Attachment response

This document pretains to SAT-LOI-20050312-00063 for Letter of Intent on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOI2005031200063_435257

soa um. CO PY rEpERAL coMMUNICATIONs commission RECEJVEp Washington, DC 20554 se In the Matter of Spectrum Five LLC File Nos. SAT—LO1—20050312—00062 SAT—LO1—20050312—00063 Petition for Declaratory Ruling To Serve the U.S. Market Using BSS Spectrum from the 114.5° W.L. c 1 Orbital Location Received uN 0 & 2005 olcy Branch micmatonalBureey CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE OF SPECTRUM FIVE LLC David Wilson Richard E. Wiley President Todd M. Stansbury SrecmumFiveLLC Jennifer D. Hindin 626 8. 25th Street Wiuey Rem & FievomoLLP Arlington, VA 22202 1776 K Street, NW (705)set—6636 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 719—7000 Counser ror Srecreum Five LLC Date: June 1, 2005

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Spectrum Five LLC‘s proposed DBS service using Netherlands—authorized satellites from the 114.5° W.L. orbitallocation promises to bring substantial public interest benefitsto United States consumers. Spectrum Five‘s service will greatly increase the available copacity for U.S. DBS services, increase localtlevision offerings to underserved areas, promote competition in the MVPD marketplace, and promote the transition to digitaltlevision. Only two parties — the incumbent U.S. DBS providers — filed "oppositions" to Spectrum Five‘s proposal." DIRECTV alleges that Spectrum Five‘s service could interfere with existing systems. EchoStar claims only that Spectrum Five‘s service could "complicate" coordination with a hypothetical type of anterna that EchoStar is "considering"for future use. Neither DIRECTV nor EchoStar substantiates its concems with actual, real—world analysis of Spectrum Five‘s proposal. Thus, their oppositions, which total a mere ten pages of material combined, are wholly speculative. The development and intemational recognition of Spectrum Five‘s system are well underway. In conformity with rules governing international protection for DBS satellte services, the Netherlands Administration, on behalf of Spectrum Five, has sought modification to the International Telecommunication Union‘s ("ITU®) Region 2 BSS Plan. The Netherlands has also requested coordination with the FCC of Spectrum Five‘s service. In response, the Commission recently authorized DIRECTV and EchoStar to conduct direct operator—to—operator coordination negotiations with Spectrum Five. t SES and the Gibratar Repulatry Authority do not oppose the Ptiton, batseck the impositon of a condiion that the Netherlands coortinte with tUiited Kingdom. For good reason, the PCC has not radionally mandated that wo non8. Administations coortinate. Neverheless, Spectram Five willcetainly abide by ts responsibilites under aplicabl intemationallaw.

The Commission has long complied with these established ITU rules and procedures for coordinating potentia interference issues between U.S. and non—U.S—licensed BSS satelltes. This international process has historically ensured that the interests of existing U.S. DBS providers are protected, and promoted, to the extent allowed by applicable law. Critically, the Commission routinely authorizes service in the U.S. prior to completing coordination and modifying the Region 2 BSS Plan. There is no reason to depart from that routine practice here. Even if the Commission considers DIRECTV‘s and EchoStar‘s unsubstantiated concems offinterference in this proceeding, the incumbent operators fail to demonstrate that Spectrum Five‘s proposed satellite would cause harmful interference texisting systems. EchoStar hasits own pending "tweener" application and acknowledges the potential benefitsfrom 4.5° orbital spacing. As for DIRECTV, it overstates the purpose and utilty ofthe MSPACE analysis of Spectrum Five‘s system. ‘The MSPACE analysis is used solely to determine when coordination is required, and is widely known to be based on outdated and unrealistically overbroad assumptions ofthe degree of protection required by modern DBS systems. For example, based on MSPACE analyses, a new satelite recently proposed by DIRECTV and Spectrum Five‘s proposed system would cause comparable negative margins to DIRECTV‘s existing operations. In short, the potential for actual harmful interference is substantilly less than DIRECTV suggests. In addition, even if DIRECTV‘s and EchoStar‘s allegations of interference potential were substantiated, numerous techniques are readily available to Spectrum Five to mitigate the risk. Direct operator—to—operator eoordination negotiations provide DIRECTV and EchoStar with every opportunity to ensure that their interests are fully protected. Finally, given the intenational coordination process and the substantiallikelihood of success, a rulemaking is not necessary to address the technical issues raised by Spectrum Five‘s proposal.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page THE OPPOSITIONS FILED BY ECHOSTAR AND DIRECTV ARE SPECULATIVE, CONCLUSORY AND PROCEDURALLY INFIRM. 3 1. SPECTRUM FIVES PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE ITU AND FCC RULES FOR MODIFICATION OF THE REGION 2 BSS PLAN. s A.— Completed Coordination Is Not a Prerequisite to Granting Spectrum Five‘s Petition B. There Is No Basis for SES® Request To Condition Spectrum Five‘s Authorization on Coordination Between Two Forcign Governments. N SPECTRUM FIVE‘S PROPOSED NETWORK CAN BE COORDINATED WITH EXISTING U.S. NETWORKS... A. DIRECTV Overstates Potential Interference by Addressing Only MSPACE Results............ B. Mitigation Techniques Are Readily Available To Prevent Harmful Interference to Authorized U.S. Systems.. IV. A RULEMAKING IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE TECHNICAL ISSUES RAISED BY SPECTRUM FIVE‘S PETITION.. 3 GRANT OF SPECTRUM FIVE‘ PETITION WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST vi. CONCLUSION..

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Spectrum Five LLC File Nos. SAT—LO1—20050312—00062 SAT—LO1—20050312—00063 Petition for Declaratory Ruling To Serve the U.S. Market Using BSS Spectrum from the 114.5° W.L. Orbital Location CoNsoLIDATED RESPONSE OF SPECTRUM FIVE LLC Spectrum Five LLC (*Spectrum Five") hereby responds to the comments and oppositions filed with respect o its above—referenced Petition for Declaratory Ruling (‘Petition") to provide Direct Broadcast Satellte ("DBS") services to the United States through Netherlands—authorized satellites at the 114.5° W.L. orbital location." SES Americom, Inc. (°SES") and the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority ("GRA") do not oppose grant of Spectrum Five‘s Petition.®. DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC ("DIRECTV®) and EchoStar Satellte L.L.C. ("EchoStar‘) filed cursory "oppositions" without specific facts * Spectrum Five, a U.. company,wll on the satliteasses at 114.5° W.L. * See Comments of SES Americom, In. File Nos. SATL.OL—20080312—00062/63, t3 (May 16, 2005) (‘SES Comments‘)Leter from the Gibralar Repulatory Authorty to Kevin J. Martn, CC Chaiman, at 1 (May 12, 2005) CCRA Lener®.

to counter the publicinterest benefits of Spectrum Five‘s proposed service." As previously shown, grant of Spectrum Five‘s Petition would substantilly increase local— into—local service in rural and underserved areas, including Alaska and Hawail, in furtherance ofthe goal of Congress to increase the availability of local programming in these areas." Therefore, the FCC should prompily grant the Petition in accordance with its rules and international obligations. . THE OPPOSITIONS FILED BY ECHOSTAR AND DIRECTV ARE SPECULATIVE, CONCLUSORY AND PROCEDURALLY INFIRM The "oppositions"filed by DIRECTV and EchoStar are highly speculative and should be dismissed. Oppositions are statutorily required to contain: specific allegations of fact sufficient to show..that a grant of [Spectrum Five‘s Petition] would be prima facie inconsistent with the [public interest, convenience and necessity]." "[AJllegation{s] of ultimate, conclusory facts or more generalallegations on information and belief are] not sufficient"" to meet this "heavy burden."". Pleadings "replete with * Oppesition ofDIRECTV Enerprises, LLC, ile Nos. SAT—LOH20050312—00062/63 (May 16, 2005) ‘DIRECTV Opposion"); EchoStar Opposition To Pettion For Declastory Ruting, File Nos. SAT« 101—20080312:00062163 (May 16, 2005)(‘EchoStar Opposiion"). & See Satelite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108—447, §205 etseq (Dec.8,2004). 4 47 U.S.C. § 30900 47 CR §§ 25.154() & (a)@4)(‘Petbionsto deny,petiions for other foms of relet, and other abjections or comments must ... [eJontin specifcallegations ofact (excetfor those of which ofieil notice may be taken) t supportth specifi relef requested,whichshall be supported by affidavi ofa prson opersons wh prsonal knowledgethereo, and whichshall b suicientto demonstrahatthpettione(orrespondent is a part of interest and thata grantof or other Commision action regardin, the appliation would be prima facie inconsinent with the publcinteren). £ Stonev. FCC, 466 .2d 316, 322 (D.C. Cir, 1972)(quotinglepiltive hitery of Section 309(0), 3. Rep. No,690, 6th Cong.o Sess 3 (1959)) 7 Calformia Pubic Broad. Forum v. FCC, 752 F20 670,64 (D.C. C1985). ndeed, the Commisson has expresly found that Sction 309(8)"Forecloes" it from #alloufing] ureat atiude for general alegtions in pettionsto dery." WKBN Broad. Corp, 39 F.C.C2d 116, 119—20 (f 13)(1972).

conclusory statements that are unsupported by specific facts" are routinely rejected in satellite proceedings." Dismissal of the oppositions would clearly be appropriate here. DIRECTV does not provide any specific technical information showing that Spectrum Five‘s proposed service would resultin actual harmfulinterference to its operations. Instead, DIRECTV refers generically to concems it raised about 4.5 degree spacing in other proceedings involving other proposals." Different arguments about different proposals by different applicants cannot constitute "specific allegations" as required by law."" Similarly, DIRECTV‘s unsubstantiated conjecture that coordination might be "difficult""" cannot substitute for statutorily mandated "facts," as any party that has participated in a coordination would acknowledge that most,ifnot all, coordinations are "difficult" For ts part, EchoStar does not assert that Spectrum Five will interfere with EchoStar‘s existing DBS system. Indeed, EchoStar has its own pending "tweener" application and "acknowledge{s] the potential benefits from 4.5° orbital spacing."" Rather, EchoStar indicates that it is "considering" and "exploring" a triple—feed antenna § American Mobile Radio Corp, Order and Auborization, 13 FCC Red $829, $838—39 (1 21) in B 1997) * DIRECTV Oppositionat 2. A party secking t incorporte documents by referenc, moreover, "must give‘specifireference‘ in the [pleadingt he documents incorporated." Lexingion Counyy Broadcasters,Inc, 40 FCC2320, 323 (15)(1973) (chtion omited). DIRECTV‘s llusions to unspecified "numerous flngs® in otherdockets flls to meet this standard. DIRECTV Oppositon at n2. 5* Plainl,offtrgetarpuments ignorethditinct state—ofthe—art echnolopies upon which Spectrum Five‘sproposl is based and dstegard the paniculrimpoct of Spectram Five‘s system on DIRECTV‘s existing nemwork. " DIRECTV Opposiionat2 * Applicaton ofEchaStarSarlite LLC for Authorty o Construc, Lounch and Operate a Diect Broadcast Stelie in the 12.2—12.7 GHis and 17. 3—178 GH: Frequency Bands t 86.5°WL., File No. SAT—LOA—20030609—00113 (Rled Jn 9, 2003);EchoStar Oppostion t 1.

that could "complicate" an interference analysis." Suppositions about unspecified future plans are not "facts.""* In short, Spectrum Five‘s 130—page technical analysis demonstrated the proposed service will not cause harmful interference to authorized systems, and DIRECTV and EchoStar did not supply engineering evidence to the contrary. Thus, DIRECTV‘s and EchoStar‘s speculative and conclusory oppositions "faill) to establish any basis""" to deny Spectrum Five‘s Petition, and should be dismissed."" If considered on the merits, moreaver, toppositions should be denied as shown below. » M Echolar ltnolaw or plicy tying the FCC‘s public interet analysi to speculaton about potenta and private businessplan,_ See NGSO FSS Systems Co—Rrequency with GSO and Terestial Systems in the Kw—Bond Frequency Range; Amendment ofthe Conmission‘s Rudes to Authorie Subsidary Terretrial Use ofthe 12.2—12—76 GHts Band by Direct Brondcast Stelite icenseesand Their Afilis andApplications ofBroadhwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, andSeelize Recevers, L1d.to Providea FixedService in the 12.2—12.7 GHis Band, Fourth Memorandir Opinionand Order, 18 FCC Red $428, 448 (f43) (2003)(DIRECTY and EchoSar‘s laim that they "could be foreed" o ncrease effective power leves in thefitreto compensateforiterfrence caused by MVDDS providesis"purely specultiveand merts o futher consideration") * Advanced Comunications Corp., Hughes Communications GalozyInc, For Alocation ofDirect Broadcast Satlite Channels and OrbialPostions. Memorandim Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Red 6977, sors q0ason it Nether DIRECTV nor EchoSar suppor theirelated claim that Spectrom Fiv did not demenstrat ts proposed system could operate stictorly along with all ssignment n the BSS Pln, and thus fileto comply wih Section 251 14(8(13)0)ofthe Commission‘sriles._In fiat, Spectrum Five provided a deiled analysiregardingis compliance with Section 28.1 4(C)(3)() in Exhibit 1, Atachment 1 to is Technical Appendi.

I1. SPECTRUM FIVE‘s PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE ITU AND FCC RULES FOR MODIFICATION OF THE REGION 2 BSS PLAN A.—— Completed Coordination Is Not a Prerequisite to Granting Spectrum Five‘s Petition The 12 GHz allocation is a "planned band" with established ITU procedures in Appendix 3030A for modifications.." The FCC has recognized that thiinternational process "should provide adequate protection of U.S. DBS systems.""" Further, with one narrow exception,"" the Commission has repeatedly declined to impose technical rules and standards for DBS."" As a result, interference issues regarding U.S.— and non—U.S. Hicensed systems are vetted and resolved through international coordination negotiations. Indeed, the FCC routinely grants applications by U.S. DBS operators prior to completion ofinternational coordination and successful modification ofthe Region 2 Plan."‘ Deference to ITU procedures is appropriate because during administration—to— administration coordination," the FCC has ample "opportunity to work with the Administration proposing the Plan modification to ensure protection of U.S. DBS * 47 CR § 25.48() (°DBS aperations must be in accordance with the sharingcrierinand technical charicterstcs contained in Appendices 30 and 30A ofth ITU‘s Radio Repubtions.). See also in crr syasi0 25114003). * Polices and ulfor the Direc BroadeastSarelte Service, Repot and Order, 17 FCC Red 11331, 11102 (§ 130) (2002) DBS Rutes Order) ‘The ont CC:specific DBS technical requrementis placed on satelite anterna cross« polariztion, to hat shoring adiscent channelsat the same orbia locaton. 47 CRR. § 25218 * DBS Rales Order, 17 FCC Red as11,360 (1 56), 11380 (106), 1,02.383 @3 111). "* See, eg. EchaSiarSatelite Corporetion17 FCC Red 11,326, 11529 (4 11 (2002) (suthorizing EchoSar stetesubject o condiion ht (1) untlth IntermationalTeecommunication Union (FTU) Region 2 BSS Plan and is associted Feeder Link Plan are modifie o include thetechnical paramers of EchoStar VIand ts nssociated feder liks, thissteit sytem shall not cause grater iterference than that which would occuffom th curren U.S. assignments in the Region2 BSS Plan at 110° W.Lto other BSS or feeder k assignments, or other services ostelit ystems opertingin accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations®DIRECTY Emerprises Inc, Application to Leunch and Operate a Direct Brodeast Satelite Service SpaceStaon, Order and Auborization, 16 PCC Red 18530, 18,835 (§ 16) 2001) (same) * ‘See MCl Telecommunications Corp. For Modiication ofDiect BroadcasSutelite Authrization, Memorandim Opinion and Order,14 FCC Red 9966, 970 (¥ 13) (In. Bur, 1999)

systems.""" Accordingly, the FCC issues licenses (or grant petitions) for U.S. service where coordination and compromise within the ITU process appears possible."* That is the case here."" The Govenment of the Netherlands already requested modification ofthe ITU Region 2 BSS plan to accommodate Spectrum Five‘s DBS operations at 114.5° W.L. Moreover, contrary to DIRECTV‘assertion that "Spectrum Five has not yet even attempted to coordinate its proposed system,""" mae the Netherlands Radio Communications Agency sent letter to FCC Chairman Martin requesting coordination. Just days ago the FCC authorized DIRECTV and EchoStar to enter into direct operator—to—operator negotiations with Spectrum Five."" To ensure those negotiations are pursued prompily, however, itis vitally important that the FCC "kick start" coordination by granting # DBS Rales Order,17 FCC Red at 11,392 4 130) * See lso Televisa Int, LLC, Applicationfor Blonkt License Por Recetv—Only Earth Stations in the Pised Stelite Serviefor DirecoHome Subscriprion Televiion Service,Order nd Autrorizaton, 13 FCC Red 10074, 10,078 ( 12)(1997) (permiting U.S. earth stations treceive Directo—HHome video from non—.S. leensed satelites prioto completion ofcoortintion). * The FCC imposesthesame regulatory standardfor provingtechnical uffciency ofa proposed DBS system on foreign systems ason U.S. opertors. Amendnent othe Commission‘s Reputory Policies 10 Allow Nor—US: Licensed Space Stations to Provide Doestiand Iternational Sotlite Service in the UnitedStats: Amendment ofSeation25131 ofthe Commission‘sRules and Regutionsto Eliminete the Licensing Requirementfor CenainInernationalReceve—Only Earth Staions, 12 FCC Red 24,094, 24,175—176 (f4 189—192)(1997) CDISCO 1J Order") (requiring operators onon—U.S.satelitessecking U,S. morket enty to supply the same technicanformation that s required ofU.S—licensed satelites; e elso a7 CER. § 25.1370). Criall, no party disputes that grant oSpectrum Five‘s Pertion is consitent with the ECO—Sat testset forh in the DISCO 11 Order. DISCO 17 Order, 12 CC Red at24,137 (199). In is Peition, Spectrum Five demonstrated thatther are no eure odeactobaries to nty for an entity roposing to use a U.S—Jicensed satlite to delver DBS servicesto the Netheriands or the Nethrlands Anties markets Spectrum Five Petion at 1417 * DIRECTV Oppostinat2 8 See Leter from Kathyn O‘Bren, Chief, Statepic Analysis and Nepotations Division, Interational Brea, FCC,to Head Frequency Planning and Coordination Sectio, Radiocommunication Agency Netherlands (May 19, 2009

Spectrum Five‘s petition for U.S. market entry as rapidly as possible. Given DirecTV‘s and Echostar‘s opposition, and SES reported coordination difficulties,"" prompt grant of the Petition will ensure that all parties will coordinate with due diligence."" B. There Is No Basis for SES‘ Request To Condition Spectrum Five‘s Authorization on Coordination Between Two Forcign Governments The FCC should reject SES® request that the FCC compel the Netherlands to coordinate with the United Kingdom on behalf of the GRA."" The FCC does not condition or delay market entry pending coordination between or amongforeign administrations."" The FCC has also stated thatits domestic lcensing proceedings are not "the proper forum for trying to facilitate coordination discussions between two non— U.S. satellite operators.""" in The same considerations weigh against the imposition ofthe t ‘See SES Consoliared Reply,SAT—PDR20020425—00071, t 12—13, 2425 (uly 3, 202)(‘SES AMERICOM islf contted EchoSta and DIRECTV multple imes in anatempttoprovide these paties furtertechnial detil on the SES AMERICOM proposal,and to addvess any concems they might have. Paries proceeding in good fah would presumably have welcomed such meetings, but SES AMERICOM‘s overtires werereectd... mportntthat formal coortintioncommence as quickly as possible, particalarlygiven the parties refusals o meet with SES AMERICOM on an informal basis");Commentsof SES Americom, Inc, Rep. No. SPB—196 at26 (n. 23, 2004) (DIRECTV‘spettion for rulemaking "appearstobe a desperteatempttosalconidenstionof[reduced orbial spacing} proposls.. DIRECTV is wiling t do jusaboutanythingto old coortintion ofsatelites at reduced orbia spacings.") » See Colurbla Communications CorpAppliationor Modication fAuthoriation to Leunch and Operate a C:hond Satelie a37.3° WL. SES Americon, Inc, Requestfo Special Tenporary Authorityto Operate Sarcom C—1 o 37.5° WL., Ordeand Authorization, 20 FCC Red 1863,411 (2005). * SES asks the PCC to*include a conditon equirig Spectrum Five to coordinate withaffeted systems o ther adiminisations that havepririy over the Netherlands filngfor modifiation ofthe Region 2 Plan." SES Comments a3. * In the FSS contet,the Commission has ecognized that "itis not necessary o complete interational coordination beforea sitelite system can be authorizedto provideservicin the United Stites." TelesotConada (Pettionfor Declaratory RulingFor Inclusion ofANIK FI on the PermitedSpace Sterion Li), Orde, 15 FCC Red 24,828,24,833 (1 14) (Sat and Rad. Div, IntI Bur, 2000) * Talesat Canada (Pettionfor Declaratory Ruling For IncusionofANIK FI on the Pernited Space Station Lix), New Stes Sotelites N.¥. (Pettonor Clarficaion r,in th Altrnative,for Recorsideration), Orter, 16 FCC Red 16368, 16367 & n.12 2001

coordination condition requested by SES.". Spectrum Five will comply with all ITU requirements and obligations under the BSS Region 2 plan. IIL. SPECTRUM FIVE‘S PROPOSED NETWORK CAN BE COORDINATED WITH EXISTING U.S. NETWORKS EchoStar notes that it is "considering" the use of a new type of antenna that "complicates the interference analysis for tweener satellites.""". EchoStar‘s use ofthis antenna would be protected only to the extent that the Region 2 BSS Plan has been modified to incorporate the technical specifications of the antenna. Although EchoStar has not claimed that this future antenna is entitled to protection under intemational law, there is no reason to believe that EchoStar‘s rights cannot be protected in coordination negotiations"" DIRECTV, for its part, complains that coordination with Spectrum Five‘s system would be "difficult." DIRECTV bases its claim exclusively on the resultsofthe MSPACE analysis of Spectrum Five‘s system. In addition to being wholly speculative, DIRECTV‘s concems are unwarranted, as shown in detail in the attached appendix prepared by Spectrum Five‘s engineering team (Donald Jansky, John Kiesling, David Kane, and Rick Gould) ("Technical Appendix"). The Technical Appendix () documents DIRECTV‘s misleading assumptions and proposed interference thresholds; (i) shows that use ofreal—world, as opposed to paper, parameters dramatically lowers the potental * "The Gibraltar Repulatary Authoriy (CGRA")frher requesstht Spectrum Five operat "on a non—imerference basis®with respect o the United Kingdon‘s flng at 114.5° WL. See GRA Lerer. OF course, Spectrum Five willabideb ts obligationstoprotet othersystems as required under interationl Jow * EchoStar Opposiion at 3 * As a mater ofpolis, moreover, EchoStaroffers no plausible explanationasto why a prsonal and speculative busines intrest should be given legal proretionfrom a new compettve —and highly efficien— DBS service.

for interference; (ii) demonstrates that the effect of Spectrum Five on DIRECTV‘s margins would generally be on the same order as the present environment even without the entry of Spectrum Five; and (iv) describes several possible mitigation techniques that, when perfected in coordination, would eliminate the potential for harmfulinterference. In short, "there is good reason to believe that, employing well—understood sharing techniques, the proposed Spectrum Five network could be coordinated with existing BSS networks."" A. DIRECTV Overstates Potential Interference by Addressing Only MSPACE Results Neither DIRECTV nor EchoStar demonstrate that Spectrum Five‘s proposed system would cause actual harmful iterference to their existing operations" At most, DIRECTV suggests that Spectrum Five‘s own MSPACE analysis somehow demonstrates the difficulty of coordination:"" In doing so, DIRECTV overstates the purpose and utility of MSPACE analyses, and fails to demonstrate the potential for any interference that cannot be resolved through routine coordination. First, MSPACE resultsare not proof of harmfulinterference. The single, narrow purpose of MSPACE is o identify areas for negotiation in inter—system coordination.. In * Technical Appendi at 4. 7. DireeTV incoreetlyassensthat Spectvum Fivels submisson of antemna spot beam digrams in a txtrather than gxtformat prevented DIRECTV ffom conducting a complete intrference analyss,In foct, t filesare only use t describe shaped—beam, non—«lipteal antennas, whichare not pr oftheSpectrum Fivesystem. Therefore, Spectmam Five was not required to provide the ITU wit any xties Prior to filng ts Petion, Spectram Five discussed with Commission siff how to submitanterna beam information in a form tht would be helpfuland aceurat. As a result ofthese discssions, Spectrum Five submited a Microsoft Access (ndb) fil in the exat format required by the TV for proposed Plan modifeations. Thus, Spectram Five provided DIRECTV and other thrdpanies with the same technical dats, in thesame format, thatthey would have received from the TT. This.mmdbfilincludeall ofthe anterna characterisesnecessary to analyze thinterference potenial of Spectram Five‘ system,and the 1 ie simply provided this nformation ia differen(albit edundand format. * DIRECTV Oppositon at3; EchoStar Oppositon atn. 1

other words, MSPACE only establishes an agenda for the relevant affected Administrations to discuss and to resolve interference issues. As DIRECTV has experienced," and SES and EchoSter concede elsewhere,"" an MSPACE analysis identifying "affected" systems does not doom coordination or system implementation. The MSPACE results in the Petition prove merely that ITU coordination is required— nothing more. Second, the MSPACE analysis uses parameters widely understood as outdated and overbroad. The MSPACE assumptions covering Region 2 were taken from Annex 1 of Appendices 30 and 30A ofthe ITU Radio Regulations. These assumptions are over two decades old and no longer reflect today‘s technology (for example, they presume analog carriers). As a result, MSPACE utilizes artificially high protection ratios for triggering coordination. Acceptance of MSPACE results as indicative of actual interference would requireall new DBS systems to comply with 20—year—old specifieations and protection margins based on obsolete technologies. Such a requirement, obviously, would generate enormous spectrum inefficiency. As the FCC knows, real—world numbers are available in the Regions 1 and 3 BSS Plans. Those plans were updated in 2000 to reflect present—day practices. Applying the updated criteria from the Regions 1 and 3 BSS Plans to Region 2 would result in a * For example, DIRECTV‘s most recent DBS satlite application (DIRECTY 95/ USABSS:21), Pite No. SAT—RPL—20080322—00070 (Ma. 22, 2005),contans an MSPACE analysisshowing thatthe Commission must coordinate with Gret Briain and Argentina # See SES Consolidted Repl, File No. SAT—PDR—20020425—00071, at 23 (lly 3, 2002)("Once coortination is riggered, the ITU rulesdictne that nterference issues areto b resolved trough coortiation between the parties,which neednot (ndeed, SES AMERICOM believes, should notemplay MSPACE in secking to resolv interfrence issues") (emphasi added); EchoStar Reply Comments, Rep. No. 5PB—196,at 9 (Feb. 13, 2004) ‘MSPACE a softwaretoolfodetermining whichadminisations are affected,rather than an id to coortinatingwth those administations") 10

reduction of the relevant protection ratio values by 7 dB."" Such a reduction would eliminate many of the negative values shown in the Spectrum Five MSPACE analysis and reduce the number of required coordinations." Third, MSPACE does not always accurately capture actual interference because it indiscriminately analyzes all parameters contained in the ITU filng, rather than the parameters ofthe actual system implemented. Unsurprisingly, DIRECTV‘s opposition highlights the absolute worst case, ather than typical, MSPACE results. For example, DIRECTV points to the certain high OEPM values associated with the USABSS—15 filing."" These values assume that DIRECTV‘s CONUS beam serves Alaska (atthe ~20 dB contour) and Hawaii (atthe ~15 dB contour) using the smallest possible (45 em) antennas. Yet, DIRECTV apparently does not provide negative margin service throughout Alaska or Hawail."* Thus, a much more realistic measure would be degradation resultsfortest points actually located in the continental United States— 9. See Technical Appendixat 12. DIRECTV ielfhas proposed proection crieria fo cumenty« deplayed DBS systems based on the updated prametersfor Regions 1 and 3. See Reply Commens of DIRECTV, nc.Rep. No.SPB—196 at 14 (Feb. 13, 2004("Forregions 1 and 3, the TU determined thata single—entry CA of26 dB and an aggregate GI of21 4B were appropriate, DIRECTV‘s proposed protection eieriafor eurenty—deplayed DBS systems,setfoth in ts Pettionfor Rulemaking, were based on these parameters") # Technical Appendix at 2 DIRECTY Oppositon atn. See DIRECTV web it at shtpuhn drect.comDTVAPP/eamnFAQ_DTVBasicsdopd> (answerto tem no.9) (‘becauseofAlaska‘s lcation in relation to oursateltes, you may need a arger satelte dis. For exampl, viewers in Anchorage or Firbanks may need an cightfoot is o ge good reeeption. in the Jneas are,a foufot dish may o the trick. Areas northand westofthese locations wll experience an even greater reductionin signalacuty"%; <hitpilnandirecy.com/DTVAPPeamawaiiProgramming dep> (‘To receive DIRECTV programming in Heval, a 39" x 29"DIRECTV@® dish is required. For DIRECTV PARA TODOS.,Jadeworld or HD propramming,up to three (3)9—centimete dishes maybe needed"), To the degre that DiecTV does provideservce(wi the smallest antennas) to Howaiiand Alask thefure, Spectram Five would be willing tundertake measure n coortination negattionsto reduce such interference t accepable leves. 1

which Spectrum Five showed would reduce the margin on the order of2 dB in the worst case.® Fourth, Spectrum Five would not degrade margins any more than DIRECTV is apparently willing to accept. The ITU‘s MSPACE analysis of DIRECTV‘s most recent filing, USABSS—18 at 119° W.L.,shows that over 90 percent ofthe test points for DIRECTV‘s system at 119° W.L. would experience a margin degradation of more than 7.5 dB if the USABSS—18 fling is implemented. Furthermore; over half of all test points would have margin degradations of 10 dB or more. This is before and without any contribution from Spectrum Five. Yet these negative margins as computed by MSPACE are comparable to what DIRECTV complains is unacceptable from Spectrum Five.** B. Mitigation Techniques Are Readily Available To Prevent Harmful Interference to Authorized U.S. Systems Even if interference concems did legitimately exist, a number of mitigation techniques are available for Spectrum Five to coordinate its DBS operations with those of DIRECTV and EchoStar."" For example, as shown in the attached Technical Appendix, Spectrum Five could make small changes in spot—beam pointing and power levels to better match the power levels of ts neighbors at locations particularly sensitive to interference. In addition, as Spectrum Five demonstrated in its Petition and as confirmed # DIRECTV als fre aboutis USABSS—18 fiing contaninghigh OEPM valves._DIRECTV Opposition at 3 & n2. That flingalso contains similarfictors that result in exaggerated OEPM resuls. For example, the NJ 19 bean in USABSS—18 serves Alaska and Hawalatth—20 dB contour and CONUS at the—10 dB contour. n s Petiton, pectrum Five presentedt MSPACE resul fo the wors—casetest poinforthe DIRECTV spot beam (TP4 of B06). Thisrepresented a more realitic itvtion where both systems had reasonably stzed service aeas. Even that analysis,however,represeted a wors—cas sitvtion insofa as t assumed maximum Spectrum Five power, miimum DirecTV power,and a pointng ervor by the earth stion antenna. See Technical Appendixat 3. f Technical Appendi 2. 14 wsa. 12

in the Technical Appendix,improved coding and minimal increases (e.g., merely three centimeters) in the size of the subscriber antenna could limit timpact of its system to a 10 percent increase in additional unavailability (in the example given, 52.6 minutes of additional unavailability per year, or 1 minute per week)."". Because current baseline outage levels in the DBS service are so low (in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 percent, or approximately 525 to 1050 minutes per year), the Commission has previously held that a 10 percent relative increase in DBS unavailability (i the range of 0.01 to 0.02 percent) would be a "negligible" level of interference that "does not riseto harmful interference.""" Indeed, the FCC noted that an approximate 10% increase in relative unavailability would be "much less than the seasonal, yearly, and city—to—city variability that already exists in the unavailability within the DBS service," and "imperceptible to the consumer in most cases.""" The isolation provided by the earth station antenna further indicates the sharing potential between Spectrum Five and DIRECTV. As explained in the Technical Appendix, a 45 cm antenna will produce a level ofisolation that has been demonstrated to be sufficient toallow for sharing in other services, and would be sufficient for DBS. ®— Technical Appendicard. * See AmendmentofParis 2 and 25 ofthe Commision‘s Rules o Permit Gperaton efNGSO FSS Systens Co—Frequency with GSO and Terrestiat Systens in theKu—Band Frequency Renge; Amendment of the Conmission‘s uies to Authoriz Subsidiary Terrestiel Use ofthe 12.2—12.7 GHiz Band by Diret Broadcast Stelte Licnsees and Their Afiltes; and Applications ofBroadwave USA, PDC Broodband Corp, and SatelteRecebers, Lid.to Providea ixedService in the 12.2=12.7 GHs Bond, Founth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Red 8428, 432.33 (i§ 10—11) (2003). * Amendinent ofParts 2 and25 ofthe Commission‘ Rules to Pernit Operation ofNGSO FSS Systems Co—Frequency with GSO and TerrestrialSystems in the KBondFrequency Renge; Amendment of the Commision‘sRules to Authorize Subsidlary Terrestiel Use ofthe 12.2—12.7 GHiz Bond by Direct BroadeastSatelteLicensees and TheirAfflates; andApplicatons ofBroadwave USA, PDC Broodband Corporation, andStelite Receivers, id to Provide a PiveServie ithe 122—12.7 GHz Band. Memorandum Opinionand Order and Second Repor and Order17 FCC Red 9614, 9645—16(179),9681 (135)o. 13

For example, Ku—band DBS with a 45 em subscriber antenna and 4.5 degree spacing can provide a level of service similar to that provided under existing FCC rules for Ka—band FSS with 2—degree spacing and a small 66 em subscriber antenna."" TV A RULEMAKING Is NOT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE TECHNICAL ISSUES RAISED BY SPECTRUM FIVE‘S PETITION Both DIRECTV and EchoStar treat Spectrum Five‘s petition as another chance to plea for a comprehensive rulemaking to "first establish technical rules""" for "tweener" satelltes.". EchoStar also contends interference to its possible future triple—feed anterna can be resolved only via rulemaking.®* Neither claim is correct. The Commission has substantial discretion over ts process in general‘" and may employ rulemaking or adjudication."* Moreover, EchoStar never explains why a triple—feed antenna necessarily has a heightened susceptiblity to interference."" EchoStar can fully protect ts nterests through the traditional international coordination process."" # Technical Appentixat. # EchoSur Oppositonat2. & DIRECTV Comments t2. * ExhoStar Oppositinat3—4. * nuscpsg * SEC Chenery Corp332.0.5.194,202.03 (1947);7el—Oprik Limted Applicaionfor a lcense to and and aperate in the UniedSates a submarine cable extending between the United States and the Unted Kingdon, Memorandim Opinion and Order, 100 F.C.C2d 1033, 1050 (Y 36—37) (1989). T A tiple—feedantenna could b designed withareflector large enough o allow each fed t"see" the same effectiveareaasa 45 em anterna. In that ease,thetiplefeed and standard 45 m antemna would have imilargain and beamwdth measorement, which would resulin smiarlevels ofiterfrence * Condiioning Spectrum Five‘s Peion on rlesprotecting EchoStar‘s hypothercal iplefeed anterns bothsidesteps ITU coordination and allows EchoStar to manipulte the adininsyativeprocess to selecttechnological winners and losers. 14

Spectrum Five takes no position on adding to or modifying the DBS rules."" Either way, the Petition should be reviewed and granted independently of other proceedings.® Forthe last 20 years, the Commission has followed the procedures in the ITU Radio Regulations for making modifications to the Region 2 Plan, and there is no reason for the Commission to discriminate against Spectrum Five by deviating from this practice. The FCC recently concluded that the ITU coordination process and existing FCC rules were sufficient to protect U.S. DBS systems "while stll preserving options for future entrants," including non—U.S. satellite systems located less than nine degrees from U.S. DBS orbitalslots."" In addition, granting Spectrum Five‘s Petition without a rulemaking is also consistent with the Commission‘s treatment of DIRECTV and EchoStar during their ransition from analog to digital technology. In any event, Spectrum Five understands and accepts its legal obligation to comply with relevant rules adopted in the future." # Both DIRECTV and EchoStar previously have surpested however, that such ule are not required. See Comments ofDIRECTV, nc 1B Docket No 98—21, t 23, 23—25 (iled Apr.6, 19989; Comments ofEchoSlr, 1B Docket No. 9821 (Rled Apr6 1998). More recenty,when secking market enty,EchoSia apparenty believed revised riles were not condition precedentto approval for ts oun "meener" satelife. EchoSur Oppositonat3, n M as shown above,paricularized interference isues areresolvedthrough ITU coordination, not FCC proceedings. 9 DBS Rules Order, 17 FCC Red at 11,391 (4129) (Serviceimthe United Sates from fture entrantssuch as non—.S. DBS sateftes ould result in smaller satlite spacing han the currentnine= dearee searation betveen U.S. DBS orbil locations."). No rulesretrictingsuch sevices were implemented. * US . Sorer Proadcasting Co, 381 U.S. 192, 203—06 (1956). The Commission routinely Heenses (or grants marketaccess o) satelites without waiting for finlrules. See Pandnat Licensee Core, Order and Authorization 13 FCC Red 1405, 1414 (§27)OmBar. 1997) Cicensecondiioned on outeome offuture rulemaking proceeding}; Amendment othe Commission‘s Regulatery Poliiesto Allow Non—U.S—Licensed Space Stationsto Provide Domestc and Internatonal Stelte Servie in the United States andAmendiment ofSetion 25131 ofthe Commision‘sRules and Regulations t Eliminate the Licensing Regurementfor Cenain nernational Recetve—Only Earth Stations ond Communications Setelite Corporetion Requestfor Waiver ofection 25.1310)() fthe Commission‘s Rudes os it Applesto 15

¥. GRANT OF SPECTRUM FIVE‘S PETITION WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST None of the concernsraised in the oppositions outweighs the public interest benefits of granting Spectrum Five‘s Petition. First, Spectrum Five‘s planned service will increase spectrum efficiency by utilizing new technology to provide more spectrum at undeveloped orbitallocations, without causing harmful interference to existing satellites at 110° W.L. and 119° W.L. Spectrum Five‘s service will provide over 1500 additional channels for programming while potentially causing only seconds of additional unavailability of existing services per day. This additional capacity will have a host of positive effects throughout the DBS and MVPD morketplace. Second, Spectrum Five‘s service will have the ability to expand the availability of local—into—Jocal programming in rural and underserved markets that currently have no local broadcast programming. The Congress and the Commission have previously recognized the importance of providing local—into—local programming to these areas.® Spectrum Five also plans to provide enhanced DBS service to Alaska and Hawail, including local—into—local programming, in furtherance ofthisimportant Commision objective." (Continued ...) Services Provided ie the INTELSAT K Sarellte, Funter Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Red 14,220, 14,220 (422) (1997)(atingthathe "[erantof my authorizationsto provide DTH—FSS and DBS service prioto resolution of[eerain freign ownershi and public interestisues will e considered on a caseby—case basis and willbeconditioned on theifnal utcome") ® Satlite Home Viewer Extensionand Reauthorization Act o 2004, Pub. L. No. 108—447, 208 er seq.(Dec,,2000General Motors Corp. and Hughes Blctrnics Corp, Transfrors, and The Nens CorpLid, Tranferee, For Authoriy To Transfer Control, Memorandur Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Red ans, e16—7 c ase—30) 2oo f DBS Rules Order, 17 ECC Red t 11,367 (§72)(crifying hat to comply with the Commission‘s Alsska and Hawail DBS service requirements at 47 CF.R.§ 25. 48(0an opertor must "fferf} ackages 16

Third, Spectrum Five‘s service will speed the DTV transition by making available much—needed capacity for the retransmission of local broadcast stations‘ HDTV and other digital services. Spectrum limitations restrict the ability of satellte operators to carry both analog and digitallocal—into—local broadcast services." Spectrum Five‘s service will augment available spectrum and significantly reduce the shortfall prompted by technological change and surging marketplace demand. Finally, Spectrum Five‘s service will increase competition in the MVPD market. The FCC has recognized the importance of local—into—Jocal service in promoting competition in the MVPD market.® Spectrum Five‘s planned offerings will make existing DBS offerings more attractive as compared to cable,and other services, by increasing the availabilty oflocal—into—local programming and digital content®" vi. conchusion The FCC has consistently expressed its "reluctance for regulation of the DBS services" and a corollary promise to *implement the leastintrusive rule."*" This fexible approach has created a vibrant and robust DBS service. The Commission can best keep to that path by dismissing or denying DIRECTV‘s and EchoStar‘s oppositions, rejecting (Continued . .) ofsevices in Alisk and Hawaithatare reasonsbly comparable o whatthe provide offes in the iguous 48 sites") Se Anmual dssessment ofth Stats ofCompetiion in the Marketfor the Delvery ofVideo Programming,Eleventh Anual Repor, PCC 08—13, 9 16$ (Feb 4 2009) «/ uuse # SeeSpectrum Five Pertion at 14—15 # Revision ofRules andPoliesfor the Direct Broad. Seelite Service, Repor and Order, 11 FCC Red 9712, 9737 (165)(1995). See also DBS Rules Orde, 17 FCC Red at 1147 (§29)(climinating foreign ownershirestictins on DBS opertors in orderto *allow[} DBS applicants and Heensees the maximum degree ofregulatry fecdom.") 17

the requests for unnecessary conditions and prompily granting this Petition in the public interest, convenience and necessity. David Wilson President SreemumFiveLLC Jennifer D. Hindin 626 8. 25th Street Wizey Rem & Fivomc LLP Arlington, VA 22202 1776 K Street, NW (703) se8—6636 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 719—7000 Counser ror Srecrium Five LLC Date: June 1, 2005 18

TECHNICAL APPENDIX This Appendix addresses the comments of DIRECTV regarding the negative margins in Spectrum Five‘s MSPACE results, and further provides information as to why coordination of Spectrum Five‘s proposed modification of the Region 2 BSS Plans has a high likelihood of success. L. MSPACE ANALYSES DONE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF TRIGGER When considering modifications to the Region 2 BSS Plans, MSPACE analyses are done where the threshold f 0.25 dB as specified in Article 4 of the Region 2 BSS Plans is exceeded. The analyses are intended to identif, based on technical assumptions in the Plans, the Administrations and assignments requiring coordination. In other words, an MSPACE analysis merely identifies tems to be discussed during coordination. The MSPACE analysis is not a substitute for coordination. This is particularly important given the assumptions in the Plans, which are over 20 years old, are based on analog transmissions and overstate the severity of any potential impact on other systems. The basic issue is whether the resulting C/Is as a consequence ofinterference from the Spectrum Five network are reasonable and do not cause unreasonable levels of interference. These can best be determined through a coordination negotiation involving actual system porameters. 11. TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THE REGION 2 PLANS As suggested above, misleading and out of date technical assumptions can lead to incorreet conclusions regarding the likelihood of successful coordination for Spectrum Five‘s proposed modification of the Region 2 BSS Plans. Indeed, Spectrum Five has every expectation that the real impact ofit network on DIRECTV will be minimal and could be resolved during coordination negotiations. This is ilustrated through consideration ofthe changed assumptions associated with the recently modified Regions 1 & 3 BSS Plans. The modification to the Regions 1 & 3 BSS Plans was incorporated into the ITU Radio Regulations at WRC—03. The modification was predicated on updating the technical assumptions in the Regions 1 & 3 BSS Plans, and providing for additional TTU members. Annex. 5 of Appendix 30 of the Plan states as follows: "WRC—2000 adopted, for the protection of digital assignments from digital emissions, the following protection ratio values to be applied for calculation of downlink equivalent protection margins of the WRC—2000 Regions 1 and 3 Plan: —— 21 dB for co—channel signals; —— 16 dB for adjacent channel signals.

During planning at WRC—2000, these values were used for all assignments of the Region 1 and 3 Plan and List except those for which WRC—2000 adopted different values used in the planning process." The modified protection ratio adopted for the Regions 1 & 3 BSS Plans is far more realistic when compared with the ratio in the original Regions 1 & 3 BSS Plans (31 dB for co— channel signals, or 28 dB in the Region 2 Plans). The modified protection ratio should be applied to any MSPACE analysis involving the Region 2 Plans. It should be apparent that with a 21 dB protection ratio, sharing results would improve by 7 dB, many ofthe negative margins would disappear, and the likelihood for successful coordination would be very high. In reality, the networks being implemented today within the Region 2 Plans, as well as proposed modifications to the Region 2 Plans, are all digital. Indeed, when commenting on a similar situation, SES itself admitted that the basic ssue is whether the resulting C/Is as a consequence of interference from the potential new network are reasonable and do not cause unreasonable levels of interference. I1L, MSPACE NEGATIVE MARGINS DIRECTV suggeststhat the MSPACE results that contain negative margins greater than the coordination threshold indicate an unfavorable sharing situation. However, this is misleading as the MSPACE analysis is based on assumptions from a Plan over 20 years old. These assumptions give extremely conservative results that do not determine whether sharing and coordination are possible. One way to llustrate the conservative nature of the MSPACE assumptions is to consider what margins are obtained for DIRECTV‘s recent USABSS—18 filing in the absence ofany interference from Spectrum Five. Assuming no interference from Spectrum Five atall into USABSS—18, for example, USABSS—18 has margins that range from —3.2 dB to —18.5 dB, with over 90% of the USABSS—18 test points showing a reference situation with the margin degraded by more than 7.5 dB, and over half the points with margins of —10.0 dB or worse. In other words, DIRECTV recognizes the conservative assumptions inherent in MSPACE and appears to have taken those negative margins into account. These margins are of similar magnitude to those to which it now objects in the context ofthe proposed Spectrum Five network. Clearly it makes no sense for DIRECTV to suggest MSPACE assumptions are representative ofactual operational requirements —— and that is results preclude sharing —— given DIRECTV‘s willingness to modify and operate its own system assuming similar substantial negative margins. IV. MSPACE RESULTS IN DIRECTV FILINGS Furthermore,it is worthwhile to consider why the MSPACE results for DIRECTV‘s later filings seem so much worse than the degradation caused to the USA‘s original entries in the Plans (USAEHOO and USAEHOO3). This is surprising only because it suggests that DIRECTV is implementing systems increasingly susceptible to interference. Closer examination shows that these high values are an artifact ofthe DIRECTV ITU filing.

In the DIRECTV filing USABSS—15, eferred to in footnote 4 on .3 of the DIRECTV Opposition, all of thigher degradation numbers appear for the CONUS beam, but for test points that are not located in CONUS. The GIMS diagram shows that service to Hawaii occurs at the—15.0 dB contour and to Alaska at the ~20.0 dB contour. This explains the low C/1 values observed in the Spectrum Five Petition as the Spectrum Five filing contains spot beams for these regions. For most test points actuallyin CONUS, the worst—case degradation from the Spectrum Five network is on the order of 2.0 dB. To the degree that DIRECTV does provide service (with the smallest antennas) to Hawaii and Alaska, Spectrum Five would be willing to undertake measures in coordination negotiations to reduce such interference to acceptable levels. It should also be noted that the worst—case CONUS test points for the USABSS—15 CONUS beam occur at test points found at the —10.0 dB contour of the beam, and so overstates the impact on new network entries. This appears to be a case of DIRECTV exaggerating the interference potential of any proposed network proposing to alter the BSS Plans. Note, additionally, that the original Plan was based on a much more spectrally efficient 4.0 dB service area rather than contours of—10.0 dB and ~15.0 dB. Next, DIRECTV points out,at p. 3 and n.2, that the MSPACE findings also show some high values for USABSS—18. USABSS—18, the ltest DIRECTV filing contains many ofthe same factors that exaggerate the calculated interference. For example, the N1 19 beam serves Alaska and Hawaii at the ~20.0 dB contour, and CONUS at the —10.0 dB contour. In the Spectrum Five Petition, the test point for the spot beam (TP4 of SBO6) was considered because it ilustrates a more realisic stuation, with both systems having reasonable service areas. It istll very much a worst—case example however, in thatit includes maximum Spectrum Five power, minimum DIRECTV power, and a pointing error. Note that, in general, antenna pointing error and mismatch ofthe beams of two systems do not systematically increase the interference experienced by one system. For every earth station that is mispointed toward Spectrum Five, there will be another one pointed away. ¥. MITIGATION TECHNIQUES Given the expected coordination situation described above, there are a number of techniques that heve beenused in such coordinations to achieve a successful result. A first step would be to agree on the characteristics ofthe systems concemed and the contours t be used for coveraze area. Subsequently agreement should be reached on appropriate protection ratios for sharing between digital systems. When calculations of any negative margins are examined several mitigation techniques can be used. These include improved modulation and/or coding, adjusting the size of the user earth station antenna, and changing the availability due to rain. Agreement on use of various mitigation techniques typically leads to a setisfactory coordination result. In addition, MSPACE includes many factors that do not systematically increase the interference for a system, but which may increase the maximum interference an individual earth station could experience at a particular moment. These are satellite station—keeping errors, earth station mis—pointing and relative EIRP of the two systems over a geographic expanse, such as CONUS. Note that the spot

beam system of Spectrum Five gives it Nexibility in coordination ofissues involving changes in EIRP. For example, Spectrum Five would be able to change individual spot—beam power levels to better match the power levels of neighboring satelltes. Purther, the MSPACE calculation considers the possibility of a single DIRECTV channel receiving interference from two different SS channels. Therefore, raffic balancing can also be used to reduce this type ofinterference event in critical locations. Finally, Spectrum Five may be able to improve the cross—polarization discrimination performance beyond that currentlyfled with the ITU. VL AVAILABILITY CRITERIA FOR COORDINATION If Spectrum Five were to launch and operate satellites in the near term when present BSS systems based on MPEG—2 standard digital TV and QPSK are in operation, the unavailability objective due to rain, for example, 0.1%, can be degraded by 52.6 minutes of outage or 10% of the total outage." Under those circumstances, coordination may readily be accomplished. A similar criteria was used to accommodate the MVPDS and NGSO system in the 12.2—12.7 GHz band. The allowable C/I under these conditions was calculated to be 21.4 dB. The subscriber antenna discrimination resulted in a C/1 = 20.8 dB, a shortfall of 0.6 dB. 1f another 4.0 dB is added to account for the peak gain ofthe spot beam antenna, the eoordination objectives could still be met throughoutthe service area by the use of rate 1/3 coding for the Spectrum Five satelltes and by enlarging the subscriber.antenna to 48 centimeters, if necessary. In sum, there is good reason to believe that, employing well—understood sharing techniques, the proposed Spectrum Five network could be coordinated with existing BSS networks. VIL COMPARISON OF KA AND KU BAND SERVICE in the Ka band a typical FSS small subscriber antenna is 66em. The FCC antenna characteristic is 29—25log 2 = 21.5 dBi, and the corresponding subscriber antenna gain for this antenna is G = 40.6 dBi, and the C1 is 19.1 dB. In the Ku band BSS, the FCC antenna characteristic is 29—25 log 4.= 12.67 dBi, and the corresponding subscriber antenna gain for a 45 em antenna is G= 33.5 dBi, causing a C/1 of 20.8 dB. This indicates that the BSS with 4.5 degree spacing, has slightly more isolation than the Ka band FSS with 2 degree spacing and therefore is capable of providing the same level of service provided for under existing FCC rules. Note that for Ka band FSS, these interference levels are accepted without the FCC requiring coordination. Here, we start with slightly better isolation and will also achieve other improvements as a result ofthe bilateralTTU coordination process ThTechnical Appendix Ailedwith Spectrum Five‘s Petition for Declaratory Ruling (13—15) describes this malysis n furter deail

CERTIFICATION OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING ENGINEERING INFORMATION 1 hereby declare under penalty of perjury that1 am the technically qualified person responsible for preparation ofthe information contained in the foregoing application, that I am familiar with Part 25 of the Commission‘s rules,that I have either prepared or reviewed the engineering information submitted in this application, and that it is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief B Donald Jansky Technical Consultant Dated: June 1, 2005

1, Kimberly Booth, a secretary at the law firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, hereby certify this 1st day of June 2005, that 1 caused copies of the foregoing Consolidated Response to be hand delivered to the following William M. Wiltshire Michael D. Nilsson Haris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP 1200 Eighteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Counselfor DIRECTV Peter A. Rohrbach Karis A. Hastings Hogan & Hartson LLP 555 Thineenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Counselfor EchoStar Pantelis Michaelopoulos Philip L. Malet Brendan Kasper Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Counselfor SEAmericom, Inc. In addition, 1 certify that I caused copies ofthe petition to be mailed via first—class postage prepaid mail to the following: PaulJ. Conessa ChiefExecutive Gibraltar Regulatory Authority Suite 811, Buroport Gibralter David K. Moskowitz Exec. Vice President & General Counsel EchoSter Satelite LLC 9601 South Meridian Boulevard Englewood, CO 80112 f._.mig es Kimberly Booth


Document Created: 2005-06-07 14:22:42
Document Modified: 2005-06-07 14:22:42
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC