Attachment request

request

LETTER submitted by Mobile Satellite Ventures

request

2005-06-15

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20040210-00015 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2004021000015_438188

_ _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