location at issue have an equal opportunity
to apply for the license when that orbitlocation becomes available.").
" EchoStar did not request a waiver ofthis policy in filing ts second—in—line application.
* MSV—1 Grant at .45 ("Ifthe parties reach an agreement, we will entertain a request that
involves co—frequency operations."). The Bureau previously dismissed a similar sharing
proposal due to the applicant‘s failure to demonstrate the feasibility of sharing. See Applicarion
ofGlobalstar, L.P. for Authority to Launch and Operate a Mobile—Satellie Service System in the
2 GHz Band, Order and Authorization, 16 CC Red 13739, DA O1—1634 (Chief, In‘! Bur. and
Acting Chief, OET; July 17, 2001).
* EchoStar currently has only one application pending in the FCC‘s satellte quene that is
mutually exclusive with MSV*s license for MSV~1. See Application of EchoStar Satellite LLC,
File No. SAT—LOA—20040210—00015 (February 10, 2004). A previous EchoStar application that
is also mutvally exclusive with MSV‘s license for MSV—1 was dismissed in February 2004. See
EchoStar, Application, File No. SAT—LOA—20030827—00179 (filed August 27, 2003); EchoStar,
Amendment, File No. SAT—AMD—20031126—00343 (November 26, 2003); Letter from Thomas
                                                                  Footote continued on next page


Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
June 15, 2005
Page3

        Finally, MSV notes that dismissal ofEchoStar‘s second—in—line application does not mean
that EchoStar will be precluded from pursuing its proposed system at 101°W. MSV continues to
be willing to discuss the potential to share frequencies with EchoStar. As the Bureau has
contemplated, if MSV and EchoStar can reach an agreement, then EchoStar would be free to file
a new application for the Bureau to consider.
        Please contact the undersigned with any questions.

                                             Respectfully submitted,



                                               nnifer A. Manner
                                             Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
                                             MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES
                                             SUBSIDIARY LLC
                                             10802 Park Ridge Boulevard
                                             Reston, Virginia 20191
                                             (703) 390—2700


Bruce D. Jacobs
David S. Konczal
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
2300 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037—1128
(202) se3—2000
Counsel for Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC




Footote continued from previous page
S. Tyez, FCC, to David K. Moskowitz, EchoStar, File Nos. SAT—LOA—20030827—00179, SAT—
AMD—20031126—00343 (February 9, 2004) (dismissing application), EchoStar has sought
review of this decision. See EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., Application for Review, File Nos. SAT—
LOA—20030827—00179, SAT—AMD—20031126—00343 (January 26, 2005). To the extent this
application is reinstated, MSV requests that the Bureau also dismiss this application as mutually
exclusive with MSV*s license for MSV—1.


Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
June 15, 2005
Page4
ces   Thomas Tyez
      Fem Jarmulnck
      Robert Nelson
      Cassandra Thomas
      Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel for EchoStar



Document Created: 2005-06-20 18:58:11
Document Modified: 2005-06-20 18:58:11

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC