Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DA 94-203 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 6 4. PanAmSat also contends that, in violation of Section Before the 202 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 202, Comsat Federal Communications Commission offers a "new" service in Transmittal 20 to a single cus Washington, D.C. 20554 tomer under terms not available to other Comsat cus tomers. PanAmSat Petition at 1-3. Comsat replies that because the reservation request for this particular service In the Matter of was made prior to an April 1993 cut-off date contained in its tariff,3 Comsat correctly applied the pre-April 1993 tariffed terms. Comsat Reply at 2-3.4 Comsat Corporation Transmittal Nos. 20 and 22 5. Finally, PanAmSat contends that, contrary to the Comsat World Systems Commission©s rules, Comsat©s Transmittal 20 omits a ma terial term: the power level for Comsat©s 54 MHz digital Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 video service. Absent such information, PanAmSat argues, the fairness of Comsat©s charges and the adequacy of Comsat©s offering to meet specific customer needs cannot ORDER be determined. PanAmSat Petition at 3-5. Comsat responds that its transmittal implicitly incorporates by reference all Adopted: March 3, 1994; Released: March 4, 1994 relevant provisions in Comsat Tariff No. 1 and that, in cluded among those provisions, is a reference to an By the Chief, Tariff Division, Common Carrier Bureau: INTELSAT document from which the power level can be calculated. Comsat Reply at 4-5. 1. On January 6, 1994, Comsat Corporation -- Comsat 6. The Tariff Division has reviewed the above transmit World Systems (Comsat) filed Transmittal No. 20 to expand tals and all associated submissions. We conclude that no its Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 to include general regulations for compelling argument has been presented that the tariff the lease of Full-Period Television Through Service be transmittal, as revised, is so patently unlawful as to require tween the United States and foreign locations. This trans- rejection, and that no question has been presented that mittal also establishes a specific rate and other terms of warrants investigation at this time. service applicable to a five-year lease of this preemptible, 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the "Motion for digital video service. The five-year lease would involve use Acceptance of Response" filed by PanAmSat. L.P., IS DE of 54 MHz of available bandwidth from a hemi-beam tran NIED and the accompanying "Response to Reply of sponder on one of INTELSAT©S satellites to provide this Comsat Corporation" IS DISMISSED. the United States and Argentina. through service between that the "Request to Transmittal 20 is scheduled to become effective March 6, 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by Comsat Corporation IS GRANTED. 1994.© Transmittal No. 20, Description and Justification at Strike" filed 1. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition to Corporation -- PanAmSat, L.P. (PanAmSat) reject or to suspend and investigate Comsat 2. On January 21, 1994, Transmittal No. filed a petition to reject or, alternatively, to suspend and Comsat World Systems Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, 20, filed by PanAmSat, L.P., Inc. IS DENIED. investigate Comsat Transmittal 20. Comsat filed a reply on January 31, 1994.2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 3. PanAmSat contends that Transmittal 20 should be rejected because it does not include sufficient cost support for the proposed 54 MHz five-year lease rate, noting that the 54 MHz lease rate is inconsistent with Comsat©s rates for other lease sizes. PanAmSat Petition at 5-6. Comsat replies, inter alia, that its proposed lease rate for the 54 Gregory J. Vogt MHz service was developed in accordance with the meth Chief, Tariff Division odology used in earlier transmittals by Comsat and that all Common Carrier Bureau of its currently effective pre-April 1. 1993 lease transpon der rates for 9 MHz or greater were developed using that same methodology. Comsat then explains in its reply how it derived the proposed lease rate for the 54 MHz service. Comsat Reply at 6. See also Comsat Letter. 1 On February 28, 1994, Comsat filed Transmittal No. 22, also miss PanAmSat©s "Response to Reply" because such a response effective March 6, 1994, to clarify the terms of its offering under is not permitted under our rules. See Section 1.45(c) of the Transmittal 20. Subsequently, Comsat filed additional cost sup Commission©s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.45(c). port. Letter from A. Lim, General Attorney, Comsat, to G. 3 Comsat has two sets of rates and other terms for its Vogt, Chief, Tariff Division, Common Carrier Bureau (March 1, preemptible digital video service: an "old" set for service taken 1994) (Comsat Letter). or reserved prior to April 1, 1993, and a "new" set for service 2 On February 14, 1994. PanAmSat filed a pleading captioned, taken or reserved after that date. "Response to Reply of Comsat Corporation," and an accom 4 Documents referred to in Comsat©s Reply and for which panying, "Motion for Acceptance of Response." On February 22, confidential treatment was sought were not considered and have 1994, Comsat filed a pleading captioned. "Request to Strike," been returned to Comsat. seeking dismissal of both PanAmSat©s original opposition and PanAmSat©s subsequent "Response to Reply." We deny PanAmSat©s motion, grant Comsat©s request to strike, and dis 1388.