DA 03-1045 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND AUTHORIZATION by IB, FCC SAT-MOD-19991101-00108 DA-03-1045A1.pdf

Attachment DA-03-1045A1.pdf

DA-03-1045A1.pdf

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND AUTHORIZATION submitted by IB, FCC

DA 03-1045

2003-04-01

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-19991101-00108 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD1999110100108_1120962

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

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

In the matter of )
)
Loral SpaceCom Corporation and ) File Nos. 123/124-SAT-MP-96;
Loral Space & Communications Corporation ) IBFS Nos. SAT-MOD-19960610-00082/83
) SAT-MOD-19991102-00106;
Applications for Modification of Fixed-Satellite ) SAT-MOD-19991101-00108/109
Service Space Station Authorizations ) Call Signs: S2159, S2160, S2205, T-402
)
Applications for Extension of Milestone Dates ) File Nos. SAT-MOD-19991101-00107
) SAT-MOD-20020408-00060
) Call Sign: S2160
)
Request for Extension of Time to Construct, ) File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45
Launch, and Operate a Ka-band Satellite System )
in the Fixed-Satellite Service )

MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION

Adopted: March 31, 2003 Released: April 1, 2003

By the Chief, International Bureau:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph Number

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 2

III. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 7

A. Reassignment of Telstar 4 to 77° W.L. and Telstar 8 to 89° W.L. ..................................... 7

B. Launch and Operation of Telstar 8 as a C/Ku/Ka-band Hybrid Satellite ........................... 8

C. C- and Ku-band Technical Modifications to Telstar 8 ..................................................... 10

D. Ka-band Technical Modifications to Telstar 8 ................................................................. 12

E. Reconsideration of the Loral Milestone Order ................................................................. 14
1. Loral’s Arguments ............................................................................................... 15
2. Limited Waiver of Milestones for Telstar 8 Ka-band payload ............................ 23
3. Loral’s Ku-band License at 47° W.L................................................................... 24

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES............................................................................ 27

1

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

I. INTRODUCTION

1. With this Order, we modify Loral SpaceCom Corporation’s (Loral SpaceCom’s) and Loral
Space & Communications Corporation’s (Loral Corp.’s) (collectively, “Loral’s”)1 licenses to launch and
operate a satellite system in the geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) to provide fixed-satellite service (FSS)
in portions of the C-, Ku-, and Ka-bands.2 Specifically, we grant Loral’s requests to relocate its C/Ku-
band spacecraft, Telstar 4, from the 89° W.L. orbit location to 77° W.L.; launch Telstar 8 with C/Ku/Ka-
band capacity into the 89° W.L. orbit location; and extend the milestone dates for Telstar 8 to
accommodate Loral’s three-band hybrid satellite technology. We also partially grant Loral’s requests to
redefine Telstar 8’s coverage area and modify Telstar 8’s C- and Ku-band transponder configurations and
channelizations. Finally, with the exception of Loral’s proposal for a Ka-band payload on Telstar 8 at 89°
W.L., we affirm our decision not to extend Loral’s milestones applicable to its licenses to launch and
operate GSO FSS Ka-band payloads at the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations.3
Consequently, Loral’s Ka-band authorizations at the 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations, as
well as its authorization to use the 18.3-18.8 GHz (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-29.5 GHz
(uplink) bands at the 89° W.L. orbit location, are null and void. These actions will allow Loral to provide
new domestic and international satellite services to more customers using state-of-the-art technology,
while preventing warehousing of scarce spectrum and orbital resources.

II. BACKGROUND

2. Loral SpaceCom is authorized to launch and operate a hybrid C/Ku-band satellite, Telstar 8
(formerly designated LoralSat/Loral 2), at the 77° W.L. orbit location.4 The Telstar 8 License included
system implementation milestones as a condition of licensing as follows: satellite construction to begin by
March 1997, construction to be completed by September 1999, and the satellites to be launched by March
2000.5 Loral SpaceCom also holds the authorization for a hybrid C/Ku-band satellite Telstar 4 (formerly
designated Telstar 402/402R), currently in orbit at 89° W.L.6

1
Both Loral SpaceCom and Loral Corp. are subsidiaries of Loral Space & Communications Ltd.
2
The C-band refers to Earth-to-space (uplink) frequencies at 5.925-6.425 GHz and the corresponding space-to-
Earth (downlink) frequencies at 3.7-4.2 GHz. The Ku-band refers to Earth-to-space (uplink) frequencies at 11.7-
12.2 GHz and the corresponding space-to-Earth (downlink) frequencies at 14.0-14.5 GHz. The Ka-band refers to
the Earth-to-space (uplink) frequencies at 27.5-30.0 GHz and the corresponding space-to-Earth (downlink)
frequencies at 17.7-20.2 GHz.
3
Loral Space & Communications Corporation, Order, DA 01-1287, 16 FCC Rcd 11044 (Int’l Bur. 2001) (Loral
Milestone Order).
4
See Loral Space & Communications Ltd., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 96-1941, 11 FCC Rcd 20441
(Int’l Bur. 1996) (Telstar 8 License); Letter from Jennifer D. McCarthy, Counsel for Loral SpaceCom Corporation
to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (January 12, 2001) (Loral Pro Forma Consummation Letter) (confirming
pro forma assignment of the Telstar 8 authorization to Loral SpaceCom).
5
Telstar 8 License, 11 FCC Rcd at 20444 ¶ 12.
6
See American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Order and Authorization, FCC 88-375, 3 FCC Rcd 6980 (1988)
(underlying authorization for Telstar 402) (Telstar 4 License); American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Order
and Authorization, DA 95-1972, 10 FCC Rcd 12132 (Int’l Bur. 1995) (authorizing launch and operation of Telstar
402R, an emergency replacement satellite for Telstar 402, which was lost shortly after its launch); AT&T Corp.
(Assignor) and Loral SpaceCom Corporation (Assignee), Order and Authorization, DA 97-125, 12 FCC Rcd 925
(Int’l Bur. 1997) (granting the assignment of AT&T Corp.’s satellite licenses, including the Telstar 402R
authorization, to Loral SpaceCom).

2

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

3. In May 1997, as part of the first Ka-band processing round, Loral Corp.’s predecessors in
interest, Orion Network Systems, Inc. and Orion Atlantic, L.P. (collectively, “Orion”), received
authorizations to construct, launch, and operate a GSO satellite system to provide FSS in the Ka-band at
the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations.7 The Orion Licenses included system
implementation milestones as conditions of licensing, as follows: satellite construction to begin by May
1998, construction to be completed by April 2002, and the satellites to be launched by May 2002.8 In
January 2001, we modified the Orion Licenses by authorizing inter-satellite links (ISLs) in the 65.0-70.88
GHz band,9 and specifying the 18.3-18.8 GHz (downlink) band, along with the originally-authorized
19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink), 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-30.0 GHz (uplink) bands, for Ka-band service links.10

4. In a series of applications, Loral seeks to modify the above-referenced licenses. In the Telstar
8 Modification Application,11 Loral requests authority to incorporate a Ka-band payload on Telstar 8,
making it a hybrid C/Ku/Ka-band satellite, and to operate Telstar 8 at 89° W.L. instead of its assigned 77°
W.L., in order to implement part of Loral’s Ka-band authorization at 89° W.L. in the Orion Network
License. The Telstar 8 Modification Application also seeks authority to redefine Telstar 8’s coverage area
to provide service throughout North and South America,12 modify Telstar 8’s C-band transponder
configuration and channelization and provide for the use of Traveling Wave Tube Amplifiers (TWTAs),
and modify Telstar 8’s Ku-band transponder configuration and channelization and increase the power of
the TWTAs. To accomplish all of the proposed technical modifications, including the need to redesign,
retest and requalify certain elements of the spacecraft due to unanticipated technical problems that arose
during construction, Loral seeks to extend the construction completion and launch milestones for

7
Orion Network Systems, Inc., Order and Authorization, DA 97-977, 12 FCC Rcd 23027 (Int’l Bur. 1997) (Orion
Network License) (authorizing Orion to operate one satellite at each of the following orbit locations: 89° W.L., 81°
W.L., and 78° E.L.); Orion Atlantic, L.P., Order and Authorization, DA 97-979, 13 FCC Rcd 1416 (Int’l Bur. 1997)
(Orion Atlantic License) (authorizing Orion to add Ka-band capacity onto its authorized GSO Ku-band Orion F2
satellite assigned to the 47° W.L. orbit location) (collectively, “Orion Licenses”). Orion merged with Loral Corp.’s
corporate parent, Loral Space & Communications Ltd., in 1998. See Loral Space & Communication Ltd. and Orion
Network Systems, Inc., et al., Order and Authorization, DA 98-409, 13 FCC Rcd 4592 (Int’l Bur. 1998); Letter from
Laurence D. Atlas, Vice President, Government Relations – Telecommunications, Loral Space & Communications
Ltd. to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, FCC (April 1, 1998) (notifying the Commission that the Loral-Orion merger
consummated on March 20, 1998) (Loral-Orion Merger Consummation Letter). Through a series of subsequent pro
forma transactions, the Orion Network License and Orion Atlantic License are currently held by Loral Corp. See
Loral Pro Forma Consummation Letter, supra note 4 (confirming pro forma assignment of the Orion Licenses to
Loral Space & Communications Corporation).
8
Orion Network License, 12 FCC Rcd at 23037 ¶ 31; Orion Atlantic License, 13 FCC Rcd at 1426 ¶ 32.
Specifically, satellite construction for Orion F7 (assigned to 89° W.L.) and Orion F2 (assigned to 47° W.L.) was to
begin by May 1998, and satellite construction for Orion F8 (assigned to 78° E.L.) and Orion F9 (assigned to 81°
W.L.) was to begin by May 1999. All four satellites were given the same construction completion and launch
milestones (April and May 2002, respectively).
9
ISLs, communication links between in-orbit satellites, operate in spectrum allocated to the inter-satellite service.
10
See Loral Space & Communications Corporation, Order and Authorization, DA 01-227, 16 FCC Rcd 2481 (Int’l
Bur. 2001) (Loral ISL & Downlink Order).
11
See Application for Modification of Authorization of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., File No. SAT-MOD-
19991102-00106 (Telstar 8 Modification Application).
12
Loral notes that the Telstar 8 Modification Application supercedes an earlier-filed application to modify its
authorization to provide coverage to South America. Telstar 8 Modification Application at 1 n.3. See Technical
Modification to Application of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., File No. 123/124-SAT-MP-96 & IBFS File
No. SAT-MOD-19960610-00082/83; see also Public Notice, Report No. SPB-53 (rel. July 17, 1996).
We therefore dismiss the earlier-filed modification application as moot.

3

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

Telstar 8 until March 2003 and May 2003, respectively.13 In the Telstar 4 Modification Application,14
Loral requests authority to move Telstar 4 from 89° W.L. (where it currently operates) to 77° W.L.
(Telstar 8’s authorized orbit location) after Telstar 8 has been tested and is ready to be placed into service
at the 89° W.L. orbit location. Finally, in the Orion F7 Modification Application,15 Loral seeks to modify
the Orion F7 Ka-band authorization at 89° W.L. in the Orion Network License, proposing to implement
service in the 19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz (uplink) bands by adding the above-
reference Ka-band payload to Telstar 8, while preserving its ability for future deployment at 89° W.L. in
the 18.3-18.8 GHz (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink) bands.

5. In response to public notice of the Telstar 8 Modification Application, the Telstar 8 First
Milestone Extension Request, the Telstar 4 Modification Application, and the Orion F7 Modification
Application,16 Pacific Century Group, Inc. (PCG) filed a Petition to Deny the applications as they relate to
Loral’s authorization to deploy Ka-band satellite communications capacity at 89° W.L.,17 which Loral
opposed.18 The South Carolina Educational Television Commission and the Public Broadcasting Service
also filed Petitions to Deny, and Pegasus Development Corporation (Pegasus) filed comments,19 which
they each later withdrew.20 No additional comments were filed in response to the public notice of the
Telstar 8 Second Milestone Extension Request.21

6. Loral subsequently filed a request to extend the Ka-band construction and launch milestones
at the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations in conjunction with its then-newly-filed
request for ISLs.22 In the Loral Milestone Order, we denied Loral’s milestone extension request,
concluding that Loral’s request to delay construction and launch of its satellites so that it could add ISLs
was not due to circumstances beyond its control, nor any other factor that would justify deferring its
milestones as set forth in the Orion Licenses.23 Loral filed a petition for reconsideration of the Loral
13
See Application for Extension of Milestones of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., File No. SAT-MOD-
19991101-00107 (Telstar 8 First Milestone Extension Request) and Application for Extension of Milestones of
Loral SpaceCom Corporation, File No. SAT-MOD-20020408-00060 (Telstar 8 Second Milestone Extension
Request).
14
See Application for Modification of Authorization of Loral SpaceCom Corporation, File No. SAT-MOD-
19991101-00109 (Telstar 4 Modification Application).
15
See Application for Modification of Authorization of Loral Orion, Inc., File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00108
(Orion F7 Modification Application).
16
Public Notice, Report No. SAT-00030 (rel. December 23, 1999).
17
Petition to Deny of Pacific Century Group, Inc., File Nos. SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 & SAT-MOD-19991101-
00107/108/109 (January 24, 2000) (PCG Petition).
18
Consolidated Opposition and Reply of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., File Nos. SAT-MOD-19991102-
00106 & SAT-MOD-19991101-00107/108/109 (February 8, 2000) (Loral Opposition).
19
Petition to Deny of South Carolina Educational Television Commission, File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00109
(January 24, 2000); Petition to Deny of The Public Broadcasting Service, File Nos. SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 &
SAT-MOD-19991101-00109 (January 24, 2000); Comments of Pegasus Development Corporation, File No. SAT-
MOD-19991101-00108 (January 24, 2000).
20
Withdrawal of Petition to Deny of South Carolina Educational Television Commission, File No. SAT-MOD-
19991101-00109 (June 20, 2000); Motion to Withdraw Petition to Deny of the Public Broadcasting Service, File
Nos. SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 & SAT-MOD-19991101-00109 (March 23, 2001); Notice of Withdrawal of
Comments of Pegasus Development Corporation, File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00108 (March 10, 2003).
21
Public Notice, Report No. SAT-00109 (rel. April 24, 2002).
22
See Loral Milestone Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 11045-46 ¶¶ 4-5.
23
See id., 16 FCC Rcd at 11047 ¶ 7.

4

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

Milestone Order, stating that our decision to deny its milestone extension request was inconsistent with
our treatment of what Loral claims to be similarly-situated Ka-band first round licensees.24 PCG and
Orbital Resources, LLC (Orbital Resources) opposed Loral’s petition,25 and Loral replied.26 PCG requests
that we affirm our decision with regard to all four orbit locations. Orbital Resources’ argument focuses
on Loral’s ultimate use of the 47° W.L. orbital location, maintaining that we should reject Loral’s
reconsideration request to extend the milestones associated with the Loral’s Ka-band license at 47° W.L.,
i.e., the Orion Atlantic License, and thereby also nullify Loral’s underlying Ku-band license at 47° W.L.,
i.e., the Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License.27 Orbital Resources and Loral continued to argue their
positions on this issue in ex parte letters.28

24
Petition for Reconsideration of Loral Space & Communications Corporation, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-
00042/43/44/45 (June 25, 2001) (Loral Petition). Pegasus filed a petition for partial reconsideration of the Loral
Milestone Order, which it later withdrew. See Petition for Partial Reconsideration of Pegasus Development
Corporation, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (June 25, 2001); Notice of Withdrawal of Petition for
Partial Reconsideration of Pegasus Development Corporation, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45
(December 21, 2001).
25
Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration of Pacific Century Group, Inc., File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-
00042/43/44/45 (July 5, 2001) (PCG Opposition); Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration of Orbital Resources,
LLC, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (July 10, 2001) (Orbital Resources Opposition). Pegasus
also filed an opposition to Loral’s Petition for Reconsideration, which it later withdrew. See Opposition of Pegasus
Development Corporation, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (July 5, 2001); Notice of Withdrawal of
Opposition of Pegasus Development Corporation, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (December 21,
2001).
26
Consolidated Reply to Oppositions of Loral Space & Communications Corporation (July 17, 2001) (Loral Reply).
27
See Orion Satellite Corporation, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, FCC 90-241, 5 FCC Rcd 4937
(1990) and Order, FCC 91-196, 6 FCC Rcd 4201 (1991) (Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License), modified, Loral
Cyberstar, Inc., Order and Authorization, DA 02-872, 17 FCC Rcd 7019 (Sat. Div., Int’l Bur. 2002) (Cyberstar 47°
W.L. Ku-band Modification Order). As a result of corporate restructuring, the Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License is
currently held by Loral CyberStar, Inc. See Letters from Jennifer D. McCarthy, Counsel for Loral CyberStar, Inc. to
Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary FCC (January 4, 2000) (confirming consolidation of companies into Loral Orion
Services, Inc. and notifying the Commission that Loral Orion Services, Inc. has assumed the name Loral CyberStar,
Inc.). As noted supra, note 7, the Orion Atlantic License authorized Orion to add Ka-band capacity onto the satellite
authorized by the Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License.
28
See Letter from Raul R. Rodriguez and David S. Keir, Counsel to Orbital Resources, LLC to Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary, FCC, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (July 25, 2001) (Orbital Resources July 2001 ex
parte letter); Letter from Raul R. Rodriguez and David S. Keir, Counsel to Orbital Resources, LLC to Don Abelson,
Chief, International Bureau, FCC, File Nos. CSS-83-002-P-(M); SAT-MOD-20000104-00045; SAT-LOA-
19870331-00061; SAT-AMD-19990511-00052; SAT-MOD-19990511-00051 (July 8, 2002) (Orbital Resources
July 2002 ex parte letter); Letter from John Stern, Deputy General Counsel, Loral Space & Communications Ltd. to
Don Abelson, Chief, International Bureau, FCC, File Nos. CSS-83-002-P-(M); SAT-MOD-20000104-00045; SAT-
LOA-19870331-00061; SAT-AMD-19990511-00052; SAT-MOD-19990511-00051 (July 22, 2002); Letter from
Raul R. Rodriguez and David S. Keir, Counsel to Orbital Resources, LLC to Don Abelson, Chief, International
Bureau, FCC, File Nos. CSS-83-002-P-(M); SAT-MOD-20000104-00045; SAT-LOA-19870331-00061; SAT-
AMD-19990511-00052; SAT-MOD-19990511-00051 (August 5, 2002); Letter from Raul R. Rodriguez and David
S. Keir, Counsel to Orbital Resources, LLC to Don Abelson, Chief, International Bureau, FCC, File Nos. CSS-83-
002-P-(M); SAT-MOD-20000104-00045 (January 23, 2003).

5

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

III. DISCUSSION

A. Reassignment of Telstar 4 to 77° W.L. and Telstar 8 to 89° W.L.

7. As a threshold matter, we address Loral’s requests to relocate the Telstar 4 satellite from the
89° W.L. orbit location to 77° W.L., with a corresponding change to the Telstar 8 satellite authorization
from 77° W.L. to 89° W.L.29 Loral is seeking to change its deployment of satellites between authorized
orbital locations. No new orbit locations are requested. The Commission has recognized that licensees
are in a better position to determine how to tailor their systems to meet the particular needs of
customers.30 Thus, we have previously allowed satellite operators to rearrange satellites in their fleet to
reflect business and customer considerations where no other public interest factors are adversely
affected.31 In light of the fact that Loral is licensed to provide C-and Ku-band FSS at both of these orbital
locations, we conclude that a grant of Loral’s requests to modify orbit locations would serve the public
interest. The reassignment will permit Loral to use Telstar 4, a C/Ku-band satellite, at an orbit location
that Loral is licensed for only C- and Ku-band service, and to deploy Telstar 8, a C/Ku/Ka-band satellite,
at an orbit location that Loral is licensed for C-, Ku-, and Ka-band service. We therefore grant these
proposed modifications, subject to appropriate International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
coordination requirements.

B. Launch and Operation of Telstar 8 as a C/Ku/Ka-band Hybrid Satellite

8. We next address Loral’s interrelated requests to add a Ka-band payload to Telstar 8 (making
it a C/Ku/Ka-band hybrid satellite), and to extend the milestone dates associated with Telstar 8 so that it
can be launched into the 89° W.L. orbit location by May 2003. Once launched and operational, Telstar 8
will be one of the first C/Ku/Ka-band hybrid satellites, as well as one of the first to provide Ka-band
service.32 In past decisions, the Commission has recognized the cost efficiencies inherent in hybrid
satellites and has attempted to accommodate hybrid satellites where possible.33 We believe that granting

29
PCG does not object to the relocation of Telstar 4 and Telstar 8 as related to deployment of C- and Ku-band
capacity at 77° W.L. and 89° W.L. See PCG Petition at 2.
30
See, e.g., Intelsat LLC, Order and Authorization, DA 01-2069, 16 FCC Rcd 16208, 16210 ¶ 6 (Sat. &
Radiocomm. Div., Int’l Bur. 2001) (citing, e.g., AMSC Subsidiary Corporation, Order and Authorization, DA 98-
493, 13 FCC Rcd 12316, 12318 ¶ 8 (Int’l Bur. 1998)).
31
See, e.g., GE American Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, DA 00-2096, 15
FCC Rcd 23583, 23588 ¶ 11 (Sat. & Radiocomm. Div., Int’l Bur. 2000) (citing, e.g., Hughes Communications
Galaxy, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 90-915, 5 FCC Rcd 4497 (Com. Car. Bur. 1990)).
32
Telstar 8 Second Milestone Extension Request at 4.
33
See, e.g., Amendment of the Commission’s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, IB Docket No. 02-34,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and First Report and Order, FCC 02-45, 17 FCC Rcd 3847, 3868 ¶ 59 (2002);
Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz
Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, and to Establish Rules and Policies for Local
Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, Third Report and Order,
FCC 97-378, 12 FCC Rcd 22310, 22322 ¶ 31 (1997) (Ka-band Third Report and Order); Hughes Communications
Galaxy, Inc., Order and Authorization, FCC 90-429, 6 FCC Rcd 72, 73 ¶ 8 (1991). See also Hughes
Communications Galaxy, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 96-1940, 11 FCC Rcd 16425, 16429 ¶ 14
(Int’l Bur. 1996); AT&T Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 96-1942, 11 FCC Rcd 15038, 15042 ¶ 10
(Int’l Bur. 1996); GE American Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 96-1939, 11 FCC Rcd
15030, 15034-35 ¶ 13 (Int’l Bur. 1996); GTE Spacenet Corporation, Order and Authorization, DA 94-187, 9 FCC
Rcd 1271, 1273 ¶ 14 (Com. Car. Bur. 1994); Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., Order and Authorization, DA
92-1481, 7 FCC Rcd 7119, 7120 ¶¶ 8-9 (Com. Car. Bur. 1992).

6

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

Loral’s request to add a Ka-band payload to Telstar 8 will permit the most effective use of the limited
orbit spectrum resource, and is therefore, in the public interest.

9. Milestone extensions are granted only when the delay in implementation is due to
circumstances beyond the licensee’s control.34 For example, we have found in the past that unanticipated
technical problems can justify a milestone extension.35 In this case, Loral has discovered and solved
numerous unanticipated design problems during Telstar 8’s construction.36 For example, Loral engineers
redesigned the antenna deployment mechanisms to generate lower shock levels than those generated by
the traditional high shock pyrotechnical devices.37 In addition, Loral engineers performed several design
iterations to minimize transmission losses in the signal paths and surmount challenges presented by a
“radically new propulsion system.”38 Consequently, Loral’s milestone extension request is based on
tangible, physical, construction-related concerns, and thus, grantable under our precedent. We also find
that grant of Loral’s milestone extension request for Telstar 8 is not excessive in this case, given the
complex nature of the new satellite and the fact that Loral has continued work on the satellite during the
pendency of this proceeding. Therefore, Loral has until May 2003, as requested, to launch Telstar 8 into
the 89° W.L. orbit location.

C. C- and Ku-band Technical Modifications to Telstar 8

10. In the Telstar 8 Modification Application, Loral proposes to provide its C- and Ku-band
service to a larger geographic service area than originally proposed. Specifically, Loral requests that we
modify the Telstar 8 authorization to employ twenty 36-megahertz, two 72-megahertz (covering the 50
states, Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) and six 72-megahertz C-band transponders
(for extended coverage to South America) in lieu of the twenty-four 36-megahertz C-band transponders
(covering the contiguous 48 states) originally authorized.39 Additionally, for C-band, Loral proposes to
substitute 37- and 100-watt TWTAs for the previously-authorized 20-watt solid-state power amplifiers
originally authorized, and increase the C-band equivalent isotropically radiated power (e.i.r.p.) by .2 dB
with respect to the original application.40 With regard to its Ku-band capacity, Loral requests that we
modify the Telstar 8 authorization to employ thirty-six 36-megahertz Ku-band transponders (24
transponders covering the 50 states, Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; 12
transponders to provide extended coverage to South America) in lieu of the thirty-two 27-megahertz Ku-
band transponders (covering the contiguous 48 states) originally authorized.41 For the Ku-band, Loral
further proposes to use 130-watt TWTAs for the 110-watt TWTAs originally authorized, and increase the

34
Loral Milestone Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 11047 ¶ 6.
35
See, e.g., EarthWatch Incorporated, Order and Authorization, DA 00-1305, 15 FCC Rcd 18725, 18728 ¶ 9 (Sat. &
Radiocomm. Div., Int’l Bur. 2000) (EarthWatch Milestone Order) (milestone extension granted due to technical
problems that, if left unaddressed, could drastically impair service to customers); AMSC Subsidiary Corporation,
Order and Authorization, DA 95-652, 10 FCC Rcd 3791 (Sat. & Radiocomm. Div., Int’l Bur. 1995) (milestone
extension granted to permit licensee to resolve unanticipated technical problems); American Telephone and
Telegraph Company, Order and Authorization, DA 94-589, 9 FCC Rcd 2607 (Domestic Facilities Div., Com. Car.
Bur. 1994) (same).
36
Telstar 8 Second Milestone Extension Request at 1-3.
37
Id. at 2-3.
38
Id. at 3.
39
Telstar 8 Modification Application at 3 & A-8.
40
Id. at 3.
41
Id. at 4 & A-8.

7

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

Ku-band e.i.r.p. by 2 dBW.42 Loral states that these C- and Ka-band modifications will not cause any
unacceptable interference into adjacent satellites that cannot be successfully addressed through normal
inter-system coordination, or compliance with Section 25.211 of the Commission’s rules in the case of
analog transmissions.43

11. Loral indicates that these changes will provide increased configuration flexibility to meet
customer requirements and permit more efficient use of satellite power.44 After analyzing the data
submitted in the Telstar 8 Modification Application, we grant Loral’s requested modifications to the
extent that they comport with our Part 25 rules. In that regard, we note that Section 25.210(e) of the
Commission’s rules requires that U.S.-licensed satellites be configured for full frequency re-use,45 and
Section 25.210(g) defines full frequency re-use for those satellites’ beams providing international service,
such as Loral’s proposed extended coverage to South America.46 Based on our review of the Telstar 8
Modification Application, Loral’s proposed C- and Ku-band South American coverage does not meet this
requirement. Loral has not asked for a waiver of the full frequency re-use requirements set forth in
Section 25.210.47 Therefore, we defer action on those parts of the Telstar 8 Modification Application
related to the proposed South American coverage.

D. Ka-band Technical Modifications to Telstar 8

12. In the Telstar 8 Modification Application and the Orion F7 Modification Application, Loral
proposes to add a Ka-band payload to Telstar 8 comprised of 24 uplink spot beams providing complete
coverage of the contiguous 48 states operating with 120-watt TWTAs. The satellite would have four
downlink Ka-band spot beams, which will cover the Los Angeles-San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, and
New York-Washington, D.C. areas. Four times frequency re-use will be achieved by a combination of
spatial and polarization isolation of like-channel beams.48 These modifications differ from the
specifications of Loral’s authorized satellite at 89° W.L., Orion F7. Most significantly, Orion F7 is
authorized to operate in the 18.3-18.8 and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-
30.0 GHz bands (uplink),49 while the Telstar 8 Ka-band payload would utilize only the 19.7-20.2 GHz
(downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz (uplink) portions of the bands.50

13. In arguing that we should deny Loral’s request to add Ka-band capacity to Telstar 8, PCG
claims that Loral’s proposed modification does not meet the full frequency re-use standards for Ka-band
42
Id. at 4.
43
Id. at 3-4 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 25.211).
44
Id. at 3-4.
45
47 C.F.R. § 25.210(e) (“All space stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service shall be designed to derive the maximum
capacity feasible from the assigned orbital location. In particular, space stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service are
required to employ state-of-the-art full frequency re-use using both horizontal and vertical polarization.”).
46
47 C.F.R. § 25.210(g) (“For fixed-satellite space stations providing international service, full frequency re-use is
defined as follows: (1) Satellites must employ polarization discrimination so that, through the use of dual
polarization, they shall be able to reuse both the uplink and downlink frequency band assignments. (2) Satellites
must be configured so that all assigned frequencies (in both polarizations) could be reused in beams serving widely
separate areas.”).
47
See, e.g., PanAmSat Licensee Corp., Order and Authorization, DA 02-1287, 17 FCC Rcd 10483, 10491-92 ¶¶ 19-
22 (Sat. Div., Int’l Bur. 2002) (granting requested waiver of Section 25.210(g)).
48
Telstar 8 Modification Application at 4-5; Orion F7 Modification Application at 2-3.
49
Orion Network License, 12 FCC Rcd at 23037 ¶ 29; Loral ISL & Downlink Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2489 ¶¶ 18-19.
50
Telstar 8 Modification Application at 2.

8

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

FSS GSO satellites and the Commission’s hybrid satellite policies.51 Loral replies that its proposed
hybrid satellite is a state-of-the-art satellite that comports with Commission rules and is similar to other
designs that are planned for launch by other administrations.52 Our review of the technical specifications
for Telstar 8 does not support PCG’s contention, and we therefore deny its petition. The Ka-band Third
Report and Order modified Section 25.210 of the Commission’s rules53 to require Ka-band space stations
to employ state-of-the-art frequency re-use either through the use of orthogonal polarizations within the
same beam and/or through the use of spatially independent beams.54 The Commission did not, however,
specify the number of times the frequencies should be re-used for space stations that employ spot beam
coverage.55 The Commission did this to provide operators maximum flexibility in their system designs.56
Although it appears that Loral has taken full advantage of the flexible nature of the Commission’s
frequency re-use rules that pertain to the use of spot beams in its hybrid satellite, we find that Loral’s
hybrid satellite as described in its modification applications meets our requirements for frequency re-use
and comports with Section 25.210 of the Commission’s rules. We also agree with Loral that its proposal
to implement part of Orion F7’s authorization on Telstar 8 accommodates distinctive hybrid satellite
technology, and we therefore grant its proposal to the extent that we authorize Loral to use only the 500
megahertz of spectrum specified in the Telstar 8 Modification Application, viz., the 19.7-20.2 GHz
(downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz (uplink) bands. Loral discusses plans to launch Orion F7 into the 89°
W.L. orbit location to provide for future use of the remaining 500 megahertz, viz., the 18.3-18.8 GHz
(downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink) bands, that will not be implemented on
Telstar 8.57 However, as discussed in Section III.E. below, Loral’s authorization for future use of the
remaining 500 megahertz of Ka-band spectrum at 89° W.L., along with its use of the Ka-band frequencies
at the 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations, is null and void.

E. Reconsideration of the Loral Milestone Order

14. We affirm our decision not to extend Loral’s construction completion and launch milestones
with regard to its Ka-band payloads at the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations,58
except for 500 megahertz of Ka-band spectrum at the 89° W.L. orbit location, the milestones of which we
waive for the limited purpose of being used in connection with Loral’s C/Ku/Ka-band satellite, Telstar 8.
When we released the Loral Milestone Order in May 2001, Loral still had time to progress toward
milestone compliance in April and May 2002. Loral has provided no evidence that it has done so.
Consequently, as the date for completion of satellite construction for these payloads has now passed,
Loral’s Ka-band authorizations at the 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations, as well as its
authorization to use the 18.3-18.8 GHz (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink) bands at
the 89° W.L. orbit location, are null and void. Finally, in response to Orbital Resources’ Opposition and
subsequent ex parte filings, we clarify that Loral’s underlying Ku-band-only authority at 47° W.L.
remains valid until such time as the Commission addresses in a future rulemaking the broader issue of
how we will recapture as-yet unbuilt Ku-band licenses issued without milestones.

51
PCG Petition at 4-7.
52
Loral Opposition at 3-4.
53
47 C.F.R. § 25.210.
54
Ka-band Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22321-22 ¶¶ 28-29.
55
Id. at 22322 ¶ 29.
56
Id.
57
Orion F7 Modification Application at 3; Loral Opposition at 3, 6.
58
Loral Milestone Order, 16 FCC Rcd 11044.

9

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

1. Loral’s Arguments

15. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Loral argues that (1) the timing of the filing of its request
to modify its licenses to incorporate ISLs cannot rationally justify the Bureau’s conclusion to deny
Loral’s milestone extension request;59 and (2) the Bureau’s decision is inconsistent with the Bureau’s
granting GE American Communications, Inc. (GE Americom) a waiver of the Ka-band milestones.60
Loral’s arguments fail for the reasons discussed below.

16. As described in the Loral Milestone Order,61 Orion received its Ka-band authorization for the
89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations in May of 1997, as part of the first Ka-band
processing round. Some of the Ka-band first round applicants initially proposed to operate ISLs among
multiple satellites in a constellation. At that time, there was no suitable spectrum allocated for ISL
operations, and we therefore deferred assigning ISL frequencies. Consequently, we issued licenses to
those Ka-band first round applicants requesting ISLs without implementation milestones, stating that we
would impose a strict milestone schedule once ISL frequencies were allocated. Since Orion had not
requested, and thus, did not receive ISLs for its authorizations at the time of grant, we issued the Orion
Licenses with the requisite implementation milestones as a condition of licensing. Loral merged with
Orion in March 1998 and took possession of the Orion Licenses,62 aware that the milestones associated
with the Orion Licenses had begun to run in 1997. Nevertheless, Loral waited until January 2000 to
formally request ISLs for the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations. The timing of
this formal request came soon after the Bureau asked Loral to confirm that it had met its first milestone,
and contemporaneously asked those Ka-band first round licensees that formally requested ISLs to identify
the exact frequencies they planned to use in what became the allocated ISL bands. In conjunction with its
ISL request, Loral requested that the Commission extend the construction completion and launch
milestones (April and May 2002, respectively) associated with the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78°
E.L. orbit locations to match those eventually given to Ka-band first round licensees that had formally
requested ISLs earlier in the proceeding.

17. Loral correctly states that the Bureau must articulate a rational basis for its denial of Loral’s
milestone request.63 In the Loral Milestone Order, the Bureau clearly articulated that milestone
extensions are granted when delay in implementation is due to circumstances beyond the licensee’s
control, and that a license modification, such as Loral’s ISL request, is a business decision that is wholly
within the discretion and control of the licensee, and is thus not beyond the licensee’s control.64 As we
said in the Loral Milestone Order, Loral’s decision to merge with Orion, and its failure to apply for ISLs
until January 2000 (with less than two years remaining to satisfy the construction completion milestone),
are both business decisions within Loral’s complete control and do not constitute good cause for
extending milestone schedules.65

18. Loral argues that the timing of its requests for ISLs and the corresponding milestone
extension should be irrelevant to the Bureau’s decision on whether to extend its milestones, since it is

59
Loral Petition at 6-13.
60
Id. at 13-18 (citing GE American Communications, Inc., Order and Authorization, DA 01-1286, 16 FCC Rcd
11038 (Int’l Bur. 2001) (GE Americom Milestone Order)).
61
See generally Loral Milestone Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 11044-46 ¶¶ 2-5.
62
See Loral-Orion Merger Consummation Letter, supra note 7.
63
Loral Petition at 6.
64
Loral Milestone Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 11046-47 ¶¶ 6-7.
65
Id. at 11047 ¶ 7.

10

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

20. Loral then argues that the factual differences between its situation and GE Americom’s are
insufficient to justify our denial of Loral’s milestone extension request while granting GE Americom a
waiver of construction milestones.75 Though we found that GE Americom’s application to modify its
satellite system to include ISLs in and of itself did not justify an extension of its milestones,76 we did
grant GE Americom a waiver of Section 25.117(e)(1),77 because GE Americom demonstrated, from a
time shortly after licensing, its intent to proceed with its Ka-band system as modified by ISLs.78 GE
Americom requested the use of ISLs immediately upon knowledge of the technical information that
resulted from WRC 9779 that would allow it to plan for and implement ISLs – filing for its modification
within six months of receiving its Ka-band license, and six months before it was required to sign a
contract for production of its satellites. In contrast, Loral applied for its ISLs at least two years after the
ISL frequencies had been allocated internationally. Loral’s request for milestone extension is not unlike
that of PanAmSat Licensee Corp. (PanAmSat).80 Both parties filed requests to add ISLs to integrate two
merged satellite systems at a time when the filing of such a request could forestall upcoming milestone
compliance. Loral attempts to distinguish PanAmSat by arguing that PanAmSat sought an extension of
its first milestone, while Loral had met its initial construction milestone, but sought to extend later
milestones.81 However, in PanAmSat, the Commission affirmed our canceling PanAmSat’s authorization,
unequivocally stating, “[f]iling a modification application is a circumstance within the licensee’s control
that cannot justify a milestone extension, even if the licensee seeks authority to incorporate a new
technology into its satellite design.”82 In doing so, the Commission cited precedent for this proposition as
applied to the later milestones,83 and therefore, we do not view the Commission’s decision in PanAmSat
as limited to the first construction milestone.

21. Finally, Loral argues that the Bureau should grant a waiver of Loral’s milestone requirements
to avoid discriminatory application of its waiver policy.84 This argument again is based on the premise
that there is no factual distinction underlying Loral’s and GE Americom’s requests. We have shown that

75
Loral Petition at 14.
76
GE Americom Milestone Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 11041 ¶ 8.
77
47 C.F.R. § 25.117(e)(1) (“Any application for modification of authorization to extend a required date of
completion . . . must include a verified statement from the applicant [t]hat states the additional time is required due
to unforeseeable circumstances beyond the applicant’s control . . . .”).
78
GE Americom Milestone Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 11041-42 ¶¶ 9-10.
79
See Final Acts of the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference, Geneva (1997); ITU Radio Regulations
Article S5 (frequency allocations).
80
PanAmSat Licensee Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01-178, 16 FCC Rcd 11534 (2001)
(PanAmSat), aff’g Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 00-1266, 15 FCC Rcd 18720 (Int’l Bur. 2000). Accord
PCG Opposition at 5.
81
Loral Reply at 4-5.
82
PanAmSat, 16 FCC Rcd at 11543 ¶ 25; see also id. at 11541 ¶ 21.
83
Id. at nn.52-53 (citing, e.g., American Telephone and Telegraph Company/Ford Aerospace Satellite Services
Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 87-239, 2 FCC Rcd 4431 (1987) (AT&T/Ford) (AT&T’s
decision to reprocure satellites that had already met construction milestones does not support requested extension of
later milestones); Advanced Communications Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 95-944, 10 FCC
Rcd 13337 (Int’l Bur. 1995) (denying milestone extension request despite licensee’s compliance with first
milestone), app. for review denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 95-428, 11 FCC Rcd 3399 (1995)
(Advanced Review Order), aff’d, 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (unpublished judgment available in Westlaw at
1996 WL 250460)).
84
Loral Petition at 18-20.

12

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

GE Americom’s request for ISLs was predicated on circumstances unique to GE Americom, and that GE
Americom’s explicit and timely manifestation of its intentions warranted waiver of Section 25.117(e)(1),
unlike Loral. Except for Loral and PanAmSat, each of the Ka-band first round applicants that chose to
incorporate ISLs into their systems applied for them promptly, either in their initial applications, or as in
the case of GE Americom, when the ISL frequencies were actually allocated internationally. Loral fails
to recognize that the Bureau’s focus on the timing of its request for ISLs is not arbitrary. Rather, the
timing of Loral’s ISL request demonstrates that Loral failed to affirmatively pursue the use of ISLs for the
Orion Licenses at the earliest available opportunity, but requested ISLs and a milestone extension when it
appeared that the milestones associated with these licenses would expire sooner than those imposed on
the majority of Ka-band first round licensees, i.e., those that had originally requested ISLs. Our denial of
Loral’s waiver request was warranted, and Loral has not demonstrated any reason to deviate from that
decision.

22. For the foregoing reasons, we deny Loral’s request for reconsideration of the denial of its
milestone extension request for the Ka-band payloads associated with the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L.,
and 78° E.L. orbit locations. The Orion Licenses expressly provided that, unless extended upon a
showing of good cause, the licenses would become null and void in the event the licensee failed to satisfy
any one of the milestones. Loral did not complete construction of its Orion Licenses satellites by the
requisite milestone, April 2002. Except for a limited waiver of milestones for Telstar 8’s Ka-band
payload, discussed below, we find no reason to extend Loral’s milestone schedule. Consequently, Loral’s
Ka-band authorizations at the 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations, as well as its
authorization to use the 18.3-18.8 GHz (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink) bands at
the 89° W.L. orbit location, are null and void.

2. Limited Waiver of Milestones for Telstar 8 Ka-band payload

23. As discussed above in Section III.D., we grant Loral permission to add a Ka-band payload to
the Telstar 8 satellite to form a hybrid C/Ku/Ka-band satellite to be launched in the near future. The delay
in implementation of the Orion F7 Ka-band license to allow its implementation on the Telstar 8 satellite is
a business decision and is not beyond the control of its licensee. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to
grant an extension of the Orion F7 milestones under these circumstances. We do, however, on our own
motion, grant a limited waiver of the construction and launch milestones to allow implementation of Ka-
band service on the Telstar 8 satellite.85 Granting a limited waiver will not contravene the purpose of the
rule, namely to prevent warehousing of spectrum, as the approaching launch of Telstar 8 promises
service to the public in the near term. Furthermore, we determine that implementation of this hybrid
system will benefit the public interest by allowing consumers to gain timely access to a wide range of
services that can be deployed using the Ka-band. We note, however, that this waiver of milestones
applies only to the 500 megahertz that Loral describes in its modification application for its Ka-band
authorization at 89° W.L., viz., the 19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz (uplink) bands.

3. Loral’s Ku-band License at 47° W.L.

24. Orbital Resources argues that by nullifying the Orion Atlantic License, we also nullify the
Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License.86 Orbital Resources’ interest in this matter stems from its principals’
pecuniary interest in a then-pending application of Columbia Communications Corp. (CCC) for Ku-band
use of the 49° W.L. orbit location and CCC’s related request to modify that application for the 47° W.L.

85
47 C.F.R. § 1.3. See WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v.
FCC, 897 F.2d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
86
See Orbital Resources Opposition at 3-4, 8-9; Orbital Resources July 2001 ex parte letter at 2; Orbital Resources
July 2002 ex parte letter at 6-7.

13

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

orbit location.87 We have twice rejected CCC’s requests to modify its application from 49° W.L. to 47°
W.L., based on the continued validity of the Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License,88 and dismissed CCC’s
underlying application for the 49° W.L. orbit location.89 Thus, irrespective of whether the Orion 47° W.L.
Ku-band License is null and void along with the Orion Atlantic License, CCC, and thus, Orbital
Resources’ principals, do not have an application before us, and thus, have no claim to the 47° W.L.
orbital location, as Orbital Resources implies in its pleadings.90

25. Loral planned that Orion F2 would be a Ku/Ka-band hybrid satellite serving the 47° W.L.
orbit location. Unlike Telstar 8, for which Loral has demonstrated substantial progress in construction,
the record shows that there has been no progress on construction of Orion F2 as a hybrid satellite. By
Loral’s own admission, “[w]ork on the hybrid satellite for 47° W.L. remains suspended pending
Commission consideration and resolution of the petition for reconsideration [of the Loral Milestone
Order]. . . . Should the Commission grant Loral’s reconsideration petition . . . Loral anticipates
completing construction and launching and operating a hybrid Ku-/Ka-band satellite at 47° W.L. within
36 months of the Commission’s decision.”91 A milestone extension will be considered where it “is based
on tangible, physical, construction-related concerns, rather than nebulous assertions such as regulatory
uncertainty or technological advancements.”92 In comparison, the Commission often will deny an
extension request where construction of the satellite either has not begun or is not continuing, raising
questions regarding the licensee’s intention to proceed.93 It is clear that, as compared to the substantial
progress Loral has made in constructing Telstar 8, there has been little progress, if any, on the Orion F2.
Consequently, in this Order, we nullify Loral’s license to construct the Ka-band payload at 47° W.L.

26. We disagree with Orbital Resources that milestone enforcement of the Ka-band payload at
47° W.L. automatically nullifies the underlying Ku-band payload at that location. When the Commission
granted the Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License in 1991, it did not impose any specific system
implementation milestones in that license. At that time, there were no milestone requirements in effect

87
Orbital Resources Opposition at 1-2; Orbital Resources July 2002 ex parte letter at 2.
88
Columbia Communications Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 00-113, 15 FCC Rcd 15566,
15571 ¶ 10 (Int’l Bur. 2000) (CCC Order), aff’d, Order and Order on Reconsideration, DA 01-1241, 16 FCC Rcd
10867, 10875-76 ¶ 26 (Int’l Bur. 2001) (CCC Recon Order).
89
CCC Recon Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 10877 ¶¶ 30-32, further recon pending.
90
See, e.g., Orbital Resources July 2002 ex parte letter at 7-8.
91
See Letter of John Stern, Deputy General Counsel, Loral Space & Communications Ltd. to Jennifer Gilsenan,
Chief, Satellite Policy Branch, Satellite Division, International Bureau, FCC (March 12, 2002).
92
EarthWatch Milestone Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 18728 ¶ 9 (quotations omitted); see also Columbia Communications
Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 00-702, 15 FCC Rcd 16496, 16500 ¶ 10 (Int’l Bur. 2000)
(citing Norris Satellite Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 97-377, 12 FCC Rcd 22299,
22308 ¶ 21 (1997) (a claim of regulatory uncertainty does not constitute an independent basis for granting a
milestone extension request and does not warrant an otherwise unjustified milestone extension)); Advanced Review
Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3412 ¶¶ 30-32 (promoting technological development cannot substitute for concrete progress
towards construction and operation of system).
93
Compare AT&T/Ford, 2 FCC Rcd at 4433-35 ¶¶ 18-28 (postponing implementation for several years raises
questions regarding the licensee’s intention to proceed in a timely fashion, if at all, and thus does not justify
milestone extension) with NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C., Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 01-1284, 16 FCC Rcd
11025, 11031 ¶ 21 (Int’l Bur. 2001) (granted extension of construction milestone because, inter alia, licensee had
commenced construction on satellite and already arranged for satellite launch). Cf. Astrolink International LLC,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 02-1431, 17 FCC Rcd 11267 (Sat. Div., Int’l Bur. 2002) (granted waiver of
construction milestone because licensee demonstrated that it had completed construction of over 90 percent of its
spacecraft).

14

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

for the so-called “separate systems.” Rather, the Bureau imposed milestone requirements on Loral for the
first time in 1997, in granting Loral authority to add Ka-band capacity to the Orion F2 satellite. In other
words, the Bureau required Loral to commence construction of a hybrid satellite, and imposed milestones
on the Ka-band portion of that satellite. Contrary to Orbital Resources’ assertion, those milestone
deadlines were not intended to apply to the Ku-band portion of that satellite, and we do not read the Orion
Atlantic License, nor our discussions of Loral’s 47° W.L. authority in the CCC Order or CCC Recon
Order, to hold that Loral cannot pursue its original Ku-band-only payload at 47° W.L., i.e., the payload
that had no milestone.94 We will address milestone enforcement of the Ku-band payload on the Orion F2
satellite once the Commission has developed a mechanism to enforce build-out requirements for the
“separate system” satellites that do not have milestones requirements. Although we agree with Orbital
Resources that an exceptionally long time has passed since the Commission issued the Orion 47° W.L.
Ku-band License, there remains no basis, at this time, to revoke Loral’s Ku-band authority.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES

27. In light of the foregoing, we grant Loral’s requested modifications to its Telstar 4 and Telstar
8 satellite authorizations to the extent indicated herein. We also grant Loral an extension of its
completion of construction milestone for its Telstar 8 satellite to March 2003 and its launch milestone to
May 2003. Finally, while we deny Loral’s petition for reconsideration of the Loral Milestone Order, we
grant a limited waiver on our own motion of the launch milestone for its Ka-band payload at 89° W.L. to
allow Loral to implement its three-band hybrid satellite technology on Telstar 8.

28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Telstar 8 Modification Application filed by Loral
SpaceCom Corporation (formerly, Loral Space & Communications Ltd.), File No. SAT-MOD-19991102-
00106 IS GRANTED IN PART to the extent indicated herein, and Loral Space & Communications Ltd.,
11 FCC Rcd 20441 (Int’l Bur. 1996) IS MODIFIED to permit Loral SpaceCom Corporation to launch and
operate Telstar 8, a C/Ku/Ka-band satellite, at the 89° W.L. orbit location in accordance with the terms,
conditions and technical specifications set forth in its application and this Order, with the exception of
that part of the Telstar 8 Modification Application related to the proposed C/Ku-band South American
coverage that IS DEFERRED.

29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Telstar 4 Modification Application filed by Loral
SpaceCom Corporation, File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00109 IS GRANTED and that Loral SpaceCom
Corporation’s Telstar 4 satellite is reassigned to the 77° W.L. orbit location following the successful
launch and testing of Telstar 8.

30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Orion F7 Modification Application filed by Loral
Space & Communications Corporation (formerly, Loral Orion, Inc.), File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-
00108 IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein to allow Loral Space & Communications Corporation
to add the 19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz (uplink) portions of its authorization at 89° W.L.
on Loral SpaceCom Corporation’s Telstar 8 satellite in accordance with the terms, conditions and
technical specifications set forth in the Telstar 8 Modification Application and this Order, and IS
DENIED in all other respects.

31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Deny of Pacific Century Group, Inc., File
Nos. SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 & SAT-MOD-19991101-00107/108/109, filed January 24, 2000, is
DENIED.

94
For example, there is no discussion of milestones in the Cyberstar 47° W.L. Ku-band Modification Order, 17 FCC
Rcd 7019, issued the same month that the construction completion milestone would have expired.

15

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requests to extend the milestones associated with
Telstar 8, a C/Ku/Ka-band hybrid satellite to be located at 89° W.L., File Nos. SAT-MOD-19991101-
00107 & SAT-MOD-20020408-00060 ARE GRANTED, and the milestones are extended as follows:
Completion Launch
March 2003 May 2003

33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of the International
Bureau’s decision in Loral Space & Communications Corporation, 16 FCC Rcd 11044 (Int’l Bur. 2001)
filed by Loral Space & Communications Corporation on June 25, 2001, IS DENIED.

34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except as waived in paragraph 35 below, the Ka-band
authorizations at the 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations, as well as the authorization to use
the 18.3-18.8 GHz (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink) bands at the 89° W.L. orbit
location, held by Loral Space & Communications Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 23027 (Int’l Bur. 1997) and
13 FCC Rcd 1416 (Int’l Bur. 1997), each modified by Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 2481 (Int’l
Bur. 2001), ARE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.

35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission’s Rules, 47
C.F.R. § 1.3, the launch milestone associated with Loral Space & Communications Corporation’s Orion
F7 satellite, as authorized at 12 FCC Rcd 23027 (Int’l Bur. 1997) is extended, for the portion of the Orion
F7 authorization that is to become part of the Telstar 8 hybrid satellite, as follows:
Launch
19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz (uplink) at 89° W.L. May 2003

36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Technical Modification to Application filed by Loral
Space & Communications Ltd., File No. 123/124-SAT-MP-96 & IBFS No. SAT-MOD-19960610-
00082/83, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral SpaceCom Corporation’s operations over Telstar 4 at
the 77º W.L. orbit location and Telstar 8 at the 89° W.L. orbit location SHALL BE coordinated with
adjacent satellites concerning any operational parameters that are different from those previously
coordinated for the respective orbit locations.

38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral SpaceCom Corporation’s operations over Telstar 4 at
the 77º W.L. orbit location and Telstar 8 at the 89° W.L. orbit location SHALL BE in compliance with all
international coordination agreements reached regarding the respective orbit locations.

39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral SpaceCom Corporation is obliged to comply with the
applicable laws, regulations, rules, and licensing procedures in those countries it proposes to serve.

40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral SpaceCom Corporation shall prepare the necessary
information, as may be required, for submission to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to
initiate and complete the advance publication, international coordination, and notification process for
Telstar 8 in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations. We also note that no protection from
interference caused by radio stations authorized by other administrations is guaranteed unless
coordination procedures are timely completed or, with respect to individual administrations, by
successfully completing coordination agreements. Any radio station authorization for which coordination
has not been completed may be subject to additional terms and conditions as required to effect
coordination of the frequency assignments of other administrations. See 47 C.F.R. § 25.111(b).

16

Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1045

41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral Space & Communications Corporation must
coordinate its Ka-band downlink operations with U.S. Government systems in accordance with footnote
US334 to the Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary assignment of any orbital location to Loral
SpaceCom Corporation and Loral Space & Communications Corporation is subject to change by
summary order of the Commission on 30 days notice and does not confer any permanent right to use the
orbit and spectrum. Neither this authorization nor any right granted by the authorization shall be
transferred, assigned, or disposed of in any manner, voluntarily or involuntarily, or by transfer of control
of any corporation holding this authorization to any person except upon application to the Commission
and upon a finding by the Commission that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served
thereby.

43. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral SpaceCom Corporation and Loral Space &
Communications Corporation have 30 days from the date of the release of this Order and Authorization
to decline this authorization as conditioned. Failure to respond within that period will constitute formal
acceptance of the authorization as conditioned.

44. This Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization is issued pursuant to Section 0.261 of
the Commission’s rules on delegations of authority, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, and is effective upon release.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Donald Abelson
Chief, International Bureau

17

Document Created: 2003-05-29 17:33:07
Document Modified: 2003-05-29 17:33:07

© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC