Attachment opposition

opposition

OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION submitted by Northrop Grumman Space Technology & Mission Systems Corp

opposition

2004-06-21

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20030827-00180 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2003082700180_384962

                                          BEFORE THE
         Federal Communications Cornmiss&&IVED - FCC
                                  WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
                                                                                           JUN 1 6 2004
In the Matter of
                                                                                 Federal Communication Cornmisson
                                              1                                            Bureau / Office
ECHOSTAR
       SATELLITE
              LLC                             1       File Nos.    SAT-LOA-20030827-00180
                                              1                    SAT-LOA-20030827-00182
Applications for Authority to Launch and      )                    SAT-LOA-20030827-00185
Operate Geostationary Satellites in the       1                    SAT-LOA-20030827-00187
Fixed-Satellite Service at 83”, 105”,113”     )
And 121”West Longitude Using The              1       Call Signs: S2493; S2495; S2498. S2500
Portion of the Ka-Band Allocated for          )                                             25.r*.,
Non-Geostationary Fixed-Satellite Use
                                                                                          JLr;        plibw
                                                                                                 (2
To: Chief, International Bureau                                                      p.      f‘U&
                                                                                      %*
                                                                                 JcJejQ?~oweoQ$
                   OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
                                                                                                 BL.s4,
                Northrop Grumman Space Technology and Mission Systems Corporation

(“Northrop Grumman”), by counsel and pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission’s Rules

(47 C.F.R.   9 1.106), hereby opposes the Petition for Reconsideration filed by EchoStar Satellite
LLC (“Echostar”) on June 1,2004 with respect to the Satellite Division’s April 29,2004 denial

of the above-captioned applications. 1 The Satellite Division’s action was appropriate and fully

in accord with the Commission’s rules and processing policies.

                                     I.      BACKGROUND

                On August 27,2003, EchoStar filed a series of applications seeking new

geostationary fixed-satellite service (“GSO FSS”) authorizations in multiple frequency bands.

Four of these applications sought authority to operate GSO spacecraft in the 18.8-19.3 GHz and

28.6-29.1 GHz bands -the portion of the Ka-band the Commission has designated for primary

use by systems in the non-geostationary fixed-satellite service (“NGSO FSS”).


1
        See EchoStar Satellite LLC, Memorandum Opinion & Order, DA 04-1 167 (released April 29,
2004)(“MO&O”).


                                                -2-


               On April 29,2004, the Satellite Division issued an MO&O denying these

applications, finding that EchoStar had incorrectly relied upon the Commission’s Space Station

Licensing Reform Order in seeking authorization for GSO spacecraft in bands designated for

NGSO systems, and that it had failed to demonstrate that GSO satellites could operate on a

secondary basis in the 18.8-19.3 GHz and 28.6-29.1 GHz bands. The Satellite Division also

found that EchoStar had failed to justify a waiver of the pertinent spectrum allocation rules.

EchoStar has sought reconsideration of the MO&O,requesting either that its applications be

reinstated and granted, or that the denials be vacated in favor of dismissals without prejudice.2

               Northrop Grumman opposes reinstatement of the EchoStar applications because

the Satellite Division correctly applied its rules and processing procedures to these applications.

However, it sees no reason that the Commission should not vacate denial of the EchoStar

applications in favor of dismissals without prejudice to refiling. In the event the applications are

refiled, of course, EchoStar would need to provide a complete technical showing demonstrating

that its GSO satellites could operate on a secondary basis to NGSO systems in the 18.8-19.3 GHz

and 28.6-29.1 GHz bands.

                                      11.     DISCUSSION

       A.      The Satellite Division’s Findings Concerning Echostar’s Applications Were
               Correct, and There Is Therefore No Basis For Reinstatement of The
               Applications.

               In rejecting Echostar’s GSO applications, the Satellite Division found that

“Echostar has not demonstrated that it can operate on a non-interference basis to NGSO FSS

systems in the band.” MO&O at 6 (¶ 16). The Satellite Division appropriately determined that

Echostar’s assertion that it would ‘“immediately cease’ operations upon notification of harmful

2
        See EchoStar Petition for Reconsideration,File Nos. SAT-LOA-20030827-00180,00182,00185
& 00187 (filed June 1,2004) (“Echostar Petition”).


                                                -3-


interference” being caused to NGSO operators was inconsistent with Commission precedent. Id.

Instead, the Satellite Division correctly held that an affirmative technical showing of capability

to operate on a non-harmful-interference basis is necessary to support secondary operation.

               EchoStar maintains in its Petition for Reconsideration that “this rationale is

unsustainable,” but offers no new arguments in support. EchoStar Petition at 6. Instead, it

simply reiterates the same unpersuasive arguments that the Satellite Division has already

properly rejected. First, EchoStar argues that the Commission should accept the use of

Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits in the 18.8-19.3 GHz and 28.6-29.1 GHz NGSO

bands that apply for protection of GSO systems in adjacent portions of the Ka-band. Id. This

notion, however, is fundamentally inconsistent with the secondary operational status that

EchoStar has claimed that it is seeking, in that the specified limits are designed to protect GSO

networks from NGSO systems. See Northrop Grumman Consolidated Petition to Dismiss at 2 &

8 n.26.

               Second, EchoStar also continues to argue “there was no need to submit a detailed

technical interference analysis” because it specifically agreed to “immediately cease operations

upon notification of a concrete risk of harmful interference.” EchoStar Petition at 7. Particularly

where the Commission and private industry have spent years establishing ground rules for

spectrum use to facilitate the development of new technologies, mere commitments to suspend

operations if these rules are violated are insufficient to support waiver of the rules. In all of the

cases that EchoStar cites where rule waivers were granted and approval was conditioned on the

requirement to cease operations in the event of harmful interference, the applicants in question

had demonstrated, sometimes through exhaustive showings, the technical feasibility of their


                                                    -4-


proposed secondary     operation^.^   Indeed, as EchoStar itself notes, such uses may be granted only

“when there is little potential for interference into any [authorized] service” and “when the non-

conforming operator accepts any interference from authorized services.” EchoStar Petition at 8.4

Contrary to its assertions, EchoStar has met neither of these criteria. It has failed to demonstrate

through a technical showing that its proposed GSO use would not interfere with NGSO systems,

and its attempt to take advantage of EPFD limits that were developed to protect GSO satellites

from NGSO systems belies any intent to accept interference from NGSO systems.

                Finally, EchoStar is incorrect in asserting that the Commission should have

simply requested additional interference analyses, rather than denying or dismissing the

applications. See EchoStar Petition at 9-10. EchoStar premises this claim on the fact that

“similarly-situated” applicants that failed to provide the standard two-degree spacing interference

analysis were simply asked to provide the missing information. Echostar, however, is not

similarly situated with these applicants. Its failure was not a failure to meet a standard

application requirement, but a failure to justify a waiver of the FCC’s Rules. The defect was not

procedural, but substantive.




3
         Indeed, in all three of these cases, parties offering services that were primary in the bands affected
acquiesced in some fashion to the non-conforming use approved. See The Boeing Company, 16 FCC Rcd
22645,22652 (116) (2001)(granting waiver “based on the analyses of potential interference ... and on the
fact that all of the parties to this proceeding reached a consensus on the appropriate measures for A M S S
systems to protect primary FSS operations”); The Boeing Company, 16 FCC Rcd 5864 (2001)(operators
within six degrees of the satellite to be accessed by non-conforming transmitters indicated “no objection
to the EIRP density levels proposed ...”); QUALCOMM, Znc., 4 FCC Rcd 1543 (1989)(imposing
operational conditions on waiver grant even though “no operators in the fixed-satellite service ... object
to Qualcomm’s proposal.”). It should also not go unobserved that all three of these cases involve
approval of non-conforming earth station uses, permitting operation of mobile terminals in FSS bands.
4
         EchoStar cites The Boeing Company, 16 FCC Rcd 22645,22651 (112) & n.48 (2001), which
relies upon Fugro-Chance, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 2860,2860 (¶ 2) (IB 1995) and other cases.


                                                -5-


       B.      In the Event That Its Applications Are Dismissed Without Prejudice,
               EchoStar Will Need To Remedy The Substantive Deficiencies in its Prior
               Showing.

               EchoStar argues in the alternative that, if its applications are not reinstated, they

should be dismissed without prejudice to refilling, rather than denied. See EchoStar Petition at

12-16. Northrop does not object to such treatment? Indeed, Northrop Grumman supports

appropriate GSO operations in the 18.8-19.3 GHz and 28.6-29.1 GHz bands, provided that these

operations protect NGSO systems. If the Commission grants the relief of dismissing the

applications rather than denying them, EchoStar would need to submit a full technical

demonstration of the ability of its GSO spacecraft to operate without causing harmful

interference to planned NGSO systems, a showing which it has not heretofore attempted.

                                      111.    CONCLUSION

               For all of the foregoing reasons, the Bureau should deny Echostar's Petition for

Reconsideration insofar as it seeks reinstatement and processing of the defective Ka-band GSO

applications that the Satellite Division properly rejected in its April 29,2004 MO&O.

                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                    NORTHROP GRUMMAN SPACE TECHNOLOGY




                                               Stephen D. B-
                                               David S . Keir

                                               Leventhal, Senter & Lerman, P.L.L.C.
                                               2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
                                               Washington, D.C. 20006
                                               (202) 429-8970

June 16,2004                        Its Attorneys

5
        Indeed, Northrop Grumman's original pleading in this proceeding sought only the dismissal
without prejudice of the subject applications.


                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I, Sharon Krantzman, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Consolidated Reply to Opposition was sent by first-class, postage prepaid mail this 16thday of
June, 2004, to the following:

                       *Thomas S . Tycz, Esquire
                       Satellite Division
                       Intern ationa1 Bureau
                       Federal Communications Commission
                                 Street, sw
                       445 1 2 ' ~
                       Washington, DC 20554

                       *Jennifer Gilsenan, Esquire
                       International Bureau
                       Federal Communications Commission
                       Room 6-A520
                       445 1 2 Street,
                                 ~     sw
                       Washington, DC 20554

                       Pantelis Michalopoulos, Esquire
                       Philip L. Malet, Esquire
                       Lee C. Milstein, Esquire
                       Steptoe & Johnson
                       1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
                       Washington, DC 20036

                       David K. Moskowitz, Esquire
                       9601 South Meridian Boulevard
                       Englewood, CO 801 12

                       Gary M. Epstein, Esquire
                       John P. Janka, Esquire
                       Elizabeth R. Park, Esquire
                       Latham 8z Watkins
                       Suite 1000
                       555 1 lthStreet, NW
                       Washington, DC 20004

                       William M. Wiltshire, Esquire
                       Fred B. Campbell, Jr., Esquire
                       Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis
                       1200 18thStreet, NW
                       Washington, DC 20036




                                                                                    W
*   By Hand Delivery                                       Sharon Krantzman



Document Created: 2004-06-21 17:41:00
Document Modified: 2004-06-21 17:41:00

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