Attachment opposition

opposition

OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DENY submitted by ICO

opposition

2006-06-06

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-20050926-00182 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD2005092600182_510540

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CoMMISSION RECEIVED Washington, D.C. 20554 JUN ~ 6 2006 Faderl Comnunicatos Cone In the Matter of i Oflbl:'snrmy misen New ICO Satellite Services G.P. ) File Nos. SAT—MOD—20050926—00182 ) SAT—AMD—20050927—00186 Application for Modification of Authority for ) SAT»AMDW-&??S“ Use ofthe 2 GHz Bands to Provide Mobile ) Satelite Service ) JUN 0 9 2005 Poley Intomati Eureau OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DENY Pursuant to Section 25.154(c) of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.154(c), New 1CO Satellite Services G.P. (‘ICO®) opposes the petition ("Petition") of Intelsat North America LLC ("Intelsat"), to deny the above—captioned application, as amended (*Application®),for modification of ICO‘s 2 GHz mobile satelite service(*MSS®) authorization. Intelsat‘s Petition makes three basic errors: (1) it ignores the fact that ICO has requested (and Intelsat has not opposed) authorization to use frequencies orher than C—band frequencies at the 92.85° W.L. orbital location; (2) it claims C—band coordination is impossible before the parties have even completed coordination discussions; and (3) it contends that the Commission should categorically and prematurely forbid the parties from exploring frequency coordination options because ICO "might" build a satellte in the meantime. First, the Commission can and should approve ICO‘s Application while deferring the waiver request. In its Petition, Intelsat opposes ICO‘s request for waiver of Section of25.202(@) ofthe Commission‘s rules to permit use of C—band frequencies for transfer orbit and emergency de—aszons

telemetry, tracking, and command operations ("T&C") and its request to defer action on the waiver request." Intelsat‘s Petition does not, however, object to ICO‘s request to modify its 2 GHz MSS authorization to permit operation of an MSS satellte at 92.85° W.L. in the 2 GHz MSS frequency bands and the Ka—band. Because ICO‘request to operate at 92.85° W.L. in the 2 GHz MSS frequency bands and the Ka—band is uncontested, the Commission should grant the Application while deferring the waiver request Second, Intelsat prematurely declares that C—band use cannot be coordinated when the parties have not yet completed frequency coordination. In its Application, ICO expressly contemplated that its proposed use of C—band frequencies for transfer orbit and emergency TT&C operations would be predicated upon "successful coordination" with Intelsat.® 1CO re— affirmed this intent by amending its Application to seek deferral of Commission action on the waiver request "pending completion of frequency coordination with other satellite operators."" This requestis consistent with Intelsat‘s own assertion that "until 1CO has completed coordination ofits C—band frequencies, its waiver request cannot be granted."" Consequently, untl frequency coordination with Intelsat has been completed, any conclusion that ICO‘s proposed C—band TT&C operations will cause harmful interference to Intelsat‘s 1A—6 satellite would be premature and unwwarranted. ‘ See Intelsat Petitionat 1, 4. Intelsat previously also filed an ex parte letter opposing 1CO‘s request for waiver of Section 25.202(g). See Letter from Jennifer D. Hindin, Counsel for Intelsat, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (Mar. 27, 2006) ("Intelsat Letter®). * See ICO Application, Attachment A, at 4. * 1CO Amendment to Application, at3 (May 5, 2006). * Intelsat Letter at 2. de—aszons

Finally, Intelsat and the public will suffer no harm if the Commission defers action on 1CO‘s waiver request. Although Intelsat speculates that ICO "might" proceed to build a satellite that does not comply with the Commission‘s rules, it fils to offer any evidence that ICO plans to do so or to explain how the mere possibility ofthe construction of a non—compliant satellite would harm eitheritself or the public interest.® In any event, ICO‘s satellite operations will be limited by and conducted in compliance with the terms of ts authorization, and in the absence of Commission action on ICO‘s waiver request, Intelsat‘s interests will not be affected in any way. In sum, ICO‘s waiver request is separate and discrete from the remaining uncontested issues raised in the Application, and thus can be resolved at a later time when both ICO and Intelsat have had sufficient opportunity to complete frequency coordination discussions. Commission deferral ofaction on ICO‘s waiver request would allow the Commission to provide regulatory certainty by granting the uncontested portion of the Application without prejudicing Intelsat‘s interests. 5 See Intelsat Petition at 4. As the Commission has acknowledged, "an applicant‘s decision to proceed with construction and incur expenses associated with construction would be taken at ts own risk and not predispose us to grantits future application." See Streamlining the Commission‘s Rules and Regulationsfor Satellite Application and Licensing Procedures, 11 FCC Red 21581, 4 6 (1996). doaszons

Based upon the foregoing, ICO urges the Commission to grant the Application expeditiously, except with respectto the request for waiver of Section 25.202(g), which should be deferred pending completion of frequency coordination with other satellite operators. Respectfully submitted, NEW 1CO SATELLITE SERVICES G.P. John Flyan Chery! A. Tri Executive VicePresident, General Counsel Phuong N. Pham & Corporate Secretary Morrison & Poerster LLP 1CO Global Communications (Holdings) Ltd. 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 5500 11700 Plaza America Drive, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Reston, VA 20190 Its Counsel Suzanne Hutchings Malloy Senior Regulatory Counsel 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 610 Washington, D.C. 20006 June 6, 2006 de—asaons

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Theresa Rollins,hereby certify that on June 6, 2006, a copy of the foregoing OPPOSITION was served by electronic mail or,as indicated (*),by U.S. mail upon the following: Karl Kensinger John Martin Associate Division Chicf, Satellite Division Senior Engineer, Satellte Division International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, SW 445 12" Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Email: Karl.Kensinger@fee.gov Email: John.Martin@fee.gov Steven Spacth Andrea Kelly International Bureau Chief, Policy Branch Federal Communications Commission Satellite Division 445 12" Street, SW International Bureau Washington, DC 20554 Federal Communications Commission Email: Steven.Spacth@fec.gov 445 12" Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Email: AndreaKelly@fee.gov Scott Kotler Kathryn MedJey Chief, System Analysis Branch Acting Chief, Engineering Branch Satellte Division Satellte Division International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, SW 445 12Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Email: ScottKotler@fee.gov Email: KathrynMedJey@fec.gov Kal Krautkramer Sylvia Lam International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12" Street, SW 445 12" Street,SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Email: Kal.Krautkramer@fee.gov Email: SyiviaLam@fee.gov Alyssa Roberts Jennifer D. Hindin® International Bureau Wiley, Rein & Fielding Federal Communications Commission 1776 K Street, NW 445 12" Street, SW Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20554 Counsel to Intelsat North America LLC Email: AlyssaRoberts@fee.gov Thefesa Rollins


Document Created: 2006-06-09 17:26:39
Document Modified: 2006-06-09 17:26:39
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC