Attachment Pacific petition to

Pacific petition to

PETITION TO DENY submitted by PACIFIC CENTURY

petition to deny

2000-01-24

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD1999110200106_1157678

10/04/01 16:55 FAX 703 414 1075 002 COU DERT B ROTH ERS NEew york no cnt minn ty PaRI$ HANCI ATTORNEYS AT LAW waSHINGTON BERLIN LONBON DENvER I szn?sl STREET. N.W. BRUSSELS st PETERSBURGS T sU 1200 HONG KONG MONTREAL waASHINGTON. DC g00o06 sINGAPORE ALMaTr San FRaNcisco PaALO aLto ~ BEVWING FRANKFURT sroner mEgxico ary LOS ANGELES aZ®CCIATED OFFict ~ 3 January 24, 2000 san JosE aperesaem>_ _ _ mos mEmugh ~ Toryo sBupaPrEST mosCOw aEEUcIATED orrice BANGKOK NaGY ES TRDRSAn JAKARTA warveBAODa Ms, Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12"" Street, S.W. TW—A325 Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Application for Modification of Space Station Authorization of Loral Space & —* Communications Ltd., File No. SAT—MOD—19991102—00106; Application for Extension of Milestones of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., File No. SAT— MOD—19991101—00107; Application for Modification of Space Station Authorization, of Loral Orion, Inc., File No. SAT—MOD—19991101—00108; Application; Application for Modification of Space Station Authonzation, of Loral SpaceCom Corporation. File No. SAT—MOD—19991101—00109 Dear Ms. Roman Salas: Enclosed please find an orginal and four (4) copies, plus a stamped and return copy, of Pacific Century Group, Inc.‘s Petition to Deny of the above—referenced modification requests, which has been served on those parties included in the attached service list. Please contact me at (202) 736—1809 if you have any questions concerning this filing. WaAsHNoTOy 28! umt

10/04/01 16:55 FAX Tos 414 10735 LORAL 003 Before the 4 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ' Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Loral Space & Communications Ltd, ) SAT—MOD—19991102—00106 ) Application for Modification of ) Space Station Authorization ) ) In the Matter of ) ) Loral Space & Communications Ltd. ) SAT—MOD—19991101—00107 — ) Application for Extension ) of Milestones ) ) In the Matter of ) ) Loral Orion, Inc. ) SAT—MOD—19991101—00108 ) Application for Modification af ) Space Station Authorization ) In the Matter of ) ) Loral SpaceCom Corporation ) SAT—MOD—19991101—00109 p Application for Modification of ) Space Station Authorization ) PETITION TO DENY PACIFIC CENTURY GROUP, INC. Tara K. Giunta Coudert Brothers 1627 I Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Its Attorneys Date: January 24, 2000

10/04/01 16:55 FAX 703 414 1075 LORAL 004 . Before the * FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Loral Space & Communications Ltd, SAT—MOD—19991102—00106 Application for Modification of Space Station Authonzation In the Matter of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. N Nh N No Ne N Nund SAT—MOD—19991101—00107 Application for Extension of Milestones In the Matter of Loral Orion, Inc. . SAT—MOD—19991101—00108 Application for Modification of Space Station Authorization In the Matter of No/ Nt Ne N Nt Ne Loral SpaceCom Corporation SAT—MOD—19991101.00109 Application for Modification of Space Station Authorization PETITION TO DENY Pacific Century Group, Inc. ("PCG"), by its attorneys, and pursuant to Section 25.154(a) of the Commission‘s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.154(a) (1999), hereby submits this Petition to Deny (‘Petition") requesting that the Federal Communications Commission (the "Commission" or "FCC") reject the four interrelated license modifications requests captioned above submitted by

10/04/01 16:56 FAX 703 414 1075 LORAL . __ g 005 Loral Space & Communications Ltd., Loral Orion, Inc.. and Loral Spacecom Corporation (collectively "Loral") as they relate to Loral‘s authorization to deploy Ka—band satellite communications capacity at 89 degrees W.L. PCG further requests that the Commission declgre Loral‘s 89 degree W.L. Ka—band authorization null and void. PCG has no objection to those portions of the captioned modification requests which deal only with deployment of C— and Ku— band capacity at 77 W.L. and 89 degrees W.L. BACKGROUND In May 1997, Orion Network Systems, a Loral predecessor, was licensed to launch three satellites to provide Ka—band broadband services to the United States and to place them at 89 degrees W.L., 81 degrees W.L., and 78 degrees W.L.‘ Construction of the satellite to be located at 89 degrees W.L. was to commence by May 1998 and was to be completed by April 2002. Launch was to be accomplished by May 2002. In the four interrelated applications captioned above, Loral seeks to modify the licenses of two hybrid C— and Ku—band satellites. Specifically, it proposes to add a limited—capability Ka— band communications payload to a new hybrid C— and Ku—band satellite it calls Telstar—8 that it proposes to launch to 89 degrees W.L., instead of 77 degrees W.L. The proposed Ka—band payload would use half of Loral‘s authorized Ka—band spectrum at 89 degrees W.L., channeled through four narrow downlink spot beams® to provide coverage over only four metropolitan In Re Orion Nerwork Systems, Inc., Application for Authority to Construct, Launch, and Operate a Ka—Band Sarellite System in the Fixed—Satellite Service, Order and Authorization, 12 FCC Red. 23027, 23036 (1997) ("Orion Order and Authorization"). M Onon Order and Authorization at 23037. See Loral Orion, Inc., Application for Modification ofSpace Starion Authorization, File No. SAT—MOD—19991101—00108, at Appendix A, Figure 7—9, p. A—42. ("Loral Orion, File No. SAT—MOD—19991101—00108".) 2

10/04/01 1§:56 FAX 703 414 1075 LORAL 41006 areas, leaving most of the country unserved. In companison, the satellite licensed by the Commission in May 1997 was to provide full coverage of the contiguous 48 states (~CONUS") through 25 fixed and two steerable spot beams." PCG is vitally interested in this matter because it filed a Letter of Intent ("LOT") in the second Ka—band processing round which commenced in December 1997. PCG‘s LOI specifically requested the 89 degree W.L. location because it had submitted a request for coordination to the Interpational Telecommunication Union ("ITU") for this location thréugh the Administration of the United Kingdom in advance of any similar filing by the Administration of the United States or any licensing decision by the FCC.‘ PCG, in its LOI, proposed to launch an advanced broadband, Ka—band satellite system providing full CONUS coverage within the technical parameters established by the FCC for such systems, including full frequency reuse. ~* 1. LORAL‘S PROPOSED KA—BAND MODIFICATIONS WOULD VIOLATE ITS LICENSE CONDITIONS AND COMMISSION POLICIES Loral‘s modification requests demonstrate that it has already violated certain conditions of its Ka—band license and proposes to violate others. Moreover, its proposed modifications would violate Commission policies specific to Ka—band and general policies concerning usage of fixed—satellite service radio frequencies, especially by hybrid satellites. Finally, the public Orion Order and Authorization at 23028. Pacific Century Group, Inc., Letter ofIntent as a Foreign Satellite Operataor to Provide Fixed Satellite Services in the Ka—band to the United States, File Nos. SAT—LOI— 19971222—00217 and SAT—LOI—19971222—00218. PCG also requested 82 degrees W.L., where it had previously filed a request for coordination with the ITU. PCG‘s requests for coordination were submitted to the ITU in August 1995 and published in April 1997. The U.S. and U.K. Administrations held a coordination meeting in October 1999 at which it was concluded that PCG and Loral could not provide co—frequency, co—coverage from the 89 degree W.L. location.

10/04/01 16:56 FAX 703 414 1075 LORAL ¥oo7 interest would hardly be served by permitting such a parsimonious deployment of broadband Ka— band capacity to serve just a fraction of the country‘s population and landmass. A. Loral Missed Its Construction Milestone and Its Licease Should Be Declared Null and Void Loral‘s proposal provides evidence that in fact it missed its May 1998 construction commencement milestone for its 89 degrees W.L. Ka—band satellite.© Loral‘s multiple filings make no mention of the satellite that was supposed to be under a non—contingent contract with a satellite rnsu'n.u‘fact.urer.7 In fact, the only satellites that are mentioned by Loral in its voluminous filings are the C— and Ku—band hybrids identified as the operational Telstar—4 and under construction Telstar—8, to which Loral proposes to add a few Ka—band transponders and antennas. What happened to Orion F7? The present modification request for Telstar—8" appears to be Loral‘s first serious plan to launch Ka—ban capacity to 89 degrees W.L. If in fact Loral has not proceeded with construction of a Ka—band satellite to occupy 89 degrees W.L., then it has violated the terms of its license and its authorization should be declared null and void by the Commission by the very terms of that authorization." B. Loral‘s Proposal Violates Key Tenets of the Commission‘s Ka—Band Policies Loral tries to justify its proposal only to launch limited Ka—band capacity to 89 degrees W.L. by claiming that its modification would fulfill the stated objective of the Commission‘s Ka— ° Loral‘s annual reports on the progress of construction of this satellite, submnitted under Sec. 25.145(g), are missing from the FCC‘s public reference room and could not be reviewed. See. eg., In Re Norris Satellite Communications, Inc. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Red. 22299, 22303 (1997). 8 Loral Qrion, File No. SAT—MOD—19991101—00108. Orion Order and Authorization at 23037.

10/04/01 16:56 FAX 703 414 1075 LUKRAL 1g] 008 band policies enunciated in the 28 GHz Third Report and Order ° to stimulate economic growth and the development of enhanced communications infrastructures and services."‘ Loral‘s arguments not withstanding, its modification proposal falls far short of the conditions laid down for Ka—band fixed satellite licensees in the 28 GHz Third Report and Order. Those requirements include completion of milestones‘* and use of state—of—the—art spotbeam and polarization techniques to obtain maximum use of the available frequencies —— a policy Loral advocated. 13 Instead. Loral now proposes to miss its launch milestone, having apparently missed its construction commencement milestone. Further, the partial Ka—band payload it proposes to mount on Telstar—8 could hardly be called "state—of—the—art", likely to stimulate the economic development and technological innovation or to be a "major step in achieving a seamless information infrastructure", as sought by the Commission. ‘ — Rather, Loral‘s proposal represents the kind of expenmental approach that NASA‘s Advanced Communications Technology Satellite ("ACTS") program has already accomplished."" Moreover, through their applications and participation in the 28 GHz docket and related proceedings, Loral and the other first round Ka—band applicants provided assurances to the Commission that the experimental period with Ka—band satellite technology was past and In Re 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, to Establish Rules and Policiesfor Local Multipoint Distribution Service andfor Fixed Satellite Service, Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Red. 22310 (1997), ("28 GHz Third Report and Order"). 4 Loral Orion, File No. SAT—MOD—19971101—00108 at 4, quoting the 28 GHz Third Report and Order at 22312. 12 28 GHz Third Report and Order at 223 18. 18 Td. at 22320—22322. 14 Id. at 22312. 15 1d.

10/04/01 16:56 FAX 703 414 1075 L LORAL ¥oog that the applicants were prepared to move to full commercialization.‘" So assured, the Commission made it quite clear in the 28 GHz Report and Order that it expected licensees to make full use of the new bandwidth it was opening up for commercialization. Loral seeks to convince the Commission that it would satisfy the Commission‘s Ka—band policies and the terms of its authorization by playing an orbital "shell game" and burying it under a blizzard of duplicative modification requests. However, Loral cannot hide the fact that even by its own generous estimate the modified Ka—band payload would only make use of 50 percent of the bandwidth it was originally licensed to use. Moreover, it makes no projections as to when it would use the rest of its Ka—band authorization at 89 degrees W.L., except to say that "future Ka— band payloads would provide additional beams and frequency bands to maximize use of the available bandwidth.""" If these additional payloads are ever launched, it certainly will be long— past Loral‘s launch milestone. In addition, tl;e proposed modified coverage pattern would leave most of the CONUS landmass and a significant portion of the country‘s population unserved by broadband fixed satellite service from an orbital location ideally suited to serve all of CONUS. C. Loral‘s Proposal Violates the Commission‘s Hybrid Sateilite Policies While Loral points to the Commission‘s previous support for hybrid satellites as economical alternatives and the FCC‘s efforts to accommodate their use‘ ", it studiously ignores the requirements the Commussion has placed on any licensee planning to launch a hybrid satellite. That policy states clearly that hybrid satellites must use state—of—the—art—technology to obtain full frequency reuse in each of the bands it intends to use. Put another way, a hybrid satellite has the same spectrum efficiency requirements as would single—band satellites operating 16 Id. at 22312—22316. 17 Loral Orion, File No. SAT—MOD—19971101—00108 at 3. 18 1d. at 4.

10/04/01 16:56 FAX 703 414 1075 _ LORAL o0 in the same frequency bands. The Commission instituted this requirement at a point very similar to the present one, when use of a new frequency band —— Ku—band —— was being pioneered. A number of satellites had already been launched or authorized carrying full C—band payloads, but only partial Ku—band payloads. Skyrocketing demand for satellite services forced the Commission to institute uniform two—degree spacing for all fixed—service satellites. In that context, the FCC recognized that it could no longer pernit inefficient use of one or another frequency band on a hybrid satellite. The Commussion therefore instituted a full frequency reuse policy for hybrid satellites, as it had for single—band spacecraft.‘" Loral does not even attempt to justify or request a waiver of this longstanding requirement. In fact, there can be no justification for waiving this requirement, because the circumstances which drove the Commission to impose it 17 years ago have not changed. ~~ Demand for satellite services continues to be high and this fact encouraged the Commission to open up the Ka—band for commercial satellite service."" In doing so, the Commission did not waive its rules requiring full frequency reuse and in fact it reiterated them, requiring Ka—band licensees to use spotbeams and either of two forms of cross—polarization to obtain maximum frequency reuse. The Commission should not now abandon its full frequency reuse requirements for bybrid satellites, no matter what bands they would operate in. Demand for satellite services and radio frequency spectrum is far too high for the FCC to sanction less than efficient use of such scarce resources. In Re Licensing ofSpace Stations in the Domestic Fixed—Satellite Service, Report and Order 54 Rad. Reg. (P&F) 577 (1983), recon. FCC $4—487 (rel. Jan. 9, 1985.). "The band (Kae—band) will serve as an expansion alternative to the crowded C— and Ku— bands for traditional fixed—satellite service." 28 GHz Third Report and Order at 223 12. 7

10/04/01 16:56 FAX 703 414 1075 20L LORAL F011 , D. The Public Interest Would Not Be Served By Granting Loral‘s Ka—band a Modification Request Loral‘s proposed modification would deny the full benefits the Commission justifiably anticipated when it authorized the commercial implementation of Ka—band fixed satellite services. The Commission anticipated that advanced, broadband satellite services would be made available to large segments of the American public when it authorized Loral and other first round licensees to launch their proposed state—of—the—art, Ka—band satellite systems. What Loral now proposes to do is bring such services only to a limited segment of the American population, most notably those living in selected major urban concentrations who already ha'..'e access to a wide variety of broadband information services. Loral‘s proposal does nothing to serve those outside of the four spotbheam areas who in many cases have few if any options for advanced, broadband communications. As the Commission has long recognized, satellites, in companson | } with other communications technologies, have the capability to provide the same communications services at the same price to people wherever they are located across the broad expanse of the United States. This is one of the key reasons the Commission has encouraged the development of satellite services for the American public since jche early 1970s. * Loral‘s proposed modification would seek to dole out the most advanced satellite communications services available to a lucky percentage of the American public, while leaving sterile valuable orbit and spectrum resources. These same resources would be better used to blanket the nation with the advanced communications services the American public has come to demand in this new, information—driven millenium. *21 The U.S. Congress has also recently shown great interest in making certain that advanced satellite communications services are made available to rural as well as urban populations

10/04/01 16:57 FAX 703 414 1075 LORAL @o12 IIL CONCLUSION Acceptance of Loral‘s proposed modification to its Ka—band authorization for 89 degrees W.L. would vitiate longstanding Commission policies requiring full frequency reuse* by all fixed satellite service systems, and the very specific milestone and frequency reuse requirements it placed on first round Ka—band licensees. In addition, acceptance of Loral‘s proposal would overturm without justification the Commission‘s 17—year old policy requiring hybrid satellites to make full frequency reuse of every band accessed. In an era when more and more satellites are being launched or proposed with multiple payloads operating at some combination of C—, Ku—, Ka— and even perhaps V—bands, such a decision would set an unfortunate precedent. Such a decision would make it difficult for the Commission to deny similar relief to other licensees, opening the way for widespread inefficient use of dwindling orbit and spectrum resources. Loral‘s proposal is especially egregious because it flies in the face of the situation it knows exists with regard to the second Ka—band processing round. An informal working group of second—round applicants, including Loral, have been attempting to develop a mutually acceptable orbital deployment plan for CONUS and other parts of the global geostationary orbital are for more than a year. However, the working group has been stymied by a shortage of orbital locations, especially over CONUS. Loral‘s proposal to modify its first round license and not to make full use of the available resource offends the second—round process to which it is a party. Acceptance by the Commission of Loral‘s proposal would also set an extremely poor example for other ITU Administrations with which it seeks to coordinate U.S. satellite systems. How could it justify permitting one of its licensees to make inefficient use of radio frequency through its passage of the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act of 1999.

10/04/01 16:57 FAX 703 414 1075 LORAL o13 spectrum at an orbit location at which another Administration has made a prior request for coordination? PCG stands ready to launch a system that would make full use of the Ka—band resources at 89 degrees W.L. to provide advanced information and communications services available to the American public. The Commission should deny Loral‘s modifications as they pertain to the deployment of Ka—band capacity at 89 degrees W.L. and should declare its Ka—band authorization for that location null and void. It is obvious that Loral has no intention of fulfilling the temns of its license, at least as far as this location is concerned. Respectfully submitted, PACIFIC CENTURY GROUP, INC. iaur@=~ Tara K. GI Coudert Brothers 1627 I Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Its Attorneys Date: January 24, 2000 22 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(e) (1999). 10

10/04/01 16:57 FAX 703 414 1075 _ LORAL g 014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Christine L. Zepka, hereby certify that on this 24"" day of January 2000, a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Petition to Deny" was hand delivered to the following panties: Thomas S. Tyoez Stephen R. Bell Chief, Satellite and Radiocommunications Jennifer D. McCarthy Division, International Bureau Willkie Farr & Galagher Federal Communications Commission 1155 21" Street, NW. 445 12th Street, S.W. 6th Floor West Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20036 Counsel for Loral Space & Communications Femn Jarmulnek . Ltd. Chief. Satellite Policy Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW. 6th Floor West Washington, D.C. 20554 Jennifer Gilsenan 1 Satellite Policy Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 443 12th Street, S.W. 6th Floor West Washington, D.C. 20554 Julia Garcia Satellite Engineering Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. 6th Floor West Washington, D.C. 20554 Alyssa Roberts International Bureau 395 12¢ Suesn 5.w AL 4 7D Federal Communications Commission. Washington, DC 20554 Christine L. Zepka \


Document Created: 2016-11-03 18:25:27
Document Modified: 2016-11-03 18:25:27
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC