Attachment petition

petition

PETITION TO DENY submitted by National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative

petition

2004-11-22

This document pretains to SAT-STA-20041012-00198 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATSTA2004101200198_409011

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS C 4 Washington, D.CCW 24(1ISSIONRECEIVED NOV 2 2 2004 ) redenl ConmirieatonComnlasion Offes o Secray Application of ) ) SES Avericont,INc. ) File No. SAT—STA—20041012—00198 ) For Special Temporary Authority to Operate ) the AMC—15 Satelliteat 113° W.L. and 117° W.L.. ) $tzrnmmamtoetmemmmmad PETITION To Di ByTHE NATIONAL RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COOPERATIVE In response to a request by EchoStar Satellite LLC (‘BchoSter‘), SES Americom, Inc. ("SES") seeks special temporary authority ("STA") for short—term operations of AMC—15 at the 117° W.L and 113° W.L. orbital locations while the satellite travels to its final, licensed destination at 105° W.L. The satellite will remain at 117° W.L and 113° W.L. for 60 days at each location, before final positioning at 105° W.L.." Since the STA is nothing more than a vehicle for EchoStar to warchouse the 117° W.L and 113° W.L slots, the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) opposes it" ! FCC Fie No. SAT—STA—20041012—00108,p 2 (SES dpolication] "NRTC i a not—for—profit coopertive comprised of 736 ul eletric coopertives, 147 rral elephone cooperatives and 203 independentrual elephone companies located throughout 48 Sttes, Sinceis foundingin 1986, NRTC‘s mission has beento provideadvanced echnologies and telecommunicatons serviees o rwal Amerca. Last year, NRTC joined LibertySatelfte, LLC and Intelst USA Sles Coortion in imesting $156 milion (NRTC iselfnvested 529 milionin WildBlue Communicatons, Inc. (WildBMuc). WikdBlue is expected to begin offeringthefistvible Ka—band satliteservice in 2005, using technology designed tolowerthe cost of providing consumers thoughout the countrywithhigh— apeedItemetaccess via stelte. NRTC‘s plansalso include offering high speod Intemet ervice bundled withvideo on a singlsateltedish

EchoStar is the second largest holder ofKa—band spectrum in the U.S." Only recently did EchoStar become the licensee at 113° W.L., having obtained that authorization after VisionStar, a company controlled by EchoStar, lost it for failure to meet the Commission‘s construction requirements—* EchoStar does not hold the license for 117° W.L. but has applied to relocate ts license from 123° W.L. to 117° W.L." The Interational Telecommunications Union‘s (‘TU®) "bring into use" ("BIU") dates for both orbital locations (117° W.L. and 113° W.L. are fast approaching, yet EchoStar has made no discernable effort to satisty them." Through the STA, EchoStar apparently seeks to meet the ITU/BIU requirements and buy an extra two years during which it may or may not initiate regular operations at * A search ofthe Commision‘sImertional Bureau FiingSystem (IBFS®)websitindictestht EEchoStaris the second lagestholdeof Ka—band spectrum resources belind Rainbow DBS Compuny, LLC. EchoStar carently hlds authorizations fr the 123¢ WL, 121° WL, 13° Wand 97° WL orbial locations. See Advanced IBFS Search,< hts/svanifoss2fee govicei= binjesexeiprod/b/forms/eportsns030b hisser= > (viited November 18, 200# * Memorandam Opinion and Order, isionStarIcorporated. Applicationfor Modcation ofAuthority to Constrct Launch and Operatea Ka—band Satlite System in the FizedSateiteService, 19 FCC Red 14820 (InI Bur 2004)(FiionStar Order). n canclingVisonSar‘s leense, he Commissin lt wnresolved VisionStar‘scharicterqualiieations, specifiall VisionSar‘s failreto notfy the Commission ofmaterial changes to ts ense untthe eve ots constrction completion deadlic, The Commission determined that VisionStar‘s stated excuse for needingan extension did not ‘comport withthereality ofthe sitition."VisonSter Order,419. Although finding that VisionStar‘saction"vilarefd)thunderlying parpose" of th authorzation‘s conditonhe Comnisson concluded tat (djeclaring VisionSur‘s autharizaion mull nd voidfor fulareto meet ts construction completion milestoneremovesthe necessty of king any frther action foVisionSar‘s ailur o comply with the notifation provisions on which ts trnsferofcontrl was conditoned." Visnter Order, 119. See also, FCC File No. SAT—LOA— 20040803—00154 (RehoSter Aplicaron) "rCe rile No. SAT—MOD—20041008.00195 * SS Applicationp. 2. As defined the TU‘srules"{Uhdato bringing into use denotes the dateat whichthe fequencyasignmentisbroughtintreularoperationtoprovide thepublished radiacommunication servie with thtechnical prameters withi hetechnicl characteitcsnotifed o the Bureau" TTU Radio Regs. App.4, Annex 2A,at A.2. The BIV dates forthe 113" W.L. and 17" WJL locationare May and July 2008, espectively. The priorty that he United Stescurrentyenjoys forKa— band aperations at thee locations will expire ifnobrought ito use by thesedates Se0, e , ixonSiar, 19 BCC Red. at 14823 (dscussing 113W.L. BIU datePegass Development Corp, 16 FCC Red. 14278, 14385 n1 (nc! Bur. 2001) (iscussing 117° WL BIU date); GE American Communicarions fc, 16 BCC Red. 11038, 110#2—43 (ln! Bur 2001)

either or both of these slots." As a result of this orbitalseight of hand, SES‘s AMC 15 satellite would serve as a temporary placcholder presumably for the sole purpose of meeting ITU requirements and enabling EchoStar to preserve the spectrum while blocking other interested applicants. SES raises only two public policy arguments in support ofits STA:that grant would permit the use ofAMC—15 n response to customer requirements,"and that it would promote the "efficient use of orbital resources."" With respect to the former, NRTC could find no Commission precedent whereby "customer requirements" standing alone satisfied the Commission‘s public interest mandate. Instead of serving the public interest, SES is simply doing its best to meet EchoStar‘s private need to comply with intemational regulatory requirements. Rather than promoting the efficient use of orbital resources, the STA would accomplish the exact opposite.. EchoStaris using SES‘s AMC 15 satellite as a vehicle to warehouse this spectrum. There is no evidence to indicate that EchoStar has undertaken any serious construction efforts of its own at either 117° W.L or 113° W.L.. It apparently secks to use the SES satellte solely as a regulatory placeholder, to preserve " Onee an orbtallocationhas been brough nto use, hat use may be suspended forup to two years— but f theslo remains vacant afertht perid, TU date prionty is lot, TTU Radio Regs. S149; TU Radio Reg. Bd. RulesofProcedur S11.49(1.1}. This provsion ordinry comes mto play in the event of an in— enbt steie fulure. By operating temporaily atth two slts Heensed to EchaStar, however, SES will buy anothertwo yearsfor RchoSta o consider ts optios without osingiterational proniy. ¥etthere is no reason —— based on EchoStar‘s lack ofprogres o date— to conclude tht EchoBtar will actally constrict and lnch two Ka—band satlites ntothese orbitl focations within te two—yeartme frame * SEApplication,p. 1 * During the HstonStar procecding, NRTC determine that EchoStar had spent palty S4.6 millionon is VisionSta icene for 113° W.L. though December 31,2001. See Pettion to Deny by the NRTC, /n The MateofVitonSter ncorporated Applicaion For ModifcatonofAuthoriy to Construct Lounch And Operate a Ka—hand Satelite System in The Pied SatelteSrvic, SAT—MOD—20020430—00075,. Despie mumerous opportunites, EchoStaroffred norebutal to suggestthat ts eforts went beyond what was previouly identfedby NRTC

both slots for future use. Hoarding spectrum for the benefit ofa single licensee hardly promotes the efficient use of searce orbital resources The situation regarding the 113° W.L. license is particularly ironic: VisionStar (a company controlled by EchoStar) lost the license for thatslot because it failed to comply with the Commission‘s construction requirements."" The same day that VisionStar lost the license, EchoStar filed a new application to get it back."" Now, EchoStar plans to skirt the construction requirements again by having SES‘s satellite visit 113° W.L. for 60 days on its way to another slot. EchoStar stll has not provided any indication that it has made any significant progress in actually constructing, launching and operating a satellite at this location: EchoStar‘s "license" for 117° W.L is in no better shape. In fact, EchoStar does not even hold a license for that location. Rather, it seeks to relocate itslicense from 123° W.L. to 117° W.L.."* Like 13° W.L., however, EchoStar apparently has made no progress in constructing, launching and operating a satellte at 123° W.L..—— or 117° W.L. —— and plans to satisfy its ITU BIU requirements at 117° W.L. through yet another SES "Ayby." 1t is possible that different circumstances would warrant a different result. For example, when a liensee has made substantial progress in constructing a satellte for use at a particular orbitallocation only to be stymied by events beyond its control, the Commission should consider allowing temporary placement of another satelliteatthat " Visiontar Order11 "*PCC File No. SAT—LOA—2004080—00154; Publc Notic, SAT—00250 Report No , DA No. 043268 (refased October 15, 2004) ® roo rile No. sa—mon—20041008—00196

location when necessary to satisfy the ITU/BIU requirements."" That situation, however, is a far ery from the facts presented here. EchoStar only recently acquired these Ka—band authorizations and has done virtually nothing to satisfy any construction requirements, except arrange for SES to flyits satellite by these slots on the way toits ultimate destination. It is one thing for the Commission to grant temporary authorization to meet BIU requirements when an operator in good faith has made significant investments in its system over a prolonged period of time, only to be blocked by events beyond its control. It is quite another for the Commission to be used as a tool by a licensee secking to circumvent ITU requirements through an obvious subterfge."" The Commission should not allow its STA processes to be manipulated as a means of spectrum speculation. SES‘s STA is nothing more an attempt by SES to facilitate EchoStar‘s efforts to warchouse orbital locations. It should be DENIED 5 WildBlue preserte sucha case in its recent application for emporary authorit to use the Ka—band payload on thelatlst Americas 8 (‘1A—8") satelite athe 109 W.L.locaion. FCC File No. SAT—STA— 20040915—00179, Thatapplication—— which was not opposed —— wassubsequenty withdran. See Public Notce, DA 043579 (elNov, 12, 2004 WildBluehas invested over $350 milion and years ofeffrt into development ot Ka—band satlite syatem at 109.2" W.L. Unfotunatly, dueto eieumstances beyond its contrl — ce, he bankruptey ots stelte contrator— WildBlse may not beableto Innch its own neaty—completed WildBlue—1 satelite before is June 2005 BIU date. n that case,there was every reason to beieve that WildBlue would be n a position to bevin reular operationsatit censed orbtal loction witin months afte is BIU date (and ceraily fa n advance of two year) even though ts neat completed satlite had been tid upin the bankuptey ofits contactr. In other words, WildBlue‘s proposal—— unlike SBSEchoStar‘s —involved thshorerm preservation ofa slotforalongterm Heensee witha nearlycompleted satlliteand dclaybeyond ts conrol "* EhoSta has a long histry of questionable condactbefor the Commissio: the Comnisson described EchoStar‘s aryument t dely carrige of publcineres programmingas "disingenvous," Pattionfor Wabver f DBS Pubile IneretImplementation, 15 ECC Red 1814, 1817 (1999); the Cable Bureau admonished EchoStar forit falire to tmelydisclose thatinformation t was veating as confidentalhad been publicly disclosed hasfalngin ts "datyofcandor" o theagency, EchoStarSrelite Corp Young Broadeastng, 16 ECC Red 15070 (Cable Bur, 2001); and the Intemational Dureau jusified imposing on EchaStar the maximum allowabl in fo operting stelits from unsuthoriced orbial positions based on "the degre of misconduct, lack ofvoluntry disclosirand continuingvlition" EchoSiarStelite Cor, 13 FCC Red 16510 (InI Bur. 1998). As mentioned,the Commission aso determined that VisonStar‘s excuse foneeding an extension ofthe consructon requirements did not *comportwiththrealty othesitation." VisinSter Order, 919. Supro nd.

RespectfullySubmitted NATIONAL RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CooPERATIVE 2121 Cooperative Way, Suite 500 Herndon, VA 20171 Its Attorneys: &’M’mfl%« Stephen M. Ryan NRTC, General Counsel Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Keller and Heckman LLP One Metro Center 1001 G Street, NW 700 12th Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20001 Washington, DC 20005—4075 (202) as—a210 (202) sas—esso Dated: November 22, 2004 Attachment: Dectaration of B. RPhillips, II

Betore the repriaaL communications commssion Washlngion, .C. 2088¢ Arplation of SES Amzrcom, Inc. BieNo SAT—STA2008101200198 Por SpecialTerporan Authorty o Operae the AMC—1S Satlite t 113° W 2 and L7 W.L. ) ieeimecmcccnces & 1,8. . Philipe, K declr underpenaly of pegury under hlofhe United Soes of Ameia tat 1. am Previdentand Chief Execsnve OfMce fh National Rural Telecommnieations Coopertve (NRTC) 2. 1 am fumibiarvite theappleationefSES AMERICOM, NC for Special Temperiy Authonty io Opertethe AMC—15 Satelte a 113" W L. and 117" WL 3. 1 hav peienalknowledaeofthe asserions ofict contane in he foreping Pettonto Deryofthe NanalRural Telecommunications Cooperaive, and they re wre and corect thebext of my knowledasinformationand blet. Bxssued n _[L + 2 2. + 2004 ralipe_ Preidet and Chief Exscutve Offeer NatioNal RURAL TerEcommmications coormnarive 2121 Cooperntve Way, Sue 500 Heméon, va 20171

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22" day of November, 2004,a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to Deny by the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative in the matter of the Application of SES AMERICOM, Inc., for Special Temporary Authority to Operate the AMC—15 Satelliteat 113° W.L. and 117° W.L., File No. SAT—STA—20041012—00198, was submitted via hand delivery to the Federal Communications Commission, and served via electronic mail and First Class Mail upon the following: Served via Electronic Mail: Served via Electronic Mail: Donald Abelson Anna M. Gomez Chief, Iternational Bureau DeputyBureau Chief,International Federal Communications Commission Bureau 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Tom Tycz Cassandra Thomas Chief Deputy Chief Satellte Division, International Bureau Satellite Division, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,6th Floor 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Jennifer Gilsenan JoAnn Lucanik Deputy Division Chief Associate Division Chief Strategic Analysis and Negotiations Satellite Division, International Bureau Division Federal Communications Commission Interational Bureau 445 12" Street, S.W. Federal Communications Commission Room 6—C416 445 Twelith Street, S.W., 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554 Fem Jarmulnck Served via Hand Delivery: Deputy Chief Marlene H. Dortch, Secrefary Satellite Division, Intemational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission Office ofthe Secretary 445 Twelfth Street, S W., 6th Floor clo Natek, Inc., Inc Washington, D.C. 20554 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE. Suite 110 Rosalee Chiara Washington, DC 20002 Satellite and Radiocommunications Division, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554

Served via Electronic Mati and First Class Mail: Naney J. Eskenazi Vice President and Associate General Counsel SES AMERICOM, Inc. Four Research Way Princeton, NJ 08540 Peter A. Robrbach Karis A. Hastings HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004—1109 Counselfor SES AMERICOM, Inc.


Document Created: 2004-12-02 15:34:01
Document Modified: 2004-12-02 15:34:01
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC