Nos. 13-1231 & 13-1232 Washington, D.C. 20530
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
USCA Case #13-1231 Document #1472126 Filed: 12/23/2013 Page 1 of 98 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NOS. 13-1231 & 13-1232 SPECTRUM FIVE LLC, APPELLANT, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, APPELLEE. SPECTRUM FIVE LLC, PETITIONER, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS. ON APPEAL FROM AND PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WILLIAM J. BAER JONATHAN B. SALLET ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL ROBERT B. NICHOLSON JACOB M. LEWIS ROBERT J. WIGGERS ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL ATTORNEYS MATTHEW J. DUNNE UNITED STATES COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 (202) 418-1740 USCA Case #13-1231 Document #1472126 Filed: 12/23/2013 Page 2 of 98 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Appellee/Respondent the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and Respondent the United States certify as follows: 1. Parties. The parties appearing before the FCC were DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC; EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation; the Government of Bermuda; Radiocommunications Agency Netherlands; SES S.A.; and Spectrum Five LLC. The parties appearing before this Court are Appellant/Petitioner Spectrum Five LLC; Appelle/Respondent the FCC; Respondent the United States in No. 13-1232 only; and Intervenor EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation. 2. Ruling under review. The ruling under review is Memorandum Opinion and Order, EchoStar Satellite Operating Company; Application for Special Temporary Authority Relating to Moving the EchoStar 6 Satellite from the 77° W.L. Orbital Location, and to Operate at the 96.2° W.L. Orbital Location, 28 FCC Rcd 10412 (2013) (“Order”). 3. Related cases. The FCC and the United States are not aware of any related cases. USCA Case #13-1231 Document #1472126 Filed: 12/23/2013 Page 3 of 98 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities......................................................................................... iii Glossary ......................................................................................................... viii Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................ 1 Questions Presented .......................................................................................... 2 Statutes and Regulations ................................................................................... 3 Counterstatement ............................................................................................... 3 A. Regulatory Background ......................................................................... 3 B. Spectrum Five ........................................................................................ 7 C. Proceedings Before The Bureau ............................................................ 9 1. Application and Pleadings ................................................................. 9 2. Bureau Decision .............................................................................. 13 D. The Order On Review ......................................................................... 15 E. Subsequent Developments .................................................................. 18 Summary of Argument .................................................................................... 18 Standard of Review ......................................................................................... 23 Argument ......................................................................................................... 24 I. Spectrum Five Has Not Demonstrated Standing. .................................... 24 A. Spectrum Five’s Injury Is Conjectural And Uncertain. ...................... 24 B. Redress Is Contingent On Action By The ITU, A Non- Party. .................................................................................................... 29 1. Only the ITU can provide relief ...................................................... 29 2. Vacatur may have no effect on the ITU. ......................................... 30 i USCA Case #13-1231 Document #1472126 Filed: 12/23/2013 Page 4 of 98 C. The Requested Relief Is Beyond The Court’s Power. ........................ 34 II. The Commission Reasonably Exercised Its Discretion In Finding That An International Coordination Agreement Constituted Extraordinary Circumstances Meriting An STA. ................. 39 A. Interference protection for present and future DBS service to U.S. customers constituted extraordinary circumstances. ..................................................................................... 39 B. Spectrum Five’s attacks on the coordination arrangement are baseless. ......................................................................................... 43 III. Spectrum Five Has Waived Its Argument That A Conflict Between An STA And The ITU BSS Plan Is Unlawful; In Any Case, There Is No Conflict. .............................................................. 47 IV. The Commission Has Not Pre-Judged The Assignment Of DBS Licenses. .......................................................................................... 47 V. Spectrum Five Has Waived Its Argument Regarding Echostar 6’s Fuel Life; In Any Case, The Commission Reasonably Accepted Echostar’s Explanation Of The Issue. .................. 54 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 57 ii USCA Case #13-1231 Document #1472126 Filed: 12/23/2013 Page 5 of 98 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Americans for Safe Access v. DEA, 706 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................... 33 ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989) ................................................ 29 Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327 (1945) .......................................................................................................... 52 * AT&T Corp. v. FCC, 317 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ..................................... 48 Bachow Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................... 52 * Bartholdi Cable Co., Inc. v. FCC, 114 F.3d 274 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................... 55 BDPCS, Inc. v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................................ 47 Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. FCC, 649 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 4, 57 City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) .......................................................................................................... 39 Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) .......................................................................................................... 24 CNG Transmission Corp. v. FERC, 40 F.3d 1289 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ........................................................................................... 29 Coal. for Pres. of Hispanic Broad. v. FCC, 893 F.2d 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ......................................................................... 27 Consumer Elecs. Ass’n v. FCC, 347 F.3d 291 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 23 Cranston v. Reagan, 611 F. Supp. 247 (D.D.C. 1985) ............................................................................................................ 36 Dist. No. 1, Pac. Coast Dist., Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n v. Mar. Admin., 215 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................... 45 El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. U.S., 607 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................... 35 iii USCA Case #13-1231 Document #1472126 Filed: 12/23/2013 Page 6 of 98 Environmentel, LLC v. FCC, 661 F.3d 80 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................................ 55 FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U.S. 582 (1981) .......................................................................................................... 43 Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) ................................................................. 35 Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan, 413 F.3d 45 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................................ 36 * In re Core Commc’ns, Inc., 455 F.3d 267 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................... 43, 46, 47 Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc., 478 U.S. 221 (1986) ........................................................................................... 36 Keller Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 130 F.3d 1073 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................................... 42 Kessler v. FCC, 326 F.2d 673 (D.C. Cir. 1963) .............................................. 52 Klamath Water Users Ass’n v. FERC, 534 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................