Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554

DA 96-713 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service

In the Matter of the Applications of

AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND File Nos. 62-SAT-AMEND-95 TELEGRAPH COMPANY 63-SAT-P/LA-95 64 -SAT-P/LA-95 65-SAT-P/LA-95

ECHOSTAR SATELLITE 36-DSS-LA-94 CORPORATION 37-DSS-P/LA-94 154-SAT-AMEND-95

GE AMERICAN 69-SAT-P/LA-95 COMMUNICATIONS 70-SAT-P/LA-95 71-SAT-P/LA-95

HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS 5-DSS-P/LA-95 GALAXY, INC. 67-SAT-AMEND-95 68-SAT-P/LA-95

LORAL SPACE AND 72-SAT-P/LA-95 COMMUNICATIONS LTD. 73-SAT-P/LA-95 137-SAT-P-95

ORION NETWORK 74-SAT-P/LA-95 SYSTEMS, INC.

ORDER AND AUTHORIZATIONS

Adopted: May 7, 1996 Released: May 7, 1996

By the Chief, International Bureau:

13788 Introduction

1. By this Order, we authorize - without opinion - the construction, launch, and operation of eleven satellites and assign them to orbit locations. 1 These satellites will allow existing licensees to expand their systems and provide several new entrants with an opportunity to compete in the satellite market. The satellites will provide a wide range of domestic and international services well into the next decade.

2. We have issued these authorizations and assignments without opinion in an attempt to eliminate the unnecessary delay and uncertainty often associated with the licensing process. We will issue separate opinions addressing the merits of each application in detail within 30 days of the release of this Order. In the meantime, this Order apprises the applicants and other satellite operators of our decisions with respect to this processing round so they may immediately proceed with their business plans.

Background

3. It has been more than two decades since we established our basic domestic fixed- satellite (domsat) service licensing policies.2 These policies were designed to permit qualified entities proposing a variety of satellite systems and services to serve the public without unnecessary regulatory barriers. This approach has been flexible enough to allow U.S. satellite operators to respond promptly to changing technological and market conditions, and has helped make the United States a world leader in the provision of satellite-delivered services. Since the Commission announced its domsat policies, we have granted five groups of authorizations in 1973, 1980, 1983, 1985, and 1988. In response to our Public Notice inviting applications to be considered in the sixth domsat processing group, six entities filed applications for 13 new in-orbit satellites.3 The six entities include American Telephone and Telegraph Company, EchoStar Satellite Corporation, -GE American Communications, Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., Loral Space and Communications Ltd., and Orion Network Systems, Inc. 4. The policies and procedures we apply here to assign specific orbit locations have been summarized in previous domsat service orbit assignment orders.4 We have previously held that applicants© requests for particular orbital locations do not limit our flexibility to assign orbital

Three of the authorizations are conditional. Two applicants (receiving a total of three authorizations) failed to provide sufficient financial information regarding their qualifications. See Appendix. Those authorizations may ultimately be denied if the applicants cannot demonstrate their financial qualifications.

See Domestic Communications Satellite Facilities, 22 F.C.C.Zd 86 (1970), 35 F.C.C.2d 844 (1972), recon. in pan, 38 F.C.C.2d 665 (1972) (Domsat I, II, and IU, respectively).

The assignment plan appended to this Order also includes orbital assignments for three replacement satellites.

See, e.g.. Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, 3 F.C.C. Red. 6972 (1988) (1988 Orbital Assignment Order).

13789 locations that best serve the public interest.5 We have also said that variations in the characteristics of different orbital locations in the same portion of the geostationary satellite orbital arc were not significant for assignment purposes. Consequently, requests by different domsat applicants for the same orbital location do not, under current law, give rise to mutual exclusivity.6 In general, our assignment of orbital locations includes a consideration of each applicant©s request and several competing,factors. These factors include the volume and distribution of traffic requirements, constraints imposed by satellite design, plans of other countries for their satellites, and equitable treatment of existing and new domestic satellite operators. Additionally, we seek to minimize the number of relocations of in-orbit satellites and the resulting disruption of service to domestic satellite users. Finally, we attempt to afford new entrants, when possible, at least one initial orbital location in the portion of the orbital arc that allows them to provide maximum quality service to all 50 states.

5. In this sixth domsat processing round, we have a sufficient number of orbital locations available to accommodate all qualified applications. The specific orbit assignments made here reflect our long-standing assignment policies.

Discussion A. Framework

6. The uniform 2 spacing policy, designed to maximize the number of in-orbit satellites, continues to be the cornerstone of our orbital assignment plan.7 We assign satellites at 2 intervals to those locations available for assignment to U.S. satellites. Generally, the portion of the orbital arc between 107.3 W.L. and 118.7 W.L. is used to accommodate Canadian and Mexican satellites, pursuant to a U.S.-Mexico-Canada trilateral arrangement,8 which effectively divides the orbital arc covering the United States into eastern and western regions. 7. In our 1988 Assignment Plan, we set aside specific portions of the orbital arc for satellites operating with power density levels higher than those generally used by other satellite

For this reason, we caution applicants that until they receive an actual orbital assignment from the Commission, they have no assurance that the location for which they apply will be the location for which a satellite is authorized. Expenses incurred to prepare a satellite for operation from.a particular location are incurred at the applicant©s risk, and will not influence the Commission©s assignments.

We do not here express an opinon about whether we should through a rulemaking or other proceeding change this approach for future applications.

The 2 spacing policy was adopted in 1981 in Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic fixed-Satellite Service, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 577, 589 (1983) (Reduced Orbital Spacing], implemented in the 1985 Orbital Assignment Order, 50 Fed. Reg. 35228 (August 30, 1985), and preserved in the 1988 Orbital Assignment Order.

See Trilateral Arrangement Regarding Use of the Geostationary Orbit Reached by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, Public Notice, Mimeo No. 4406 (September 2. 1988).

13790 licensees.9 This was designed to alleviate interference problems between newer, higher-power-density satellites and more traditional satellites. In the eight years since this policy was established, most newly implemented satellites have been designed to operate at these higher power density levels. These satellites have been operating in all portions of the orbital arc without causing interference problems. Consequently, we see no reason to continue to designate specific portions of the arc for high-power-density satellites. We will, however, continue to consider the technical characteristics of all satellites and their interference potential when assigning satellites to adjacent locations. B. Qualification Requirements

8. The basic qualification requirements for domsat licenses are contained in Section 25.140 of our rules. 10 These rules describe the legal, technical, and financial criteria we use to evaluate an applicant©s qualifications to hold a license. In developing our assignment plan, we have evaluated each pending application to determine whether it complies with Section 25.140. As we will explain in more detail in our forthcoming opinions on each application, EchoStar and Orion have not yet demonstrated they have committed financing sufficient to cover construction, launch, and first- year operating costs, as required by Section 25.140(c). Hughes, AT&T, and GE have also requested more than one additional orbit location in each of the C- and Ku- frequency bands, contrary to Section 25.140(g). To accommodate new entry and provide existing operators with certainty about the extent to which they will be able to expand their systems as traffic grows, the rules provide that each qualified applicant may be assigned no more than one additional orbital location beyond its current authorizations in each frequency band. We have therefore declined to assign orbital locations to some of the expansion satellites that were requested."

9. The following table shows the number of orbital locations that have been previously assigned in the domestic arc, and those that are assigned today: 12

9 See GE American Communications, Inc., 3 F.C.C. Red. 687 (1988).

10 See 47 C.F.R. §25.140.

11 Some of the applicants have requested waivers of those portions of Section 25.140 that they do not meet. We have considered these waiver requests in developing this orbit assignment order and have granted some of these waiver requests. We will explain the rationale underlying our decisions in the individual opinions.

12 A hybrid satellite encompasses both the 4/6 GHz and 12/14 GHz portions of an orbital assignment and, therefore, the numbers in the chart do not reflect the actual number of authorized in-orbit satellites. Today©s assignment brings the total number of authorized and/or in-orbit domestic fixed-satellites to 44.

13791 Company Name Number of Orbital Locations Authorized by Frequency Band (GHz)

PREVIOUS ADDITIONAL TOTAL 4/6 12/14 4/6 12/14 4/6 12/14 American Telephone & Telegraph Co. 32 12 44

EchoStar Satellite Corporation 00 02 02

GE American Communications. Inc. 8 11 21 10 12

Hughes Communications Galaxv. Inc. 66 20 86

Loral Space & Communications Ltd. 00 22 22

Orion Network systems. Inc. 00 01 01

AT&T/GE Americom13 10 00 10

Comsat General Corporation14 I i N/A N/A I I

TOTAL 19 20 78 26 28

10. We summarize our disposition of each application below. Separate opinions, with a full discussion of the merits and conditions of the licenses, will follow. We will afford licensees 30 days from the release of these individual opinions in which to file Petitions for Reconsideration or Applications for Review of our decisions today. 47 C.F.R. §1.3, §7.7060), and §7.775.

AT&T: AT&T applied for authority to construct, launch, and operate three hybrid C-/Ku- band satellites, Telstars 5, 6, and 7. Telstar 5 is intended to be a partial replacement for the C-band Telstar 303 satellite, which is nearing retirement. AT&T also applied to construct a ground spare, Telstar 8. We grant AT&T authority for its Telstar 6 satellite under our rule affording existing operators one additional orbit location in each frequency band.15 We also grant AT&T authority for Telstar 5. The C-band portion of Telstar 5 is a replacement for Telstar 303. We routinely grant applications for replacement satellites. 16 We further recognize the cost efficiencies inherent in operating a hybrid satellite. 17 Consequently, we grant AT&T a waiver of our satellite expansion rule by allowing it to include Ku-band capacity on its proposed hybrid Telstar 5 satellite. We also grant

13 Aurora 2 (also called Satcom C-S) is jointly licensed by AT&T and GE.

14 Comsat did not file an application in the current processing round.

15 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(g).

16 See 1988 Orbital Assignment Order at n.31.

17 See. e.g., Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., DA 90-780 (June 6, 1990).

13792 . AT&T authority to construct a ground spare. We deny AT&T©s request for a second expansion satellite, Telstar 7, as contrary to our expansion rule.

EchoStarr EchoStar applied for authority to construct, launch, and operate two Ku-band satellites, EchoStar FSS-1 and FSS-2. EchoStar, as a new entrant in the fixed-satellite service, would be afforded two orbit locations if it is found qualified to hold a space station license. 18 EchoStar, however, has not adequately demonstrated its financial qualifications. We will grant EchoStar licenses conditioned on it submitting additional financial documentation, or documentation justifying a waiver of our financial requirements, within 30 days of the release of its individual order.

GE: GE applied for authority to construct, launch, and operate three hybrid C-/Ku-band satellites, GE-5, 6, and 7. In addition, GE filed, outside this processing round, an application to construct, launch, and operate a hybrid C-/Ku-band satellite, GE-3, as a partial replacement for Satcom K-2, which is nearing retirement. We grant GE authority for its GE-5 satellite under our expansion policy. We also grant GE authority for GE-3. The Ku-band portion of GE-3 is a replacement for Satcom K-2. As with AT&T, we grant GE a waiver of our satellite expansion rule by allowing it to include C-band capacity on its proposed hybrid GE-3 replacement satellite. We deny GE©s request for two additional expansion satellites as contrary to our expansion rule.

Hushes: Hughes applied to construct, launch, and operate one hybrid C-/Ku-band satellite, Galaxy X, and one C-band satellite, Galaxy IX. The Ku-band portion of Galaxy X is intended to replace Hughes©s Ku-band SBS-5 satellite, which is nearing retirement. We grant Hughes authority for its Galaxy IX satellite under our expansion policy. We also grant authority for Galaxy X. The Ku-band portion of Galaxy X is a replacement for SBS-S. As with AT&T and GE, we grant Hughes a waiver of our satellite expansion rule by allowing it to include C-band capacity on its proposed hybrid Galaxy X satellite. Loral: Loral applied to construct, launch, and operate two hybrid C-/Ku-band satellites. We find Loral qualified to hold a space station license and grant it authority for its two proposed satellites consistent with our policy for new entrants.

Orion: Orion applied for authority to construct, launch, and operate a Ku-band satellite, O- F4. Orion has not, however, adequately demonstrated its financial qualifications. We will grant Orion a license conditioned upon it submitting additional financial documentation, or documentation justifying a waiver of our financial requirements, within 30 days of the release of its individual order.

C. Orbital Assignments 11. GE has requested that we allow the applicants an opportunity to reach a negotiated settlement regarding orbit assignments, after we decide which applicants satisfy our threshold requirements. We believe that adopting an orbit assignment plan today avoids unnecessary delay in providing critically needed satellite-delivered services to the public while allowing licensees the opportunity to offer other mutually agreed upon alternatives to the plan. As with all previous assignment plans, we will entertain requests for changes in the orbital assignments made today if they are consistent with the basic structure of our assignment plan and are agreed by all, or at least most.

18 47C.F.R. §25.140(1).

13793 of the satellite operators affected by the change. If all operators do not agree, the burden is on the operator proposing the change to demonstrate that its alternative is preferable to the adopted plan. Satellite operators may apply for reassignment to all locations that remain available after today©s order. All unassigned orbital locations, however, may not be available for U.S. satellites due to operations or anticipated operations of other systems. Any alternative orbital arrangement, including requests for any unassigned orbital locations, may be presented to the Commission for approval within 30 days of the release of the individual orders acting upon the applications.

12. Our new orbit assignment plan is contained in the Appendix. A licensee operating a satellite at a location not in conformance with this assignment plan may continue to operate at its current location until it becomes necessary to move the satellite to its assigned location to accommodate another satellite. We expect licensees affected by a particular launch to complete any planning necessary to accommodate the new satellite at least two months prior to the scheduled launch. At that time, the licensee of the satellite to be launched may submit a report to us describing these activities. As with all other assignment plans, licensees are expected to cooperate in implementing the plan and in resolving any interference problems. We also require all satellite operators to coordinate orbital maneuvers with potentially affected satellite operators. If particular problems cannot be resolved by the parties, they may be brought to the Commission for resolution.

13. All U.S.-licensed satellites must be advanced-published, coordinated, and notified to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in order to obtain international protection. In the past, many licensees have relied upon the Commission to handle all aspects of this. We remind all licensees of new satellites that we expect licensees to participate actively in all aspects of the ITU process, from the planning and filing stage to coordination and eventual notification of the system. Without completing this ITU process, the satellite network is not protected from harmful interference from non-U.S.-licensed fixed-satellite service networks,

14. We have recently submitted ITU Advanced Publication (Appendix 4) information to the ITU for all available U.S. fixed-satellite orbital locations. We require all licensees to submit to us their Requests for Coordination (Appendix 3) for the respective orbital locations assigned. The ITU regulations provide that Appendix 3 information be submitted within six months of its receipt of the Appendix 4 applications. We expect applicants to submit this information to us in a timely manner. Applicants will also need to submit information to complete the INTELSAT consultation process.

Conclusion and Ordering Clauses

15. We find, upon review of the applications and record before us, that pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 309, the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by adopting the orbital assignment plan contained in the Appendix.

16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the orbital assignments specified in the Appendix ARE ADOPTED and the licensees of these space stations shall promptly undertake all actions necessary to implement this orbital assignment plan, including coordination with other U.S. satellite operators.

13794 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the orbital location assignments specified in Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, 5 F.C.C. Red. 179 (1989), ARE MODIFIED in accordance with the orbital location assignment plan as specified in the Appendix.

18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the applicants in this processing round ARE AUTHORIZED to construct, launch, and operate space stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service, as specified in the Appendix, in a manner consistent with Part 25 of the Commission©s rules, and the relevant terms and conditions of all previous orders concerning the operation of space stations, subject to paragraph 19, below. 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the authorizations granted to EchoStar Satellite Corporation and Orion Network Systems, Inc. are subject to the submission of additional financial information described hi paragraph 8, above.

20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the assignment of any orbital location is subject to change by summary order of the Commission on 30 days notice and does not confer any permanent right to the use of the geostationary satellite orbit or spectrum. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these orbital assignments will be effective 30 days after the effective date of our individual orders on the underlying applications.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Scott Blake Harris Bureau Chief

13795 APPENDIX

1996 Orbital Assignment Plan19

Location Satellite Band/Polarization

139° W.L. Aurora II/Satcom C-520 4/6 GHz (vertical) 139° W.L. ACS-3K (AMSC) 12/14 GHZ 137° W.L. Satcom C-l 4/6 GHz (horizontal) 137° W.L. unassigned 12/14 GHz 135° W.L. Satcom C-4 4/6 GHz (vertical) 135° W.L. Orion O-F421 12/14 GHz 133° W.L. Galaxy 1-R(S) 4/6 GHz (horizontal) 133° W.L. unassigned 12/14 GHz 131° W.L. Satcom C-3 4/6 GHz (vertical) 131° W.L. unassigned 12/14 GHz 129° W.L. Loral 1 4/6 GHz (horizontal)/12/14 GHz 127° W.L. Galaxy IX 4/6 GHz (vertical) 127° W.L. unassigned 12/14 GHz 125° W.L. Galaxy 5-W 4/6 GHz (horizontal) 125° W.L. GSTAR n/unassigned 12/14 GHz 123° W.L. Galaxy X 4/6 GHz (vertical)/12/14 GHz 121° W.L. EchoStar FSS-222 12/14 GHz

19 New satellites appear in bold. When two satellites are listed at the same location, the first satellite is near retirement and will be expected to move to accommodate the second satellite. All unassigned orbit locations may not be available for U.S. satellites due to operations of other countries.

20 AT&T calls this C-band satellite Aurora n while GE calls it Satcom C-5.

21 Assignment conditioned on the submission of additional information.

22 Assignment conditioned on the submission of additional information.

13796 105° W.L. GSTAR IV 12/14 GHz 103° W.L. GE-1 4/6 GHz(horizontal) 103° W.L. GSTAR 1/GE-l 12/14 GHz 101° W.L. Satcom SN-4 (formerly Spacenet IV-n) 4/6 GHz(vertical)/12/14 GHz 99° W.L. Galaxy IV(H) 4/6 GHz (horizontal)/12/14 GHz 97° W.L. Telstar 401 4/6 GHz (vertical)/12/14 GHz 95° W.L. Galaxy ffl(H) 4/6 GHz (horizontal)/12/14 GHz 93° W.L. Telstar 5 4/6 GHz (vertical) 93° W.L. GSTAR m/Telstar 5 12/14 GHz 91°W.L. Galaxy VH(H) 4/6 GHz (horizontal)/12/14 GHz 89° W.L. Telestar 402R 4/6 GHz (vertical)/12/14 GHz 87° W.L. Satcom SN-3 (formerly Spacenet IH-R)/GE-4 4/6 GHz (horizontal)/12/14 GHz 85° W.L. Telstar 302/GE-2 4/6 GHz (vertical) 85° W.L. Satcom Ku-l/GE-2 12/14 GHz 83° W.L. unassigned 4/6 GHz (horizontal) 83° W.L. EchoStar FSS-123 12/14 GHz 81° W.L. unassigned 4/6 GHz (vertical) 81° W.L. Satcom Ku-2/unassigned24 12/14 GHz 79° W.L. GE-5 4/6 GHz (horizontal)/12/14 GHz 77° W.L. Loral2 4/6 GHz (vertical)/12/14 GHz 76° W.L. Comstar D-4 4/6 GHz (vertical) 74° W.L. Galaxy VI 4/6 GHz (horizontal) 74° W.L. SBS-6 12/14 GHz 72° W.L. unassig 4/6 GHz (vertical) 71° W.L. SBS-2 12/14 GHz 69° W.L. Satcom SN-2/Telstar 6 4/6 GHz (horizontal)/12/14 GHz

23 Assignment conditioned on the submission of additional information.

24 Satcom Ku-2 is being replaced by GE-3 at 67° W.L.

13797 67° W.L. GE-3 4/6 GHz (venical)/12/14 GHz 64° W.L. unassigned 4/6 GHz (horizontal) 64° W.L. unassigned 12/14 GHz 62° W.L. unassigned 4/6 GHz (venical) 62° W.L. ACS-2K (AMSC) 12/14 GHz 60° W.L. unassigned 4/6 GHz 60° W.L. unassigned 12/14 GHz

13798