Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 in the Matter of Spectrum Five LLC Petition for Enforcement Of

Home , Astra (satellite), Astra 1E, Galaxy 3C, Hellas Sat 2

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of ) ) Spectrum Five LLC ) IB Docket No. 20-399 ) Petition for Enforcement of Operational ) Limits and for Expedited Proceedings to ) Revoke Satellite Licenses )

OPPOSITION OF INTELSAT LICENSE LLC TO PETITION OF SPECTRUM FIVE LLC

Jennifer D. Hindin Susan H. Crandall Henry Gola Cynthia J. Grady Sara M. Baxenberg Intelsat US LLC Boyd Garriott 7900 Tysons One Place WILEY REIN LLP McLean, VA 22102 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006

December 8, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ...... 1 II. SPECTRUM FIVE’S PETITION CONFUSES NUMEROUS CONCEPTS ABOUT SATELLITE LICENSING AND ITU PROCEDURES...... 3 III. INTELSAT HAS LONG OPERATED AT 95° W.L. PURSUANT TO VALID FCC AUTHORIZATIONS AND ITU FILINGS...... 11 IV. SPECTRUM FIVE HAS REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTED TO THWART INTELSAT’S LAWFUL OPERATIONS AT 95° W.L...... 16 V. SPECTRUM FIVE’S ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING BY INTELSAT ARE FALSE...... 20 A. The Intelsat 30 and 31 Satellites Appropriately Rely on ITU Filings that Have Priority over Spectrum Five’s Filing...... 21 B. Intelsat’s Licenses for Intelsat 30 and 31 Were Validly Obtained, Appropriately Granted, and Do Not Rely on Any Misrepresentations...... 24 C. Intelsat Has Not Violated Any Terms of Its Licenses for Intelsat 30 or 31...... 26 D. Intelsat Did Not Make Any Misrepresentations About Interference Caused by Spectrum Five...... 28 VI. SPECTRUM FIVE’S PLEADING IS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT...... 30 VII. THE PETITION CONTINUES SPECTRUM FIVE’S LONGSTANDING PATTERN OF TRYING TO FRUSTRATE THE OPERATIONS OF AUTHORIZED SATELLITE OPERATORS WITHOUT PROVIDING ACTUAL SERVICE OF ITS OWN...... 35 VIII. CONCLUSION ...... 40

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of ) ) Spectrum Five LLC ) IB Docket No. 20-399 ) Petition for Enforcement of Operational ) Limits and for Expedited Proceedings to ) Revoke Satellite Licenses )

OPPOSITION OF INTELSAT LICENSE LLC TO PETITION OF SPECTRUM FIVE LLC

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Intelsat License LLC, as debtor in possession (“Intelsat”), hereby files this Opposition to the above-referenced Petition filed by Spectrum Five LLC (“Spectrum Five”) regarding the

Intelsat 30 (call sign S2887) and Intelsat 31 (call sign S2924) satellites licensed by the Federal

Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) and operating at the nominal 95 degree

west longitude orbital location (“95° W.L.”).1 The Petition’s allegations of wrongdoing by Intelsat

are demonstrably false and rest on a complete misunderstanding of the FCC’s and International

Telecommunication Union’s (“ITU”) respective regulatory regimes. Devoid of facts and law, the

Petition should be dismissed with prejudice.

1 Petition for Enforcement of Operational Limits and for Expedited Proceedings to Revoke Satellite Licenses of Spectrum Five LLC, Misc. Docket No. INBOX-1.41 (filed Nov. 6, 2020) (“Petition”). The Commission subsequently opened a docket for this proceeding, and filed in that docket an order extending the time for Intelsat to respond to the Petition. Petition for Enforcement of Operational Limits and for Expedited Proceedings to Revoke Satellite Licenses of Spectrum Five LLC, Order, IB Docket No. 20-399 (rel. Dec. 1, 2020) (“December 1 Extension Order”). As of the date of this filing, none of the earlier filings in this proceeding have been moved into that docket. See IB Docket No. 20-399. Accordingly, throughout this Opposition, Intelsat refers to the FCC Inbox in which these filings were initially submitted: Misc. Docket No. INBOX-1.41.

Intelsat is a longtime FCC licensee, a good steward of the geostationary arc, and an industrious provider of satellite communications services to customers around the world. Spectrum

Five, notorious in the satellite industry and among telecommunications regulators for its persistent efforts to threaten the operations of other licensees while making few if any serious attempts to provide its own services, has now ratcheted up those efforts by levying a series of unfounded accusations against Intelsat and the Commission itself. The Petition concocts a multi-year scheme of collusion between Intelsat and the FCC’s International Bureau (“IB” or “Bureau”) and alleges violations of agency rules, ITU Radio Regulations (“Radio Regulations”), the terms of Intelsat’s licenses, and the boundaries of the IB’s delegated authority. The Petition even implores the

Commission to take the extraordinary step of initiating “expedited proceedings” to terminate

Intelsat’s authorizations for Intelsat 30 and 31.

The elaborate tale set forth in Spectrum Five’s Petition sounds too absurd to be true because it is, in fact, entirely untrue. The truth is far more mundane: for decades, first PanAmSat, which was subsequently acquired by Intelsat, and then Intelsat have operated satellites at 95° W.L. pursuant to validly obtained FCC licenses and ITU filings. After approaching Intelsat’s Ku-band customer at this location—DIRECTV, a subsidiary of AT&T—with the false notion that Spectrum

Five holds superior rights to Intelsat at 95° W.L., Spectrum Five subsequently secured the use of an old, third-party satellite in efforts to, again, ratchet up the pressure. Specifically, in 2019,

Spectrum Five moved a 17-year-old satellite, initially authorized by the administration of Greece, to 95.15° W.L. and began intentionally causing harmful interference to Intelsat and its customer until complaints from regulators forced Spectrum Five to cease some, but not all, of the interfering transmissions.

Spectrum Five’s Petition is as unserious as its desire to provide actual satellite services to

actual customers. The Petition is just the latest effort in a long line of attempts to frustrate the

operations of duly authorized satellite operators providing real services and should be treated as

such. Spectrum Five’s legal arguments are without merit, and its Petition is procedurally deficient.

The Commission should dismiss the Petition with prejudice and should not institute any

enforcement or license revocation proceedings with respect to the Intelsat 30 and 31 space stations.

II. SPECTRUM FIVE’S PETITION CONFUSES NUMEROUS CONCEPTS ABOUT SATELLITE LICENSING AND ITU PROCEDURES.

The web of allegations that Spectrum Five spins in its Petition rests on a number of

mischaracterizations and misapprehensions about the regulatory regimes governing the industry

in which Spectrum Five purports to be a market participant. To aid the Commission in evaluating

the Petition, as an initial matter Intelsat clarifies and explains several basic principles regarding

FCC licensing, the ITU filing process, and the relationship between the two. The key principles are as follows:

 The connection between an ITU satellite network filing and a physical satellite is neither unique nor exclusive.  Accordingly, one ITU filing can be utilized by multiple collocated and/or consecutive satellites.  Conversely, one satellite can use multiple collocated and overlapping ITU filings, even if these ITU filings are submitted by different administrations.  The ITU satellite network filing and FCC space station licensing processes are legally independent.  FCC space station license applicants are not required to identify the ITU filing(s) associated with a satellite as part of the application process.  FCC space station licenses do not identify or bind licensees to a particular ITU filing or filings.  The notifying administration of an ITU satellite network filing is independent of and need not be the same as the licensing administration for the satellite, so long as it approves the use of the filing; using a foreign ITU filing does not by itself render a satellite “foreign-licensed” under FCC rules.

Each of these is discussed in turn.

The Connection Between an ITU Satellite Network Filing and a Physical Satellite Is

Neither Unique nor Exclusive. The ITU filing process establishes a system of priority for space

station operators using competing frequencies. Pursuant to that process, which is governed by

Article 9 of the Radio Regulations, filings are submitted by the appropriate governmental departments of ITU member states, or “administrations.”2 Those filings include a coordination request, which establishes the date for determining priority and obligations for international

coordination.3 Nothing in the Radio Regulations requires filings to identify a single satellite or list

of specific satellites; instead, administrations must submit only “a general description of the

network or system.”4 Indeed, Appendix 4, Annex 2 to the Radio Regulations details the

information that comprises the “general characteristics of the satellite network or system” for ITU

filing purposes, and the identity of particular space stations is, notably, not included.5 Further, although the Radio Regulations specify that “[t]he use of an additional frequency band, or modification of the orbital location for a space station using the geostationary-satellite orbit” will require a new ITU filing that will have a priority date based on the date of submission of that new filing, the Radio Regulations do not mandate the same consequence for use of a new or different space station.6

The Radio Regulations do not automatically require a new ITU filing for a new or different

space station because it is the orbital location, the frequencies used, the relevant technical parameters, and the date priority that are the sine qua non of an ITU filing for a geosynchronous

2 See ITU Radio Regulations, art. 9. 3 See id. Nos. 9.1A, 9.30. 4 Id. No. 9.1. 5 See id., art. 9, Appendix 4, Annex 2. 6 Id. No. 9.2.

orbit (“GSO”) satellite system. These are the factors that will determine which other entities in the

operating environment, if any, may be affected by the system. The particular space station

engaging in the communications is immaterial to making this determination, and, accordingly, the

relevant question for determining compliance with the Radio Regulations and one’s ITU filings is

not which space stations an operator is using, but whether its operations at a given orbital location

are consistent with the filings on which the operator relies.

Nor do the requirements for bringing a filing into use change this regulatory paradigm. The

Radio Regulations provide that a system must be “brought into use” (“BIU”) within seven years

to prevent cancellation of the filing.7 In the case of GSO networks, an ITU filing is considered to

be brought into use “when a space station in the geostationary-satellite orbit with the capability of

transmitting or receiving [that ITU filing’s] frequency assignment has been deployed and

maintained at the notified orbital position for a continuous period of 90 days.”8 Thus, although operators must identify a specific space station that they have used to perfect their rights under the filing, the sole purpose of this identification is to ascertain that the requested frequencies have been and are being used: nothing in the Radio Regulations provides that a satellite identified in a BIU letter is the sole satellite that can use a particular filing.

Indeed, Spectrum Five’s claim that ITU filings are constrained to specific satellites makes no sense in the context of the very purpose of the ITU date priority system, which is to determine rights to operate at a location for as long as needed. For instance, if operators were required to submit a new ITU filing—and thus lose the ITU date priority associated with the initial filing— every time they needed to replace a satellite at an orbital location, operators would be unable to

7 Id. No. 11.44. 8 Id. No. 11.44B; see also id. No. 11.49.1.

avail themselves of the operational certainty and stability the ITU priority process is designed to

provide. Spectrum Five’s unfounded interpretation, if true, would have grave consequences for

continuity of service and add significant, unnecessary costs for ITU member state administrations

and the satellite industry. It would also contravene well-established precedents at the ITU of

multiple generations of replacement satellites relying on anchor ITU filings that have date priority.

Ironically, if Spectrum Five’s implausible interpretation of ITU procedures were accurate, then

Spectrum Five itself would have to submit a new ITU filing if and when it brings a replacement satellite to 95.15° W.L.—a likely possibility if Spectrum Five is actually interested in providing services at this location, given that the satellite it acquired use of and that it now claims has superior

ITU rights to Intelsat is already in inclined orbit and more than two and a half years beyond its

fifteen-year nominal design life.

One ITU Filing Can Be Utilized by Multiple Collocated and/or Consecutive Satellites.

Accordingly, nothing in the Radio Regulations prohibits the operation of multiple satellites against

a given ITU filing, including satellites operating simultaneously in the same orbital location and

replacement satellites that are intended to take over the operations of a satellite that had used a

particular ITU filing. Making use of ITU filings in these manners is consistent not only with the

regulations, but with the technical and policy objectives of the ITU filings system. And in fact, the

operation of multiple satellites under the same ITU filing is a routine practice among satellite

operators, including those licensed by the FCC.9 Importantly, this principle applies even where a

9 For example, Intelsat’s satellites Horizons 2 (call sign S2423) and Intelsat 15 (call sign S2789), which currently are collocated at the nominal 85° E.L. orbital location, both rely on the INTELSAT KFOS 85E, INTELSAT6 85E, INTELSAT7 85E, INTELSAT8 85E, and USASAT- 55N ITU filings for their uplink Ku-band communications. See Ex. 1, Declaration of Hazem Moakkit dated Dec. 8, 2020, ¶ 13, filed herewith (“Moakkit Declaration”). See also, e.g., Application of Space Logistics, LLC for Authority to Launch and Operate a Mission Extension Vehicle, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20170224-00021, Legal Narrative at 15 (filed Feb. 24, 2017)

collocated or follow-on satellite has different performance characteristics than those included in

the technical envelope of the ITU filing; the new satellites are still entitled to protection to the extent of the parameters contained in the earlier filing. New capabilities would be governed by a newer filing covering those capabilities.

One Satellite Can Use Multiple ITU Filings, Including Those Submitted by Differing

Administrations. A corollary of the principle that one ITU filing can cover the operation of multiple satellites is that one satellite might utilize multiple ITU filings. A common reason this occurs is because an operator may seek to provide services using additional frequencies or technical parameters requiring protection that were not included in an initial filing, or simply to rely on the

ITU date priority of a given filing. Nothing in the Radio Regulations prohibits an operator from relying on multiple ITU filings, for the same reason outlined above: the relevant inquiry is whether a filing’s particular frequencies have been notified and brought into use within the required seven- year period. It is therefore immaterial whether all aspects of the operations were contained in one filing or split across multiple filings.

Accordingly, there also are no Radio Regulations precluding overlapping or redundant ITU filings, or filings that were submitted by differing administrations. Just as with using one ITU filing for multiple satellites, it is common industry practice to use multiple filings for a single satellite, including those licensed by the FCC.10 Indeed, in some contexts it is literally required:

(explaining that the MEV-1 satellite would “operate under the ITU filing(s) of the Replaced Satellite” that was at the orbital location to which MEV-1 would relocate Intelsat 901); ITU BR IFIC 2408 (indicating that the ASTRA-1E and ASTRA-1F satellites would both operate against the ITU filing DBL); ITU BR IFIC 2415 (indicating that the HOT BIRD 2 and HOT BIRD 3 satellites would both operate against the ITU filing EUTELSAT B-13E); Moakkit Declaration ¶ 12. 10 See, e.g., note 9, supra (explaining that Intelsat 15 and Horizons 2 each rely on multiple ITU filings); SES Americom Inc., AMC-2 (S2134) Mod for Move to 19 E.L. and Authorize Deorbit, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20120524-00087, Legal Narrative at Exhibit 1 (filed May 24,

the ITU’s planned bands governed by Appendices 30A and 30B are subject to entirely separate

coordination regimes, which means that operators of satellites using both planned band frequencies

and non-planned band frequencies necessarily must secure more than one ITU filing to cover the

satellite’s operations.11

The ITU Filing and FCC Licensing Processes Are Legally Independent. Spectrum Five

appears to proceed from the mistaken notion that every ITU filing is associated with exactly one

FCC license. Not so; the ITU and FCC procedures are legally independent of one another. It is

incumbent upon every satellite operator to obtain both (1) the use of requisite ITU filings to ensure international coordination of the frequencies consistent with ITU rules, and (2) a license to operate from a national-level governmental administration, pursuant to that administration’s particular rules. For operators that choose to be licensed by the United States, the process requires obtaining a separate license for each GSO space station.12

FCC Space Station License Applicants Are Not Required to Identify the ITU Filing

Associated with the Satellite. Nothing in the FCC’s regulations or application forms—which are

lengthy and require the applicant to submit significant technical and operational information about

the satellite—requires a GSO license applicant to identify the specific ITU filing(s) that the space

station will operate against.13 While applicants may choose to identify the relevant ITU filing(s)

2012) (“SES AMC-2 Modification Application”) (identifying the AMC-2 satellite’s reliance on Luxembourg ITU filings DBL-G3-19.2E, LUX-G3-19.2E, and LUX-G6-5); Moakkit Declaration ¶ 12. 11 See ITU Radio Regulations, Nos. A.9.1-A.9.3. 12 47 C.F.R. § 25.114. 13 See id. part 25, subpart B (“Application and Licenses”), §§ 25.110-25.129 (“General Application Filing Requirements”), §§ 25.140-25.149 (“Space Stations”), §§ 25.150-25.159 (“Processing of Applications”); FCC 312 Main Form (Feb. 1998), https://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form312/312Fill.pdf (“FCC Form 312”); FCC 312 Schedule S Form (June 2003), https://licensing.fcc.gov/prod/ib/forms/help/sch_s4d.pdf.

in the narrative portion of their application, and must certify that the information contained in the

application, including any identified ITU filings, is correct,14 applicants are not required to submit

any specific information or certification regarding ITU filing(s) as part of their application.

FCC Space Station Licenses Do Not Identify or Bind Licensees to a Particular ITU Filing or Filings. Just as the FCC does not require GSO applicants to identify or commit to a specific universe of ITU filings, the resulting authorization does not contain any such limitations. GSO licensees typically are held to just one condition regarding ITU filings: to “prepare the necessary information, as may be required, for submission to the [ITU] to initiate and complete the advance publication, international coordination, due diligence, and notification process of [the] space station, in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations.”15 Not only does this condition not bind

licensees to use specific ITU filings, the inclusion of “as may be required” expressly contemplates

that an ITU filing for a newly licensed GSO satellite may not be required because the licensee may

use ITU filings that were filed previously or by another administration. Indeed, this is a standard

condition that the FCC may impose even where the licensee already holds valid ITU filings to

cover all aspects of the space station’s operations and happens to identify those filings in the

application.16 This condition therefore offers no opinion or assessment of whether an ITU filing is

14 See FCC Form 312 at 4. 15 See Application of Intelsat License LLC to Launch and Operate Intelsat 30 Satellite at 95.1 W.L., Stamp Grant, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOA-20121025-00187 and SAT-AMD-20121221- 00220, at Condition 1 (Aug. 14, 2014) (correction issued Oct. 30, 2014) (“Intelsat 30 Stamp Grant”). 16 See, e.g., Application for Authority to Launch and Operate Intelsat 39, a Replacement Satellite With New Frequencies, at 62.0 E.L., IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20171205-00164, Legal Narrative at 6 (filed Dec. 5, 2017) (identifying previously notified U.S. and Papua New Guinea (“PNG”) ITU filings against which the subject satellite would operate); Application for Authority to Launch and Operate Intelsat 39, a Replacement Satellite With New Frequencies, Stamp Grant, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20171205-00164, Condition 2 (June 26, 2018) (imposing the standard condition to “prepare the necessary information, as may be required, for submission to the [ITU]”).

required to enable operation of a particular license; it is simply a recognition that if the licensee

requires an ITU filing, and the licensee seeks to have the U.S. submit a filing, the licensee is

responsible for the paperwork and costs of that process.

Use of an ITU Filing Submitted by a Foreign Administration Does Not Necessarily Render

a Satellite “Foreign-Licensed” under FCC Rules. Because satellite licensing and ITU filing are

legally distinct processes, it follows that simply operating pursuant to an ITU filing that was

submitted by a non-U.S. administration does not make a satellite “foreign-licensed” for FCC

licensing purposes. Indeed, the determinative factor for whether a satellite is foreign-licensed is,

somewhat tautologically, whether the satellite has been issued an operating license by a foreign

administration. Nothing in the Radio Regulations or FCC rules precludes a GSO operator from

obtaining an FCC license for a space station that uses an ITU filing made by a foreign

administration. Although this is less common than the use of multiple ITU filings for a satellite or

multiple satellites for a filing, it certainly happens.17

Where a satellite is actually foreign-licensed and the operator seeks to provide services

using earth stations located in the United States, the operator must petition the FCC for a

declaratory ruling to provide the operator with U.S. market access.18 It is for this purpose that the

FCC’s Form 312—a broad, multi-faceted form used for all types of space and earth station

authorizations—asks whether the “applicant intend[s] to use a non-U.S. licensed satellite to provide service in the United States,” and, if so, asks the applicant to identify the licensing

17 See, e.g., SES AMC-2 Modification Application, Legal Narrative at 2 (explaining that “AMC-2 is a hybrid C/Ku-band satellites that is currently licensed by the FCC to operate at the nominal 5° E.L. location under the ITU satellite network filings of the Administration of Sweden” and that upon “[r]eassignment of AMC-2 to the nominal 19.2° E.L. orbital location, SES will operate the AMC-2 under Luxembourg’s ITU satellite network filings and coordination agreements”); Moakkit Declaration ¶ 14. 18 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.137.

administration and “attach an exhibit providing the information specified in 47 C.F.R. § 25.137”

(the market access rule).19 Entities seeking market access for foreign-licensed space stations to

provide service to yet-to-be-identified earth stations, or entities seeking authorization for a specific

U.S. earth station to communicate with a non-U.S.-licensed space station, check “yes” to this question and provide the requisite information. In contrast, the appropriate answer to this question for entities seeking to license space stations in the U.S. is “no”—regardless of whether the applicant will rely upon U.S. or foreign-submitted ITU filings.

III. INTELSAT HAS LONG OPERATED AT 95° W.L. PURSUANT TO VALID FCC AUTHORIZATIONS AND ITU FILINGS.

For more than two decades Intelsat (and PanAmSat before it) has been providing satellite services at 95° W.L. in accordance with validly obtained ITU filings and FCC authorizations.

Intelsat currently operates three satellites at this location, each of which is relevant to the present

Petition: Galaxy 3C (call sign S2381), Intelsat 30, and Intelsat 31.20 Beginning in 1998 with Galaxy

8i (call sign GAL-8I), then Galaxy 3C, and now with Intelsat 30 and 31, Intelsat’s customer

DIRECTV uses the Ku-band capacity at this location to provide direct-to-home broadcast services

to millions of customers located in Latin America.21

Galaxy 3C. In June 2002, the Galaxy 3C satellite was launched to 95° W.L. as a replacement for the Galaxy 3R (call sign GAL-3R) satellite.22 Galaxy 3C was first licensed by the

19 FCC Form 312 at Questions 42a & 42b. 20 See Moakkit Declaration ¶ 7. 21 See id. ¶ 8. There are also C-band payloads on Galaxy 3C, Intelsat 30 and Intelsat 31. 22 See Application of PanAmSat Licensee Corporation to Launch and Operate a C/Ku-band Hybrid Replacement Fixed-Satellite Service Satellite, Stamp Grant, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA- 19990812-0082 (May 29, 2002).

FCC in May 2002,23 and its license term was subsequently extended through 2026.24 The Galaxy

3C license authorizes Intelsat to operate in the following frequency bands: 3700-4200 MHz, 5925-

6675 MHz, 11.45-12.2 GHz, and 13.75-14.5 GHz.25

The Petition incorrectly suggests that Galaxy 3C is uniquely associated with ITU filing

USASAT-60F.26 The Galaxy 3C satellite operates under all relevant ITU filings, including but not

limited to USASAT-23F, USASAT-24L, and USASAT-35L—all of which predate the USASAT-

60F filing.27 Despite the later-in-time USASAT-60F filing, the earlier filings all remain valid and

continue to ensure date priority for the frequencies and parameters they cover.

Intelsat 30. In 2012, Intelsat filed an application to launch a new C-/Ku-band satellite,

Intelsat 30, at the 95.1° W.L. orbital location.28 In the application, Intelsat explained its plan to

launch both Intelsat 30 and 31, which would “serve the public interest by ensuring that additional

capacity is available to serve the South American region,” and that the added capacity would both

“allow an Intelsat customer to greatly expand its service offering in the region, for the benefit of

consumers” and “ensure that this customer has back-up capacity available in the event it is

23 See id. 24 See Application of Intelsat License LLC to Modify Authorization for Galaxy 3C, Stamp Grant, IBFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20170523-00077 and SAT-AMD-20170613-00089 (July 20, 2017). 25 See id. 26 See Petition ¶¶ 14, 73. 27 See Moakkit Declaration ¶ 9. The USASAT-60F filing was submitted to the ITU in March 2005, and only covers all the frequency bands on Galaxy 3C; accordingly, the submission did not include the 10.95-11.2 GHz frequency band since Galaxy 3C does not operate in that frequency band. The priority date of USASAT-60F is March 23, 2005, and the filing was brought into use on August 19, 2011. The USASAT-60F Part II-S Notification was published in ITU BR IFICs 2724 and 2739, and its Resolution 49 BIU information was published in BR IFIC 2703. 28 See Application of Intelsat License LLC to Launch and Operate Intelsat 30 Satellite at 95.1 W.L., IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20121025-00187 (filed Oct. 25, 2012) (“Intelsat 30 Application”).

needed.”29 The Intelsat 30 application further explained that Intelsat 30 and 31 would operate on

three additional frequency bands not used by Galaxy 3C: 3400-3700 MHz, 6675-6725 MHz, and

10.95-11.2 GHz.30

Consistent with FCC rules, the Intelsat 30 application also provided significant technical

information about the operation of the satellite,31 and acknowledged Intelsat’s obligation to accept

ITU cost recovery in the event the United States submitted ITU filings.32 However, the Intelsat 30 application did not include a commitment to submitting any such filings, nor did the application

identify the ITU filings upon which Intelsat 30 would rely. Intelsat subsequently filed an

amendment to the initial application to move the orbital location to 95.05° W.L.33 This amendment

also included corresponding updated technical information.34 The Intelsat 30 license was granted

in August 2014 and was subsequently corrected in October 2014.35 The satellite became

operational at 95.05° W.L as of November 24, 2014.36

Like Galaxy 3C, Intelsat 30 operates against multiple ITU filings. All of its operations

except for those in the 10.95-11.2 GHz band are covered by the U.S. ITU filings that were brought

29 Id., Legal Narrative at 8. 30 Id. at 7. The application explained that the 3400-3600 MHz band would not be used in the United States. Id. 31 See id. at Engineering Statement; Schedule S. 32 Id., Legal Narrative at 9. 33 Amendment to Application of Intelsat License LLC to Launch and Operate Intelsat 30 Satellite at 95.1 W.L., IBFS File No. SAT-AMD-20121221-00220 (filed Dec. 21, 2012). 34 See id. at Engineering Statement; Schedule S. 35 See Intelsat 30 Stamp Grant. 36 Letter from Susan H. Crandall, Associate General Counsel, Intelsat Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Re: Intelsat License LLC Certification of Commencement of Operations and Request for Finding of Milestone Completion, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-2012-10- 25-00187 (filed Dec. 11, 2014).

into use by Galaxy 3C (collectively, the “pre-60U USASAT filings”). For operations in the 10.95-

11.2 GHz band, Intelsat 30 relies on BLUE1, a filing submitted by the administration of Papua

New Guinea (“PNG”).37 The priority date for BLUE1 is June 16, 2011, and it was brought into use

by Intelsat 30 on September 8, 2017. Importantly, BLUE1 has an earlier ITU date priority than

that of the BSSNET4-95W Dutch filing that Spectrum Five claims allows it to operate in 10.95-

11.2 GHz without coordinating with Intelsat. Additionally, in early 2014 the U.S. administration submitted a new ITU filing, USASAT-60U, which covers all frequency ranges used by Galaxy

3C, Intelsat 30, and Intelsat 31 at 95° W.L. The priority date for USASAT-60U is January 18,

2014, and it was brought into use by Galaxy 3C and Intelsat 31. USASAT-60U does not affect the

validity of senior filings—all earlier U.S. filings and BLUE1 remain valid and Intelsat 30 continues

to rely on those filings.

Intelsat 31. Intelsat applied to launch and operate Intelsat 31 in April 2014, a few months

before the Intelsat 30 application was granted.38 The Intelsat 31 frequencies identified in the

application are identical to those used by Intelsat 30, and were also identified in the Intelsat 30

application.39 Similar to the Intelsat 30 application, the Intelsat 31 application presented significant

technical information about the satellite and acknowledged the obligation to assume ITU cost

recovery without committing to making ITU filings or identifying specific filings on which the

satellite would rely.40

37 See Moakkit Declaration ¶ 10. 38 See Application of Intelsat License LLC to Launch and Operate Intelsat 31 at 95.05° W.L., IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20140410-00038 (filed Apr. 10, 2014) (“Intelsat 31 Application”). 39 See Intelsat 31 Application, Legal Narrative at 6-7; Intelsat 30 Application, Legal Narrative at 7. 40 See Intelsat 31 Application, Legal Narrative at 8, Engineering Statement, Schedule S.

The Intelsat 31 application was granted on November 6, 2014 and the satellite became operational in 2015.41 Like Intelsat 30, Intelsat 31 operates against the pre-60U USASAT filings and the BLUE1 filing, notwithstanding that Intelsat 31 also has been used to BIU the USASAT-

60U filing.42

Notably, at no point in the process of licensing and launching the Intelsat 30 and 31 satellites did Spectrum Five participate in the proceedings or formally raise any issues to the FCC with respect to Spectrum Five’s interests at the 95° W.L. orbital location. Although the

Netherlands, on behalf of Spectrum Five, began submitting documentation for the BSSNET4-95W filing in late 2012—weeks after the Intelsat 30 FCC license application was filed making clear

Intelsat’s intent to bring additional satellites to the location, yet well before Intelsat 30 was launched and the FCC application for Intelsat 31 was filed—Spectrum Five did not respond to

FCC requests for petitions to deny or other comments on either of Intelsat’s applications,43 nor did it take any steps to seek Bureau- or Commission-level review of the licenses once granted.44 In fact, at no point has Spectrum Five availed itself of any of the formal procedures provided in the

41 See Application of Intelsat License LLC to Launch and Operate Intelsat 31 at 95.05° W.L., Stamp Grant, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20140410-00038 (Nov. 6, 2014). 42 See Moakkit Declaration ¶ 11. 43 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.154 (outlining procedures for “[p]etitions to deny, petitions for other forms of relief, and other objections” to satellite licensing applications); Policy Branch Information: Satellite Space Applications Accepted for Filing¸ Public Notice, Report No. SAT- 00915 (rel. Nov. 30, 2012) (identifying the Intelsat 30 launch and operate application has accepted for filing and explaining to the public that “[p]etitions, oppositions, and other pleadings filed in response to this notice should conform to Section 25.154 of the Commission’s rules”); Policy Branch Information: Satellite Space Applications Accepted for Filing¸ Public Notice, Report No. SAT-00922 (rel. Jan. 11, 2012) (same for the Intelsat 30 application to amend the orbital location to 95.05° W.L.); Policy Branch Information: Satellite Space Applications Accepted for Filing¸ Public Notice, Report No. SAT-01015 (rel. May 16, 2014) (same for the Intelsat 31 launch and operate application). 44 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(a), 1.115.

FCC’s rules to allow stakeholders to be heard as the FCC undertakes to authorize the use of radiofrequencies at a given location under specified technical parameters. Intelsat built, launched, and began operating Intelsat 30 and 31 pursuant to its licenses, and has been doing so for more than five years.

IV. SPECTRUM FIVE HAS REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTED TO THWART INTELSAT’S LAWFUL OPERATIONS AT 95° W.L.

Consistent with its authorizations, Intelsat was able to provide services at 95° W.L. for many years without issue. However, while declining to participate in the licensing proceedings or otherwise use FCC processes designed to navigate issues among service providers prior to launching and operating satellites, in the background Spectrum Five began a campaign to undermine Intelsat’s ability to provide services. This process escalated in 2019 when Spectrum

Five drifted the 17-year-old Hellas Sat 2 (“HS-2”) satellite to 95.15° W.L.—without undertaking coordination—to BIU a Dutch ITU filing (BSSNET4-95W) that is junior to several Intelsat filings including the BLUE1 filing. Since drifting to and operating at 95.15° W.L., Spectrum Five has been transmitting in C-band frequencies for which it had no ITU filings at all. Further, Spectrum

Five has used HS-2 to intentionally cause harmful interference to Intelsat’s operations in multiple frequency bands. Now, Spectrum Five seeks to utilize the FCC to invalidate Intelsat’s proper authorizations.

Spectrum Five’s attacks on Intelsat’s operations at 95° W.L. began in 2014, after notice of

Intelsat’s most recent U.S. ITU filing was published and Intelsat 30 was launched. Since that time,

Spectrum Five repeatedly directly contacted AT&T regarding its claims against Intelsat, a plainly inappropriate communication given that Intelsat is the licensee and operator and AT&T is its customer.

In 2019, more than five years after Intelsat launched Intelsat 30 and received authorization for Intelsat 31, Spectrum Five escalated its attack on Intelsat’s operations by acquiring use of the

Greek satellite HS-2. As Spectrum Five notes, Spectrum Five drifted HS-2 to 95.15° W.L. in

March of 2019 in order to bring into use the Dutch BSSNET4-95W ITU filing before it was set to expire four months later.45 BSSNET4-95W has a date of protection of July 9, 2013—well after the

dates for Intelsat’s filings (e.g., USASAT-60F (March 23, 2005) and BLUE1 (June 16, 2011)).

Although BSSNET4-95W was brought into use with HS-2, and the notification filing has been

submitted, required coordination with multiple senior ITU filings held by multiple administrations

has not yet been completed.46 Accordingly, any operations under this filing must be on a non-

interference, non-protected basis vis-à-vis operations under earlier filings.47 Consistent with the

notion that Spectrum Five’s activities at this location reflect a desire to place some type of undue pressure on Intelsat rather than a serious desire to provide services, the satellite is more than two and a half years beyond its nominal design life of fifteen years and is already inclined 2.32 degrees, thus greatly limiting the scope and duration of services that can be offered.48

Spectrum Five’s operation of HS-2 has caused harmful interference to Intelsat’s operations

in both the C-band and the Ku-band.49 In moving orbital locations in order to bring the Dutch filing into use, Spectrum Five made no attempt to coordinate with any of Intelsat’s more senior U.S. or

45 Petition at 3. See also Moakkit Declaration at ¶ 16. 46 Spectrum Five’s requirement to coordinate BSSNET4-95W at 95° W.L. is not limited to Intelsat filings. 47 See ITU Radio Regulations No. 11.42. 48 See Fleet: Hellas Sat 2, Hellas Sat (identifying a launch date for HS-2 of May 13, 2003 and a design lifetime of fifteen years), https://www.hellas-sat.net/fleet; SATCAT: Hellas-sat-2, NORAD CAT ID 27811, Space-Track.org (identifying an inclination for HS-2 of 2.32 degrees). 49 See Moakkit Declaration ¶ 15.

PNG ITU filings at the 95° W.L. orbital location.50 Spectrum Five used the satellite’s C-band

telemetry, tracking and command (“TT&C”) payload to drift and station-keep HS-2 at 95.15° W.L.

despite the fact that Spectrum Five had no C-band ITU filings to cover these operations.51 The

Netherlands has disclaimed any connection with Spectrum Five’s C-band transmissions given the lack of C-band frequencies in BSSNET4-95W,52 and the Greek administration has similarly denied

providing any authority for such transmissions.53 These entirely rogue C-band transmissions

caused harmful interference to Intelsat’s Galaxy 3C satellite, about which Intelsat engaged in

several conference calls with Hellas Sat. However, Hellas Sat refused to disclose the location of

HS-2 TT&C station and abruptly ceased communications with Intelsat. Intelsat promptly informed

the Commission of this interference problem in June 2019.54 Contrary to Spectrum Five’s

assertions, Intelsat has not “dropped” its claim of interference, and that interference continues to

this day.55

Further, in April 2020, Spectrum Five performed an uplink to HS-2 from Mexico with a

transportable earth station belonging to a U.S. entity, despite neither party appearing to have

authorization to make such communications from the Mexican administration.56 This communication caused Ku-band interference into Intelsat’s operations, which ceased only after

50 Id. ¶ 20. 51 Id. ¶¶ 17, 21. 52 Petition, Exhibit E at 2. 53 Id. Exhibit F at 2. 54 Moakkit Declaration ¶ 18. 55 Petition at 4; see also Moakkit Declaration ¶ 18. 56 See Moakkit Declaration ¶ 19.

the Commission made a complaint to the Dutch administration57 and the relevant Mexican

regulator became aware of the situation.

Lacking any legally viable options to obtain ITU rights to enable Spectrum Five to assert

priority over Intelsat’s operations at 95° W.L., Spectrum Five has adopted a new strategy—

attacking Intelsat’s licenses through a smear campaign disguised as a pleading seeking the

initiation of certain regulatory processes by the Commission. Spectrum Five filed the instant

Petition via ECFS on November 6, 2020. The Petition alleges that Intelsat lacks valid, duly

coordinated ITU filings to support Intelsat 30 and 31’s operations and therefore is violating its

licenses, FCC rules, and the Radio Regulations, and that Intelsat made material misrepresentations

in securing its licenses and in reporting the interference caused by Spectrum Five. The Petition

further alleges that the IB’s Satellite Division has been complicit in the alleged wrongdoing by

“failing to supervise Intelsat and [by] taking actions to benefit Intelsat that exceeded its delegated

authority,” including by allowing Intelsat to use pre-existing and foreign ITU filings.58

The Petition requests two “remedies:” (i) an order requiring Intelsat to “immediately

terminate unauthorized operations on Intelsat 30 and 31 and to bring Intelsat 30 and 31 into full

compliance with its FCC authorizations,” ITU filings, and FCC and ITU rules; and (ii) revocation

the Intelsat 30 and 31 space station licenses.59 The Petition also appears to seek the initiation of enforcement proceedings, as the Petition states the Commission is “require[d] . . . to . . . investigate

Intelsat’s misconduct”60 and the cover letter to the Petition is directed to the Enforcement Bureau.61

57 See Petition at Exhibit C; see also Moakkit Declaration ¶ 19. 58 Petition at 2. 59 Id. at 38. 60 Id. at 2. 61 Id. at cover letter. The Petition does not identify a regulatory basis for its Petition, and has rejected Intelsat’s characterization of the Petition as an “informal request for Commission action”

V. SPECTRUM FIVE’S ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING BY INTELSAT ARE FALSE.

The Commission should dismiss Spectrum Five’s Petition with prejudice because there are

no “unauthorized operations”62 on Intelsat 30 and 31 to terminate, and because Intelsat has

committed no wrongdoing that would merit license revocation. As the foregoing demonstrates, for decades Intelsat has been operating at 95° W.L. pursuant to validly obtained FCC licenses and in accordance with the spectrum rights granted by its ITU filings. In fact, the only wrongdoing

committed at this location occurred when Spectrum Five brought in a satellite without sufficient

ITU filings to cover its operations and without completing coordination with earlier priority ITU filings, and then intentionally began causing harmful interference to Intelsat’s operations.

Accordingly, the allegations levied against Intelsat in Spectrum Five’s Petition are categorically false. Specifically, and as explained further below: (i) Intelsat 30 and 31 appropriately rely on ITU filings that have priority over Spectrum Five’s filing at 95° W.L.; (ii)

Intelsat’s licenses for Intelsat 30 and 31 were validly obtained, appropriately granted, and do not rely on any misrepresentations; (iii) Intelsat is complying with all of the terms of its licenses; and

(iv) Intelsat did not make misrepresentations to the Commission regarding the interference caused

under 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 due to the Petition’s reference to “ECFS Docket 1.41” and the absence of any other rule that would permit this filing. See Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time of Intelsat License LLC, as Debtor in Possession, Misc. Docket No. INBOX-1.41 (filed Nov. 19, 2020) (“Opposition to Extension”). On November 12, 2020, Intelsat filed with the Commission a request for an extension of time to reply to the Petition, to the extent the 10-day response deadline found in Section 1.45 of the Commission’s rules was found to apply. See Motion for Extension of Time on Intelsat License LLC, as Debtor in Possession, Misc. Docket No. INBOX-1.41 (filed Nov. 12, 2020). On November 19, 2020, Spectrum Five filed an opposition to Intelsat’s request for extension of time. See Opposition to Extension. On December 1, 2020, the Commission granted in part Intelsat’s motion, extending the due date for the present filing to December 8, 2020. See December 1 Extension Order. 62 Petition at 38.

by Spectrum Five. The Commission should not allow its processes to be used for such outrageous,

manipulative behavior; it should expeditiously deny the meritless Petition.

A. The Intelsat 30 and 31 Satellites Appropriately Rely on ITU Filings that Have Priority over Spectrum Five’s Filing.

Spectrum Five’s Petition accuses Intelsat of “unlawful reliance” on ITU filings with

priority over Spectrum Five’s Dutch filing.63 However, there is nothing unlawful about Intelsat’s

reliance on the pre-60U USASAT filings and the BLUE1 filing, which is perfectly consistent with

both the ITU Radio Regulations and, as discussed further in Section V.B. infra, FCC rules and the

terms of Intelsat’s licenses.

As set forth above, Intelsat 30 and 31 rely on multiple USASAT filings and the BLUE1

filing, which collectively cover the entire range of frequencies used by these satellites in the correct

orbital location and under the appropriate technical parameters. Spectrum Five is incorrect in

asserting that Intelsat using these ITU filings, in particular USASAT-60F, which was brought into

use by Galaxy 3C, is “contrary to the ‘first-come, first-served approach’ underlying the ITU’s

coordination system” and would somehow “allow Intelsat to do exactly what . . . the ITU radio

regulations prohibit” by “add[ing] Ku-Extended Band frequencies . . . while maintaining

priority.”64 As clarified at length at the outset of this Opposition, having multiple satellites rely on one ITU filing is not only permissible under the Radio Regulations, but perfectly consistent with the policy objectives behind the ITU’s filing regime.

The Petition’s claims that Intelsat 30 and 31 are somehow technically incompatible with these ITU filings are similarly meritless, ranging from inconsequential to patently false. First, on

63 Petition ¶ 72. 64 Id. ¶ 73 (quoting Amendment of the Commission’s Space Station Licensing Rules & Policies, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 10760, 10772 (2003)).

the inconsequential side, the Petition points to discrepancies between the antenna gains for Intelsat

30 and 31 (44 dBi) and those specified in USASAT-60F (27 dBi), but fails to mention the antenna gains specified in the other USASAT filings that are much higher than 27 dBi. Moreover, it is not uncommon for ITU filings to exhibit differences from the performance of the actual satellite deployed—even Spectrum Five’s use of HS-2 has a comparable inconsistency with respect to the antenna gains in operation and as specified in BSSNET4-95W.65 The key factor from an

interference coordination perspective—the purpose of the ITU filing regime—is that Intelsat may

only claim protection to the extent of the parameters contained in its filings.66 Consistent with this

principle, Intelsat has never sought protection for Intelsat 30 and 31 in a manner that exceeds the

technical envelope of its collective ITU filings.67

Second, the Petition repeatedly and baselessly asserts that Intelsat is operating in excess of

the maximum power flux density (“PFD”) limits imposed by the Radio Regulations.68 These accusations—purportedly based on the results of an “investigation” of Intelsat’s operations in

Latin America for which Spectrum Five provides only a conclusory description and no substantiating evidence—are inconsistent with reality. Indeed, under their carrier load configurations, Intelsat 30 and 31 are technically incapable of operating at the PFD level

65 See Hellas Sat, HELLAS SAT 2 Satellite Handbook, at Annexes 1-4 (Mar. 2004), http://www.tsat.cz/download/hellas_2_handbookl_en.pdf. 66 In this case, the actual Intelsat 30 and 31 receive antenna gain is greater than that in the corresponding ITU filings, which means these satellites may be more susceptible to uplink interference than indicated in the ITU filing. It should be noted that this difference does not impact Intelsat 30 and 31 transmissions or result in increased interference to other networks. 67 See Moakkit Declaration ¶ 22. 68 Petition ¶¶ 18, 40, 47, 62 (asserting that the satellites operate at a downlink PFD level of -136.7 dBW/m2/4 kHz).

Spectrum Five identifies.69 Moreover, manufacturer test data is consistent with the levels set forth

in Intelsat’s technical filings for these space stations, and these levels are well within ITU70 (and,

for that matter, FCC71) limits.

Finally, the fact that Intelsat submitted a new ITU filing covering the same operations as

USASAT-60F and BLUE1 does not negate Intelsat’s ability to use more senior filings. Satellite

operators routinely seek to have one encompassing ITU filing, particularly if operations are spread

across numerous filings or filings submitted by differing administrations. Because the Radio

Regulations do not prohibit redundant filings or require filings to be connected to specific

satellites, nothing prevents an operator from taking these steps while also relying on earlier filings.

The coordination process raises another important point that the Petition conveniently

ignores—that ITU priority does not prohibit market entry. Quite the opposite, the process is

designed to encourage entry by giving operators certainty about their ability to continue operating

their satellites, which have required significant investment, as others enter the market. The Petition

thus is incorrect in asserting that Intelsat’s operation of satellites at 95° W.L. has “foreclosed

Spectrum Five’s operations as a new entrant in the satellite communications industry[.]”72

Spectrum Five, which is operating under a filing that is junior to the pre-60U USASAT filings and the BLUE1 filing and which only very recently acquired use of an in-orbit satellite to use that filing, simply must coordinate its operations with earlier filings in the queue to ensure protection of operations, such as Intelsat’s, that are pursuant to higher priority filings. Spectrum Five’s refusal to do so—and to instead engage in bullying tactics—provides no basis to revoke Intelsat’s licenses.

69 See Moakkit Declaration ¶ 23. 70 ITU Radio Regulations art. 21, Table 21-4. 71 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.208. 72 Petition ¶ 90.

B. Intelsat’s Licenses for Intelsat 30 and 31 Were Validly Obtained, Appropriately Granted, and Do Not Rely on Any Misrepresentations.

The Petition also erroneously asserts that Intelsat made misrepresentations in its licensing

applications and failed to secure the correct authorizations, and that the IB’s Satellite Division

exceeded its own authority in taking certain actions related to these applications. All of these arguments rely on the mistaken premise that Intelsat’s use of a PNG filing rendered the Intelsat 30 and 31 satellites “foreign-licensed.” In fact, Intelsat appropriately obtained FCC licenses for these satellites, and the Satellite Division’s acquiescence to the use of a foreign filing is perfectly consistent with FCC rules and the IB’s authority.

Intelsat’s Applications Were Accurate Because the Satellites Are Not “Foreign-Licensed.”

Spectrum Five repeatedly accuses Intelsat of making “knowingly false” representations in its licensing applications when Intelsat indicated in its Form 312 that it did not “intend to use a non-

U.S. licensed satellite to provide service in the United States.”73 This statement was false, the

Petition claims, because the satellites rely in part on the BLUE1 ITU filing, which was submitted

by Papua New Guinea. Accordingly, the Petition claims that Intelsat’s applications were deficient

because they contained misrepresentations and because Intelsat failed to obtain market access for

its “foreign-licensed” satellites and a “joint license” with Papua New Guinea.74

As the analysis at the beginning of this Opposition makes clear, Spectrum Five’s theory

about the import of the PNG filing is legally untenable because reliance on an ITU filing submitted by a foreign administration does not render a satellite “foreign-licensed.” Further, Intelsat had no intention, and still has no intention, of using foreign-licensed satellites to provide the operations for which it applied in the Intelsat 30 and 31 applications. Intelsat’s intention was, instead, exactly

73 FCC Form 312; see Petition ¶¶ 20, 28, 45, 79, 80, 81, 84. 74 See Petition ¶¶ 49, 71, 79.

what it did—to obtain FCC authorization for the satellites and, therefore, to use a U.S.-licensed

satellite to provide service. Intelsat made no misrepresentations and was not required to seek

market access and a “joint license” with Papua New Guinea.

The Satellite Division Was Correct to Grant the Applications. The Petition characterizes

the Satellite Division’s acquiescence to Intelsat’s use of USASAT-60F and BLUE1 as a “‘wink

wink’ process”75 in which the Bureau “approve[d] an after-the-fact joint licensing arrangement

with Papua New Guinea when no application seeking such licensing was before it.”76 The Petition claims that neither Intelsat nor the Commission have “provided . . . the regulatory or legal basis” for this process.77 “The reason[,]” the Petition alleges, “is simple—any such process would be

illegal.”78

The truth, in fact, is even simpler—such a “process” is perfectly legal because there is no

mandatory FCC mechanism or requirement for reviewing or approving the universe of ITU filings

to be used with a particular satellite. Applicants need not identify ITU filings in their applications.

Licensees need not use particular filings or inform the Commission of the specific filings being

used. Nothing in the Communications Act or FCC rules requires the Commission to pursue “joint

licensing” where an operator seeks to use filings by multiple administrations. Thus, this is not the

case of rogue bureaucrats and agency-industry conspiracy that Spectrum Five would like it to be.

Consistent with its delegated authority, the IB did, in fact, “grant [the Intelsat 30 and 31] application[s] on [their] terms.”79 Acquiescing to use of the PNG filing for inter-administration

75 Id. ¶ 46. 76 Id. ¶ 71. 77 Id. ¶ 46. 78 Id. 79 Id. ¶ 71.

coordination purposes does not amount to some type of post hoc under-the-table alternative

license, but rather the day-to-day practice of a regulatory agency whose licensing regime is independent from ITU filings.

C. Intelsat Has Not Violated Any Terms of Its Licenses for Intelsat 30 or 31.

Intelsat’s operations are likewise consistent with FCC regulations and the terms of the

licenses it has received. Spectrum Five repeatedly asserts that Intelsat is violating its licenses

because the licenses for Intelsat 30 and 31 required Intelsat to submit (and presumably, rely

exclusively on) a new ITU filing.80 This is a complete misreading of a standard license condition.

As set forth above, Intelsat’s licenses, like all standard GSO licenses, included a condition that

required Intelsat to provide information for submission to the ITU “as may be required,” a step

which is not always “required” because licensees may rely on pre-existing ITU filings for their

operations.81

Spectrum Five handles this “as may be required” language—which indicates that this

provision is conditional, thus requiring action only in certain circumstances—by simply ignoring it. Although at one point the Petition provides the condition in full in a block quote, it later conveniently omits only “as may be required” in quoting the provision and describing it as an

“express ‘condition’”82 that Spectrum Five asserts was mandatory because “Intelsat’s application

purports to be for a ‘new station.’”83 The Petition further argues that a new ITU filing was required because the license condition refers to ITU submissions for “this space station.”84 This too, is

80 See id. at 1, 3, ¶ 71, ¶¶ 76-81. 81 See, e.g., Intelsat 30 Stamp Grant at Condition 1. 82 Petition ¶ 59. 83 Id. ¶ 77. 84 Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Intelsat 30 Stamp Grant at Condition 1).

untenable: the fact that a condition in a space station license pertains to the space station that is being licensed does not somehow transform a conditional provision into a mandatory one. The

Petition is thus flatly wrong when it asserts “[t]he license therefore requires that Intelsat will submit

paperwork for the Satellite Division to file with the ITU seeking a ‘new frequency assignment’

(ITU satellite network).”85

The Petition is similarly incorrect that Intelsat’s licenses required the submission of a new

ITU filing because the Intelsat 30 and 31 space stations were not technically compatible with the

legacy ITU filings86—a falsehood that Intelsat debunked above. The satellites operate at acceptable

power limits consistent with the ITU filings, and any antenna gain discrepancies between the

filings and the satellites are irrelevant to Intelsat’s ability to use the filing, as Intelsat only seeks

protection pursuant to the technical envelope of its collective filings. Accordingly, an ITU

submission was not “required” under the conditions of Intelsat’s licenses. For the same reasons,

the Petition is incorrect that “Intelsat’s certifications of compliance” in its notices of operations for

the Intelsat 30 and 31 satellites were “false when made.”87

Nor did Intelsat violate the obligation in that condition to “‘prepare the necessary

information, as may be required, for submission to the [ITU] to initiate and complete . . .

coordination’” for ITU filings made in connection with the license.88 As set forth above, Intelsat

does not presently need to rely on the USASAT-60U filing because Intelsat may, and indeed does,

85 Id. (quoting ITU Radio Regulations, No. 11.1). 86 Id. ¶¶ 61-62. 87 Id. ¶ 33 (arguing that the certifications of compliance in the notices of operation were “false when made” because “Intelsat’s licenses were premised on the express ‘condition’ that Intelsat would secure ITU rights reflecting Intelsat 30 and 31’s actual operation,” but “Intelsat never obtained those rights”). 88 Id. ¶¶ 64-65 (quoting Intelsat 30 Stamp Grant at Condition 1).

rely on a combination of the pre-60U USASAT and BLUE1 filings. But, in any event, the fact that

coordination is not yet complete for USASAT-60U does not indicate that Intelsat has somehow

failed to meet the terms of this license condition. Indeed, Intelsat has been cooperating with the

Commission to help the U.S. administration meet its obligation as an ITU member state to

coordinate the filing. Coordination already has been completed for the Ku-band downlinks, and will continue with respect to the Ku-band uplinks and C-band links (the latter of which need not be coordinated with BSSNET4-95W, which as explained above does not include C-band

frequencies). Spectrum Five has put forth no evidence that Intelsat is failing to provide information

necessary to complete coordination for this filing; that Spectrum Five objects to the filing and

seeks to obstruct its coordination is not evidence of any wrongdoing by Intelsat.

D. Intelsat Did Not Make Any Misrepresentations About Interference Caused by Spectrum Five.

Finally, just as Intelsat did not make false representations about its use of foreign-licensed

satellites or in certifying that its satellites were brought into operation consistent with its licenses,

Intelsat did not make any misrepresentations about the interference caused by Spectrum Five’s

operations.

The Petition accuses Intelsat of “[going] to war with newly invented facts” about the harmful interference that Spectrum Five’s unauthorized operation of HS-2 caused to Galaxy 3C.89

The Petition further asserts “that it was impossible for the alleged interference to be coming from

HS-2, because the waveform of the alleged interfering signal was not even supported by HS-2.

Moreover, the only C-Band transmissions from HS-2 were for the satellite’s telemetry signal, a

89 Petition ¶ 36.

low-power, narrowband signal that could not even cause the purportedly severe interference that

Intelsat claimed to be receiving.”90

As set forth above, Spectrum Five’s operations have caused harmful interference to Intelsat in both the C- and Ku-bands (the Petition references only the C-band interference, again, conveniently ignoring critical information). In the C-band, Spectrum Five had no ITU filings

covering its operations, and with respect to both the C- and Ku-bands, Spectrum Five made no

attempts to coordinate its operations with Intelsat notwithstanding Intelsat’s senior ITU filings and

ongoing operations.91 Nothing about the interference experienced by Intelsat and reported to the

Commission was false or fabricated. Indeed, Spectrum Five’s assertion that it would be unable to

cause interference in the C-band because its C-band operations are limited to telemetry displays a

concerning lack of understanding about the technical capabilities of the satellite it is using. TT&C

signals can and do interfere with other satellites: a simple interference-to-noise ratio or carrier-to-

interference ratio analysis would demonstrate how Spectrum Five’s telemetry communications can

cause interference and sterilize the corresponding bandwidth on a nearby operating satellite.

The Petition’s frequent claims that Intelsat did not provide data about the interference

incidents directly to Spectrum Five likewise are of no moment92; indeed, Intelsat cooperated

faithfully with the FCC—which appropriately dealt with the Dutch administration once the Greek

administration stated it no longer is responsible for the satellite—to resolve the issue. A primary

objective of the ITU filing process is to allow member state administrations to interact directly and

90 Id. 91 See Moakkit Declaration ¶ 20. 92 See Petition ¶¶ 36, 38, 85.

resolve issues like claims of harmful interference rather than subject licensees to the baseless

demands of unabashed greenmailers like Spectrum Five.

Accordingly, Intelsat made no misrepresentations and committed no other wrongdoing in

reporting the interference caused by Spectrum Five. It did not “cause[] the Bureau to file an

incomplete and false interference report with the ITU.”93 In fact, the only wrongdoing committed

in the course of these interference events was by Spectrum Five, when it, for instance, hastily

began its operations, caused harmful interference to Intelsat and its customers by conducting

unauthorized transmissions in two different frequency bands, routinely refused to coordinate its

operations, and filed this baseless Petition.

VI. SPECTRUM FIVE’S PLEADING IS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT.

In addition to being meritless, the Petition should be rejected because it is procedurally

deficient in three respects. First, the Petition does not comply with any of the rules that would

authorize its requested relief. Spectrum Five’s Petition comes eight years after Intelsat applied to

launch and operate Intelsat 30, and at least six years after Spectrum Five alleges that “Intelsat’s

illegal conduct began” and “has continued every day thereafter.”94 As set forth above, Spectrum

Five never participated in the licensing proceedings for Intelsat 30 or 31, nor did it ever avail itself of formal procedures to assert its interests before the FCC. Whatever regulatory basis Spectrum

Five might hope supports this Petition now, none is available to permit such a dilatory, regulatorily

evasive pleading.

To the extent Spectrum Five intends this Petition to be a Part 25 request for reconsideration

or review of the IB’s decision to grant the Intelsat 30 and 31 authorizations, it is procedurally

93 Petition ¶ 86. 94 Id. at 2.

defective. Section 25.156 of the Commission’s rules provides that “[r]econsideration or review of

any final action taken by the Commission will be in accordance with subpart A of part 1 of [Chapter

I of the Communications Act].”95 Part 1 supplies formal procedures for seeking reconsideration

and review of actions taken pursuant to delegated authority.96 For instance, Section 1.115 allows

any “person aggrieved by any action taken pursuant to delegated authority” to “file an application

requesting review of that action by the Commission[.]”97 Such relief appears to be consistent with

this Petition, as the premise of the Petition is that the full Commission must provide relief to rectify

the alleged wrongs of the IB acting on delegated authority,98 and all requests for relief are directed

to the Commission and appear to take issue with bureau-level decisions.99

But Spectrum Five’s pleading fails to heed numerous requirements in Section 1.115.

Foremost, the Petition is untimely, as it challenges bureau-level actions long after “30 days of

public notice of such action[s],” such as the grant of Intelsat’s satellite authorizations in 2014.100

But it also fails to comply with even basic procedural requirements, such as:

 Exhausting bureau-level remedies by first requesting relief from the IB for its alleged grievances;101  “[C]oncisely and plainly stat[ing] the questions presented for review;”102 and  “[N]ot exceed[ing] 25 double-space typewritten pages.”103

95 47 C.F.R. § 25.156(c). 96 Id. §§ 1.101 to 1.117. 97 Id. § 1.115(a). 98 See Petition ¶¶ 71-75, 93. 99 See id. at 38. 100 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(d). 101 Id. § 1.115(c) (“No application for review will be granted if it relies on questions of fact or law upon which the designated authority has been afforded no opportunity to pass.”). 102 Id. § 1.115(b)(1). 103 Id. § 1.115(f).

Spectrum Five’s Petition is similarly deficient to the extent it is supposed to be a Section

1.106 request for reconsideration by the IB itself. Bureau-level requests for reconsideration require

petitioners to, inter alia, file their petitions “within 30 days from the date of public notice of the

final Commission action[.]”104 Because the IB granted Intelsat’s authorizations years ago, the

Petition is untimely, and Spectrum Five has not submitted a “separate pleading for leave to file”

establishing good cause for the Commission to consider its untimely filing.105

Nor should the Petition be eligible for consideration under Section 1.41 of the

Commission’s rules. Indeed, Spectrum Five does not appear to seek Section 1.41 relief, expressly

disclaiming that the Petition was filed pursuant to Section 1.41 in its Opposition to Intelsat’s

Motion for Extension of Time.106 But moreover, consideration of Spectrum Five’s Petition under

Section 1.41 would be inconsistent with the purpose of the rule. Section 1.41 provides for the submission of informal requests for Commission action “[e]xcept where formal procedures are required[.]”107 It is designed to “ensure[] that seeking Commission action does not become an

exercise in code pleading, and [to] offer[] an avenue of recourse to parties who might otherwise

have none.”108 The Commission has explained that Section 1.41 is not intended to allow parties to

avoid the procedural rigors of proper pleading or comply with reasonable deadlines. In other

104 Id. § 1.106(f). 105 Id. As with the Section 1.115 requirements, the Petition also fails to meet even more basic rules of 1.106, such as the page limit. See id. Because Spectrum Five’s filing is not identified as a petition for review or reconsideration, and the filing does not observe the relevant page limits, Intelsat has responded in an opposition of comparable length. 106 See Opposition to Extension at 2 n.1 (“The Motion suggests that the Petition may be an informal request pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission’s rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. However, the Petition nowhere relies on Section 1.41.”). 107 47 C.F.R. § 1.41. 108 Warren C. Havens, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 16261, ¶ 18 (2013) (“Havens Order”).

words, Section 1.41 is not “an invitation to dilatoriness or gamesmanship in presenting arguments to the Commission.”109 Where there is a formal procedure available, as Spectrum Five had at its

disposal years ago, “Section 1.41 is not a vehicle to evade the procedural requirements,” a principle that “is especially true with respect to the 30-day filing deadline” for petitions for reconsideration

or review.110

Processing the instant Petition as an informal request would unduly reward Spectrum

Five’s attempts to ignore the availability of formal procedures and years later “reopen long-final

Commission actions,” thereby “undercut[ting] the goals of administrative efficiency and finality

. . . as well as fundamental fairness to the litigants involved.”111 “The Commission regularly

declines to consider ‘informal’ requests for Commission action under Section 1.41 when there are

formal procedures available to the requesting parties,”112 and should do so here.

To be sure, the Commission, in its discretion, may have the authority to accept a procedurally deficient filing under Section 1.41, but it should not do so here, where Spectrum Five has explicitly rejected this relief, and has certainly not attempted to establish good cause to justify such a request. By its own admission, Spectrum Five’s allegations arose years ago, and it previously has rejected the opportunity to participate in formal proceedings. Because the Petition is “procedurally defective” under the Commission’s applicable rules, the Commission should

“dismiss it on such grounds.”113

109 Id. 110 Id. 111 DWHNY(AM), McComb, Mississippi CWH Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 27 FCC Rcd 2920, 2922 (2012). 112 Havens Order ¶ 18. 113 Telcordia Techs., Inc. Petition to Reform Amendment 57 & to Order A Competitive Bidding Process for No. Portability Admin., Order, 31 FCC Rcd 8444, ¶ 12 (2016).

Second, the Petition violates the Commission’s rule prohibiting compound pleadings.

Section 1.44(a) of the Commission’s rules provides that “[r]equests requiring action by the

Commission shall not be combined in a pleading with requests for action by . . . any person or

persons acting pursuant to delegated authority.”114 Here, Spectrum Five requests that the

Commission impose its two requested “remedies.”115 However, Spectrum Five also appears to

request action by the Enforcement Bureau.116 Because the Petition requires action by both the

Commission and the Enforcement Bureau—the latter acting pursuant to delegated authority117— it should be “returned without consideration[.]”118

Third, the specific relief requested by the Petition is specifically foreclosed by FCC rules.

In particular, Spectrum Five asks the Commission to “terminate the FCC authorizations for

satellite [s]tations S2887 and S2994 (Intelsat 30 and 31).”119 It requests that the Commission

“complete[]” “[p]roceedings to revoke Intelsat’s licenses . . . within 30 days.”120 But Section 1.91

of the Commission’s rules provide that before revoking a license, the Commission must issue a

show cause order “designat[ing] for hearing the matters with respect to which the Commission is

114 47 C.F.R. § 1.44(a). 115 See Petition at 38 (“[T]he FCC should impose the following remedies[.]”). 116 The Petition is styled as a “request for enforcement,” and the cover letter is marked “Attention: Enforcement Bureau.” See Petition at cover letter. 117 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.311; 0.111. 118 Id. § 1.44(d); see also Regionet Wireless License, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23068, 23071, ¶ 6 (2003) (dismissing pleading under section 1.44 because the pleading requested action from two bureaus acting on delegated authority); Hawaiian Tel. Co. Revisions to Its Tariff F.C.C. No. 10 Providing for an Increase in the Rates Applicable to Wide Spectrum (CATV Channel Distribution) Servs., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 42 FCC 2d 733, 733, ¶¶ 3–4 (1973) (dismissing pleading that joined “a request requiring Commission action . . . with a request for action by the staff under delegated authority[.]”). 119 Petition at 38. 120 Id. at 6.

inquiring and will call upon the person to whom it is directed (the respondent) to file with the

Commission a written appearance stating that the respondent will present evidence upon the matters specified in the order to show cause and, if required, appear before a presiding officer at a

time and place to be determined, but no earlier than thirty days after the receipt of such order.”121

VII. THE PETITION CONTINUES SPECTRUM FIVE’S LONGSTANDING PATTERN OF TRYING TO FRUSTRATE THE OPERATIONS OF AUTHORIZED SATELLITE OPERATORS WITHOUT PROVIDING ACTUAL SERVICE OF ITS OWN.

That this Petition is meritless and procedurally deficient is unsurprising given the entity filing it. Spectrum Five has demonstrated repeatedly that it has no intention to be a serious provider of satellite services, but rather is an anticompetitive greenmailer that abuses the Commission’s regulatory processes for its own pecuniary gain. This Petition is simply the latest effort in a long history of blatant attempts by Spectrum Five to threaten or frustrate the operations of other licensees while making no real efforts to provide its own services.

With regard to its own FCC filings, Spectrum Five has revealed itself to be an unserious player in the GSO space, despite its vigorous opposition to the authorizations of active licensees and operators. Spectrum Five’s original applications for FCC GSO licenses were dismissed as deficient in 2005, a theme that would run through Spectrum Five’s filings over the subsequent decade plus.122 Spectrum Five succeeded in obtaining grants of U.S. market access for two Dutch-

121 47 C.F.R. § 1.91(b) (emphasis added). This deadline can be relaxed only in narrow circumstances where “safety of life or property is involved[.]” Id. 122 See Letter from Fern J. Jarmulnek, Deputy Chief, Satellite Division, FCC, to Counsel for Spectrum Five LLC, DA 05-354, IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20041228-00228 (Feb. 17, 2005); Letter from Fern J. Jarmulnek, Deputy Chief, Satellite Division, FCC, to Counsel for Spectrum Five LLC, DA 05-531, IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20041228-00229 (Mar. 2, 2005). See also Letter from Jose P. Albuquerque, Chief, Satellite Division, FCC, to David Wilson, President, Spectrum Five, IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20141216-00131 (Mar. 13, 2015); Letter from Jose P. Albuquerque, Chief, Satellite Division, FCC, to David Wilson, President, Spectrum Five, IBFS File No. SAT- LOI-20141216-00130 (Mar. 13, 2015).

authorized satellites in 2006,123 both of which were declared null and void in 2011 when Spectrum

Five failed to meet construction milestones.124 Spectrum Five submitted four more requests for

U.S. market access in 2008 for three different orbital locations, two of which it withdrew in

2009,125 one of which was denied in 2012 due to being mutually exclusive with a prior-filed

application,126 and one of which was granted in 2012 and subsequently voided in 2018 due to

failure to complete operational milestones.127 Spectrum Five then filed four more market access

requests in 2015 and 2016 only to then decline the Commission’s grants in 2015 and 2017.128

Finally, Spectrum Five filed two market access requests in 2017 that were declared null and void the same year for failure to post a bond as required under 47 C.F.R. § 25.165.129 Presumably, given

that Spectrum Five made no serious effort to actually construct and operate a satellite pursuant to

any of these filings, the filings were made for the purpose of greenmailing a serious operator.

123 See Spectrum Five, LLC, Order and Authorization, 21 FCC Rcd 14023 (2006). 124 Spectrum Five LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 10448 (2011) (“Construction Milestone Revocation Order”). 125 See Satellite Policy Branch Information, Actions Taken, Public Notice, Report No. SAT- 00582, DA 09-410 (rel. Feb. 20, 2009). 126 DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC and Spectrum Five, Declaratory Ruling, Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 2932 (2012) (“DIRECTV Reconsideration Order”). 127 Spectrum Five LLC, Declaratory Ruling, 27 FCC Rcd 13129 (2012); Spectrum Five LLC, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 153 (2018). 128 See Letter from Scott H. Angstreich, Counsel, Spectrum Five LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOI-20150416-00025, SAT-LOI-20150416-00026 (Nov. 30, 2015); Letter from Scott H. Angstreich, Counsel, Spectrum Five LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOI-20160308-00025, SAT-LOI-20160308-00026 (Feb. 24, 2017). 129 See Satellite Policy Branch Information, Actions Taken, Public Notice, Report No. SAT- 01230, DA 17-335 (Apr. 7, 2017); Satellite Policy Branch Information, Actions Taken, Public Notice, Report No. SAT-01261, DA 17-784 (rel. Aug. 18, 2017).

Spectrum Five’s conduct in these proceedings demonstrates its inability to comply with

regulatory obligations, disingenuousness as a prospective licensee, and general unscrupulousness.

For instance, as noted above, in 2011 the Commission declared null and void Spectrum Five’s

original market access grants at the 114.5° W.L. orbital location.130 Spectrum Five’s authorization

required it to finish construction of its first satellite by November 29, 2010, and to launch and

operate both satellites by November 29, 2012.131 While the company filed annual reports in June

2009 and June 2010 stating that it was working toward meeting its first construction milestone, the

company filed for a two-year extension of the milestone in November 2010.132 Moreover, in

February 2011, in response to an inquiry from the Commission, Spectrum Five revealed that it had ceased any work under the construction contract after the November 2008 critical design review

(“CDR”) milestone, over two years earlier, and before either annual report claiming that it continued working toward meeting the construction milestone.133

In its decision revoking the authorization, the Commission noted that, in requesting an

extension, “Spectrum Five [did] not [] provide any concrete plan for completing the satellite, or

for building its second satellite and operating both satellites by the next milestone date, also

November 29, 2012. In fact, Spectrum Five has provided no evidence that it has made any progress

on either satellite or that it is closer to providing service than it was when we granted it market

access in 2006.”134 Moreover, the Commission concluded that Spectrum Five had not even met

130 Construction Milestone Revocation Order ¶¶ 1, 2. 131 Id. ¶ 2. 132 Id. ¶ 5. 133 Id. 134 Id. ¶ 17.

the November 2008 CDR milestone, despite Spectrum Five’s claims to the contrary.135 In total, this decision demonstrated that Spectrum Five made patently insufficient progress in fulfilling its authorization milestones and neglected to inform the Commission about it for over two years.136

Despite the fact that Spectrum Five’s status as a GSO operator is tenuous at best, it has

been an active participant in attempting to deprive other applicants and licensees of the ability to

operate. Spectrum Five’s market access petition that was denied in 2012, which requested authority

to provide U.S. services at the 103.15° W.L. orbital location, was mutually exclusive of

DIRECTV’s application for the 102.825° W.L. orbital location.137 However, Spectrum Five’s

petition was filed more than four months after DIRECTV’s application was placed on public

notice, a proceeding in which Spectrum Five, again, did not participate.138 In a pattern it would

repeat later, Spectrum Five challenged DIRECTV’s PFD demonstration and argued that the

application exceeded PFD limits and should be dismissed, after which Spectrum Five would be

first in the FCC’s queue for that orbital location.139 The Commission ultimately found that

Spectrum Five’s arguments did not preclude grant of the DIRECTV application140 and dismissed

Spectrum Five’s subsequent petition for reconsideration as meritless.141

135 Id. ¶ 20. 136 The Commission denied reconsideration of this decision in 2015. Spectrum Five LLC Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Extend or Waive Construction Milestone, Memorandum Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 12416 (2015). 137 DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC Application for Authorization to Launch and Operate DIRECTV RB-2, a Satellite in the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service at the 102/825 Degrees W.L. Orbital Location, Order and Authorization, 24 FCC Rcd 9393 (2009). 138 Id. ¶¶ 4-5. 139 Id. ¶ 5. 140 Id. ¶ 34. 141 DIRECTV Reconsideration Order ¶ 1.

Spectrum Five also has sought to limit legitimate operators in other ways. In 2009,

Spectrum Five attempted to persuade the Commission to limit an authorization to be held by DISH in a manner the Commission characterized as “identical in substance to a condition” designed “to protect space stations already operating and providing service.”142 However, the Commission found that this “would impose unnecessary constraints” on DISH’s operations, particularly given that Spectrum Five was not yet operating a satellite in the authorized orbital location.143 Spectrum

Five then filed Petitions to Dismiss or Deny a modification and an amendment to the same application in part based on its then-current authorization at 114.5° W.L.—an authorization for which Spectrum Five had abandoned efforts to meet milestones and would soon be revoked.144 In

2013, Spectrum Five filed an unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to prevent EchoStar from operating at an orbital location adjacent to that at issue here, based on the same ITU filing that Spectrum Five relies on in its Petition against Intelsat. Specifically, Spectrum Five sought to preclude EchoStar’s operations at 96.2° W.L. by imploring the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn an authorization granted by the FCC that had the effect of allowing EchoStar to bring into use a superior ITU filing.145 The case was dismissed on standing grounds.146

Spectrum Five now reprises similar tactics in an attempt to frustrate Intelsat’s operations at 95° W.L. The Petition does not raise any serious arguments about legal compliance with FCC and international regulatory regimes and the ability of a new entrant to provide service, but instead

142 DISH Operating L.L.C, Order and Authorization, 25 FCC Rcd 2311, ¶¶ 9-10 (2010). 143 Id. ¶ 10. 144 DISH Operating L.L.C, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 13123, ¶ 8 (2012). 145 See Spectrum Five LLC v. Federal Communications Commission, 758 F.3d 254, 260 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 146 See id. at 265.

reflects Spectrum Five’s longstanding shameless history of abusing the United States’ regulatory process for its own ends.

VIII. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Intelsat respectfully urges the Commission to dismiss with prejudice Spectrum Five’s request to initiate further proceedings regarding the Intelsat 30 and 31 space stations, and to continue to allow Intelsat to operate those space stations consistent with its duly obtained FCC authorizations and ITU filings.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Susan H. Crandall

Susan H. Crandall Associate General Counsel

Cynthia J. Grady Assistant General Counsel

Jennifer D. Hindin Intelsat US LLC Henry Gola 7900 Tysons One Place Sara M. Baxenberg McLean, VA 22102 Boyd Garriott (703) 559-6949 WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006

December 8, 2020

EXHIBIT 1

DECLARATION OF HAZEM MOAKKIT I, Hazem Moakkit, declare as follows: 1. I am Vice President of Spectrum Strategy at Intelsat. 2. I submit this declaration in support of the Opposition of Intelsat License LLC (“Opposition”) to the Petition of Spectrum Five LLC for Enforcement of Operational Limits and for Expedited Proceedings to Revoke Satellite Licenses filed by Spectrum Five on November 6, 2020. 3. I joined Intelsat in 2015 and began serving in my current position. 4. As Vice President of Spectrum Strategy, my responsibilities include international and domestic spectrum strategy and compliance with the relevant rules and regulations at the International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”) as well as national administrations. I also oversee all Intelsat satellite network filings at the ITU and coordination activities related to those filings. 5. Accordingly, I have personal knowledge of the technical aspects of Intelsat’s operation of satellites at the nominal 95 degree west longitude orbital location (“95° W.L.”), including as related to the submission of ITU filings covering frequency allocations at that orbital location, the interference experienced by Intelsat as a result of Spectrum Five’s operation of the Hellas Sat 2 (“HS-2”) satellite at 95.15° W.L., and the steps Intelsat has taken in response to that interference. In addition, given my 28 years of experience in the satellite industry, I have personal knowledge of how satellite companies typically design, coordinate and operate their geostationary orbit satellite networks, including as related to the submission of ITU filings. 6. No one person at Intelsat collectively has knowledge of all the events that are relevant to Spectrum Five’s Petition and Intelsat’s Opposition. However, based on my discussions with employees with relevant knowledge, I have developed an understanding of the relevant underlying facts of which I do not have personal knowledge. 7. Intelsat currently operates three satellites at 95° W.L.: Galaxy 3C (call sign S2381), Intelsat 30 (call sign S2887), and Intelsat 31 (call sign S2924). 8. Beginning with the Galaxy 8i (call sign GAL-8I) satellite in 1998, then Galaxy 3C, and now with Intelsat 30 and 31, Intelsat’s customer DIRECTV uses the Ku-band capacity at this location to provide direct-to-home broadcast services to millions of customers located in Latin America. 9. Galaxy 3C relies on multiple ITU filings covering its use of frequencies at 95° W.L. Specifically, Galaxy 3C relies on the following ITU filings, each submitted by the U.S. administration: USASAT-23F, USASAT-24L, USASAT-35L, USASAT-60F, and USASAT-60U. 10. Intelsat 30 also relies on multiple ITU filings. For all its operations, Intelsat 30 relies on relies on the U.S. ITU filings USASAT-23F, USASAT-24L, USASAT-35L,

EXHIBIT 1

USASAT-60F, and USASAT-60U. For operations in the 10.95-11.2 GHz band, Intelsat 30 also relies on BLUE1, a filing submitted by the administration of Papua New Guinea. 11. Like Intelsat 30, Intelsat 31 relies on the ITU filings USASAT-23F, USASAT- 24L, USASAT-35L, USASAT-60F, BLUE1, and USASAT-60U. 12. It is common industry practice for satellite operators to have multiple satellites that rely on the same ITU filing, and for a single satellite to rely on multiple ITU filings. 13. As an example, Intelsat’s satellites Horizons 2 (call sign S2423) and Intelsat 15 (call sign S2789), which currently are collocated at the nominal 85° E.L. orbital location, both rely on the INTELSAT KFOS 85E, INTELSAT6 85E, INTELSAT7 85E, INTELSAT8 85E, and USASAT-55N filings for their uplink Ku-band communications. While Intelsat 15 relies on the same set of ITU filings for its downlink Ku-band communications, Horizons 2 relies on a separate ITU filing, USABSS-29, for its Ku-band downlink communications. 14. It is not uncommon for satellite operators to obtain a license for a satellite from one administration, including the U.S. through the FCC, where that satellite relies in part on ITU filings submitted by foreign administrations. 15. Spectrum Five’s operation of HS-2 has caused harmful interference to Intelsat’s operations in both the C-band and the Ku-band. 16. In December 2018, the HS-2 satellite was drifted to the 95.15° W.L. orbital location. HS-2 arrived on station in March 2019. Intelsat understands that the purpose of the relocation was to bring into use a Dutch ITU filing, BSSNET4-95W. 17. Spectrum Five used HS-2’s C-band payload for telemetry, tracking and command (“TT&C”) to drift the satellite and station-keep it at 95.15° W.L. These communications caused harmful interference to Intelsat’s Galaxy 3C satellite. In April and May 2019, Intelsat engaged in several conference calls and emails regarding this interference with Hellas Sat, who Intelsat understood to be the satellite owner. As far as Intelsat is aware, Spectrum Five has access to the HS-2 satellite under a business arrangement with Hellas Sat. 18. Hellas Sat did not disclose the location of the TT&C station causing the harmful interference and ceased communications with Intelsat. Intelsat informed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) of this interference problem in June 2019. That interference continues to this day. 19. In April 2020, Spectrum Five performed uplink communications to HS-2 with a transportable earth station belonging to a U.S. entity and operating in Mexico, which caused Ku- band interference to Intelsat’s operations. As far as Intelsat is aware, neither party had authorization to make such communications from the Mexican administration. Intelsat reported this interference to the FCC, and the interference ceased only after the FCC made a complaint to the Dutch administration and the relevant Mexican regulator became aware of the situation.

EXHIBIT 1

20. Neither Spectrum Five nor Hellas Sat attempted to coordinate with Intelsat’s senior ITU filings at 95.15° W.L.: USASAT-23F, USASAT-24L, USASAT-35L, USASAT-60F, and BLUE1. 21. Intelsat is unaware of any ITU filing that would have authorized Spectrum Five’s C-band communications in 2019, and is aware of no such filings held by Spectrum Five that would have date priority over any of Intelsat’s C-band ITU filings at 95° W.L. 22. Intelsat has never sought protection for Intelsat 30 or Intelsat 31 in a manner that exceeds the technical envelope of its ITU filings against which those satellites operate. 23. Under their carrier load configurations, Intelsat 30 and Intelsat 31 are technically incapable of operating at the power flux density level that Spectrum Five identifies in its Petition (-136.7 dBW/m2/4 kHz). Manufacturer test data is consistent with the levels set forth in Intelsat’s technical filings for its space stations, and these levels are well within ITU limits.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Executed on: December 8, 2020

/s/ Hazem Moakkit Hazem Moakkit

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 8th day of December 2020, a true copy of the foregoing

Opposition was served via electronic mail upon:

Francisco R. Montero [email protected] Counsel for Spectrum Five, LLC Fletcher Heald & Hildreth, PLC 1300 North 17th St. 11th Fl. Arlington, VA 22209

/s/

Sara M. Baxenberg