Attachment reply

reply

REPLY submitted by Republic of Colombia; The Andean Community

reply

2008-04-07

This document pretains to SAT-PPL-20071113-00159 for Permitted List on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATPPL2007111300159_714553

RECEIVERp EGG, |o ,, ,geotticade Colomeia Ministerio de Comunicaciones | APR _7 2008 Lbertod y Orden Federal Communications Commission Bureau / Office Bogota D.C., The Honorable Kevin J. Martin Chairman FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, FCC 445 12th Street SW Washington D.C. 20554 United States of America Reference: In the Matter of STAR ONE S.A., Petition for Declaratory Ruling for Inclusion of Star One C5 on the Permitted Space Station List, File No. SAT—PPL—20071113—00159 REPLY In this proceeding, the Andean Community‘ has made a simple request: that the grant of Star One S.A.‘s petition to add the Star One CS satellite to the Permitted Space Station List (the "Permitted List")" be conformed to the Commission‘s stated policies in order to avoid any potential confusion in the future. That grant already includes a condition requiring that Star One CS operate in compliance with coordination agreements reached between its licensing administration (Brazil) and other administrations. But the Commussion has previously made clear that, absent proof of coordination with another administration that enjoys superior ITU priority, "the lower priority satellite would be required to cease service to the U.S. market immediately upon launch and operation of the higher priority satellite, or be subject to further conditions designed to address potential harmful interference to a satellite with ITU precedence."" The Andean Community requests only that this additional fact be reflected in the entry for Star One C5 on the Permitted List so that all parties — including operators and users ‘_The Administration of Colombia, acting as the Notifying Administration before the ITU of the Andean Satellites Association (which belongs to the Andean Community of Nations, including Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, collectively referred to herein as the "Andean Community"), and on behalf of the administrations of the Andean Community, filed a Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration (the "Request") in this proceeding. * See FCCFile No. SAT—PPL—20071113—00159; Public Notice, Rep. No. SAT—00502, DA 08—394 (Feb 15, 2008) (noting grant ofpetition}. \ Amendment of the Commission‘s Space 8t ation Licensing Rules and Policies, 18 FCC Red. 10760, $ 296 (2003) ("Space Station Reform Order").

Ministerio de Comunicaciones Republica de Colombia Libestad y Orden of U.S. earth stations — will have a clear understanding of the potential implications of international coordination. Not including this condition in Star One‘s entry on the FCC‘s Permitted List will not change the consequences of failing to coordinate, but it will make those consequences less transparent to the public at large. In its Opposition," Star One does not dispute the Andean Community‘s recitation of Commission policy quoted from the Space Station Reform Order. Nor should Star One be surprised by that policy, as it is simply a reflection of the international satellite coordination process administered by the ITU. Indeed, it is hard to understand Star One‘s assertion that simply recognizing well—established Commission and ITU policy in the Star One CS grant would be "extremely prejudicial"" when the grant would be subject to that same policy even if that policy is not explicitly included among the conditions. Unable to dispute the underlying policy, Star One makes two other arguments in opposition to the Request. First, it asserts that the Request is procedurally defective due to lack of participation in the original proceeding. But as explained in the Request, given both the Commuission‘s stated policy and its knowledge of the Andean Community‘s coordination priority at the adjacent orbital location, there was every reason to believe that the Commission would include in the grant a more explicit discussion of coordination implications, as it had done in prior Permitted List grants.° Moreover, until the grant was released, the Andean Community had no reason to seek a clarification of what it expected to be a very clearly conditioned grant. Second, Star One argues that the conditions proposed in the Request are premature because the Andean Community may not actually launch a satellite with higher priority in the future‘ The Andean Community strongly disagrees with Star One‘s characterization of the facts, and believes that the record shows that it has expended extraordinary efforts with respect to the 67° W.L. orbital location. However, it need not engage in that debate for the simple reason that Star One‘s argument is totally irrelevant. The Commission‘s stated policy is that, although a satellite network with lower ITU priority may initially provide service into the U.S., it must "cease service to the U.S. market immediately upon launch and operation of the higher priority satellite."" This principle, which echoes the ITU satellite coordination regime, already applies to the Star One CS grant regardless of its speculation as to the 5 Opposition to Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, for Reconsideration (filed Mar. 26, 2008) ("Opposition"). * Opposition at 3. ° See Request at 2—3 (citing Loral SpaceCom Corp., 18 FCC Red. 16374, 4 31(b)—(d) (Intl Bur. 2003) ("Loral SpaceCom")). Star One argues that the more complete set of conditions discussing coordination issues "has generally been imposed only when a party claiming superior ITU priority has actually filed timely comments." Opposition at 2 n.5. Yet in none ofthe previous cases where such conditions were not included had the Commission alreadyfully familiar with the higher priority system from prior dealings on several occasions including a prior instance of conditioning an authorization in recognition of its superior ITU priority. See Request at 2 ‘ Opposition at 3—5. ® Space Station Reform Order. § 296

Ministerio de Comunicaciones Republica de Colombia Libertad Orden course ofrfuture events at adjacent orbital locations. If the Andean Community or another administration launches a satellite with superior ITU priority, the policy will be applied. It is not "premature" to recognize that fact in the grant simply because future satellite launches are always subject to some degree of uncertainty. To the contrary, U.S. earth station operators and U.S. users would receive only belated notice if the Commission accepts Star One‘s apparent preference for hiding this fact until such time as a satellite with superior ITU priority is actually launched to an adjacent orbital location. Clarifying the grant by including conditions more fully spelling out the potential consequences of international coordination does not materially change Star One‘s grant. However, omission of such conditions would leave the grant materially less informative to the U.S. earth station operators and U.S. users whose knowledge of Star One‘s rights are likely to depend upon the public description of the Star One CS grant in the Permitted List." Thus, while omission might serve Star One‘s commercial interest in obscuring its coordination status, inclusion of the requested clarification would serve the public interest which is the rightful concern of the Commission. Accordingly, the Andean Community requests that the Bureau expeditiously issue an order clarifying the conditions applicable to Star One‘s entry on the Permitted List as set forth in the Request. Sincerely, \ Joaquin Restrgpo Interrfational Affairs Advisor Ministry of Communications Republic of Colombia ° See, eg., Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Regulatory Policies to Allow Non—U.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic and International Sateilite Service in the United States, Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Red. 7207,%} 18 (1999) ("To ensure that parties are aware of. and are observing these conditions, we will also list them as a condition of access for that particular satellite on the Permitted Space Station list.").

Ministerio de Comunicaciones Republica de Colombia “gf CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Libertad y Orden I hereby certify that on this 7th day of April, 2008, a copy of the foregoing Reply was served by first class U.S. mail upon: Alfred Mamlet Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036—1795 United States of America Helen Domenici Chief, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12"" Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 United States of America Ambassador David Gross Coordinator for International Communication and Information Policy Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street, NW., Room 6333 Washington, DC 20520—5820 United States of America Dr. Freddy Ehlers Zurita* Secretary General Andean Community of Nations Av. Paseo de la Republica 3895, San Isidro Lima — Peru Maria del Rosario Guerra®* Minister of Communications Ministry of Communications Calle 13 X Cra 8a, Ed. Murillo toro, Piso 4 Bogota D.C., Colombia * Sent by Federal Express 7# wee. JoaquityRestrgpo International Affairs Advisor Ministry of Communications Republic of Colombia


Document Created: 2019-04-25 14:09:11
Document Modified: 2019-04-25 14:09:11
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC