Attachment E000035

This document pretains to SES-MOD-20020806-01284 for Modification on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESMOD2002080601284_288250

ORtGlNAL ARNOLD & PORTER Rosalind K. Allen Rosalind-Allen@aporter.com 202.942.5418 202.942.5999 Fax 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1206 October 24,2002 Satellite Engineering Bran& hltemawrial meal BY HAND OCT 24 2002 Marlene H. Dortch i-&&AL (yIlMMJiui~~loi~S mu :H?Q OF ‘ME $ElXET#f# Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Opposition to Petition to Deny - File No. SES-MOD-20020806-01284 E000035 Dear Ms. Dortch: On behalf of Spacenet Services License Sub, Inc. (“Spacenet”), and in accordance with Section 25.154(c) of the Commission’s Rules, please find enclosed for filing an original, four copies and a “stamp and return ” copy of Spacenet’s Opposition to PanAmSat Corporation’s (“PanAmSat”) Petition to Deny (“Petition”) the above referenced application for license modifications. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions concerning this matter. Respectfully submitted, Rosalind K. Allen Counsel for Spacenet Services License Sub, Inc. Enclosures Washington, DC New York Los Angeles Century City Denver London Northern Virginia

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 fi Wm. COMIPUN~~W COMMWN > OFFCEOFTHESECRElAAy In the Matter of 1 1 SPACENET SERVICES LICENSE SUB, INC. ) Application to Modify Earth Station Authority ) File No. SES-MOD-20020806-01284 In the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service 1 E000035 OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DENY Spacenet Services License Sub, Inc. (“Spacenet”), pursuant to Section 25.154(c) of the Commission’s Rules, opposes PanAmSat Corporation’s (“PanAmSat”) petition to deny (“Petition”) the above-referenced Spacenet application (“Application”), and requests that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) expedite grant of the proposed license modifications. PanAmSat’s Petition is procedurally defective and should be summarily dismissed because the Petition contains specific allegations of fact that are not supported by the affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, as required by Section 25.154(a)(4) of the Rules. Even assuming that PanAmSat’s Petition was not defective, PanAmSat fails to demonstrate that grant of Spacenet’s application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest. PanAmSat opposes Spacenet’s application for license modification because it contends that Spacenet’s proposed operations are “highly likely” to cause interference. In support of this argument, PanAmSat expresses, without documentation, generalized concerns that industry practices for installation of submeter antennae frequently result in pointing errors, and that Spacenet has failed to demonstrate that its proposed operations will not cause unacceptable levels of interference to satellites under conditions of uniform 2 degree orbital spacing. PanAmSat recommends that at a minimum, Spacenet must perform advance coordination with adjacent satellite operators.

Contrary to PanAmSat’s claims, Spacenet has demonstrated in the Application, and submissions associated with the underlying license grant, that Spacenet’s use of the 89 x 62 cm elliptically shaped Ku-Band antenna equivalent to a 0.75 meter circular antenna (“Antenna”) will not cause unacceptable levels of interference. Spacenet has also documented to the Commission that its installation practices for submeter antennae will ensure alignment within 0.3 degrees of the desired satellite.’ Furthermore, PanAmSat’s assertion that Spacenet must enter into fixed satellite service (“FSS”) Ku-Band earth station coordination discussions in advance of receiving a license grant has no basis in the Commission’s Rules. It appears that PanAmSat’s Petition is less interested in the merits of Spacenet’s specific application, and focuses instead on the potential to cause satellite interference of the broad proliferation of incorrectly pointed submeter dishes. That issue is squarely before the Commission in the context of IB Docket No. 00-248, and is more appropriately addressed in the context of that industry-wide rulemaking rather than through a petition to deny a specific license modification application. ACCURATE ANTENNA POINTING CAN AND IS BEING ACHIEVED PanAmSat’s Petition does not refute any aspect of the Application’s engineering analysis.2 Rather, PanAmSat contends that Spacenet will be unable to point the Antenna to an accuracy of 0.3 degrees.3 PanAmSat previously raised the VSAT antenna pointing accuracy issue with the Commission in an ex park filing dated October 22, 2001.4 On March 18, 2002, Spacenet and other key participants in the VSAT industry joined in an ex parte presentation that specifically responded to PanAmSat’s assertions regarding potential interference caused by inaccurate pointing of antennae .5 This joint VSAT industry response highlighted the fact that optimum VSAT satellite link performance and minimization of adjacent satellite interference is obtained by aligning the peak gain of the VSAT antenna toward the intended satellite using ’ See Attachment 1. At its own initiative, Spacenet has shared this information with PanAmSat in an effort to address stated concerns and ease any misconceptions. ’ Application Form 312 at 43, engineering analysis provided in previous E000035 applications has been incorporated by reference. 3 See Petition at page 3. 4 PanAmSat ex parte filing on October 22, 2001, Interference Risk Assessment For Mispointing of Earth Station Antennas, IB Docket 00-248. 5 Ex parte presentation of Spacenet Inc, StarBand Communications Inc., Hughes Network Systems and SES Americom, IB Docket 00-248, dated March 18, 2002. -2-

measurements of the cross-polarized signals from the VSAT. The off-axis gain patterns provided in previous applications proposing use of the Antenna clearly show that the Antenna can be very accurately aligned to minimize the cross-polarization signal from the VSAT, which is coincident with the co-polarization peak. As fully addressed in the March 18, 2002 ex parte presentation “As shown in the attached antenna gain pattern for the Spacenet and StarBand 89 x 62 cm antenna, the antenna cross-polarization gain performance has a steep null coincident with the co-polarization peak. During the antenna installation process, the VSAT antenna cross-polarization gain is measured and minimized to align the null with the desired satellite and polarization. This method of installing VSAT antennas sufficiently minimizes the potential for adjacent satellite interference. 6:” The dynamic range provided by the steep null of the cross-polarization off-axis gain clearly shows the Antenna can be reliably installed to PanAmSat’s suggested pointing accuracy of 0.3 degrees or better. Moreover, as Attachment 1 demonstrates, Spacenet has represented in the context of the Commission’s consideration of Spacenet’s underlying license grant that Spacenet will maintain accurate pointing for all its submeter antennae. Spacenet has demonstrated both in technical showings and in the operation of its networks the ability to use submeter antennas without causing adjacent satellite interference. Therefore, contrary to the Petition’s claims, the Commission has already found that use of the subject Antenna will not cause unacceptable levels of interference pursuant to Section 25.209(f).7 PanAmSat claims, again without documentation, that it has experienced interference from “non-standard” antennae.* PanAmSat does not, however, provide specific information about the number and type of any such incidents, nor does PanAmSat provide an engineering analysis demonstrating that such interference was caused by submeter antennae that do not comply with Section 25.209(a), (b) and (g), let alone by the specific Antenna at issue in the pending modification application. Similarly, PanAmSat fails to demonstrate that interference from 6 Id. Off-axis gain pattern on page 5. ’ See Petition at page 2. ’ See Petition at page 3. -3-

networks using “non-standard” submeter antennae generate greater levels of interference than networks using antennae compliant with Section 25.209(a), (b) and (g). Such non-specific claims of generalized interference from unspecified submeter antennae must therefore be discounted, and in any event, not resolved in a specific modification application proceeding. Potential interference is not only a problem for satellite operators. It is a problem for VSAT network providers as well. Resolution of any interference events requires action not only by the satellite operators but also by earth station operators and can be expensive for the earth station licensees to resolve. Spacenet has been in the VSAT network service business for over eleven years and is fully aware of the impact interference could have on its own and other networks and has dedicated significant resources toward interference avoidance. PANAMSAT’S COORDINATION DEMANDS ARE UNNECESSARY TO AVOID ADJACENT CHANNEL INTERFERENCE, CANNOT BE SELECTIVELY IMPOSED ON SPACENET AND ARE BEING ADDRESSED IN THE MORE APPROPRIATE CONTEXT OF AN ON-GOING RULEMAKING PROCEEDING The Petition recommends that the Commission require Spacenet to perform advance coordination with PanAmSat prior to granting the request to modify Spacenet’s license. As discussed above, prior coordination of Ku-Band earth stations with satellite operators has been generally opposed by the VSAT industry because it is unnecessary and overly burdensome. The Commission’s Rules require space station licensees to exchange among themselves general technical information concerning current and planned transmissions as needed to resolve any potential cases of unacceptable interference between their satellite systems.’ The Commission does not impose this advance coordination requirement on those leasing capacity on the satellite systems. PanAmSat cannot justify imposition of a burdensome advance coordination requirement selectively on Spacenet, and particularly not in the context of a license modification proceeding. In IB Docket No. 00-248, the Commission notes the rapid proliferation of submeter antennae, and seeks comments on a number of options for achieving routine processing of applications for blanket licensing of submeter antennae, while ensuring that satellite station 9 47 C.F.R. 6 25.273(c). -4-

From-SPACENET INC, 7038481104 T-120 P.O2/02 F-355 10-24-02 02:57pm licensees are protected from harmful interference”. That is the proper forum for PanAmSat to identify and provide factual support for any concerns it may have regarding the potential for interference to satellites from increasing deployment of submeter antennae. A full record with responees from both the VSAT and satellite industries would then be available, and any resulting rules and procedures would apply industry-wide. PanAmSat has failed to provide facts specific to Spacenet’s proposed operations that would justify any further delay in grant of the Spacenet license modification application. GRANT OF THE APPLICATION L3ERVF.S THE PUBLIC INTERWT Spacenet’s Application undeniably serves the public interest. The grant of this Application wiI1 enable Spacenet to develop further its state-of-the-art VSAT network, thereby providing diverse VSAT customers with an even broader range of competitively priced service options. CONCLUSION For the reasons presented herein, Spacenet respectfully requests that the Corrxmission dismiss and/or deny the Petition, and promptly grtit Spacenet’s Application. Respectfully submitted, Mark i?. Bresnahtin Vice President & General Counsel Spacenet Services License Sub, Inc. 1750 Old Meadow Road McLean, VA 22102 (703)848-1000 October 24,2002 to See, 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review--Streamlining and Other Revisions of Parr 25 ot’the Commission’s Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, Norice of Proposed Rulemukins IB Docket No. 00-348. 15 FCC Red 25128 (2OOO), Furrhsr Notice of Proposed R&making, IB Docket NCJ. 00-248, adopted 9/26/02. -s-

Sent By: StarBand; 703 245 6302; act-24-02 1:18PM; Page 212 DECLARATION OF PAUL HOLLAND My name is Paul Holland, and 1 am Manager of RF Engineering for StarBand Communications. StarBand is a sister company of Spacenet Services Licensing Sub. I have reviewed the foregoing “Opposition to Petition to Deny.” 1 declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 24,2002. UJ Paul Holland, Manager, RF System Engineering StarBand Communications

ATTACHMENT 1 To: hng@panamsat.com CC Leslie.Adelman@Spacenet.com, Mark.Bresnahan@Spacenet.com, Rosalind AllenlAttylDCIAmoldAndPorter@APORTER Subject: RN: Modification to our application to modify the Call Sign E000035 Harry, As per our discussion today, the below email is Spacenet's correspondence to the Commission regarding the pointing accuracy issue. Paul. 5 - -Original Message----- - - - > From: Lesley Cooper - McLean > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:05 PM > To: 'slam@fcc.gov' > cc: Paul Holland - StarBand - MCL; Benny Zilberstein - McLean; Ram > Avitzour - Israel; Danny Spirtus - Israel; Leslie Adelman - McLean; > Mark Bresnahan - McLean; Yossi Gal - StarBand - MCL > Subject: Modification to our application to modify the Call Sign > E000035 > > Dear Sylvia, > > As you are aware, we recently submitted an application to modify > Spacenet's authorization for the 75E antenna, Call Sign E000035, for > use on a temporary fixed basis. In response to your request, we have > reviewed the pointing accuracy specification of this antenna with our > Research and Development Engineers for the automatic pointing system > that is currently under development for use with this antenna.

> Modifications will be made to the design to meet a pointing accuracy > specification of +/-0.25 degrees, as we discussed on the telephone on > August 8th. We trust this clears up any concerns that you may have > had with this application and believe that the new service offerings > it will provide will be a great benefit to the public. > >

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, this 241h day of October, first class postage pre-paid, to: Joseph A. Godles Michael A. McCoin Goldbera, Godles, Wiener & Wright 1229 lgt Street, NW Washington, DC 20036


Document Created: 2002-10-30 14:57:16
Document Modified: 2002-10-30 14:57:16
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC