Attachment response

response

REPLY TO COMMENTS submitted by EchoStar

response

2006-01-30

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20051221-00267 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2005122100267_482346

Reply Comnients of EchoStar — SAT—MOD—20051221—00267 Page 1 of 1 William Caton From: VoriigPatr {pvontig@steptos com} RECEIVED Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:34 PM To: 1BSecretary JAN 3 0 2006 Ce: Wilam Caton; Michalopoutas, Pantels; Kinney, Linda S SivinicainCommtuins Subject: Reply Comments of EchoStar— SAT—MOD—20051221—00257 onenoSeniny Please ind attached a capy of he Reply Comments of EchoStar Sateite Operating Company fled i response to comments fled by DIRECTV Enterprses, LLC in the above referenced matter Pleaseletus know if you have any problems with te attachment <«Reply Commentspat>> Best regards, Potra A Vornig Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1390Connectiut Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036—1705 Tet (202) «20.04t7. Fax: (200 4203002 The information contained in this e—mail message is intended only forthe personal and confidential use ofthe recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attomey—client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. Ifthe reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying ofthis message is stritly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by c—mail, and delete the original message 22006

Before the RECEIVED reprRAL CoMMUNICATons comitsston Jan Washington, DC 20554 3 0 2006 Mflmmm.. Oftrot e Seaviny Application of EchoStar Satllite Operating Company File No. SAT—MOD—20051221—00267 For Modification of Authorization to Operate a DBS Satelite at 110 W.L. repLy comments or EcHosrar SaTELLITE orERATNG company EchoStar Satelite Operating Company (‘EchoStar")hereby responds to comments filed by DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC (*DIRECTV*) in opposition t the above referenced wppliction." The public interesis best served by authorizing fulloperation of EchoStar10. Such a grant will enable EchoStato begin operation and provide important services to consumers assoon as practicable. Among other things, approval to operate EchoStar 10 atthe 110° W.L. orbial location is important to EchoStar‘s compliance with the March 8, 2006, customer notifcation requirementsset forth in the Satellte Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (‘SHVERA®) Comversely, failure to grant the requested authorization would impact a number of markets that EchoStar will be transitioning from two dishes to one dish pursuant to the SHVERA mandate," ‘ Comments of DIRECTV Enterprise, LLC, filed in SAT—MOD—20051221—00267 (iled Jan. 20, 2006) * Codifed at 47 U.S.C. § 338@)@). 347 US.C. 3 338000

With respect o the unique circumstances surrounding DIRECTV‘s three licensed channelsthat are "interleaved" withthree of EchoStar‘s 29 frequencies at110° W.L., the Commission should allow EchoStar to operate on channels 27, 29 and 31 subjectto coordination between the two providers,‘butshould provide guidance regarding the appropriatestandard for assessing harmful interference,should the two companies be unsble to each agreement by February 3, 2006. EchoStar is confident that no harmful intrference willbe caused by the "iterleaved" three channels, because DIRECTV already tolerates comparable effects from its on current authorized operations. Indeed, EchoStar 10 will allow DIRECTV to maintain service levelsfor is three channels t 110° W.L. comparable to those that DIRECTV itself has proposed for ts DIRECTV— 13 sitelite. As satelite systems become more complex and the Commission promotes more efficient use of the spectum, satellte providers must continuallyre—evaluate the citerion they use in assessing interference. EchoStar reserves the rightto supplement this response with additional technicaldetail depending on the progress of discussions with DIRECTV. atysis On December 21, 2005, EchoStar filed an application to modify ts suthorization to operatea satellie at 110° W.L. and to launch and operate a new satellite, EchoStar 10,at that orbital location." The EchoStar 10 satelite representsa substantal improvement in frequency reuse "If an agreement requires an adjustment tothe powerlevels deployed on the three chaninels in question, EchoStar can make such adjustments while EchoStar 10 is in orbit 5 File No. SAT—MOD—20051221—00267,

technology that willallow EchoStar to provide advanced services to is subscribers, including high definiion to subscribers in some markets® in its comments challenging EchoStar‘s application, DIRECTV sttes ts DIRECTV 5 satellite, operating at 109.° W.L., will experience serious interference from EchoStar 10 iit is authorized to operate at 110° WL." DIRECTV states that ts interference analysis demonstrtes that "is customers in many areas of he country will rceive unaceeptable inteference."* DIRECTV provides itmore o establish this ssertion or to demonstratethat it concem is real. The vague nature of is arguments leads one to believe that these comments are intended only asa "place holder® rather than an expression of genine concem. To assess these vague concems, it is important to survey the landscape of the DBS industry, as wellas the changes that have been experienced over the last 10 years of DBS operations. The DBS providers are now operating almost exclusively in an interference" limited environment whereas at the stat (and before the advent of spot beam satelites),they were operating exclusively in a "power"limited environment. The EIRP levels used on spot beams will probably not increase furter beyond currentlevels (icluding EchoStar 10) due to the fact tat the co—frequency beams are about as close to each other as they can getforinterference purposes. However, CONUS EIRP levels ° See d. In this application, EchoStar explained thatlaunch and operation of EchoStar 10 at 110° W.L.will have significant public nterest benefits including: improved spectrum efficiency; addiional and improved programming and services, including more local—into—Local services, High Definition programming and intermational services; and more meaningful competiionin the mubichannel video distribution market. Further, together with the operation of EchoStar 5 at 129° W.L. and other measures,the operation of EchoStar 10 at 110° W... is a criical component of EchoStar‘s ability to comply with the "single dish" requirement introduced by Section 203 of the SHVERA. Codifed ar 47 U.S.C. § 338(@. " Comments of DIRECTV Enterprise, LLC, filed in SAT—MOD—20051221—00267, at1 (filed Jun. 20, 2006). *t

have been and are likely to continue to increase in coming years such thatthe differential btween the EIRP of spot beams versus CONUS beams willfurther decrease. Historially, CONUS beams used 120 watt amplifiers thatproduce CONUS beam EIRP peaks on the order of 53 dBW ETRP. The most recent offerings (now deployed on DIRECTV satelites and soon to be deployed by EchoStar too)are based on 450 watt amplifiers with CONUS EIRP peaks of approximately 58 t 59 dBW. DIRECTV has now proposed 600 watt amplifers fo ts DIRECTV—13 satellite with CONUS EIRP peks of approximately 61 dBW (albeit across wider bandwidih. The stark bottom ineis that there has been a steady progression of higher and higher CONUS powersthat cantinue to reduce the difrentia between spot beams and CONUS beams, and therefore the interference caused by spot beams into CONUS beams, asreferred to by DIRECTV— Agninstthis backdrop, and settingaside the near—complete lack of specifictyin DIRECTV‘s comments,the fac is thatthe EchoStar 10 satelte will not cause harmful interference to the DIRECTV 5 satellte oany other authorized user of the spectrum. Indeed,the satelite will have an effect on DIRECTV‘s operations that is comparable to: (1) the effect that the DIRECTV‘s 48 and 78 satelites have on DIRECTV‘s own operations at 101° WL. and 119° W.L.; (2) the C/1 levels tat DIRECTV has determined it can accept for ts proposed DIRECTV—13 sateliteat 110° W.L; and (3) levelsthat EchoStar has been operating with over the last 3—4 years on EchoStar 7 and EchoStar 8 with no perceived negative impact on performance.. At a meeting convened by the commission on January 27, DIRECTV representatives did not deny that these effects are comparable; they argued, however, thatthe effect that each DBS provider chooses to live within for ts own operations is irelevant. The problem with that argument is that there is no other appropriatestandard to assess the "inteference" to be eaused by EchoStar 10. ‘Thisis because there is no rule that determines acceptable cross polarization C/t levels, Noris there any factualsituation that can provide a direcly applicable

yardstick. Thisis because DIRECTV‘s concems arise from a unique situation: DIRECTV‘s three Hicensed channels are "interleaved" with three of EchoStar‘s 29 frequenciesat 110° W.L. Therefore, eross—pola interference between essentialy collocated satelftes, which would normally be considered "intre—system interference," actually occurs as *inter—system interference" between EchoStar and DIRECTV, There is no similar DBS sharing situation. DIRECTV has all of 101° W.L., and EchoStar and DIRECTV have sequential channel assignments t 119° W.L. In the absence of any rule of directly applicable comparison, one appropriate criterion is what the provider expressing interference concerms has decided it can tolerte in terms of ntra—system interference in its own operations. "This eriterion is instructive. t shows that the effect of EchoStar 10‘s operations in channels 27, 2, and 31 on the DIRECTV satelite‘sthree channels —— 28, 30, and 32 —— will not constiute harmfuliterference. Indecd., as mentioned above, resultig cross polarizaton C/I levels from EchoStar—10 into the DIRECTV 5 satellte operating at 109.8° W.L. are comparable t the C/1 levelsthat DIRECTV already accept into its CONUS service atthe 101° W.L.and 119° W.L. orbital Tocations due toits own collocated spot beam satelites at those locations. Finallyand equally important, the C/ levels of which DIRECTV complains are comparable to the C/I levels that DIRECTV itself has proposed (and therefore can live with)forthe DIRECTV—13 satelite. As DIRECTV has correctly observed. DIRECTV and EchoStar have commenced coondination discussions, and EchoStar remains hopeful hat the two can reach agreement. Nevertheless,if agreement has not been reached by Friday February 3, 2006 (the date on which the two companies have committed to provide an updateto the Commission),it would be useful for the Commission to provide guidance regarding the appropriatestandard. EchoStar notes, moreover,that DIRECTV‘s concems are limited to only tree DBS channels at 110° W.L.—— 27, 29, and 31 —— which are adjacent to DIRECTV‘s three licensed channels ——

28, 30, and 32 ——atthe same orbitallocation. DIRECTV‘s concerns,therefore, do notrelate tothe requested operation ofthe EchoStar 10 satelite on the remaining channelslicensed to EchoStar at 110° wil? concruston "The Commission should authorizefull operation for EchoStar 10 on the requested channels licensed t EchoStarat the 110° W.L. orbital location. While EchoStar accepts a coordination condition for the three channels that overlap those licensed to DIRECTV, the Commission should provide guidance aboutthe appropriate standard if the two operators have not reached agreement by February 3, 2006. The Commission should also prompily grant EchoStar‘s previously filed requestfor temporary authorization fo the Iaunch and testing of EchoStar 10 at 138.5° W.L.,"since such temporary operations likewise willnot affect DIRECTV and do notimplicte any of DIRECTV‘s interference concems. Respectfully submitted. is David K. Moskowite Pantelis Michalopoulos Exceutive Vice President Petra A. Vorwig and General Counsel Steptoe & Johnson ttP EchoStar Satellte LLC 1330 Connecticat Avenue, NW 9601 S. Meridian Blvc. Washington, DC 20036 Englewood, CO 80112 (202) 429—3000 Junuary 30, 2006 * EchoStar has already agreed to accommodate a seprate residual concern expressed by DIRECTV regarding these remaining frequencies (without agreeing that this concern was legitimate). !® File Nos. SAT—STA—20051130—00257, SAT—STA—20060104—00002, As EchoStar has apprised the Commission, launch is currently t for Wednesday February 8, 2006.

n or FoR E 6 ATION Ihereby certify that I am the technically qualified person responsible for prepsration of the engineering information contained in this application, that I am famili with Pat 25 of the Commission‘s ules, that 1 have either prepared or reviewed. the engincering information submited in this application and thati is completeand accurate t the best of my knowledge and beliet. t Richard J. Bamet, PhD, BSe Telecomm StrategiesIc. 6404 Highland Drive Chevy Chase, MD 20815 (3o1) ese—8969 Junuary 30, 2006

chrmricate or service Lhereby certify that, on this 30° day of January 2006, a copy of the foregoing REPLY COMMENTS OF ECHOSTAR SATELLITE OPERATING COMPANY was served by electronic mail, and a copy willbe served by hand on the 31" day of January 2006, upon the following: Willam M. Wilisize (wwltshie@hariswilishire.com) Harris, Wiltshire & Gramnis LLP 1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Michael D. Nilsson (mailsson@harriswiltshie.com) Harris, Wilishire & Grannis LLP 1200 Eightcenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Counsel for DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC moalfonne_. Petia A. Vorvig


Document Created: 2006-02-08 15:43:17
Document Modified: 2006-02-08 15:43:17
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC