Attachment letter

letter

LETTER submitted by DIRECTV

letter

2006-02-13

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

IBFS_SATLOA2005122100267_484103

ETLE 1200 nevmsmem smsn ow wasmeron.c 20026 NTsee Te aoeran 900 mc aonran 901 wrvovensmasime.con Osng arromrs ar w February 13, 2006 RECEIVED BY HAND DELIVERY rep 1 3 2006 Marlene H. Dortch Sccretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re:=— $AT—L04—20051221—00267 (formerly SAT—MOD—20051221—00267) Dear Ms. Dortch DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC (*DIRECTV) hereby responds brieflyto the ltter filed on February 10, 2006 by EchoStar Satellite Operating Company ("EchoStar‘)." Echostar states in that ltter that negotiations to resolve DIRECTVs concems over the serious interference issues surrounding the operation of EchoStar 10 have stalled. However, it is hard to fathom EchoStar‘s assertion that "DIRECTV has presented no proposal to EchoStar that differs from the position it has expressed to the FCC."" DIRECTV has provided a technical analysis that lays out the interference scenario in detail, and has expressed the levels of protection it deems necessary for operation of the DIRECTV 5 satelliteat 110° W.L. Unlike EchoStar, which ignored the problem during satellte development and then failed to recognize the cross—polarinterference potcntial of the satellitei its license application, DIRECTV immediately raised its concerns to Echostar with a desire o find a solution. More fundamentally,it is EchoStar — as the party that proposes to cause greatly increased interference — that should be presenting proposals for protecting DIRECTV 5. However, DIRECTV has received no proposal from EchoStarother than the parameters provided in a February 3 ex parte." If EchoStar has no further proposals to make that would alleviate DIRECTV*s concems, then DIRECTV would agree that negotiations have stlled. \. See Letr rom Pantlis Michalopoutasto Marene . Dortch (dated Feb. 10, 2006)(‘Feb. 10 Leter). o manl . See Letter fromPantlis Michalopoutosto Marlene H. Dortch (dted Feb,3,2006)

Hammis, Wicrsme & Grons cur Marlene H. Dortch Febrary 13, 2006 Page 2 of3 EchoStar also complains that DIRECTV‘s protection criteria would effectively preclude spot beam operations on the three DBS channels licensed to EchoStar that are interleaved with channels licensed to DIRECTV—* Thatis simply untrue. All DIRECTV asks is that EchoStar decrease the power of is spot beams using thase channels so that they operate at levels more comparable to DIRECTV 5. OF course, even though EchoStar is leensed to operate on 29 of the 32 DBS channels at the 110° W.L. orbital location, EchoStar chose to operate on only 10 of those channels,including three that overlap with the co—located, cross—polarized DIRECTV 5. EchoStar could have avoided this entire issue had it chosen to use channels other than those three. For whatever reason, EchoStar failed to make this simple and obvious engineering choice, and now it seeks to have DIRECTV accept unnecessarily high interference levels that could easily have been avoided. DIRECTV also opposes EchoStar‘s request to designate this procceding as "permit but disclose" for purposes ofthe Commission‘s exparte rules. EchoStar notes that the Commission has the discretion under Section 11208 of ts Rules to changethe designation of a proceeding "where the public interest so requires."" However, EchoStar conveniently omits the note to that rle that explains when such discretion should be exercised. Specifically, that note requires a determination that an otherwise restrieted proceeding "involves primarily issues of broadly applicable policy rather than the rights and responsibilities of specific parties" in order to justify a changein ex partestatus." In this application proceeding, there is no such issue. In fact, EchoStar itselfhas described the interference issues in this case as arising from "the unique circumstance surrounding DIRECTV‘s three licensed channels that are ‘interleaved" with three of EchoStar‘s 29 frequencies at 110° W.L.."" Later in that same pleading, EchoStar repeated that assertion, and concluded: "There is no similar DBS sharing sinuation."* Needless o say, it is not possible to square EchoStar‘s original assertion as tothe "unique" circumstances ofthis case with ts current request for a change in ex parte status that must rely upon a finding that this proceeding "involves primarily issues obroadly applicable policy.". Atits heart, this is a matter ofbilateral coordination between the only two DBS operators licensed by the Commission. DIRECTV submits that there is no * Pb 10 Lereract. See id at 2 (quoting47 CR § 1.1200(0) and 1.1208) 47 CR § 11208, Nore 2 Reply Comments of EchoStar Satelite Operaing Company at 2 (iled Jan. 31, 2006) d at‘s (emphasisadded)

Hams, Wiursmie & Gramus tir Marlene H. Dortch February 13, 2006 Page 3 of3 basis for granting EchoStar‘s request and that the public interest would be better served by continting to observe the rules presumptively applicable to this procecding. Sincerely yours, uty M Zlinks. William M. Wiltshire Michael D. Nilsson Counsel for DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC cc: Robert Nelson Andrea Kelly Chip Fleming Rockie Patterson Pantelis Michalopoulos


Document Created: 2006-02-14 15:30:12
Document Modified: 2006-02-14 15:30:12
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC