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.