Attachment DIRECTV Spectrum - O

DIRECTV Spectrum - O

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION submitted by IB,FCC

Order on Reconsideration and Declaratory Ruling

2012-05-31

This document pretains to SAT-LOI-20081119-00217 for Letter of Intent on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOI2008111900217_953575

                                  Federal Communications Commission                                  DA 12—861



                                               Before the
                                  Federal Communications Commission
                                        Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                                        )
                                                         )
DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC                                 )       File Nos.   SAT—LOA—20060908—00100
Application for Authorization to Launch and              )                   SAT—AMD—20080114—00014
Operate DIRECTV RB—2, a Satellite in the                 )                   SAT—AMD—20080321—00077
17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service                 )
at the 102.825° W.L. Orbital Location                    )       Call Sign: S$2712
                                                         )
Spectrum Five LLC                                        )       File No.     SAT—LOI—20081119—00217
                                                         )                   SAT—AMD—20120314—00044
Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Serve the U.S.        )
Market from the 103.15° W.L. Orbital Location in         )       Call Sign: S2778
the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service             )



                   ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION AND DECLARATORY RULING

Adopted: May 31, 2012                                                         Released: May 31, 2012

By the Chief, International Bureau:

1.      INTRODUCTION

         1. With this Order, we deny Spectrum Five LLC‘s (Spectrum Five) Petition for Reconsideration
of the Order granting DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC (DIRECTV) authority to construct, launch and operate
a 17/24 GHz Broadcasting—Satellite Service (BSS) space station at the 102.825° W.L. orbital location.‘
Contrary to Spectrum Five‘s assertion, the DIRECTV RB—2 Order does not authorize an over—powered
space station. We also find that Spectrum Five has not raised any new arguments that warrant
reconsidering the grant.

        2. In addition, we deny Spectrum Five‘s request to access the U.S. market from a Netherlands—
authorized space station at the 103.15° W.L. orbital location." We do so because Spectrum Five‘s
proposed space station cannot provide service in the United States without causing harmful interference to
the previously licensed DIRECTV RB—2 space station located less than one—half degree away.




‘ DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC Application for Authorization to Launch and Operate DIRECTV RB—2, a Satellite in
the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service at the 102.825° W.L. Orbital Location, Order and Authorization, 24
FCC Red 9393 (Int‘l Bur. 2009) (DIRECTYV RB—2 Order). Petition for Reconsideration of Spectrum Five LLC (filed
Aug. 27, 2009) (Spectrum Five Petition for Reconsideration).
> Spectrum Five LLC Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Serve the U.S. Market from the 103.15° W.L. Orbital
Location in the 17/24 Broadcasting Satellite Service Band, IBFS File No. SAT—LOI—20081119—00217, Call Sign:
$2778 (Spectrum Five Market Access Request).


                                    Federal Communications Commission                                     DA 12—861



II.      BACKGROUND

         3.   DIRECTV filed its application for the DIRECTV RB—2 space station at the 103° W.L. orbital
location in 2006," before the Commission adopted service rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS.* In 2007, the
Commission adopted a first—come, first—served licensing framework for processing 17/24 GHz BSS
applications and market access requests." In addition, the Commission adopted a framework in which
17/24 GHz BSS space stations would operate at orbital locations spaced at four—degree intervals, as set
forth in Appendix F to the Order (Appendix F locations). The Commission also allowed operators the
flexibility to operate at orbital locations offset" from Appendix F locations if the offset operations do not
increase interference to satellites at adjacent Appendix F locations (offsetting a space station from one
Appendix F location will bring the satellite that much closer to another Appendix F location).‘ In the
17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order, the Commuission also imposed a freeze on filing new applications for
the 17/24 GHz BSS. The Commission limited the freeze to applications for new U.S.—licensed space
stations and to new requests for market access by non—U.S.—licensed space stations. The freeze expressly
excluded 17/24 GHz BSS applications pending as of May 4, 2007, the date on which the 17/24 GHz BSS
Report and Order was adopted. The Commussion indicated that the freeze would continue from that date
until a date and time to be designated by the International Bureau (the Bureau)."

        4. The Commission directed the Bureau to establish procedures by which applicants could
amend pending applications to conform to the new rules.‘" Pursuant to these procedures, DIRECTV filed
a conforming amendment, seeking to operate DIRECTV RB—2 at the 102.825° W.L. orbital location,
which is offset 0.175 degree from the 103° W.L. Appendix F orbital location. On July 2, 2008, the
Bureau placed DIRECTV‘s application on public notice as acceptable for filing."‘ Spectrum Five did not
comment on DIRECTV‘s application during the 30—day public notice period."


° IBFS File No. SAT—LOA—20060908—00100 (filed Sept. 8, 2006).
* Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting—Satellite Service at the 17.3—17.7 GHz Frequency
Band and at the 17.7—17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the 24.75—25.25 GHz Frequency Band for
Fixed Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting—Satellite Service and for the Satellite Services
Operating Bi—directionally in the 17.3—17.8 GHz Frequency Band, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No 06—123, 22 FCC Red 8842 (2007) (17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order); Order
on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Red 17951 (2007) (17/24 GHz BSS Order on Reconsideration).
° 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order, 22 FCC Red at 8$847, [ 8. Under this framework, we consider applications in
the order in which they are filed and will grant an application if the applicant meets basic qualification standards set
forth in Section 25.156(a), and if the proposed space station will not cause harmful interference to a previously
licensed space station. 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.156(a), 25.158(b)(3)(11).
° In this service, offset means that the satellite is not operating at the precise Appendix F location. For example,
DIRECTV proposed to operate its space station at 102.825° W.L. — i.e., offset by .175 degrees from the 103.0° W .L.
Appendix F location.
" 17/24 GHz BSS Order on Reconsideration, 22 ECC Red at 17960, [ 22.
8 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order, 22 FCC Red at $902, J 147, 8920, JY 204—205.
° Id. at 8902, Y 147.
9 See International Bureau Establishes Deadline for Amendments to Pending 17/24 GHz BSS Applications, Public
Notice, Report No. SPB—223, DA 07—4895 (Dec. 5, 2007).
‘‘ Policy Branch Information, Satellite Space Applications Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, Report No. SAT—
00535 (rel. July 2, 2008); Policy Branch Information, Satellite Space Applications Accepted for Filing, Public
Notice, Report No. SAT—00537 (rel. July 11, 2008) (corrections).
 Ciel Satellite Limited Partnership (Ciel), SES Americom Inc. (SES Americom) and Pegasus Development DBS
Corporation (Pegasus) filed comments. Comments filed by Ciel and SES Americom related to international
                                                                                                 (continued....)
                                                           2


                                    Federal Communications Commission                                     DA 12—861



        5. The Bureau lifted the freeze on new 17/24 GHz BSS applications on September 10, 2008."
On November 19, 2008, Spectrum Five filed a request to serve the U.S. market through a 17/24 GHz BSS
Netherlands—authorized space station at the 103.15° W.L. orbital location.‘"* As was the case with
DIRECTV‘s application, Spectrum Five‘s proposed orbital location was offset from the 103° W.L.
Appendix F location. Spectrum Five‘s November 2008 Market Access Request was second—in—line to the
DIRECTV RB—2 application.

     6. The first time Spectrum Five raised concerns about DIRECTV‘s application for the
DIRECTV RB—2 space station was in Spectrum Five‘s November 2008 Market Access Request."
Consistent with Section 25.154 of the Commission‘s rules, the Bureau placed Spectrum Five‘s comments
in the record for the DIRECTV RB—2 application, and provided both Spectrum Five and DIRECTV an
opportunity to file further pleadings, which they did.‘" In both proceedings, Spectrum Five argued that
the Commission should dismiss or deny DIRECTV‘s application, claiming that the application was
substantially incomplete, and therefore unacceptable for filing. Spectrum Five also argued that
DIRECTV‘s proposed power flux—density (PFD) exceeded the limits in the Commission‘s rules.‘"‘
Spectrum Five asserted that once we dismiss or deny DIRECTV‘s application, we would be in a position
to grant Spectrum Five‘s second—in—line Market Access Request."®




{...continued from previous page)                                                     .
coordination responsibilities. Pegasus filed comments with respect to each of the 17/24 GHz BSS applications
pending at that time, seeking clarification of Sections 25.158(c) (prohibition on transfer of place in application
queue) and 25.165 (bond requirement) of the Commission‘s rules. 47 C.E.R. §§ 25.158(c), 25.165. Ciel‘s and SES
Americom‘s comments were addressed in theDIRECTV RB—2 Order, 24 FCC Red at 9405, 932. The issues raised
by Pegasus were addressed in Application of DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC to Amend its Pending Application for a
17/24 GHz BSS Authorization at the 107° W.L. Orbital Location, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Red
9408 (Int‘l Bur. 2009).
" International Bureau Lifts Freeze on Filing of 17/24 GHz BSS Applications, Report No. SPB—228, Public Notice,
DA 08—1887 (rel. Aug. 11, 2008); International Bureau Reschedules Date that Freeze on Filing of 17/24 GHz BSS
Applications is Lifted, Public Notice, DA 08—1900 (rel. Aug. 13, 2008).
14 Spectrum Five Market Access Request. Section 25.137(c) of the Commission‘s rules provides that parties seeking
to use non—U.S.—licensed GSO—like space stations to serve the United States can file applications that will be
processed under our first—come, first—served framework, pursuant to Section 25.158 of the Commission‘s rules. 47
CFER. §§ 25.137(c), 25.158.
  The DIRECTV RB—2 Order contains a detailed history of DIRECTV‘s application, Spectrum Five Market Access
Request, and each filing made by the parties. DIRECTV RB—2 Order, 24 FCC Red at 9394—96, JY[ 4—6.
5 47 C.F.R. § 25.154 (oppositions to applications and other pleadings). As is described in the DIRECTV RB—2
Order, the International Bureau initially issued a declaratory ruling dismissing the DIRECTV application as
defective. DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC Application for 17/24 GHz BSS Satellite at 102.825° W.L., Declaratory
Ruling, DA 09—87, 24 FCC Red 423 (Int‘l Bur. 2009). Several weeks later, on its own motion, the Bureau set aside
the declaratory ruling in order to develop a more detailed record and to consider DIRECTV‘s application more fully.
DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC Application for 17/24 GHz BSS Satellite at 102.825° W.L., Order, 24 FCC Red 1343,
[ 3 n.2 (Int‘l Bur. 2009) (Set Aside Order) (treating Spectrum Five‘s comments as an informal objection, placing
them in the record pursuant to Section 25.154(b), and permitting the filing of further comments by DIRECTV and
Spectrum Five, pursuant to Sections 25.154(c) and (d)).
17 Spectrum Five Market Access Request, Legal Narrative at 3—11. See also ex parte filings by Spectrum Five cited
in the DIRECTV RB—2 Order, 24 FCC Red at 9395, [ 5 n.13.
18 Spectrum Five Market Access Request, Legal Narrative at 4. Because the proposed DIRECTV and Spectrum
Five satellites would be located less than one—half degree apart at their requested orbital locations, they cannot
operate without causing harmful interference into each other‘s system.


                                    Federal Communications Commission                                 DA 12—861



         7. The Bureau authorized DIRECTV to construct, launch and operate the proposed space station
at the 102.825° W.L. offset orbital location at reduced power in July 2009.‘" In the DIRECTV RB—2
Order, the Bureau discussed the PFD limits for the 17/24 GHz BSS, as well as the requirement to
demonstrate compliance with those limits."" The Bureau found that, contrary to Spectrum Five‘s
assertions, DIRECTV‘s application was substantially complete, and that the proposed PFD met the limits
in Section 25.208(w) of the Commission‘s rules."‘ In addition, to ensure that DIRECTV‘s offset
operations do not cause any additional interference to a satellite operating at the adjacent Appendix F
location, the Bureau imposed a license condition limiting DIRECTV RB—2‘s operating power to between
0.47 dB and 0.51 dB less than full power, the precise amount depending on the surface location on Earth
of a given measurement point.""

          8.    Before us now is Spectrum Five‘s August 27, 2009 petition for reconsideration of the
DIRECTV RB—2 Order. In its petition for reconsideration, Spectrum Five argues that the Bureau
inappropriately licensed DIRECTV to operate an over—powered space station."" Spectrum Five also
claims that DIRECTV improperly used inputs from its link budget calculations in its PFD
demonstration,"" and the Bureau should have therefore dismissed DIRECTV‘s application as
incomplete." In addition, Spectrum Five claims that the grant gives DIRECTV an unfair competitive
advantage over other licensees by allowing it to operate at power higher than the limits in the
Commission‘s rules.""

          9. DIRECTV opposes the Petition for Reconsideration, arguing that the Bureau‘s decision was
correct."" DIRECTV asserts that it properly included atmospheric attenuation in its PFD demonstration.
DIRECTV argues that since there is no established method for determining which types of atmospheric
attenuation should be included in clear sky PFD calculations, the Bureau correctly concluded that
DIRECTV‘s PFD demonstration met the Commission‘s rules. DIRECTV also argues that there was no
basis to dismiss or deny its application, even if Spectrum Five were correct, because the amount of excess
power alleged is minor, and could be addressed by a license condition. In reply comments, Spectrum
Five further argues that the use of link budget inputs is inappropriate in the PFD demonstration, and that
use of those inputs resulted in the Bureau licensing an over—powered satellite."" Spectrum Five also
claims that the Bureau relied on an incorrect PFD limit in analyzing DIRECTV‘s demonstration because
it failed to use a lower PFD limit than the limit contained in Section 25.208(w) of the Commission‘s
rules."" According to Spectrum Five, the Bureau should have adjusted the limit to reflect DIRECTV‘s
proposed offset orbital location.""


* DIRECTV RB—2 Order, 24 FCC Red 9393.
* 1d. at 9397—98, TY 10—12.
*‘ Id. at 9403—05, TN 26—31.
* DIRECTV RB—2 Order, 24 FCC Red. at 9404—05, 1 31.
* Spectrum Five Petition for Reconsideration at 3.

* Id. at 5—8.
* Id. at 16—23.
*6 Id. at 11.
*‘ DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration (filed Sept. 10, 2009).
* Spectrum Five LLC‘s Reply in Support of Petition for Reconsideration at 6 (filed Sept. 17, 2009).
* 47 C.FR. § 25.208(w).
3 Spectrum Five Reply at 9. On December 27, 2011, Spectrum Five filed a motion for leave to file a supplement,
and a proposed supplement to the petition for reconsideration. Spectrum Five LLC Motion for Leave to File
                                                                                                    (continued....)
                                                         4


                                      Federal Communications Commission                                   DA 12—861



           10. The Bureau placed Spectrum Five‘s Market Access Request on public notice as accepted for
 filing on October 23, 2009."‘ DIRECTV filed a petition to deny the request, arguing that Spectrum
 Five‘s proposed operations would cause interference to its previouslylicensed DIRECTV RB—2 space
 station."" Spectrum Five opposed the petition to deny.""

III.     DISCUSSION

         A.       Spectrum Five Market Access Request

         11. Pursuant to the first—come, first—served licensing framework, the Commission places
applications for new satellites at new orbital locations and market access requests for non—U.S.—licensed
satellites at new orbital locations in a processing "queue," and considers them in the order in which they
are filed."" If the proposed satellite will not cause harmful interference to a licensed satellite, the
Commission will grant the application."" We granted DIRECTV‘s first—in—line application for a 17/24
GHz BSS space station at the nominal 103° W.L. orbital location.

         12. Spectrum Five does not dispute that the proposed operations of its space station at the
nominal 103° W.L. orbital location would cause harmful interference to DIRECTV‘s previously
authorized system. Instead, Spectrum Five argues that it would be premature for the Bureau to dismiss its
Market Access Request in light of its petition for reconsideration of the DIRECTV RB—2 Order."" To the
extent that Spectrum Five argues that we should refrain from acting on its request until all potential
challenges to the grant of the DIRECTV RB—2 Order are exhausted, we do not agree."‘ The Commission
has stated that rather than keeping subsequently filed applications on file, once we issue a license to the
applicant that was first in the queue, we "deny applications that conflict with previously granted


(...continued from previous page)
Supplement (filed Dec. 27, 2011); Spectrum Five LLC Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration (filed Dec. 27,
2011). DIRECTV filed a letter in response, arguing that the points raised by Spectrum Five were frivolous. Letter
from William M. Wiltshire, Counsel for DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission (filed Jan. 6, 2012). To enable us to consider all arguments raised by the parties, we
grant Spectrum Five‘s motion, and treat these pleadings as informal comments.
5‘ Policy Branch Information, Satellite Space Applications Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, Report No. SAT—
00641 (rel. Oct. 23, 2009).
> DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC Petition to Deny at 2 (filed Oct. 28, 2009) (DIRECTV Petition to Deny) ("The
system licensed to DIRECTV and that proposed by Spectrum Five plainly cannot both operate from this slot").
DIRECTV also argues that the Bureau should have dismissed Spectrum Five‘s request for market access. Id. In
light of our determination to deny Spectrum Five‘s Market Access Request, we need not address this argument.
* Spectrum Five LLC Opposition to Petition to Deny (filed Nov. 9, 2009) (Spectrum Five Opposition). Spectrum
Five acknowledged that its market access request involved the same frequency band and the same nominal location
as DIRECTV‘s previously licensed space station. Spectrum Five Opposition at 3—4. Further, it does not allege that
it can operate its proposed space station in the United States in a manner that will not cause harmful interference to
DIRECTV RB—2. Ciel Satellite Limited partnership also filed comments. In light of our decision to deny the
request, we need not address Ciel‘s comments here.
* See 47 C.FR. §§ 25.158(b), 25.137(c).
* See 47 C.ER. § 25.158(b)(3).
36 Spectrum Five Opposition at 5—9.
*" We have previously denied second—in—line applications during the pendency of review of a grant to a first—in—line
application. See EchoStar Satellite LLC, Application for Authority to Construct, Launch, and Operate a
Geostationary Satellite Using the Extended Ku—band Frequencies in the Fixed—Satellite Service at the 101° W.L.
Orbital Location, Order, 20 ECC Red 12027 (Sat. Div. Int‘l Bur. 2005).


                                    Federal Communications Commission                                     DA 12—861



applications because it is more likely to result in faster service to the public and it will not disadvantage
any party that may wish to apply for that orbit location if it becomes available.""* We therefore deny
Spectrum Five‘s second—in—line market access request.

         B.       Spectrum Five Petition for Reconsideration

         13. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Spectrum Five raises the same procedural arguments it
previously raised concerning the application‘s completeness, and whether DIRECTV appropriately used
inputs from its link budgets, in particular, atmospheric attenuation, in making its PFD demonstration. The
Bureau fully addressed these issues in the DIRECTV RB—2 Orderand we will not repeat that discussion
here."" Spectrum Five‘s Petition for Reconsideration presents no new arguments that warrant revisiting
these issues.

        14. Spectrum Five now also argues that the Bureau granted DIRECTV authority to launch and
operate a satellite with powers that exceed those permitted by the Commuission‘s rules. In particular,
Spectrum Five alleges that the authorized space station is over—powered by 0.44 dB."" However,
Spectrum Five‘s assertion is based on an erroneous reading of the rules and the DIRECTV RB—2 Order, as
we explain below. In arguing that DIRECTV RB—2‘s authorized power violates Commuission rules,
Spectrum Five conflates two Commission rules: (1) Section 25.208(w), which contains PFD limits for
17/24 GHz BSS space stations in specified regions,*"and (2) Section 25.140(b)(4)(iii), which requires
17/24 GHz applicants proposing space stations at offset locations to demonstrate that their operations will
not cause more interference to any current or future 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is in compliance
with Part 25 than would be caused if the offset operations were located at the precise Appendix F orbital
location." In conflating the two rules, Spectrum Five incorrectly argues that applicants proposing to
operate at offset locations must demonstrate they meet PFD limits lower than the ones set out in Section
25.208(w). Spectrum Five also overlooks DIRECTV‘s interference analysis, which demonstrates that
DIRECTV RB—2 can operate compatibly with a space station closer than four degrees away by reducing
power, and the condition in the DIRECTV RB—2 Order requiring DIRECTV to operate DIRECTV RB—2
with maximum PFD limits well below those in Section 25.208(w).

*See Amendment of the Commission‘s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report and Order, 18
FCC Red 10760, 10806, 1[ 113 (2003).
* DIRECTV RB—2 Order, 24 FCC Red. at 9402—05, J§ 19—25.
* Id. at 9401—05, 19 7—31.
*‘ Spectrum Five Petition for Reconsideration at 7 n.9.
* 47 C.F.R. § 25.208(w) ("The power flux density at the Earth‘s surface produced by emissions from a 17/24 GHz
BSS space station operating in the 17.3—17.7 GHz band for all conditions, including clear sky, and for all methods of
modulation shall not exceed the regional power flux density levels defined below. (1) In the region of the
contiguous United States, located south of 38° North Latitude and east of 100 West Longitude: —115 dBW/m 2
/MHz. (2) In the region of the contiguous United States, located north of 38° North Latitude and east of 100° West
Longitude: —118 dBW/m 2 /MHz. (3) In the region of the contiguous United States, located west of 100 West
Longitude: —121 dBW/m 2 /MHz. (4) For all regions outside of the contiguous United States including Alaska and
Hawaii: —115 dBW/m 2 /MHz.").

* 25 C.F.R. § 25.140(b)(4)(iii) ("In cases where there is no previously licensed or proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space
station to be located within four degrees of the applicant‘s proposed space station, and the applicant does not seek to
operate pursuant to § 25.262(b) of this part, the applicant must provide an interference analysis of the kind described
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except that the applicant must demonstrate that its proposed operations will not
cause more interference to any current or future 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks operating in compliance with the
technical requirements of this part, than if the applicant were located at the precise appendix F orbital location from
which it seeks to offset.")


                                   Federal Communications Commission                                DA 12—861



         15. Section 25.114(d)(15)(i) of the Commission‘s rules** requires each applicant proposing to
operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station to provide in its application a demonstration that its proposed
space station will comply with the PFD limits in Section 25.208(w) of the Commission‘s rules."" There is
no provision in Section 25.208(w) for lower PFD limits when an offset orbital location is proposed, or for
lowering the PFD limits in that rule under any other circumstance. To the contrary, the regional PFD
limits set forth in Section 25.208(w) are fixed limits resulting from operations under all conditions." In
the DIRECTV RB—2 Order, the Bureau correctly found —— based upon the technical information provided
in DIRECTV‘s application —— that DIRECTV RB—2 complies with the PFD limits in Section 25.208(w).
Indeed, nothing in Spectrum Five‘s Petition questions the conclusion that DIRECTV meets the fixed PFD
limits in the rule.

          16. Having found that DIRECTV RB—2 meets the PFD limits in Section 25.208(w), the Bureau
next considered whether the proposed space station was capable of operating with an adjacent 17/24 GHz
satellite less than four degrees away. In this regard, the Bureau noted that DIRECTV had provided an
interference analysis pursuant to Section 25.140(b)(4)(iii) of the Commission‘s rules, in which DIRECTV
calculated that its proposed offset operations would create the potential for up to 0.5 dB more interference
to co—frequency adjacent space stations, and proposed to reduce its power to result in lower PFD."" The
Bureau then used a formula that it had applied in prior 17/24 GHz BSS grants at offset locations to
calculate the reduction in power necessary for DIRECTV RB—2 to operate compatibly with adjacent
satellites."" The Bureau found that DIRECTV RB—2 would need to operate from 0.47 dB to 0.51 dB less
than the fixed upper PFD limits specified in Section 25.208(w), depending on the location on the Earth‘s
surface from which the angles between the orbital locations are measured." As it had with other
authorizations for offset 17/24 GHz space stations, the Bureau conditioned DIRECTV‘s license to require
the DIRECTV RB—2 space station to limit PFD to these lower levels."" Consequently, the Bureau did not,
contrary to Spectrum Five‘s assertion, authorize a space station with power levels exceeding those in the
Commission‘s rules or that would cause additional interference to adjacent satellites.

         17. In a supplement filed in December 2011, Spectrum Five notes that in July 2011 DIRECTV
filed an application to modify DIRECTV RB—2‘s maximum Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power
from 63.0 dBW to 58.0 dBW, and did not include atmospheric attenuation in the PFD demonstration
supporting the application. Spectrum Five states that this demonstrates that DIRECTV‘s original
application had excessive power. We do not agree. We frequently receive applications to modify the
operational parameters of satellites as the satellites are being built. DIRECTV‘s decision to lower the
power in an authorization that was already conditioned to require reduced power has no relevance to
whether the power levels in the initial authorization exceeded our rules. DIRECTV‘s choice to omit
atmospheric attenuation in the PFD demonstration in its modification request is equally irrelevant. As we
explained above, the power levels specified in a condition in the DIRECTV RB—2 Order authorization


*4 47 C.FR. § 25.114(d)(15)().
* 47 C.FR. § 25.208(w).
* To the extent DIRECTV suggests in its opposition to Spectrum Five‘s Petition that it may have proposed some
"minor" excess power in its application for DIRECTV RB—2, we do not agree. The Bureau properly found in the
DIRECTV RB—2 Order that the PFD levels DIRECTV proposed met the PFD limits in Section 25.208(w).
*‘ DIRECTV Conforming Amendment, IBFS File No. SAT—AMD—20080114—00014 at 12—13 and n. 11 (filed Jan.
14, 2008). See 25 C.F.R. § 25.140(b)(4)(iii).
* See Intelsat North America LLC, Order and Authorization, 24 FCC Red 7058, 7062—63, Y 11 and 7067, [ 21 (Sat.
Div. Int‘l Bur. 2009).
* DIRECTV RB—2 Order, 24 FCC Red at 9403—05, \§ 26—31.
* 1d. at 9406, I[ 34.


                                  Federal Communications Commission                           DA 12—861



fully comply with the Commission‘s rules and operating at those power levels would not have caused
interference to adjacent satellites.

IV.     CONCLUSION

         18. For the reasons stated above, we deny Spectrum Five LLC‘s Petition for Reconsideration of
the DIRECTV RB—2 Order granting DIRECTV authority to construct, launch and operate a 17/24 GHz
BSS space station at the 102.825° W.L. orbital location. At the same time, we also deny Spectrum Five‘s
request to access the U.S. market from a Netherlands—authorized 17/24 GHz BSS space station at the
103.15° W.L. orbital location.

v.      ORDERING CLAUSES

         19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 25.158(b)(3)(ii) of the Commission‘s
Rules,"‘ that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by Spectrum Five LLC, IBFS File Nos. SAT—LOI—
20081119—00217, SAT—AMD—20120314—00044, Call Sign $2778, IS DENIED.

        20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Deny filed by DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC
against the Spectrum Five LLC Petition for Declaratory Ruling IS GRANTED.

       21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Supplement filed by
Spectrum Five LLC IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above.

       22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of DIRECTV Enterprises,
LLC Application for Authorization to Launch and Operate DIRECTV RB—2, a Satellite in the 17/24 GHz
Broadcasting Satellite Service at the 102.825° W.L. Orbital Location, Order and Authorization, 24 FCC
Red 9393 (Int‘l Bur. 2009), filed by Spectrum Five LLC, IS DENIED.

         23. This action is issued pursuant to Section 0.261 of the Commission‘s rules on delegated
authority, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, and is effective immediately.

                                                 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                                                iesd Lo Je T_
                                                 Mindel De La Torre
                                                 Chief
                                                 International Bureau




5‘ 47 C.ER. § 25.158(b)(3)(Gi).



Document Created: 2012-05-31 16:41:21
Document Modified: 2012-05-31 16:41:21

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