Attachment reply

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

IBFS_SATLOI2005031200063_437862

Before the RECEIVED FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 IUN ~ 8 2005 Fodeni In the Matter of P WW”"“"" Spectrum Five LLC ; File Nos. SAT—LO1—20050312—00062/63 Petition for Declaratory Ruling To ; Received sn : snPoliey1 Brench am IntormationalBurea REPLY OF SES AMERICOM, INC. SES Americom, Inc. (‘SES Americom"), by its attorneys and pursuant to Section 25.154 of the Commission‘s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.145, hereby submits its reply to the Consolidated Response of Spectrum Five LLC (‘Spectrum Five Response") in the above—captioned proceeding. In its comments, SES Americom requested that the Commission impose a coordination requirement as a condition of any authority Spectrum Five is granted to serve the U.S. market from its proposed BSS network at 114.5° W.L. Spectrum Five opposes such a condition, claiming that it would be inconsistent with Commission precedent. In fact, however, when granting U.S. market access the Commission routinely adopts provisions designed to protect the rights of systems with ITU priority, and it should do so here. As SES Americom explained in its comments, the United Kingdom has made filings for a BSS network at 114.5° W.L. on behalf of the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority. These filings are in support of a network to be deployed by SES Satellites (Gibraltar) Limited (‘SES Gibraltar®), a wholly—owned subsidiary of SES

Americom, and have date priority over the Netherlands filings on which Spectrum Five relies. SES Americom Comments at 1—2. We noted that Spectrum Five had acknowledged the U.K. filings and had recognized that operation of its system would not be possible once the U.K. network commenced service. 1d., citing Spectrum Five Petition, Technical Appendix, Exh. 1 at 4. In order to ensure that the rights of SES Gibraltar are protected, SES Americom requested that the Commission make clear to Spectrum Five that its operations would not be entitled to interference protection from networks operating pursuant to prior ITU filings. SES Americom also asked that the Commission condition any grant of authority to Spectrum Five to require coordination with affected systems of other administrations that have date priority under ITU procedures. 1d. at 3. In its Response, Spectrum Five states thatit "will abide by its obligations to protect other systems as required under international law." Spectrum Five Response at 8 n.33. Nevertheless, Spectrum Five opposes the condition requested by SES Americom. Spectrum Five claims that the "FCC does not condition or delay market entry pending coordination between or among foreign administrations."! Part of Spectrum Five‘s statement is irrelevant, and the remainder is wrong. SES Americom never suggested that the Commission should defer action on 1 1d. at T (@emphasis in original), citing Telesat Canada Petition for Declaratory Ruling for Inclusion ofANIK F1 on the Permitted Space Station List, Order, 15 FCC Red 24828, 24833 (1 14) (Sat. & Radiocomm. Div. 2000).

the Spectrum Five Petition until after coordination of the Netherlands filing with the prior U.K. submissions had occurred. Instead, we asked that the Commission make clear that Spectrum Five is not entitled to protection from interference from networks with ITU date priority. Spectrum Five‘s suggestion that the Commission does not impose conditions on market accoss to ensure compliance with coordination requirements and ITU priority is simply false. The Commission has made clear thatit will consider ITU date priority in processing applications secking authority to use foreign—licensed satellites for U.S. service. For example,in authorizing Loral to operate the C—band Telstar 13 satellite pursuant to a license from Papua New Guinea, the FCC adopted conditions designed to ensure that New Skies‘ rights under a Netherlands filing with date priority were protected. Specifically, the Bureau stated that: As the Commission has recently affirmed, a lower ITU priority network may be permitted to access the U.S. market ifa higher ITU priority satellite has not been launched, but in such a case the lower ITU priority network is subject to proof of coordination with the higher ITU priority satellite. Absent such demonstration, the lower ITU priority satellite must coase service to the U.S. market immediately upon launch and operation of the higher ITU priority satellite, or be subject to further conditions designed to address potential harmful interference to a satellite with ITU date precedence. We condition Loral‘s authorization accordingly. .. . We also condition Loral‘s authority to serve the U.S. on its compliance with applicable currentand future operationalrequirements as a result of coordination agreements reached with

other satellite systems, including the Netherlands‘s NSS—11 system at 120.8° W.L* Spectrum Five‘s objection to Commission imposition of a coordination condition is puzzling given its commitment to comply with applicable ITU requirements. In any event, however, prior cases make clear that the Commission‘s policy is to ensure that systems granted access to the U.S. market fulfll their obligations to protect networks with ITU priority. The conditions typically imposed by the Commission go well beyond the coordination condition requested by SES Americom here and include requirements to terminate service upon launch of a spacecraft with higher ITU priority. SES Americom respectfully requests that the Commission, consistent with past practice, make any grant of authority to Spectrum Five subject to the requirement that Spectrum Five coordinate with the U.K. and protect the SES Gibraltar network. Respectfully submitted, SES AMERICOM, INC. bie—— Nancy J. Eskenazi By: Z g Z4& Vice Prosident & Peter A. Rohrbach Assoc. General Counsel Karis A. Hastings SES Americom, Inc. Hogan & Hartson LLP. Four Research Way 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Princeton, NJ 08540 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637—5600 June 8, 2005 2. Loral Spacecom Corporation Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Add Telstar 13 to the Permitted Space Station List, 18 FCC Red 16374 (Gat. Div. 2003) at 1 16 (footnotes omitted). See also Amendment of the Commission‘s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Red 10760, 10870—71 (¥ 296) (2003).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Cecelia Burnett, do hereby certify that on this 8day of June, 2005, copies of the foregoing "Reply of SES Americom, Inc." were served to the following parties by first class mail: (ogiu a Burete Cecelia M. Burnett David Wilson President Spectrum Five LLC 626 5. 25® Street Arlington, VA 22202 Richard E. Wiley ‘Todd M. Stansbury Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006


Document Created: 2005-06-20 12:51:15
Document Modified: 2005-06-20 12:51:15
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC