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 ii 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. 1 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. 2 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. 3 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