Attachment Joint Response

Joint Response

RESPONSE TO REPLY COMMENTS submitted by VIASAT, INC.

Joint Response

2005-03-25

This document pretains to SES-ASG-20041223-01882 for Assignment on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESASG2004122301882_425294

STEPTO E &JoH N s o N LLP A T T O R N E Y S AT LAW Pantelis Michalopoulos 1330 Connecticut Avenue. NW 202.429.6494 pmichaloQsteptoe.com RECEIVED Washington, DC 20036-1795 Tel 202.429.3000 Fax 202.429.3902 MAR 2 5 2005 steptoe.com March 25,2005 BY HAND DELIVERY Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission The Portals 455 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Application of Hughes Network Systems, Inc., Assignor and HNS License Sub, LLC, Assignee, Consolidated Application for Consent to Assignment of Earth Station Licenses and Associated Special Temporary Authority; IB File Nos. SES-ASG-20041223-01892, SES- ASG-2004 1223-01893, SES-ASG-20041223-01882 Dear Ms. Dortch: On behalf of ViaSat, Inc. (“Viasat”), this letter responds to the Joint Response to Comments of ViaSat, Inc. submitted by Hughes Network Systems, Inc. (“I3W 7) and SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (“SkyTerra”) on March 22, 2005 (“Joint Response”). HNS and SkyTerra claim incorrectly that the ViaSat Comments are defective because they do not include an affidavit. I The Commission’s precedent, however, makes clear that an affidavit is not required where the Commission may take official notice of the facts asserted.2 ViaSat’s Comments refer I See Joint Response at 3. See, e.g., See Joint Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement between Culoosa Television Corp. and Fort Meyers Broadcasting Co., 19 FCC Rcd 19556, at pp. * lo-* 1 1 (Media Bureau, 2004) (“Here FMBC’s petition is based on Commission records and precedent, of which we may take official notice.”) and In the Mutter of the Application of Mobex Network Services, LLC for Modification of the Licenses for Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Cull Sign WHV733, 18 FCC Rcd 12305, n. 16 (Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 2003) (“Mobex also argues that Havens failed to comply with the 47 C.F.R. 3 1.939(d) requirement that (Continued . . .) WASHINGTON N E W YORK PHOENIX LOS ANGELES LONDON BRUSSELS

Marlene H. Dortch S T E P T O&EJ O H N S O N L L P March 25,2005 Page 2 to information that HNS and SkyTerra themselves provided in the applications regarding ownership interests, and to factual market information with which the Commission is at least generally familiar already. This is the type of information of which the Commission may take official notice, and thus no affidavit is necessary. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, ViaSat is hereby submitting a signed declaration from Keven Lippert, Associate General Counsel of ViaSat, on the factual accuracy of its Comments, and requests that the Commission associate the Declaration with its Comments. Finally, even if this were a true defect, HNS and SkyTerra are wrong that summary dismissal would be appr~priate.~ Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions about the foregoing. Respectfully submitted, Keven Lippert Associate General Counsel Mark F. Horning ViaSat, Inc. John D. Clopper 6 155 El Camino Real Steptoe & Johnson LLP Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 699 1330 Connecticut Ave., N.W (760) 476-2214 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429-3000 Counsel for ViaSat, Inc. Enclosures allegations of fact in a petition to deny be supported by an affidavit. No affidavit is needed in this case, however, because all of the operative facts -- largely regarding what Mobex filed in 2000 and 2002 -- are of the type for which we can take official notice.”) The cases the applicants cite in support of this claim are completely inapplicable because they apply rules that unlike 47 C.F.R. 0 25.154 do not provide that the Commission will treat filings that do not meet all applicable procedural requirements as informal objections. See Application of KGET (Tv), Inc. for Renewal of License of Station KGET (Tv), Bakersfield, California, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 4168, at 7 3 (1996). The dismissal of a petitioner in this cases was based on the 1996 version of 47 C.F.R. 0 73.3584(d), which did not have a provision for informal objections. The applicants also cite Claircom Communications Group, L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7258, at 7 2 (MSD 1993). Again the dismissal in this case was based on the 1993 version of 47 C.F.R. tj 22.30, which did not have a provision of informal objections. By contrast, Section 25.154(b) states that the “Commission classify as informal objections: . .. [alny pleading not filed in accordance paragraph (a) of this section [filing requirements for petitions to deny, petitions for other relief or comments].~’

Marlene H. Dortch March 25,2005 Page 3 cc: Thomas S. Tycz Jeanette Spriggs John P. Janka Tom W. Davidson

Declaration of Keven Lippert I, Keven Lippert, Associate General Counsel of ViaSat, Inc., hereby declare under the penalty of perjury that I have read the Comments of ViaSat, Inc. submitted on March 16,2005 and the representations,information, and facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Keven Lippert Associate General Counsel ViaSat, Inc. March 25,2005


Document Created: 2005-03-30 11:20:50
Document Modified: 2005-03-30 11:20:50
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC