Attachment opp and reply

opp and reply

OPPOSITION submitted by EchoStar

opp and reply

2004-12-01

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

IBFS_SATSTA2004101200198_409160

Before the RECEIVED — FCC FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CoMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 DEC — 1 2004 reden Conmunezten Connicon BummiOfce In the Matter ofApplication of SES Anericom, Inc. File No. SAT—STA—20041012—00108 For Special Temporary Authority to Operate The AMC—15 Satelliteat 113° W.L. and 117° W.L. fi In the Matter of EcnoSrar Saretume Lt Request For Special Temporary Authority to Operate ts Ka—band Earth Station With the AMC—15 Satellte at 117° W.L. and u3e w. oome File No. SES—STA—20041019—01564 Call Sign E030038 OPPOSITION AND REPLY COMMENTS OF ECHOSTAR SATELLITE LL.C. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. ("EchoStar") hereby (1) opposes the petition to deny filed by the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (°NRTC"),‘ and (2) replies to the comments filed by Telesat Canada (Telesat")," with respect to the above referenced applications ‘ Petition to Deny By the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative, fled in Application ofSESAmericom, Inc. For Special Temporary Authority to Operate the AMC—15 Satellite at 113° W.L. and 117° WL, SAT—STA—20041012—00198 (filed Nov. 22, 2004), and in EchoStar Satellite LL C., Requestfor Special Temporary Authority to Operate Its Ka—band Earth Station With the AMC—15 Satellite at the 117 W.L and 113 WL. Orbital Locations, SES— STA—20041019—01564 (filed Nov. 22, 2004). * Comments ofTelesat Canada,fled in Application ofSESAmericom, Inc. For Special Temporary Authority to Operate the AMC—13 Satellte at 113° WL and 117° WL., SAT—STA« 20041012—00198 (filed Nov. 22, 2004).

for special temporary authority (*STA") to operate the AMC—15 satellte launched by SES Americom, Inc. (‘SES®)at the 113° W.L. and 117° W.L. orbital locations successively. As the customer of SES, and the applicant in the earth station proceeding, EchoStar is directly interested in, and has standing to respond to, these pleadings. NRTC‘s objection is totally misdirected for a simple reason: the proposed operation will not achieve what NRTC fears. The purpose ofthe proposal before the Commission is not to preserve or promote any rights of EchoStar to any ofthese slots orto satisfy any domestic Hicense milestones. Therefore, the proposal will not, and cannot, help EchoStar "warchouse" any spectrum. Rather, one effect ofthe proposal (among other public benefits) will be to protect and preserve the ULS.rights to the Ka—band spectrum at these orbital locations and thus benefit indirectly not only EchoStar but any other potential U.S. licensee for these slots. The status of EchoStar‘s applications and licenses and of its diligence underits domestic liense milestones will be judged on its own meritsat the appropriate juncture. These matters have no place in this proceeding. As to Telesat, which does nor oppose the requests, EchoStar understands that SES will have to coordinate the proposed operation with all operational Canadian Ka— and Ku—band satellites in the vicinity of the slots in question. Time is oftessence, as the AMC—15 satellte has completed in—orbit testing at 136° W.L. and is ready to put these slots to productive use. EchoStar therefore respectfully requests expeditious grant ofSES‘s and EchoStar‘s applications. L. OPPOSITION TO NRTC‘S PETITION TO DENY NRTC appears to have confused the International Telecommunication Union ("TTU®) regulations on bringing—into—use and the Commission‘s policies and rules for ensuring timely deployment oforbital spectrum resources. The ITU bringing—into—use deadline is completely

independent of the Commission‘s rules that require a satellit licensee to meet various implementation milestones for the timely deployment of a satellte to the licensed location. To be clear, whether or not the STAs are granted, EchoStar would still be required by the Commission‘s rules® and license conditions to submit a binding satellte construction contract for the 123°/117° W.L. license by December 8, 2004 and to eventually place a satelite in orbit by December 8, 2008.‘ Similarly, for the 113° W.L. license, EchoStar will stll have to file a binding satellite construction contract by October 8, 2005 and to pat a satellite in orbit by October 8, 2009." NRTC‘s allegation that EchoStar is somehow *warchousing" spectrum is therefore baseless. Indeed, EchoStar was the first operator to deploy a U.S.—licensed Ka—band payload into orbit," and SESis the only other operator to date to have even Iaunched a U.S.— Hicensed Ka—band payload. No other U.S.licensed operator can claim to have done the same. For NRTC to accuse one of only two U.S.—licensed operators that have operational Ka—band satelltes in orbit ofattempting to "warchouse" Ka—band spectrum is simply absurd." Moreaver, grant ofthe STAs is in the public interest because, ifanything, the operation ofAMC—15 at 113° W.L. and 117° W.L. will have the effect of preserving the ITU date prionity of the U.S. Ka—band satellite network filing at each of those locations to the benefit ofall > See 47 C.FR. 5§ 25.164(a), 25.165. * See License, Call Sign $2490, SAT—LOA—20030827—00177 (granted Dec. 8, 2003). 5 See License, Call Sign $2636, SAT—LOA—20040803—00154 (granted Oct. 8, 2004). * EchoStar deployed EchoStar 9 — a hybrid Ka—Ku—band satellte —— at 121° W.L. in August 2003, " In this regard, EchoStar notes that most other Ka—band licensces have failed, while EchoStar remains active in promoting the United States‘ Ka—band interests. Moreover, NRTC‘s attacks on EchoStar‘s character at footnote 14 ofits petition to deny are both unfounded and extrancous to this proceeding.

potential U.S. licensees.. In the event that EchoStar loses (or fails to obtain) Ka—band licenses at either ofthese locations in the future, other applicants will be able totake advantage ofthe effect, if any, of AMC—15‘s operations at these locations for the purposes ofthe ITU bringing— into—use deadline." 11. REPLY TO COMMENTS OF TELESAT CANADA EchoStar acknowledges that SES must coordinate the operations ofAMC—15 at 113° W.L. and 117° W.L. with Telesat‘s Canadian—licensed and operational satelltes that are within two degrees ofthose locations. Telesat has an operational satellite, Anik F2, at 111.1° W.L. Accordingly, EchoStar and SES will coordinate with the Canadian administration and Telesat regarding the operation ofthe Ka—band and limited Ku—band TT&C frequencies of AMC—15 at the adjacent 113° W.L. location. At 118.7° W.L., Telesat Canada has an operational Ku—band satellte, Anik E2, but we understand that there is no overlap between the frequencies used by that satellite and the TT&C frequencies used by AMC—15. There is thus no need to coordinate the use of Ku—band frequencies with Telesat. However, Telesat does not yet have an operational Ka—band satellite at 118.7° W.L. Anik F3 is due to be launched into that location in mid—2006, long after the expiration ofthe instant STA. Therefore, there is no need to coordinate the proposed Ka—band operations ofAMC—15 at 117° W.L. with Telesat. In the event that Telesat places a duly licensed and operational Ka—band satelliteat 118.7° W.. during the period in * Interestingly, NRTC did not oppose a similar arrangement proposed by WildBlue Ka—band licensee in which NRTC has a $29 million stake —— and Intelsat to operate Intelsat‘s 1A—3 satelite at WildBlue‘slicensed slot at 109.2° W.L. for a limited time. See SAT—STA— 20040914—00176, SAT—STA—2004—0915—00179.. While WildBlue and Intelsat withdrew their applications after the time forfiling petitions to deny had passed, NRTC‘s decision to oppose the proposed arrangement here appears to be motivated solely by a desire to protect its investment in WildBlue from potential competition (assuming WildBlue actually deploys a Ka—band satellite and begins offering service).

which AMC—15 will be at 117° W.L., EchoStar of course understands that SES would need to coordinate the operations of AMC—15 with that satelie. i. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, NRTC‘s petition to deny should be dismissed and the STA should be granted subject to interational coordination with Telesat‘s Anik F2 at 111.1° W.L. Respectfully submitted, David Bair P chatopoutes EchoStar Satellite LLC. Chiung Hsiang Mah 9601 South Meridian Boulevard Steptoe & Johnson LLP Englewood, CO 80112 1330 Connectiout Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Counselfor EchoStar Satellite LL C. December 1, 2004

DECLARATION OF DAVID BAIR 1, David Bair, declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica that I have personal knowledge ofthe assertions of fact contained in the foregoing "Opposition and Reply Comments ofEchoStar Satellite L.L.C.," filed in SAT—$TA—20041012—00198 and SES—3TA—20041019—01564, and that they are true and correct to the best ofmy knowledge, information and belief. Exccuted on _/ 30/z0e5 DavidBair EchoStar Satellte LL.C. 9601 South Meridian Bouleverd Englewood, CO 80112

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Chung Hsiang Mah, an attomey with the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, hereby certify that on this 1st day of December, 2004, served a true copy ofthe foregoing "Opposition and Reply Comments of EchoStar Satelite L.L.C.," and accompanying Declaration of David Bair, by hand and electronic mail upon the following: Donald Abelson Anna Gomez Chief,International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Thomes Tyez Cassandra Thomas Chief, Satellte Division, Interational Bureau Intemational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Fem Jarmulnek JoAnn Lucanik Intemational Bureau Interational Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Jennifer Gilsenan Rosalce Chiara Intemational Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 Peter Rohrbach Carl R. Frank Karis Hostings Amy E. Bender Hogan & Hartson LLP Wiley Reign & Fielding LLP 555 13th Street, NW. 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004—1109 Washington, DC 20006—2304 Counselfor SESAmericom, Inc. Counselfor Telesat Canada Jack Richards Kevin G. Rupy Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Counselfor the National Rural ChdGgtisiang Noh Telecommunications Cooperative


Document Created: 2004-12-07 12:07:37
Document Modified: 2004-12-07 12:07:37
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC