Attachment letter

letter

LETTER submitted by EchoStar

letter

2006-02-22

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

IBFS_SATLOA2005122100267_484768

STEPTOE &JOHNSON« artormers at caw Panels Michalopoulos 1310 Connecteut Avenve. NY amanene Washingon. DC 200361795 prichalotsteproccom Tel2024203000 taxaon00002 steproccom February 22, 2006 RECEIVED Via HAND DELIVERY FEB 2 2 206 Marlene H. Dortch Fedeal Communatem Canias Secretary Ofcectsecuy " Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street NW Washington, DC 20554 Re: EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation, Reply to Comments Filed by DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC — File No. SAT—LOA—20051221—00267 (formerly SAT—MOD—20051221— 00267) Dear Ms. Dortch: By this letter and the attached Supplemental Technical Annex, EchoStar Satellte LL.C. ("EchoStar") hereby responds to the substance of two DIRECTV submissions made on February 3, 2006,‘ as well as to a DIRECTV leter filed February 13, 2006.". EchoStar also reports that, while the partiesstll have not reached agreement with respect to the operation of EchoStar 10 at the 110° W.L. " See Response ofDIRECTV Enterprises, LLC,iled in SAT—MOD—20051221—00267 (filed Fob. 3, 2006) (‘DIRECTV Response‘); Letter from William M. Wilishire and Michael D. Nilsson, Counsel for DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secrctary, FCC,filed in SAT—LOA—20051221— 00267 (formerly SAT—MOD—20051221—00267) (filed Feb. 3, 2006) ("Feb. 3 DIRECTV Letter®). * Letter from William M. Wiltshire and Michael D. Nilsson, Counsel for DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,filed in SAT—LOA—20051221—00267 (formerly SAT—OD— 20051221—00267) (filed Feb. 13, 2006) (‘Feb. 13 DIRECTV Lerter®). vasiincron rnounix tos ancruts tonpon sxussius

STEPTOE &JOHNSON Marlene H. Dortch February 22, 2006 Page 2 orbital location, EchoStar will make an intensive new effort to reach agreement with DIRECTV over the next ten days." DIRECTV‘s demand for protection is excessive for the following reasons. Firs, DIRECTV‘s position is in essence that the eross—polar C/I levels for DIRECTV 5 should be left at the same level as would resultfrom satellite operations nine degrees away or from a collocated CONUS satellite.* As the Supplemental Technical Annex explains, this position has an inevitable logical corollary:. that there can be no spot beam operations on the three frequencies in question. Any spot beam operation would entail a difference in power with DIRECTV 5‘s CONUS operations that would esultin eross—polar C/1 below those to which DIRECTV demands protection.". DIRECTV specifically compares the cross—polar impact of EchoStar 10 to EchoStar 8 asithe ltter were conducting spot beam operations on channels 27, 29 and 31.°. In fact, as DIRECTV knows, this is not the case. While a spot beam satellite, EchoStar 8 performs only CONUS operations on these three channels. DIRECTV should not be heard when it calls for a restrction on spot beam power to the levels appropriate for the operation ofla CONUS beam." A rule preventing spot beam operations on three channels t 110° W.L. would run directly counter t the Commission‘s policy ofpromoting efficient and intensive use of DBS spectrum, the public interest in local—into—local service, and the same—dish mandate of SHVERA. * In this regard, EchoStar notes that DIRECTV has distorted the facts surrounding the negotiations between the parties. DIRECTV claims that it "has received no proposal from EchoStar other than the parameters provided in a February 3 exparte." Feb. 13 DIRECTV Letter at1. In fact, EchoStar submitted a confidential settlement proposal to DIRECTV on February 2. * See DIRECTV Response at 8 (‘DIRECTV seeks only protection to the level ofinter—system interference that is the current industry norm ...."); id at 6 ("As the comparison of current and projected C/I levels in Exhibit 1 clearly shows, DIRECTV 5 achieves typical C/Ilevels in excess of 20 dB under the current inter—system interference environment—— a level that is common throughoutthe U.S. DBS orbital are.") * See Supplemental Technical Annex at4—5 (analyzing necessary spot beam power levels and concluding that "eross—polar C/I evels [into DIRECTV 5}, when spot beams satellites are used, will inevitably drop to values in the mid teens."); . at 12 (‘EchoStar has explained and demonstrated here that it is impossible to provide the high cross—polar C/I levelsindicated by DIRECTV when a spot beam DBS satelliteis used at the 110° W.L. orbital position."). ° DIRECTV Response at Exhibit 1. " See, eg., Feb. 13 DIRECTV Letterat 2 ("All DIRECTV asks is that EchoStar decrease the power of is spot beams using those channels so that they operate atlevels more comparable to DIRECTV 5.").. However, a "spot beam" operating at the power level of an older model CONUS satellite (such as DIRECTV 5) is essentially not a spot beam any more.

STEPTOE &JOHNSON« Marlene H. Dortch February 22, 2006 Page3 Second, DIRECTV is trying to constrain EchoStar based on the low power levels of DIRECTV 5, an old satelltethat DIRECTV has chosen to consign toitsrelative "Siberia" of three channels at 110° W.L.® This is a location where DIRECTV has the least amount of spectrum compared to its 101° W.L. and 119° W.. slots, and it is perfectly understandable for DIRECTV t want to deploy older satelltes at this slot prior to decommissioning. But such a choice should not become a basis for hampering the operation of adjacent channels on a state—ofthe—art spot beam satellte. Third, the "problem" of which DIRECTV complains is partly of is own creation. The alleged interference would be significantly ameliorated if DIRECTV were using receive dishes that comply with the ITU‘s eross—polarization discrimination value of25 dB." This is a respectable decision, and one that EchoStar too has made. But DIRECTV is now improperly attempting to leverage that business decision into a reason to restrict the spot beam power levels ofthe EchoStar 10 satellite. Fourth, DIRECTV claims incorreetly that EchoStar used the wrong cross—polar interference and link availability values for the DIRECTV 5 satellite."* As the Supplemental Technical Annex shows,"" EchoStar used the onlvalues available for the relevant parameters —— those cited by DIRECTV in itsoriginal application for DIRECTV 5 in 2000. DIRECTV faults EchoStar for not using the more relevant values used in its 2005 application. The problem is that there are no such values. The 2005 application makes no mention ofassumed link availabilty and does not separately identify the eross—polar C/1 allowance. IfDIRECTV raised its own expectations for the satellite‘s performance,it did not tell the Commission. In any event, the asserted increase in required availability to 99.9% is totally implausible: many of the DIRECTV 5 links produce availabilities well below the 99.9% level without any additional interference impact from the EchoStar 10 satellite. In other words, if that were DIRECTV‘s true goal, it would be impossible to achieve regardless ofthe EchoStar 10 satellit. Fifth, DIRECTV also claims that the EchoStar 10 satellite would prevent the DIRECTV 5 satellite from using MPEG—4/SPSK compression and modulation technology with code rates up to %. As the Supplemental Technical Annex shows, a look at the applicable specification for the technology in *1d. at$. ° See id. at 7—8. ‘° See Feb. 3 DIRECTV Letter at 1 ("("First, although EchoStar recognizes that DIRECTV currently operates the DIRECTV satellite at110° W... under the parameters requested in an application filed in may 2005 {sic} Nonetheless, its analysis chooses to focus on parameters requested for operation of the satellie five years earlier at a different orbitallocation."). ‘‘ Supplemental Technical Annex at 9—10.

STEPTOE &JOHNSON« Marlene H. Dortch February 22, 2006 Page4 question shows this is simply not so."* The availabilty results for DIRECTV 5 would allow the satellite fully to achieve the EbNo value given in the specification. Finally, DIRECTV argues that the iterference an operator accepts from its own system is ielevant, because that operator also receives benefits elsewhere on its system that counter—balance the harm." An effect from use ofoverlapping frequenciesi either harmfulinterference or it is not, however. The answer does not change depending on who receives the benefits from that effect. DIRECTV does not cite any Commission precedent in support ofthis proposition. In fact, DIRECTV is pressing a new rule on the Bureau: that what an operator tolerates from itselfis irrelevant in evaluating whether a third—party‘s operation causes it harm. ‘The Bureau does not have authority from the Commission to enunciate such a rule,"" and nor would it make sense from a policy standpoint. The levels of interference that an operatoralready accepts are highly relevant to determining what levels of interference are harmful. The Supplemental Technical Annex also addresses and clarifies two points made by DIRECTV in its Response. Firse, it explains EchoStar‘s reference to a 23.3 dB cross—polar C/I level in itsoriginal application. DIRECTV quotes that reference out of context in its Response.." The main point of the discussion in which this C/I figure appears was to demonstrate numericallythat the satelite antenna cross polar discrimination shortfll would have a negligible impact (0.47 dB) on the overall eross—polar C/I levels."* The 23.3 dB C/I figure was simply a reference calculation made on the assumption that the EIRP levels of the wanted and interfering satelites were the same. The purpose of this ealculation was to put into perspective the relatively small impact ofthe satellite antenna cross—polar discrimination. Clearly,it was not meant to indicate that the precise situation ofzero EIRP difference exists across the entire service area. Second, DIRECTV incorreetly asserts that accommodation of DIRECTV‘s three DBS channels at 110° W.L. would impact only 10% of the EchoStar 10 capacity."" " tdac10—411 " Feb. 3 DIRECTV Letter at 2. "* See, e 47 C.FR. § 0.261(bX1)(ii) ("the Chicf, Iternational Bureau, shall not have authority:(1) to act on any application, petition, pleading, complaint, enforcement matter, oother request that ... (ii) cannot be resolved under outstanding precedents and guidelines after consultation with appropriate Bureaus or Offices."). "* See DIRECTV Response at 4 (quoting EchoStar Application at Attachment A, p.14, fled in SAT—MOD—20051221—00267 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) ‘* Supplemental Technical Annex at 7. ‘" DIRECTV Response at 8—9 (*. .. any accommodation required to protect DIRECTV 5 would have no effect on 90% of EchoStar 10‘s frequencies.").

STEPTOE &JOHNSON= Marlene H. Dortch February 22, 2006 Page S In fact,the EchoStar 10 satelite is only equipped to operate on ten downlink channels, and constraints on the operation of three of those channels would affect approximately 30% ofthe capacity ofthe satellite—— a fact acknowledged by DIRECTV in its February 13 letter."" In sum, the FCC should balance the real impact on DIRECTV (which is best determined through a link availability assessment) with the real limitations on EchoStar 10 service that would result if high C/Irequirements are dictated. EchoStar has already proposed significant reductions in certain spot beam EIRP levels, which would significantly improve the resulting C/I levels into DIRECTV. For these additional reasons, EchoStar respectfully requests that the Commission accept this proposal and allow EchoStar 10 to operate accordingly. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding this filing. Respectfully yours, Pantote, Mekatrponl= [yea, Pantelis Michalopoutos Counselfor EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation Attachment (Supplemental Technical Annex) es: Robert Nelson, Intemational Burcau Andrea Kelly, International Bureau Chip Fleming, International Bureau William M. Wiltshire, Counselfor DIRECTV Enterprises, LC "* See, e EchoStar Application at Attachment A, p2. See also Feb, 13 Letter at 2.

Supplemental Technical Annex 1. Background This Supplemental Technical Annex has been prepared on behalf of EchoStar Satellite LLC. (*EchoStar")in response tothe Response of DIRECTV Enterprises LL.C. ("DIRECTV")dated February 3, as well as DIRECTV‘ letter to the FCC also dated February 3, both concerning the levels of cross—polar interference that will be caused by the EchoStar 10 satellit into DIRECTV‘s closely spaced satellie in the vicinity of now. Understandably, DIRECTV would like to have no neighbour at all at the 110° nominal orbital position, and DIRECTV makes the point that t benefits nothing from any additional iterference caused by the EchoStar 10 satellte compared to the current situation of the EchoStar 8 satellite. However, cross—polar effects from a collocated EchoStar stellite operating on channels 27, 29 and 31 is an inevitable fact oflife, which was fully known at the time the licenses for this orbital position were granted by the Commission. The question that both parties, and the Commission, have to address here is whatis the appropriate level of cross—polar nterference in this unique situation, given the evolving nature ofthe DBS industry and the need to use spot beam satelltes for local— into—local service? In its February 2 submission to the FCC on this matter, EchoStar provided the results of its detailed availability impact on the DS satellte due to the proposed interference levels from the EchoStar 10 satelite, and included proposals for significant reductions in the EIRP levels of many of the EchoStar beams in order to minimize the impact on DIRECTV. The resultsshowed almost insignificant decreases in the availability of the DIRECTV links, using DIRECTV‘s own link budget assumptions, and even those decreases occurzed over very limited geographic areas corresponding to the beam peaks of the EchoStar 10 spot beams. In almost all cases the resulting availability was in excess

of the 99.75% level indicated in DIRECTV‘s own link budgetsfor the DS satellte, and greater than 99.85% in many cases. In itslatest response DIRECTV chose notto address the availabilityimpact of the EchoStar 10 interference, but discussed only the cross—polar CA levels. In this supplemental technical annex EchoStar will also address only the cross—polar C/I levels despite the fact thatthe analysis ofthe resulting availabilityis the true way to understand. the interference impact on DIRECTV. Nevertheless, EchoStar‘s previous availability analysis sl stands and EchoStar would urge the Commission to continue to take careful note of those results. 2. C/I Assessment ‘The calculation ofthe cross—polar C/Ilevels is particularly simple. The only two parameters involved are: * the cross—polar discrimination of the DIRECTV receiving earth stations, and * the difference in EIRP levels between the DIRECTV and the EchoStar satellite at various geographic locations across the service area. Forthe analysis below we will assume full overlap of the EchoStar and DIRECTV channels, which implies a 1.05 dB bandwidth factor (due to the guard band between the channels) The resulting C/1 is therefore given by C/1(dB) = XPDomeery + ElRPomscry — ElRProosw + 1.05 ‘ "The bandwdth overlp factor is lsorelevant but s a constantatiter 1.05 dB or 4.06 dB. depending on whether theris half orfullverlap. This n tur depends on which of th three channels (27, 29 and 31) are used in the prticlar beams ohe EchoStar 10 satlite. 2

where: XPDomery is the cross—polar discrimination of the DIRECTV receive earth stations, assumed by DIRECTV to be 22 dB, ElRPomecry is the EIRP of the DIRECTV satellite which varies across the service area, and ElRPeauser is the EIRP of the EchoStar satellite which also varies across the service area. The above equation can therefore be writen as C/(dB) = 23.05 dB + AEIRP (dB) where AEIRP is the difference in EIRP, in dB, between the DIRECTV and EchoStar satelltes, and which varies across the service area From this equation a simple truth emerges. Fundamentally, the worst case C/I cannot be better than 23.05 dB unless the EchoStar satellite EIRP is less than the DIRECTV satellte EIRP level at all points in the service area. 3. Current rational C/I Levels at the 110°W Orbital Position DIRECTV provides in its Exhibit 1 a summary of its calculation ofthe C/I levels at 110°W. This shows that the current EchoStar 8 satellite causes C/I levels of between 19.4 and 25.1 dB across CONUS, atthe beam peak locations of the EchoStar 10 satellte."" Although the EchoStar 8 satelliteincludes some spot beam capability, it Beam locations 46 and 47 are not inclade in thrange cited hereasthey serveareas outsideof CONUS (Alaska and Hawai)and therae other specil cosideration ithese parts of the service areas

should be noted that EchoStar 8 is not capable of operating spot beams in the channels that overlap in frequency with those licensed to DIRECTV at 110°W, and EchoStar 8 only operates on the overlapping channels in its CONUS coverage beam. Therefore the /1 levels given in DIRECTV‘s Exhibit 1 as cited above, occur only as a result of the interaction of EchoStar‘s CONUS beam operations at 110°W, and have nothing to do with the use of spot beams. This is a very important point as it demonstrates that, even with two CONUS coverage satellites in operation at 1 10°W, the C/ levels drop to below 20 dB in some geographic locations. This is indicative of the inevitable fluctuations and differences in EIRP levels between two different satellites, albeit with a very similar CONUS coverage objective. 4. Necessary Peak EIRP Levels of Spot Beam DBS Satellites Spot beam DBS satellites are the only way to provide comprehensive local DBS programming to the US public. These satellites conserve power and re—use frequencies in a manner that is totally different from a CONUS coverage satellte. Such satelltes are already in use by both DIRECTV and EchoStar and they are an inevitable part of the future of the US DBS industry. The Commission already recognizes this and should continue to promote the use of these advanced technology satelltes. One of the fundamental characteristics of spot beam DBS satellites is the fact that they have high peak EIRP levels over a relatively small geographic area compared to a CONUS satellte beam. This is rve regardless of whether the spot beam satellite belongs to EchoStar or DIRECTV. ‘The two main reasons for this are as follows: a) Each spot beam is designed to cover one or more DMAs (Designated Market Areas). These DMAs are defined based on local market considerations and the result is that the geographic shape of the DMA is often unsuited to being served C ‘There wil lkely be other loction n the CONUS service area where the C/ from EchoSta—8 flls beiow 194 dB.

by a near—circular satellite spot beam. This incvitably results in some parts of the DMA being at low relative EIRP levels in the spot beam, as much as 9 dB or so below beam peak in some instances. Therefore, in order to provide adequate service at these low relative EIRP levels, the peak EIRP ofthe spot beam incvitably has comparatively high EIRP . b) The high level of spatial requency re—use in a spot beam DBS satelite results in relatively high levels ofintra—system interference levels resulting from the co— frequency operation of many beams. In the EchoStar 10 satellite some channels are re—used spatially up to 15 times. This effect results in worstcase intra—system C/1levels, which usually occur at the edge of a beam, that are below 10 dB in many cases. Additional EIRP, over and above what would be required from a CONUS coverage DBS satellit, is required to overcome these high intra—system interference levels. This further increases the need for relatively high beam peak EIRP levels i a spot beam DBS satellite compared to a CONUS beam one. The situation described in (a) above is shown by the example in Figure 2—1 below. This shows EchoStar 10 spot beam 37 superimposed on the DMA map. This beam has been designed to have the capability o serve five DMAs, labelled here as A, B, C, D and E. The EIRP contours are shown in 1 dB steps from —3 to 10 dB. The edge of DMA "A" extends outto approximately the —7.5 dB relative EIRP contour level, but by the time an allowance for best case beam pointing has been included this is equivalent t the —9.5 dB relative EIRP level. There are many other similar examples in the different beams of the EchoStar 10 system. For the example beam shown in Figure 2—1 the minimum EIRP at the edge of DMA "A" is approximately 49.5 dBW, taking account of the rain effects atthis location in CONUS and other link degradations, in order to give an acceptable link availability with modest throughput. This implies the beam peak EIRP for this beam would need to be 49.5 + 9.5 =59 dBW. This compares with the DIRECTV D5 EIRP at this location which is approximately 51 dBW. Therefore the AERP in this case (at the beam peak) is —8.0 dB,

and so the resulting C/I (according to the equation presented above) is 23.05 — $.0 = 15.05 dB. This clearly demonstrates that cross—polar C/I levels, when spot beams satellites are used, will inevitably drop to values in the mid teens. Figure 2—1 Example EchoStar 10 Spot Beam 37 Covering Five DMAs DMA "A" DMA "B" DMA "C" | DMA "E" Dma D # mrmnanier

5. EchoStar‘s Reference to a 23.3 dB C/I Level In itslatest pleading DIRECTV makes much ado about EchoStar‘s reference to a 23.3 dB C/tlevel in the EchoStar 10 FCC application. This reference was from a portion of the EchoStar application that addresses the waiver request forthe 1.7 dB shortfall in satellte anterna cross—polar discrimination." The purpose ofthe discussion atthis point in the document was to demonstrate numerically that the satellite antenna XPD shortfll has negligible impact (0.47 dB) on the overall cross—polar C/1 levels, because they are dominated by the much lower receive earth station XPD levels, A reference calculation was made assuring that the EIRP levels of the wanted and interfering satelltes were the same. Clearly this was not meant to indicate that this precise situation of zero EIRP difference exists across the entire service area. It was justa reference calculation in order to put in perspective the relative impact of the satellite antenna XPD. EchoStar is confident that this did not mislead the DIRECTV engineers or the Commission staff, as DIRECTV has suggested it did. 6. DIRECTV‘s Receive Earth Station XPD Performance DIRECTV has indicated a cross—polar discrimination level for ts receive earth stations of only 22 dB. As noted in Section 2 above, this performance parameteris absolutely key in determining the cross—polar C/1 levels. ‘The reference receive earth station mask given in TTU Appendix 30 gives an XPD value of 25 dB. If DIRECTV‘s receive earth stations met the ITU mask then the cross—polar C/ levels would be 3 dB better than DIRECTV is currently calculating. Presumably when DIRECTV chose to deploy such non—conforming £ Such walve equess areperfcily normal with DBS satelies of this ype, both EchoSuar‘s and DIRECTV‘s. This walve equest doesnot signifcanty affec the oveal crosspolaintrference levels rom EchoStar 10 nto DIRECTV‘s satelit a110°W & In the ie text from the EchoStar 10 FCC applicationthe receive eath station XPD was assumed to be 25 dB (as per TTU Appendix 30)and itshould be noted that wth DIRECTV‘s even oer teceive earth sution XPD performance of 2 dB, he relatve impuct o the stllte XPD shortal is even less tan 0.47 dB.

receive earth stations operating with the 110°W satellteit was fully aware of the consequences in terms of potential cross—polar interference from EchoStar‘s future satellites. There could not have been the expectation that the EchoStar satellite EIRP would never be higher than the DIRECTV satellite EIRP at all points in the service area. In other words, DIRECTVcannot now claim that ts needs high levels of cross—polar interference protection when it willingly deployed earth stations that do not conform to ITU standards and hence significantly aggravate this interference situation. 2 DIRECTV‘s DS Satellite is a Very Low Power Satellite The D5 satelliteis one of DIRECTV‘s lowest EIRP level satelltes. As noted in Section 2 above, the EIRP of the DIRECTV satellite at 110°W is a key factor in determining the cross—polar C/Ilevels. It would therefore be inappropriate to significantly hamper the capability of the EchoStar 10 satellite because of DIRECTV‘s continued use of an old— generation satellite design at this orbital location. 8. Significant Proportion of EchoStar 10‘s Capacity is Affected DIRECTV states in itslatest pleading that any constraints on channels 27, 29 and 31 for EchoStar should not be a problem because, according to DIRECTYV, these three channels amount to only 10 % of the EchoStar 10 capacity, and EchoStr is otherwise unconstrained in the remaining 26 channels.This is completely wrong. The EchoStar 10 satellt is only able to operate on ten downlink channels,and constraints in three of those channels wl affect approximately 30% of the EchoStar 10 capacity. 9. Additional Points Raised by DIRECTV in its February 3 Letter to the ECC DIRECTV makes three points in ts February 3 letter to the FCC on this matter. Each of these points is addressed in the sub—sections below.

9.1 EchoStar‘s Reference to the Original DS Application DIRECTV asserts that EchoStar should have made reference to the May 2005 FCC application of DIRECTV concerning the D5 satellite move tothe 1 10°W orbital location (from its operation at a Canadian orbital position) rather than the original 2000 application for the DS satellte. DIRECTV states that its 2008 application uses different and more relevant parameters than its 2000 application (for the same satelite), and cites the differences in link availabilty and allowance for cross—polar C/I as evidence of this. Unfortunately, what DIRECTV now states concerning ts 2005 application is not evident from reading that application. DTV states that its 2005 application assumed a link availability of 99.9% and a C/I allowancefor cross—polar interference of 22.9 dB. We have been unable to find these data in the 2005 FCC application for DS. The link budget given in Table A—1 of that application makes no mention of assumed link availability and does not separately identify the cross—polar C/I allowance.® It is for this precise reason that EchoStar chose to use the data from the original 2000 DS application in the previous EchoStar analysis. Essentially, there were no relevant data available in the 2005 application on which to base the analysis. The latest data DIRECTV now claims conceming the assumed link availability(99.9%) and cross—polar C/I allowance (22.9 dB) for the DS satellite appear to be wishful thinking in more ways than one. As EchoStar demonstrated in its previous analysis of the availability ofthe D5 links, many of the example links only produce availabilities well below the 99.9% level without any additional interference impact from the EchoStar 10 satellte. This leads one to question how the availability objective can be as high as * "The DIRECTY lnk budget does tte an overll / allowance of 174 dB for "Toreier— and intraspstem C/1, dB (inel xpol. ASL, ACL ABIJ*bat doesnotspecity how this overll llowance is apportianed between the diferentiteference componens,an therefore does not statethe allowaneefor eross—polar / There is no mennion in the 2005 D5 application o analowance of 229 0B for eross—polar C/t as DIRECTV row sttes 9

99.9%." Similar comments apply to DIRECTV‘s idealized 22. dB cross—polar CA allowance. DIRECTV‘s own assessment of the existing cross—polar C/1levels from the EchoStar 8 satelltat 110°W show that the levels drop to 19.4 dB in some cases, and probably lessif a comprehensive analysis was performed.® This appears to be much more consistent with DIRECTV‘s 2000 application, which allowed for C/Ilevels as low as 18.2 dB, ather than the extraordinarily high level of 22.9 dB now suggested by DIRECTV. Clearly a minimum cross—polar C/I objective of 22.9 dB is completely inconsistent with the current operational situation at the 110°W orbital position, and would not be achievable with any realisti future scenario of DIRECTV and EchoStar satelltes a this ocation. Therefore, EchoStar‘s use ofthe original 2000 DS application as the basis of ts availability analysis ofthe DIRECTV links was not an attempt to select the data that best served its purpose. Rather,the data used by EchoStar were the only available and relevant DS data that was available for this analysis. 9.2 EbMNo Objective for DIRECTY links Throughout EchoStar‘s entire availability analysis an Eb/No objective of 7 dB (as stated by DIRECTV in its 2000 DS application) was assumed for the DIRECTV links. Therefore all of EchoStar‘s availability results forthe DIRECTV links are based on this Eb/No objective. In addition EchoStar did make one observation in its assessment of the results, in Section 6 of ts previous Technical Annex, as follows: "It should also be noted thatallthe avaiabilits results given in Table 6—1, and Table 5— 1 in the previous setion, are based on the stated Eb/No requirement in the DTV links of f In fact, onlsx of h 18 inksexaminedachieve 99.9% availabilty or greater even wthout the addironal Echouir 10 inerfersnce. Mary of th inks that ul to meet 99.9% mvalabilty doso by a very large amount, wth values in the 9979 to 9.8% occurring in many of t links ® DIRECTV‘s analysisthat concladed the minimum GH leel of 194 dB was based only on the EchoStar 10 beam peak locations, whichbear no rlationto the wortcase EIRP levels of the HEchoSta8 CONUS beam 10

7dB. EchoStar believes this value i very conservative and could be improved by between 1 and 2 dB for a typical QPSK rate 67 transmission as currently used by DIRECTV. Ifthisfactor was taken into account the availabiltescalculated would be signifiantly higher than those shown here. In response to this DIRECTV has stated that DIRECTV would not be able to operate the D5 satellite with MPEG~/SPSK technology with code rates up to %4 in the presence of the EchoStar 10 interference. However, DIRECTV fails to support this bold assertion with any facts, and we show below that this claim is simply not truc. The latest available DVB—S2 specification (ETSI EN 302 307 V1.1.1 (2005—03))lists the error performance in Section 6 (page 33). For 8PSK with rate 3 coding the Es/No value given in this specification is 7.91 dB for a spectral efficiency of 2.228124. This corresponds to an Eb/No of 4.43 dB and a CMN of 7.91 dB." This compares very favorably with the CN objective used in EchoStar‘s availability analysis of the DIRECTV DS links, which was 8.0 dB, as given in the original DIRECTV D5 link budget. Therefore, all of EchoStar‘s previous availability results would appear to be compatible with DIRECTV‘s use of MPEG—/EPSK technology with code rates up to %, and DIRECTV‘s concems sbout EchoStar 10 "spoiling" the evolution of DBS services on the D5 satellite are unfounded. 9.3 DIRECTV‘s Philosophical Approach to Intra versus Inter System Interference "The essence of DIRECTV‘s argument here is that inter—system interference must be kept to the absolute minimum possible value because the "victim" system sees none of the benefits of a rationale overall apportionment of interference. Clearly such a unilateral view of this issue would be inconsistent with overall Commission objectives of optimizing the overall use of the spectrum. t Assuming thatth symbol rate is equal o the noisebandiwdth, which is a common approach in dealing with herelaionships betveen thee parametes. u1

10. Conclusions EchoStar has explained and demonstrated here thatit is impossible to provide the high cross—polar /levels indicated by DIRECTV when a spot beam DBS satellte is used at the 110°W orbital position. Any DBS operator must accept the reality of thsituation and the fact thatthe interference environment changes as DBS technology progresses. DIRECTV has deployed receive earth stations with relatively poor XPD performance and must accept tconsequences of this. The FCC should balance the real impact on DIRECTV (which is best determined through a link availability assessment) with the real limitations on EchoStar 10 service that would result if high Crequirements are dictated. EchoStar has already proposed significant reductions in certain spot beam EIRP levels which have significantly improved the resulting C/ levels into DIRECTV. EchoStar urges the Commission to accept this proposal and allow the EchoStar 10 satellte to operate accordingly. 12

CERTIFICATION OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING ENGINEERING INFORMATION Thereby declare under penalty of perjury that I am the technically qualified person responsible for preparation of the engineering information contained in the foregoing submission, that I am familiar with Part 25 ofthe Commission‘s rules, that I have either prepared or reviewed the enginering information submitted in this pleading, and that t is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. s Richard J. Bamett, PhD, BSe Telecomm Strategies, Inc. 6404 Highland Drive Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 (301) 656—8950 Dated: February 22, 2006 13


Document Created: 2006-02-23 17:29:00
Document Modified: 2006-02-23 17:29:00
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC