Attachment reply

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

IBFS_SATLOI2005031200063_437856

RECElVEp Before the JUN ~g 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 005 Washington, D.C. P§Shaiyeq Wmfi“"w ) JUN 1 4 2005 In the Matter of ! migsem ) intornatonal Bureau Seecrium Five LLC ) File Nos. SAT—LO1—20050312—00062 ) SAT—LO1—20050312—00063 Petition for Declaratory Ruling ) Call Signs: 52667 & $2668 To Serve the U.S. Market Using ) BSS Spectrum from the 114.5° W.L. ) Orbital Location ) REPLY TO THE CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE OF SPECTRUM FIVE LLC Pursuant to Section 309 ofthe Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 309, and Section 25.154 of the Commission‘s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.154, EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (*Echotar®) hereby filesthis Reply to the Consolidated Response of Spectrum Five LLC (‘Spectrum Five"). Spectrum Five claims that the initation ofa rulemaking proceeding, as now urged by EchoStar and DIRECTV, Inc.,to determine whether DBS satellites closer than 9 degrees from adjacent U.S. DBS satellites (‘tweener satellites") can operate without causing unacceptable interference, is not necessary before granting its Petition." While Spectrum Five is of course correctthat many technical interference issues can be resolved by coordination without recourse toa rulemaking, this is not the case here. The question of 4.5° spacing has become so complex and mult—faceted that a rulemaking has now become the preferable vehicle for the Commission to fully consider it The factors that make it appropriate include the ever—increasing number of tweener satelite proposals currently before ‘ See Consolidated Response at p. 14.

the Commission,the similarity oftechnical and policy issues that each ofthem presents, and most importantly the more widespread emergence ofriple—feed subscriber dishes. In a number a number ofcircumstances of similar complexity , the Commission has frequently conducted rulemakings." As a general mater, the Commission mustfirst determine whether tweener * See Application of EchoStar Satellte L.L.C. for Authority to Construct, Launch and Operate a Direct Broadcast Satellte in the 12.2—12.7 GHz and 17.3—17.8 GHz Frequency Bands at $6.5° W.L., File No. SAT—LOA—20030609—00113 and In the Matter of SES Americom, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling To Serve the U.S. Market Using BSS Spectrum from the 105.5° W.L. Orbital Location, File No. SAT—PDR—20020425—00071. * See, e.g, Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed—Satellte Service and Related Provisions of Part 25 of the Rules and Regulation, Notice of Inquiry and Proposed Rulemaking, 88 FCC 24 318 at 1 14 (1981) (goal ofrulemaking proceeding to make a record on the feasibiity of reduced orbital spacing); Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed—Satellite Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 84 FCC 2d 584 (1980) at 1 44 (finding that "although a reduction in orbital spacing to accommodate more satelltes in orbit, as proposed by NTIA, ilikely to be feasible, we are deferring this question toa further procceding to insure that such a decision is based on [a] more complete record than is before us today"). See also Blanket Licensing Order, 15 FCC Red 13430 (2000)at $ 100,In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission‘s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co—Frequeney with GSO and Terrestral Systems in the Ku—Band Frequency Range; Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestral Use ofthe 12.2—12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satelite Licensees and Their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed Service in the 12.2—12.7 GHz Band, First Report and Order and Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Red 4096 (2000) (establishing rules for Ku—band NGSO satellites) and Memorandiom Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Red 9614 (2002) (establishing rules for Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service); In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission‘s Rules to Allocate Spectrum for, and to Establish other Rules and Policies Pertaining to, a Radiodetermination Satellite Service; In the Matter of Policies and Procedures for the Licensing of Space and Earth Stations in the Radiodetermination Satellite Service;In the Mattr of the Application of GEOSTAR CORPORATION; For Authority to Construct, Launch and Operate Space Stations in the Radiodetermination Satellte Service; A request to allocate the 1606.8—1613.8 MHz band on a Primary Basis to the Radio Astronomy Service, Report and Order, 58 Rad. Reg. 24 1416 (1985) (establishing spectrum for radiodetermination satelite service);In the Matter of Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610—1626.5/2483.5—2500 MHz Frequency Bands, Report and Order, 9 FCC Red 5936, (1994) (establishing rules for the so called Big LEO MSS service).

satellites can operate without causing unacceptable interference to adjacent DBS satelltes and if so whether technical rules can be fashioned to ensure that tweener satellites do not imit the ability ofexisting DBS providers to deliver high quality service to U.S. consumers. Furthermore, despite Spectrum Five‘s protestations to the contrary, there are stll serious concems about whether its proposed satelltes can be coordinated intemationally.* The fact that there are other satellite proposals for the same orbital location further complicates the analysis. For the foregoing reasons, EchoStar urges the Commission to defer action on Spectrum Five‘s Petition until the Commission concludes a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether tweener satellitesare feasible and can operate without causing unaceeptable levels of interference into adjacent U.S. DBS satellites and if so whether technical rules can be fashioned to ensure that tweener satellites do not limit the ability of existing DBS providers to deliver high quality service to U.S. consumers. * See Attachment A, hereto.

Respectfully submitted, 2 o lZopr «4![4/' 4//10;;4,:7 David K. Moskowite Pantelis Michalopoulos Executive Vice President & General Philip L. Malet Counsel Bremien Kesper EchoStar Satellte LL.C. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 9601 South Meridian Boulevard 1330 Connectiout Avenue, NW. Englewood, CO 80112 Washington, D.C. 20036 (303) 723—1000 (202) 420—3000 Counselfor EchoStar Satellite L L. C. June 8, 2005

Attachment A to Reply To The Consolidated Response OF Spectrum Five Technical Response to Spectrum Five Richard Bamett 8" June 2005 have been asked to review Spectrum Five‘s Technical Appendix in support of its Consolidated Response in File Nos. SAT—LOL—20050312—00062 and SAT—LOI— 20050312—00063. Spectrum Five‘s optimistic assessment fils to take into account certain important real—world factors include the following: Actual subscriber earth station performance in terms ofthe gain towards the interfering satelite, and taking account ofthe pointing accuracy ofthe earth stations as well as the performance of a variety of different antenna types that are cither already deployed in vast numbers, or are about to be deployed; The wide range of max—min EIRP levels across the service area, for both the interfering and interfered—with satelltes, particularly in the case of spot beam satellites intended for local programmings The need to maintain the maximum throughput in every transponder, which is determined by the coding and modulation used; Actual orbital positions ofthe satelltes,including the £0.2° offsets from the nominal orbital positions; and The evolving nature ofthe DBS satellite industry, which requires fexibility for innovation in satellite and earth station designs in order to maintain its competitiveness. Spectrum Five also makes several other specific technical points in its Consolidated Response that I strongly dispute, such as & Average effects of interference. In the last paragraph of Section IV of the Spectrum Five Technical Appendix, the following is stated: "Nore that, in general, antenna pointing error and mismatch ofthe beans oftwo 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." 1t is of no consolation to a DBS operator that, satistially speaking, only 50% of its subscribers are experiencing unacceptable, or harmful, interference. Averaging is simply not the way to address such interference issues. Degradation of service to only a very small percentage of subscribers may be a significant and unacceptable situation for an operator in a competitive business such as DBS. A much higher interference threshold must be established than is suggested here by Spectrum Five.

Aftachment A to Reply To The Consolidated Response OF Spectrum Five 2. Comparison of Ka—band and Ku—band service. In Section VII ofthe Spectrum Five Technical Appendix, a comparison is drawn between the C/I levels purportedly achievable into Ku—band DBS systems and the C/1 levels that would result from operation of Ka—band systems using 2° spacing and 66 cm earth station antennas. Spectrum Five concludes that the C/I at Ka—band will be lower than at Ku—band, but this is both incorrect and misleading. Firstly, Spectrum Five assumes that a Ku—band DBS receive anterna meets 29— 2Slog(theta) off—axis gain at a 4.5° off—axis angle, but thisis not an FCC requirement, nor is it what small DBS receive antennas can achieve. Such DBS antennas still exhibit main—lobe gain at 4.5 degrees off axis, resulting in gain performance up to 5 dB worse than the value assumed by Spectrum Five. This would worsen the calculated C/I levels by 5 dB, making the Ku—band DBS case significantly worse (~ 3 dB) than the Ka—band case. Secondly, Ka—band is a new service starting off n a 2° orbital spacing environment, and this will require that its antennas be installed from the outset with greater pointing precision than has historically been the case with Ku—band DBS antennas. By contrast, there are tens ofmillions of Ku—band DBS receive antenas installed and operating, an indeterminate number of which could have quite significant pointing errors 3. Triple—feedantennas. Spectrum Five asserts in footnote 57 ofits Consolidated Response that a triple—feed antenna need not have worse off—axis gain performance than a single—feed antenna, and that by simply oversizing the antenna reflector all associated problems can be resolved. Unfortunately, this is not the way that DBS antennas work, particularly low—cost designs intended for mass« production and simple installation as required for DBS. Antennas of this type use a parabolic reflector that has a unique single focus point, which is where the central feed of a triple—feed design is located. The other two feeds, of necessity, must be located ata physical ofiset from this focus point, and this results in degraded beam shape and gain performance for these "offset" feeds. The degradation, particularly in off—axis gain performance, is quite severe, and significantly increases the off—axis gain towards the adjacent 4.5° spaced satellte. Triple—feed antennas such as this will be an essential component in future DBS systems, and their use should not be precluded by the introduction of 4.5° spaced co—frequency co—coverage DBS satellites. 4. Mitigation techniques. In the second paragraph of Section V of the Spectrum Five Technical Appendix, the ways proposed to mitigate unacceptable interference all place the burden on the interfered—with network. The proposed. techniques of changing the modulation/coding, or adjusting the size of the subscriber terminal,or accepting more rain outage, ar all detrimental to the interests ofthe incumbent DBS operators, and cither reduce system capacity or provide inferior and unacceptable quality service tothe subscribers.

CERTIFICATION OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING ENGINEERING INFORMATION I hereby certy that I am the technically qualified person responsible for preparation of the engineering information contained in this pleading, that I am famiiar with Part 25 of the Commission‘s Rules, that | have either prepared or reviewed the engineering information submitted in this pleading, and that it is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. PA ins Richard J. Bamet, PhD, BSc Telecomm Strategies Inc. 6404 Highland Drive Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 (301) sse—s0se Dated: June 8, 2005

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Brendan Kasper, certify that on June 8, 2005 a copy of the foregoing Reply to the Consolidated Response of Spectrum Five LLC was served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: David Wilson William M. Wiltshire President Michacl D. Nilsson Srecruunt FivELLC Hamus, Wicrsime & Granis LLP 626 S. 25" Street 1200 Eighteenth Street, NW Arlington, VA 22202 Washington, DC 20036 Richard E. Wiley Peter A. Rohrbach Todd M. Stansbury Karis A. Hastings Jennifer D. Hindin Hooa& Hartson LLP Wizey Rem & Frecomic LLP 55 Thirteenth Street, NW 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Washington, DC 20006 In addition, I certfy that I caused copies ofthe petition to be mailed via frst—class postage prepaid mail to the following: Paul J. Canessa Chief Executive Gibraltar Regulatory Authority Suite 811, Buroport GIBRALTAR 4 B mad . 44 K ours Brendan Kasper *


Document Created: 2005-06-20 12:26:45
Document Modified: 2005-06-20 12:26:45
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC