Attachment EX PARTE

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

IBFS_SATLOI2005031200063_538166

                                       EX PARTE oR LaTe FILE
                                                             D
HARRIS,                                                                 1200 EIGHTEENTH STREET, NW
                                                                        WASHINGTON, DC 20036

WILTSHIRE &                                                             Tel 202.730.1300 rax 202.730.1301
GRANNIS ur
                                                                        WWW.HARRISWILTSHIRE.COM

                                                                        ATTORNEYS AT LAW




                                       November 28, 2006

                                                                                 FILED/ACCEPTED
    BY HAND DELIVERY
                                                                                       NOV 2 8 2006
    Marlene H. Dortch                                                                         hok
    Office of the Secretary                                                    Fedeml(():f%rgem;nggns%%smctgr,;m;m
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12"" Street, S.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20554

           Re:   Ex Parte Presentation
                 SAT—LOIL—20050312—00062/63
                 SAT—PDR—20020425—00071

    Dear Ms. Dortch:

           Enclosed you will find an ex parte letter filed in connection with the pending
    rulemaking proceeding with respect to short—spaced "tweener" DBS satellites. The points
    made in that filing are also directly relevant to the applications referenced above.
    Accordingly, we request that you associate these materials with the record on each of
    those applications.

            Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please
    do not hesitate to contact me.

                                                 Sincerely yours,


                                                %}W

                                                William M. Wiltshire
                                                Counselfor DIRECTV, Inc.


    Enclosure

    co:    Todd M. Stansbury (counsel for Spectrum Five)
           Peter A. Rohrbach (counsel for SES Americom)
           Robert Nelson


HARR'S,                                                                             1200 EIGHTEENTH STREET, NW
                                                                                    wasHinaton, oc 20036
WILTSHIRE &                                                                         TEL 202.730.1300 FAX 202.730.1301
                                                                                    WWW.HARRISWILTSHIRE.COM
GRANNIS us                                                                          ATTORNEYS AT LaW




                                              November 28, 2006


                                                                                           FILED/ACCEPTED
    BY HAND DELIVERY
                                                                                                 NoV 2 8 2006
    Marlene H. Dortch
    Office of the Secretary                 20                                            Federal C     icationsSecrotary
                                                                                             * Sfficeoffhe         Commissi
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12"" Street, S.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20554

              Re:   Ex Parte Presentation, IB Docket No. 06—160

    Dear Ms. Dortch:

           On November 27, 2006, Stacy Fuller of DIRECTV, Inc. ("DIRECTV") spoke by
    telephone with Angela Giancarlo, Legal Advisor to Commissioner McDowell; Barry
    Ohlson, Senior Legal Advisor to Commissioner Adelstein; and Sam Feder, the
    Commission‘s General Counsel; and undersigned counsel spoke to Bruce Gottliecb, Legal
    Advisor to Commissioner Copps, to discuss statements made in the Tweener NPRM
    regarding the potential for processing pending "tweener" applications.‘

           The tweener proponents seek market access to provide DBS service into the
    United States from orbital locations spaced only half the distance that currently separates
    DBS systems serving the United States. In the Tweener NPRM, the Commission
    indicated that it may process such applications "provided that they are complete and
    consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity."" In this regard, the
    Commission cited two rules that must be satisfied for a tweener application to be deemed
    complete, which are designed to demonstrate whether the proposed system will affect
    operating DBS systems as determined by ITU coordination triggers, and if so, to what
    extent." Moreover, the Commission made clear that, where a tweener proposal exceeds
    the ITU triggers and the operator has not completed coordination with affected U.S. DBS
    systems, the Commission could "proceed with public notice and review, although it

    \     Amendment of the Commission‘s Policies and Rules for Processing Applications in the Direct
          Broadcast Satellite Service, 21 FCC Red. 9443 (2006) ("Tweener NPRM")

    *     1d.§21.

    3     Seeid. 29 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.114(d)(13)(ii), and 25.148(f)).


HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP

Marlene H. Dortch
November 28, 2006
Page 2 of 2

could not take action on the application until agreements are reached,"" This is
consistent with the Commission‘s recent treatment of a U.S. DBS operator‘s application,
part of which was deferred because completion of coordination with another U.S. DBS
operator had not yet been completed."

       The pending tweener proposals exceed ITU coordination triggers and neither
operator has yet completed coordination with either of the U.S. DBS operators.®
Accordingly, neither tweener proponent has submitted an application that can be deemed
complete under the Commission‘s rules. Any action on those applications in the absence
of coordination agreements would be directly contrary to the Commission‘s own
statement of the applicable rules in the Tweener NPRM.‘

                                                        Sincerely yours,



                                                        William M. Wiltshire
                                                        Counselfor DIRECTYV, Inc.


CC.       Angela Giancarlo
          Bruce Gottlieb
          Barry Ohlson
          Sam Feder
          Emily Willeford
          Fred Campbell
          Aaron Goldberger
          John Giusti
          Robert Nelson



      1d. 41 (emphasis added).

      See Condition 2 of Partial Grant, File No. SAT—AMD—20060120—00007 (rel. Mar. 27, 2006) (deferring
      authorization to operate the EchoStar 10 satellite on three DBS channels where coordination with
      DIRECTV remained outstanding).

      Indeed, Spectrum Five has never contacted DIRECTV to initiate coordination discussions in the 20
      months since filing its application.

      In these circumstances, any action by the International Bureau to grant either of these market access
      petitions would conflict with the Commission‘s construction of the applicable rules, and therefore
      would be well beyond the scope of delegated authority. See, eg., 47 C.F.R. § 0.261(b) (authority
      delegated to Chief, International Bureau, does not include acting on any application that presents new
      or novel arguments not previously considered by the Commission or cannot be resolved under
      outstanding precedents and guidelines).



Document Created: 2006-12-04 10:54:11
Document Modified: 2006-12-04 10:54:11

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC