Attachment request

request

REQUEST submitted by DIRECTV

request

2005-05-04

This document pretains to SAT-STA-20050321-00068 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATSTA2005032100068_432945

LMTS * sb oo smah n wsmseron.oc 206 NesP 1esez nsme00 neesenraniom wrvovensmzsmecon Cl srg amereds May 4, 2005 Re~ BV HAND DELIVERY H : MAr uo 305 reoremees eceived Thomas Tyez may in Chief, Satellite Division 0 6 2005 Interational Bureau Roley Bran: Federal Communications Commission lémationaiSureay 445 12" Street,SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: EchoStar‘s Proposed Use ofMexican BSS Slot at 77°W.L $4T—$74—20050321—00068 Dear Mr. Tyez: As you know, DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC ("DIRECTV") currently provides local—into—local programming to 25 markets in the United States from the DIRECTV 5 satellte operating pursuant to a Canadian license at the 72.5° W.L. orbital location assigned to Canada under the Region 2 Broadcast Satelite Service Plan. Recently, EchoStar Satellite LLC. ("EchoStar®) filedthe above referenced application for special temporary authority ("STA") to relocate the EchoStar 4 satelltefor operations atthe 77° W.L. orbitallocation assigned to Mexico under the Region 2 Plan. That application is currently on public notice, and comments are due on May 23." As discussed below, however, the record of this proceeding does not contain sufficient information to allow the Commission or any interested party to perform the kind of technical analysis necessary to an informed public interest determination. Accordingly, DIRECTV requests that the Commission (1) direct EchoStar to provide a technical description ofhow the EchoStar 4 satellite would operate at this slot (including 1\ See DIRECTY Entrpries LLC, 19 FCC Red. 15529 (Inl Bur. 2006)(wuthorizing elocationof DIRECTV 5 and receipt ofsignls from that Canadian orbitl loction by smallreceiv dishesin the us). See Rep. No. SAT—00286(rl. April 22, 2005)

Hamis, Wiursume & Granus uur Thomas Tyc May 4, 2008 Page 2 of4 EIRP contours over the U.S.)," and (2) allow interested parties (including DIRECTV) sufficient time to comment upon the data submitted. According to EchoStar‘s STA Application, EchoStar 4 would operate under a Mexican license issued to QuetzSat,S. de R.L. de C.V. ("QuetzSat") at 77° W.L.The satellte will not be used to provide service in the U.S., and EchoStar has not sought market access from this foreign slot.* While we therefore know what the satellte will nor be doing, EchoStar has given no indication of what it will be doing. ‘The lone indication in the STA Application is EchoStar‘s assertion that "EchoStar will operate within the parameters of the existing coordination agreements between the administrations of Mexico and Canada for the 77° W.L. orbital location and the adjacent BSS slots (72.5° W.L. and 82° W.L.), which are assigned to Canada."" But all EchoStar proposes to do with the satellite is perform TT&C during itsrelocation. The application is totally silent with respect to the manner in which QuerzSar would operate the communications payload on EchoStar 4 once it reaches 77° W.L. This is no small matter. EchoStar 4 would be positioned just 4.5¢ from DIRECTV‘s operations at 72.5° W.L. — Le., only halfthe 9° or greater spacing maintained by every DBS satellitethat serves the U.S. market. In other proceedings, DIRECTV has demonstrated the potentialfor harmful interference arising from such short—spaced operations." Indeed, EchoStar has recently raised similar concems.* There have been four recent applications involving the proposed operation ofa U;S. DBS satellite at a non—U.S. slot. In three ofthose cases — including one filed by EchoStar — technical information on the satellite‘s proposed operations was provided with the related application for market access to serve the U.8." In the fourth such case— Althoughthe Commission has requested additionaliformation rom EchoStar in this proceeding, thatinformation docs not elte t th operational data discussed hrein. See Ler from Thomns Tyeto Panels Michalopoulos (dted April 13, 2005) STA Applcation at 2 5o uis * id at3 (emphasisadded). DIRECTV would note hat here is no coordination apreement between the Canadian and Mexican adininstations with respect o the 72.5° W.L.and 77° W.L. sto. * See, eg, DIRECTV flings in SAT—PDR—20020425.—00071 * See eg, Lettr from Pantlis Michalopoulasto Marlene . DortchECC Docket No.SPB—196 (dated March 25, 2005)short spacing"rises cetin technical diffculies") * SeeSES—MFS—20050427:00499 (echnical information on proposed opertion ofDIRECTV 1 at 72.5° WL. Canadian BSS sag; SES—LFS—20050203—00132 (echnicainformation on proposed operation ofEchoStar 5 at129" W.L. Canadian BSS slod; SES—L.FS—200401 12—00023(echnical information on proposed opentions of DIRECTV 5 at 72.5° W.L. Canadian BSS stod

Hamnis, Wicrsime & Grnys tur Thomas Tyez May 4, 2008 Page3 of4 where, as here, no U.S. service was contemplated — DIRECTV did not submit technical information. However, unlike this proceeding, that case involved proposed operations at orbital positions that were atleast 10° away from any BSS slot serving the U.S..° Not surprisingly, no one in that proceeding raised any technical issues related to potential interference concerns. The proposed operations of EchoStar 4, by contrast, contemplate only 4.5° oforbital separation: Without technical information on how EchoStar 4 would operate, DIRECTV has no way of knowing what impact that satellte would have on the hundreds of thousands of subscribers who currently receive DIRECTV service from 72.5° W.L. To be sure, it is possible that there may be litle or no such impact. For example, given that no service in the U.S. is contemplated at this time, it is possible that the satellite‘s beam will be aimed primarily or even exclusively at Mexico. Or, if QueteSat plans to provide something other than a mass market service to small receive dishes, perhapsit will operate the satellite at power levels far below the maximums included in the Mexican ITU filing. If this were the case, the proposed operation of EchoStar 4 at 77° W.L.. might have minimal impact on DIRECTV‘s service from 72.5° W.L. On the other hand, QuetzSat might intend to operate EchoStar 4 in a manner that would cause the maximum possible interference to DIRECTV‘s U.S. subscribers even though there is no service to U.S customers from that satellite. Such an outcome would plainly be at odds with the public interest. The point here is not that EchoStar‘s application necessarily disserves the public interest. Rather, given the total lck of data available, there is no way for DIRECTV or any other interested party to perform the technical analysis necessary to make this determination, and therefore no way to comment meaningfully upon EchoStar‘s STA Application. More importantly, there is no way for the Commission to make a fully informed public interest determination without assessing such information. Accordingly, DIRECTV requests that the Commission (1) direct EchoStar to provide a technical description ofhow the EchoStar 4 satellite would operate at this slot (including EIRP contours over the U.S.), and (2) allow interested parties (including DIRECTV) sufficient time to comment upon the data submitted. Respectfully submitted, William M. Wiltshire Counselfor DIRECTVEnterprises, LLC ©=— See DIRECTY, Inc, 19 FCC Red. 1103$ (In] Bur, 2004)authorizing use ofDIRECTV 3 sutlite for servic to Canada from either $2° WL o 31° W.L)

Hamus, Wiursmge & Grans uie Thomas Tyez May 4, 2008 Page d of4 cc: Marlene H. Dortch, Secrctary Pantelis Michalopoulos (counsel for EchoStar)


Document Created: 2005-05-10 15:10:55
Document Modified: 2005-05-10 15:10:55
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC