Attachment opposition

This document pretains to SAT-LOI-20050312-00062 for Letter of Intent on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOI2005031200062_434690

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RECEIVED Washington, ‘ushington D.C. 20584 MaY 1 6 2005 FedealConmuncaton ) OfcectSecy"°" In the Matter of ) ) Seecrium Five itc ) File Nos. SAT—LOL—20050312—00062 ) SAT-LOI-zxfisom_-ooosa Petition for Declaratory Ruling ) leceived To Serve the U.S. Market Using ) BSS Spectrum from the 114.5° W.L. ) MAY 1 9 2005 Orbital i Locati ation ) Enrmomnimemmmmemecpmanta Intermational Bureau OPPOSITION OF DIRECTV ENTERPRISES. LLC DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC (‘DIRECTV) hereby opposes the above—captioned Petition for Declaratory Ruling ("S5 Petition") filed by Spectrum Five LLC ("Spectrum Five"). The SS Petition is but one of a growing number of proposals that would create new orbitallocations for providing Broadcast Satellite Service (‘BSS") from orbital locations spaced less than nine degrees from slots currently used to provide such service to tens of millions of consumers in the United States. As DIRECTV has demonstrated in other proceedings, however, implementation ofsuch "tweener" operations as currently proposed by Spectrum Five would have a significant impact on current and future services available from the BSS locations allocated to the United States under the International Telecommunications Union‘s (‘TTU®) Region 2 Plan. The 5 Petition suffers from the same infirmities. Thus, as a procedural matter,the SS Petition is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with Section 25.114(d)(13)() ofthe Commission‘s rules, which requires applicants seeking to use assets not specified in the BSS Plan to provide a sufficient technical showing that the

proposed system could operate satisfactorily if all assignments in the BSS Plan were implemented. Spectrum Five has not yet even attempted to coordinate its proposed system with DIRECTV — and Spectrum Five‘s own technical analysis demonstrates how difficult such a coordination would be. More importantly, DIRECTV continues to believe that this and other proposals for new "tweener"" BSS slots that provide less than the current nine degree spacing upon which U.S. BSS operators have relied should be considered, if at all, in a comprchensive rulemaking proceeding." Discussion Spectrum Five requests authority t provide BSS service in the United States from two satelltes icensed by the Netherlands operating at the 114.5° W.L. slot. Tn a very fundamental sense, the SS Petition is not new or unique. Rather, it is merely the latest proposalto ereate a new BSS orbital location near existing locations allocated to the US. under the Region 2 BSS Plan. As DIRECTV has documented in other proceedings, such proposals are substantively unworkable, gravely detrimental to the operations and growth ofU.S. DBS providers, and contrary to the public interest. Rather than repeating all of those arguments and technical showings, DIRECTV hercby incorporates them by reference. Nonetheless, a few observations specific to the 55 Petition are in order, and are made below. First, Spectrum Five‘s own technical analysis vividly demonstrates the magnitude ofthe potentialinterference problem its proposal would create for operational U.S. DBS !\— DIRECTV has proposed sucha mlemaking. See DA 022003 (rel.Dec. 16, 2003)(cllingfor comment on DIRECTV request forrlemakingand related applcations) * DIRECTV and is affliteshave made numerous filings n two other proceedings related to short spaced BSS orbial ocations— Rep. No. SPB—196 and FCC File No. SAT—PDi%—20020428—00071 —al of whichareincorporated by refeence herein.

systems. Exhibit 1 to the Technical Appendix liststhe maximum equivalent protection margin ("EPM®) degradation for each affected DBS satelite network. As a point of reference, the coordination trigger in AP30 Annex 1, Section 2 (MSPACE) used by the ITU to analyzesatelite interference in Region 2 is an OEPM (Overall Equivalent Protection Margin) degradation of 0.25 dB. The data in the SS Petition show 22 beams in U.S. filings at he 119° W.L. and 110° W.L. orbital locations that would experience degradation of more than 10 dB, and many more ofbetween 5 dB and 10 dB." Spectrum Five attempts to ameliorate the impact ofsuch significant degradation figures by explaining away a handful ofexamples as anomalous, but even that effort provides litle comfort* In fict, the U.S. ITU filing that Spectrum Five describes as a "more representative example ofthe interference situation" — USABSS—18 at 119° W.L. —illustrates the potential for severe interference. Spectrum Five assertsthat the "worst« case degradation calculated by MSPACE is 2.6 dB for transponder 4 ofbeam 23.""" However, the MSPACE analysis provided in the S5 Petition shows degradation ofover 4 dB for two beams and over 10 dB for two others in the USABSS—18 filing." Thus, far * See S etiion, Exhibit 1 t Technical Appendix, Atachment 2 (Atachment 2), atpp.4—15. * For example, Spectrum Fiv focuses on the 167 dB degridation for beam 7563 ofthe USABSS—15 fiingat110° W.L., laiming is anomalous because the affetedtestpointsare in a Hawaiibeam and use only a single DBS channl. See SS Pettion, Exhibit 1 to Technical Appendix, Atachment 1 (*Atiachment 1tp.6. However, Spectram Five fails o explainthe comparable 16.8 4B dearadation for beam 7503 ofUSADSS—15, which usesten DBS channels,or 16.6 B degradation for beam 7499 ofUSABSS—15, which wesfive DBS channels— notto mention thnineother beams wit more than 10 dB degradation. See Artichment2 at . 1315 * Atachment1 atp.6 * ue * See Atachment 2 atp.7 (1097 dB fo one trnsponder on beam 9044;10.53 dB fo six tansponders on bear 9012; .92 d degradation for onetransponder on beam 9045; and 4.79 dB degradation on six «rarsponders on beam 9043), ts aso wordh noting that Table 2 ofAtachment 1 indiatesa worst case OEPM degradatin for USABSS—18 or11.8 dB.

from allaying concems, even the example offered by Spectrum Five as a faindicator of the interference environment demonstrates the severity ofthe problem. Nonetheless, Spectrum Five concludes that "[}hese results indicate a promising shating situation"" and that "coordination with affected parties will be readily achievable."" Needless to say, DIRECTV does not share Spectrum Five‘s optimism. But in any event, at present there is no coordination agreement between Spectrum Five and DIRECTV — indeed, to DIRECTV‘s knowledge, neither Spectrum Five nor its licensing administration has even requested negotiation. Given the significant interference that would result from the operations proposed by Spectrum Five, the Commission should not blithely assume that coordination is likely, or even possible. Rather,unless and until such an agreement is reached with all U.S. DBS operators, Spectrum Five‘s application is not ripe and should be denied. Second, Spectrum Five asserts that the "provision of BSS from satelltes spaced substantilly less than nine degrees apart is already common in Europe.""" In support of this assertion, it cites SES Astra‘s operation of satelites with four tofive degree spacing."". DIRECTV previously addressed this argument when it was made by SES Americom last year in support ofanother petition to provide service in the U.S. from a short—spaced BSS orbital location. DIRECTV first showed that the satellites in question were not providing co—frequency BSS/DTH service, and then used field measurements to demonstrate that the interference environment in Europe is not nearly as problematic as * AtachmentI atp.7. * 85 Peitonatp.6. © n arp $ * Technical Appendicat 1213

the environment that would be created by a short—spaced BSS orbital location over the U.S—" The specious "Buropeans already short—space" argument should be no more availing for Spectrum Five than it was for SES Americom. Third, Spectrum Five has requested a partial waiver of the requirement under Section 25.1 14(d)3) of the Commission‘s rules to provide a full set of antenna beam diagrams in ":@xt" format, because doing so "would be unnecessarily burdensome.""" Instead, it has provided a text file with information on its beams, as well as a Microsoft Access "mdb"file with certain system characteristics. Unfortunately, the information submitted is not sufficient to allow interested parties such as DIRECTV to perform a complete analysis ofpotential interference from the proposed satellite. GXT files are the common format used with the ITU‘s GIMS and MSPACE software packages to analyze interference scenarios,and in fact Spectrum Five must have generated them in order to conduct the MSPACE analysis summarized in itsfiling. Providing them here would not be burdensome, as demonstrated by the fact that DIRECTV submitted .gxt fles(both co— pol and eross—pol) for each of ts three BSS spot beam satelltes (DIRECTV 48, DIRECTV 78, and DIRECTV 95). Sinceinterference concernsare likely to be the most significant issue in this proceeding, such information is particularly important here. DIRECTV has repeatedly demonstrated that "tweener" proposals would cause significant interference to existing and future operations of BSS systems serving millions of U.S. subscribers. Spectrum Five‘s recent addition to the growing list of such proposals .. See Leters from Willam M. Wilishie to Marlene . Dortch, Rep. No SPB—196SAT—PDR—200z0t25. 00071 (dted July23, 2004and Sept.$, 2004) °85 Peiion, Addenda to Schedule S and Requests for Parial Waivers,atp.4.

is no different. Indeed, the SS Petition itself demonstrates as much. DIRECTV again wurges the Commission to address the issues related to "tweener" operations, ifatall,in a comprehensive rulemaking. DIRECTV does not oppose the entry of a new source of competition in the multichannel video programming distribution market — though Spectrum Five apparently does notitselfintend to offer such services."" But there are other means to achieve such entry that would not place atrisk the substantial investment that existing U.S. BSS operators have made in their systems or frustrate the expectations of U.S. consumers that such systems will, like their cable competitors, continually improve their video offerings. For example, the Commission has allocated spectrum for BSS service in the "expansion" frequencies at 17 GHz. Under these circumstances, and for the reasons stated herein, DIRECTV submits that the public interest would not be served by granting the SS Petition, and requests that the Commission denyit. Respectfully submitted, DIRECTV Evrerpmises, tie Exm William M. Wiltshire Michael D. Nilsson Hamus, Wicrsie & Granys uP 1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202—730—1300 Dated: May 16, 2005 ©*— Spectrum FiveSintends to make is services vailble t other DBS providers" ncluding the incurbents. SS Pertion atpp. 14—15.

ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION The undersigned hereby certifies to the Federal Communications Commission as follows: 1 am the technically qualified person responsible for the enginecring information contained in the foregoing Opposition, (i) 1 am familiar with Part 25 ofthe Commission‘s Rules, and Cio T have either prepared or reviewed the engincering information contained in the foregoing Opposition, and it is complete and accurate to the best ofmy knowledge and belief. Signed: i David Patillo May 16, 2005 Date

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that, on this 16th day of May, 2005, a copy ofthe foregoing Opposition of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC was served by hand delivery upon: Richard E. Wiley Todd M. Stansbury Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Jennifer Ans¢lmo


Document Created: 2005-05-19 16:12:23
Document Modified: 2005-05-19 16:12:23
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC