# Before the

# FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

# Washington, D.C. 20554

)

In the Matter of ) File Nos.

) 198/199-SAT-P/L-95

PanAmSat Licensee Corp. ) 202-SAT-AMEND-95

Application for Authority to Construct, )

Launch, and Operate a Ka-Band Communications ) IBFS File Nos.

Satellite System in the Fixed-Satellite Service )
SAT-LOA-19950929-00155/54

at Orbital Locations 58° W.L. and 125° W.L. ) SAT-AMD-19950929-00109

) SAT-MOD-19980521-00070

)

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

Adopted: May 23, 2001 Released: May 25, 2001

By the Commission:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1 By this Order, we deny PanAmSat Licensee Corporation\'s (PanAmSat\'s)
application for review of an International Bureau (Bureau) Order
cancelling PanAmSat\'s Ka-band license for their Ka-band satellites at
the 58° W.L. and 125° W.L. orbital locations.[^1] This action prevents
\"warehousing\" of scarce orbit and spectrum resources.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2 In May 1997, the International Bureau (Bureau) authorized PanAmSat to
construct, launch, and operate geostationary-orbit satellites at the 58°
W.L. and 125° W.L. orbital locations to provide fixed-satellite service
in the United States in the Ka-band.[^2] This authorization was granted
as part of the first "processing round" of Ka-band systems, in which the
Bureau authorized a total of 13 Ka-band systems.[^3] Satellite systems
in this band have the potential to provide a wide variety of broadband
interactive digital services in the United States and around the world,
including voice, data, video, videoconferencing, facsimile, computer
access and telemedicine.[^4]

3 PanAmSat's license, like all satellite licenses, required PanAmSat to
meet explicit deadlines, or \"milestones.\" Milestones are necessary to
ensure "that licensees are building their systems in a timely manner and
that the orbit-spectrum is not being held by licensees unable or
unwilling to proceed with their plans."[^5] PanAmSat's authorization
stated the authorization would be null and void unless PanAmSat
commenced construction of its first satellite by May 1998.[^6]

4 Prior to the date PanAmSat was issued Ka-band licenses, in April 1997,
the Commission authorized PanAmSat to merge with another first round
Ka-band licensee, Hughes Communications, Inc. (Hughes).[^7] Hughes was
originally authorized to launch and operate 15 Ka-band satellites
concurrently with PanAmSat.[^8] One week after the licenses were issued,
on May 16, 1997, Hughes transferred seven of its Ka-band licenses to
PanAmSat.[^9] In its initial application, Hughes also requested
authority to use inter-satellite links (ISLs) to provide connectivity
between the coverage regions of satellites in different orbital
locations. The Bureau explained that ISL frequencies had not been
allocated at that time, but directed Hughes to apply for specific ISL
operating frequencies once these frequencies were identified.[^10] The
Bureau recognized that Hughes would not be able to proceed beyond \"the
initial phases of construction\" until ISL frequencies had been
allocated, and so did not impose specific milestones at that time.[^11]
PanAmSat did not request ISL authority in its initial Ka-band license
application.[^12]

5 On May 21, 1998, more than one year after PanAmSat and Hughes were
issued Ka-band licenses and Hughes had transferred seven Ka-band
licenses to PanAmSat, and approximately 10 days before PanAmSat was
required to meet its construction commencement milestones on its two
originally requested satellites, PanAmSat filed a modification
application to add ISLs to these two Ka-band satellites, and to suspend
its milestone schedule.[^13] PanAmSat claimed that ISL frequencies were
necessary to integrate its Ka-band satellites with Hughes\'s
satellites.[^14]

6 On July 23, 1998, the Bureau\'s Satellite and Radiocommunication
Division (Division) sent a letter to PanAmSat, as well as all other
Ka-band licensees requesting ISL spectrum. In the Division\'s letter to
PanAmSat, it pointed out that Hughes was not authorized to operate on
any ISL frequency, and that the Commission and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) were still
working jointly on obtaining an ISL frequency allocation.[^15] The
Division also informed PanAmSat that it could not consider its ISL
request unless PanAmSat identified the specific ISL frequency bands that
it sought to use. The Division requested PanAmSat to provide additional
ISL information on October 9, 1998 and December 22, 1999.[^16]

7 On December 9, 1999, the Division sent PanAmSat another letter noting
that its record did not indicate that PanAmSat had entered into a
noncontingent construction contract.[^17] The Division further requested
that PanAmSat submit a copy of any contract that it had executed. In
response, PanAmSat informed the Division that it had not entered into a
non-contingent construction contract because, at that time, ISL
frequencies had not been assigned.[^18]

8 In June 2000, the Bureau adopted the *PanAmSat Cancellation Order*
cancelling the authorizations for two of PanAmSat\'s nine Ka-band
satellites. The Bureau concluded that, because PanAmSat\'s pending ISL
modification application was not a circumstance beyond the licensee\'s
control, PanAmSat did not provide adequate justification for extending
its construction commencement milestone.[^19] Accordingly, the Bureau
concluded that PanAmSat\'s Ka-band license for the two satellites was
null and void, and that the orbital assignment granted to PanAmSat was
available for reassignment.[^20]

9 On July 25, 2000, PanAmSat filed an application for review of the
*PanAmSat Cancellation Order*, claiming that the Bureau did not place
adequate weight on its ISL argument, and that the Bureau \"signaled\"
that it would extend PanAmSat\'s milestones by requesting additional ISL
information. Pacific Century Group (PCG) and Pegasus Development
Corporation (Pegasus) filed oppositions on August 10, 2000, and PanAmSat
filed a reply on August 23, 2000.

**III. DISCUSSION**

**A. Procedural Issue**

10 In its opposition, PCG emphasizes that PanAmSat\'s license became
null and void under its own terms when it missed its construction
commencement milestone in May 1998, not as a result of the Bureau\'s
action in the *PanAmSat Cancellation Order*. Therefore, according to
PCG, PanAmSat\'s application for review should be denied as a late-filed
application for review of the 1997 *PanAmSat Authorization Order*, in
which the May 1998 construction commencement requirement was placed in
PanAmSat\'s license.[^21] PanAmSat maintains that it filed a request for
extension of its construction commencement milestone before that
milestone expired.[^22] PanAmSat also notes that, under Section
25.161(a) of the Commission\'s rules, an authorization is terminated
automatically when a milestone passes and the licensee fails to certify
that it has met that milestone, unless the licensee has requested an
extension of the milestone and the Commission has not acted on that
request.[^23] PanAmSat asserts therefore that its licensed was not
cancelled until the Bureau took action in June 2000, and that its
application for review of the June 2000 Order was filed timely.[^24]

11 PanAmSat is correct that, by filing a construction commencement
milestone extension request before June 1, 1998, its license did not
become null and void until the Bureau acted on its extension
request.[^25] Accordingly, we conclude that PanAmSat\'s milestone
extension request was \"timely filed\" for purposes of Section
25.161(a), and we therefore consider the merits of its application for
review. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, we find that
PanAmSat has not justified an extension of its construction commencement
milestone.

**B. Standard for Milestone Extensions**

12 The standard that licensees must meet to justify a milestone
extension request is well-established. Extensions of the milestone
schedule are granted only when delay in implementation is due to
circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.[^26] Requiring
licensees to make and fulfill realistic construction and launch
commitments prevents increasingly scarce orbital resources from being
warehoused by licensees. Such warehousing could hinder the availability
of services to the public at the earliest possible date by blocking
entry by other entities willing and able to proceed immediately with the
construction and launch of their satellite systems.[^27]

13 In summary, PanAmSat asserts that the Bureau should have granted its
construction commencement milestone extension request because it entered
into a merger with Hughes,[^28] the merger led to PanAmSat\'s
modification application to add ISL capability to its two
satellites,[^29] and adding ISLs to its satellites assigned to the 58°
W.L. and 125° W.L. orbital locations would make them more
efficient.[^30] The Commission has determined on more than one occasion
that mergers,[^31] modification applications,[^32] and decisions to
incorporate additional technological capabilities into a satellite[^33]
are business decisions within the control of the licensee, and therefore
cannot justify a milestone extension. Although PanAmSat asserts for
several reasons that we should not follow our milestone precedents in
its case, we find none of those reasons persuasive. We discuss our
determinations in more detail below.

**C. Construction Contracts and ISL Frequency Assignments**

14 In the first Ka-band processing round, seven applicants requested
authority to include ISL frequencies in their satellites. In those
licenses, the Bureau noted that the licensee \"will not be able to
proceed beyond the initial phases of construction\" until ISL
frequencies were assigned, and did not assign a specific milestone
schedule for those satellites.[^34] The Bureau stated that it would
assign a milestone schedule once ISL frequencies were assigned, and
noted that those licensees were free to begin construction at their own
risk.[^35] The remaining six licensees, including PanAmSat, did not
request ISL capability in their original license applications, and were
assigned a May 1998 construction commencement milestone.[^36] PanAmSat
did not request ISL authority until May 21, 1998, the same day it filed
its milestone extension request.

15 PanAmSat maintains that it could not enter into a construction
contract before it was assigned ISL frequencies.[^37] PanAmSat asserts
that the fact that the Commission had not assigned ISL frequencies
before its construction commencement deadline is a circumstance beyond
its control.[^38]

16 As an initial matter, PanAmSat is mistaken in asserting that it could
not enter into a \"non-contingent\" construction contract before it was
assigned ISL frequencies. By \"non-contingent contract,\" we have always
meant that there will be neither significant delays between the
execution of the contract and the actual commencement of construction,
nor conditions precedent to construction.[^39] The Commission has also
distinguished between accounting for contingencies in a contract and a
\"contingent contract\" that does not create a contractual financial
obligation for the licensee to proceed with the construction of its
satellite.[^40] PanAmSat provides no explanation as to why it could not
execute a construction contract in time to comply with its construction
commencement milestone that allowed for the possibility that its ISL
request would be granted subsequently.

17 Furthermore, when the Bureau issued Ka-band licenses in 1997, it
determined that licensees can begin constructing their satellites prior
to ISL frequency assignments, although the Bureau recognized that
licensees would not be able to progress beyond the initial phases of
construction.[^41] Indeed, we note that another licensee that did not
request ISL frequencies in its original Ka-band license, GE Americom,
entered into a construction contract within its May 1998 construction
commencement deadline, even though it was not assigned ISL frequencies
until January 2001.[^42] PanAmSat, on the other hand, did not even
attempt to enter into a construction contract, or provide any
explanation as to why it was unable to do so. Rather, PanAmSat stated,
10 days before its construction commencement deadline, that it could not
be done.

18 PanAmSat contends further that it would be unreasonable to require it
to launch its satellites assigned to the 58° W.L. and 125° W.L. orbital
locations before ISL frequencies were assigned.[^43] PanAmSat seems to
be confusing its construction commencement milestone with its launch
milestone. The Bureau did not require PanAmSat to launch any Ka-band
satellite before it was assigned ISL frequencies. Rather, the Bureau
required PanAmSat to enter into a satellite construction contract by May
1998, or demonstrate that it faces circumstances outside its control
that would warrant an extension of time. Given that it has not even
started construction of its satellites, PanAmSat\'s concern regarding
its launch is at best speculative, and cannot justify overturning the
Bureau\'s Order.

**D. Consistency with Precedent**

**1. Business Transactions**

19 PanAmSat asserts that the Commission should apply its rules flexibly
when changes are made that are incidental to a *bona fide* business
transaction.[^44] This would require a substantial departure from
precedent. We have determined on several occasions that business
transactions are within the control of the licensee, and so cannot
justify a milestone extension.[^45] Furthermore, the Bureau has
considered and rejected a proposal to interpret milestone requirements
flexibly,[^46] and PanAmSat provides no reason to revisit that issue
here. Finally, none of the Orders cited by PanAmSat address milestone
extension requests, and so are not relevant to this issue.[^47]

**2. Incorporation of Technology**

20 PanAmSat also claims that the Commission applies its procedural rules
flexibly to encourage development of efficient and innovative systems,
and therefore should extend PanAmSat\'s construction commencement
milestone to allow it to incorporate ISL frequencies into its satellite
design.[^48] Pegasus asserts that there is no reason to assume that an
\"all ISL\" FSS system is more efficient, and notes that Hughes is no
longer planning to incorporate ISLs into two of its satellites.[^49] PCG
questions why it took PanAmSat a year to realize that its two original
satellites authorized for the 58° W.L. and 125° W.L. orbital locations
were incompatible with the satellites it acquired from Hughes, and to
request ISL frequencies for those two satellites. PCG suspects that
PanAmSat\'s ISL request was merely an attempt to justify a milestone
extension.[^50] PanAmSat responds that the Commission should not
\"second-guess\" satellite operators\' decisions regarding whether to
incorporate ISLs into their satellites.[^51]

21 We do not need to determine whether a satellite with ISLs is more
technologically advanced than a satellite that does not utilize ISLs. We
do not extend milestones merely to allow a licensee to incorporate a new
technology into its satellite design.[^52] Otherwise, we would create a
loophole in our milestone policy, allowing licensees to extend their
milestones indefinitely by filing modification applications.[^53]
Furthermore, as explained above,[^54] PanAmSat could have entered into a
construction contract within the deadline specified in its license that
allowed for the possibility of incorporating ISL capability at a later
date. Thus, PanAmSat did not have to forgo ISLs to meet its milestone
requirement.

22 PanAmSat notes that we extended construction completion and launch
milestones for Hughes in 1990 to enable it to launch a hybrid satellite
rather than two satellites, each with only single band capacity.[^55]
PanAmSat misplaces its reliance on this Order, because Hughes had
probably already begun construction of the hybrid satellite at its own
risk. Specifically, Hughes was directed to begin construction of its
satellite \"if it had not already done so.\"[^56] Commencement of
construction is evidence of a licensee\'s commitment to proceed with its
business plans. PanAmSat, on the other hand, has not even entered into a
contract to commence construction of its satellites. Except when a
licensee faces circumstances beyond its control,[^57] or for some other
reason has demonstrated good cause for a milestone waiver,[^58] we have
always strictly construed construction commencement milestones to ensure
that unused spectrum is reassigned as quickly as possible to another
qualified entity that seeks to implement a system.[^59] Therefore,
Orders extending construction completion or launch milestones have no
bearing on PanAmSat\'s construction commencement milestone request.

**3. Other Ka-Band Licensees**

23 PanAmSat asserts that the Bureau \"suspended\" the milestones of
other Ka-band licensees that requested ISL frequency assignments.[^60]
PCG replies that the Bureau is not *required* to grant PanAmSat\'s
modification request simply because it filed the request. PCG states
further that PanAmSat is not in the same position as a licensee with ISL
authority simply because it has applied for a license modification to
add ISL capability.[^61] Pegasus argues that, to the extent that
PanAmSat\'s concern with efficiency focuses on its ongoing operating
costs, this is an economic concern and cannot justify a milestone
extension.[^62]

24 Although the Bureau delayed assigning specific milestone deadlines to
Ka-band licensees that requested ISL capabilities in their original
applications, it noted that they were capable of proceeding with at
least the initial phases of construction.[^63] Again, PanAmSat provides
no explanation as to why it could not proceed with at least the initial
phases of construction, especially since it was required to do so under
the terms of its license.

25 To the extent that PanAmSat is criticizing the Bureau for imposing
different milestone requirements on it than were imposed on other
Ka-band licensees, this criticism is equivalent to the PanAmSat argument
we rejected above. Filing a modification application is a circumstance
within the licensee\'s control that cannot justify a milestone
extension, even if the licensee seeks authority to incorporate a new
technology into its satellite design.[^64] Otherwise, we would create a
loophole in our milestone policy, allowing licensees to extend their
milestones indefinitely by filing modification applications.[^65] Such
indefinite milestone extensions could hinder the availability of
services to the public at the earliest possible date by blocking entry
by other entities willing and able to proceed immediately with the
construction and launch of their satellite systems.[^66] Thus, to avoid
creating such a loophole, we find that it is reasonable to require
Ka-band licensees filing ISL modification applications and seeking
construction commencement milestone extensions to meet the same standard
as any other licensee requesting a construction commencement milestone
extension.

26 PanAmSat further observes that GE American Communications, Inc. (GE
Americom) filed a modification application to add ISLs to its
satellites.[^67] PanAmSat observes that GE Americom admitted to the
Bureau that it had \"suspended construction\" of its satellite, and
asserts for this reason that GE Americom did not meet its construction
commencement milestone.[^68] PCG observes that GE Americom\'s case is
distinguishable because GE Americom met its construction commencement
milestone.[^69] Pegasus asserts that we should rescind GE Americom\'s
license rather than reinstate PanAmSat\'s license.[^70]

27 PanAmSat is mistaken in asserting that GE Americom failed to meet its
construction commencement milestone.[^71] It entered into a
noncontingent construction contract by May 1998, thus demonstrating an
intent to proceed with its business plan.[^72] Furthermore, by entering
into a construction contract and making at least some progress before
suspending construction to await the ISL frequency allocation, GE
Americom disproves the PanAmSat assertion underlying most of its
contentions, that it could not enter into a contract before ISL
frequencies were assigned. Thus, GE Americom\'s case is distinguishable
from PanAmSat\'s case. In other words, GE Americom, which filed its
modification application in a much more timely fashion than PanAmSat,
met its milestone and progressed as far as it could before
\"suspending\" construction of its satellites to await the Commission\'s
ISL assignments.

**E. Applicability of Precedents**

28 PanAmSat points out a number of factors which, it maintains, weigh
against following our milestone policies and precedents in its case. For
the reasons discussed below, we conclude that PanAmSat does not provide
sufficient justification for departing from our precedents.

**1. Motivation**

29 PanAmSat claims that there is no basis for assuming that either its
merger or its modification applications were motivated by an intent to
avoid compliance with its milestones.[^73] PanAmSat overstates its case.
If a licensee does not even enter into a contract before the milestone
to begin construction of its satellite specified in its license, it
raises substantial doubts as to whether the licensee intends to or is
able to proceed with its business plan.[^74] Furthermore, PanAmSat
merged with Hughes over a year before its construction commencement
milestone was scheduled, and must have known that Hughes was granted ISL
authority for its satellites long before that time. Yet, PanAmSat did
not file its ISL modification until 10 days before its construction
commencement deadline. While the timing of PanAmSat\'s modification
request does not show conclusively that there was no legitimate business
purpose for its ISL request, the timing of the request does raise a
legitimate question about whether it filed its modification application
at least in part to delay compliance with its construction commencement
deadline.

30 We do not intend to begin to examine licensees\' motivations as part
of our milestone review standard. Even if PanAmSat were correct that
there is no basis for assuming that it was motivated by an intent to
avoid compliance with its milestones, we would still affirm the
Bureau\'s Order. The standard for reviewing milestone extension requests
is a relatively clear test. It is much easier to determine whether a
licensee faces circumstances beyond its control than it is to divine the
licensee\'s motivations, intent, or state of mind at the time it filed
its modification application. Maintaining a clear milestone extension
test is important because we want to be able to reassign the license as
quickly as possible when a licensee demonstrates an unwillingness or
inability to proceed with construction.[^75]

**2. Public Interest**

31 PanAmSat asserts that there is no public interest benefit in revoking
its license.[^76] Pegasus counters that there is a public interest
benefit in making orbital locations available for assignment in the
second Ka-band processing round.[^77] PCG argues that reinstating
PanAmSat\'s license would cause uncertainty in the marketplace, and
therefore would be inconsistent with the public interest.[^78] PanAmSat
asserts that revoking its license to make orbital locations available
for reassignment would be tantamount to adopting a different standard
for milestone extension requests when a processing round is
pending.[^79]

32 The Bureau explained in the *PanAmSat Cancellation Order* that the
public interest benefit of our milestone policy, and of the application
of that policy to PanAmSat, is to ensure that licensees proceed with
construction and will launch their satellites into the limited orbit and
spectrum resource in a timely manner.[^80] This is an adequate public
interest justification for cancelling PanAmSat\'s license. Furthermore,
as explained above, the Bureau\'s action was completely consistent with
Commission precedents governing milestone extensions. PanAmSat has no
grounds to assert that the Bureau has established a different standard
for proceedings in which a second processing round is pending.

**3. Information Requests Regarding ISL Modification Application**

33 As discussed briefly above, the Division requested PanAmSat in July
1998 to identify the specific ISL frequencies that it proposes to use
for the seven satellites it acquired from Hughes.[^81] The Division
requested additional ISL information in October and December 1999,[^82]
and PanAmSat provided that information.

34 PanAmSat notes that, in its *July 1998* *Letter*, the Division
informed PanAmSat that this information was necessary to \"allow \[the
Bureau\] to issue an amended and complete space station license.\"[^83]
PanAmSat claims that this language, and similar language in the
Division\'s two later information requests, constituted a Division
commitment to grant PanAmSat\'s ISL modification application in its
entirety, including its request to extend the milestones for the
satellites initially authorized for the 58° W.L. and 125° W.L. orbital
locations.[^84] PanAmSat asserts that the Bureau did not properly
consider this alleged commitment when it cancelled PanAmSat\'s
licenses.[^85] PanAmSat claims that it took \"significant steps\"
towards developing its Ka-band system, based in part on its belief that
the Bureau had indicated that it would grant its ISL modification
request by requesting additional information.[^86] PanAmSat also
contends that it spent millions of dollars on market studies and
satellite design testing, with a \"special emphasis\" on the 58° W.L.
orbital location.[^87]

35 PCG notes that PanAmSat was required to enter into a contract to
construct two satellites for the 58° W.L. and 125° W.L. orbital
locations by May 1998, and subsequent statements by the Bureau
requesting additional information about PanAmSat\'s plans for ISLs could
not create any expectations that PanAmSat\'s deadline for satellite
construction would be extended.[^88] Similarly, Pegasus argues that the
*PanAmSat Authorization Order* clearly put PanAmSat on notice that it
was required to enter into a non-contingent construction contract for
those two satellites by May 1998, and that PanAmSat does not dispute
that it missed its construction commencement milestone in its
application for review.[^89] Pegasus argues further that the Bureau did
not act unreasonably in requesting ISL information from PanAmSat,
because the Bureau was clearly still considering PanAmSat\'s ISL and
milestone extension requests.[^90]

36 The Bureau\'s *July 1998 Letter* was intended to request from
PanAmSat ISL information regarding the seven satellites it acquired from
Hughes. \"PanAmSat specifically requests that the Commission incorporate
by reference the inter-satellite link proposal for the satellites that
were originally part of the Hughes Spaceway Ka-band system.\"[^91] It is
not reasonable for PanAmSat to interpret the *July 1998 Letter* as a
commitment to extend the milestones of two satellites that were not
\"originally part of the Hughes Spaceway Ka-band system.\" The
Commission staff has the right to seek the necessary information to
develop an adequate record in each proceeding in order to make informed
decisions.[^92] Accordingly, PanAmSat is incorrect in asserting that the
Division\'s information requests provide any basis for overturning the
*PanAmSat Cancellation Order*.

37 Furthermore, assuming for the sake of argument that the Division had
requested additional information for the two PanAmSat satellites
originally authorized for the 58° W.L. and 125 W.L.° orbital locations,
PanAmSat still fails to demonstrate that such information requests could
provide any basis for overturning the *PanAmSat Cancellation Order*. We
explain our milestone policy in detail in this Order. We note that, to
obtain a milestone extension, a licensee must demonstrate that the delay
in implementation is due to circumstances beyond the control of the
licensee.[^93] We note further that neither PanAmSat\'s 1997 merger nor
its 1998 modification application were circumstances outside its
control.[^94] We find that PanAmSat is incorrect in asserting that it
was unable to enter into a noncontingent construction contract that
would have met our construction commencement milestone before ISL
frequencies were assigned.[^95]

38 PanAmSat argues that a Division request that PanAmSat provide
additional information regarding its planned ISL usage could compel us
to reverse all these conclusions. PanAmSat appears to argue that the
Bureau implicitly relieved PanAmSat of any requirement to comply with a
condition in its underlying license merely by stating that its could not
consider a modification to that license without additional information.
Alternatively, PanAmSat seems to contend that the Bureau attained
authority to depart from the Commission\'s milestone extension
precedents simply by informing PanAmSat that it could not consider its
ISL request without information regarding the specific frequency bands
PanAmSat proposes to use. Neither of PanAmSat\'s arguments bears close
analysis. If we wanted to depart from our milestone policy, we would
need to supply a reasoned analysis showing that our prior policies and
standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored.[^96]
Clearly, asking PanAmSat to identify the specific ISL frequency bands it
proposes to use does not constitute a \"reasoned analysis\" for
departing from our milestone policies, and does not eliminate the need
for providing such a reasoned analysis.

39 PanAmSat also asserts that it invested time and money in reliance on
a commitment it read into the Bureau\'s information requests.[^97] This
is not relevant because, as explained above, PanAmSat\'s reliance was
not reasonable. Moreover, it is not clear how much reliance PanAmSat
placed on this alleged commitment. PanAmSat asserts without elaboration
that it spent millions of dollars on \"market studies\" and \"satellite
design testing,\" with a \"special emphasis\" on the 58° W.L. orbital
location.[^98] It is impossible to determine whether most or all of this
investment was for any particular satellite PanAmSat acquired from
Hughes. Given that PanAmSat has not entered into a Ka-band construction
contract, thereby raising substantial doubts as to whether PanAmSat
intends to proceed with its business plan, it would not be surprising to
find that the market tests and satellite design testing could be applied
to any satellite. In any case, even if PanAmSat\'s expenditures of time
and money were related to the specific satellites at issue here, there
is no basis to conclude that those expenditures represented progress
towards implementing PanAmSat\'s business plan in the absence of a
non-contingent construction contract. In other words, PanAmSat\'s
expenditures are not circumstances beyond the licensee\'s control that
can justify a milestone extension.

40 The Bureau could have been more explicit that it was requesting ISL
information for the seven Ka-band satellite licenses that PanAmSat
acquired from Hughes. To the extent that PanAmSat misunderstood the
scope of the Bureau\'s information requests, PanAmSat provided support
information for two satellites whose modification application was
ultimately mooted by the Bureau\'s denial of PanAmSat\'s milestone
extension request. However, allowing PanAmSat to keep its authorization
based on its misunderstanding would not be reasonable or equitable to
the several other first round Ka-band licensees who met their
construction commencement milestones and now are proceeding with their
business plans.

**F. Negotiation of Contract Without ISLs**

41 In the alternative, PanAmSat requests an opportunity to negotiate a
contract for two Ka-band satellites for the 58° W.L. and 125° W.L.
orbital locations without ISL frequencies.[^99] PanAmSat asserts that it
was \"led to believe\" that its ISL request would be granted, and was
not given an opportunity to negotiate contracts without ISLs.[^100]
PanAmSat was free, however, to negotiate a construction contract that
accounted for the possibility that it would not be granted ISL authority
before its May 1998 construction commencement deadline.

42 PanAmSat asserts further that the Bureau granted a 60-day milestone
extension to GE Americom in another context to enter into a construction
contract in the face of uncertainty.[^101] In the Order cited by
PanAmSat, the Bureau granted GE Americom a 60-day extension of its
construction commencement milestone in conjunction with reassigning its
satellite to another orbital location, to help resolve complicated
international coordination issues with other countries.[^102]
PanAmSat\'s situation is not analogous to GE Americom\'s situation.

43 The \"uncertainty\" in PanAmSat\'s case was whether the Bureau would
grant its ISL modification application. We see nothing to distinguish
this \"uncertainty\" from the *Second Columbia Milestone Order*. In that
proceeding, Columbia claimed that uncertainty over whether the Bureau
would grant a pending Columbia transfer-of-control application warranted
a milestone extension. The Bureau rejected Columbia\'s claim.[^103]

**IV. ORDERING CLAUSE**

44 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 405 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 405, and Section
1.115 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, that the
application for review filed by PanAmSat Licensee Corp. on July 26,
2000, IS DENIED.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

> Secretary

[^1]: PanAmSat Licensee Corp., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 18720 (Int\'l Bur. 2000) (*PanAmSat Cancellation Order*). For
    purposes of this Order, the \"Ka-band\" is the 19.7-20.2,
    28.35-28.6, and 29.25-30.0 GHz frequency bands.

[^2]: PanAmSat Licensee Corp., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, *Order
    and Authorization*, 13 FCC Rcd 1405 (Int'l Bur. 1997) (*PanAmSat
    Authorization Order*).

[^3]: Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Ka-band,
    *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 13737 (1996).

[^4]: *See* Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the
    Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band,
    to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules
    and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed
    Satellite Services, *Third Report and Order*, CC Docket No. 92-297,
    12 FCC Rcd 22310, 22311 (para. 1) (1997).

[^5]: *PanAmSat Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1412 (para. 23).
    *See also* Columbia Communications Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 15566, 15571 (para. 11) (Int\'l Bur. 2000)
    (*First Columbia Milestone Order*).

[^6]: PanAmSat was required to start construction of its second
    satellite by May 1999. *See PanAmSat Authorization Order*, 13 FCC
    Rcd at 1414 (para. 28).

[^7]: Hughes Communications, Inc. and Affiliated Companies, *Order and
    Authorization*, 12 FCC Rcd 7534 (1997) (*Merger Order*).

[^8]: Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., *Order and Authorization*, 13
    FCC Rcd 1351, 1363 (para. 35) (Int\'l Bur. 1997) (*Hughes
    Authorization Order*).

[^9]: *See* PanAmSat Application at 2 n.2.

[^10]: *Hughes Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1361-62 (para. 29).

[^11]: *Hughes Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1361-62 (para. 29).

[^12]: *PanAmSat Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 1405.

[^13]: *PanAmSat Cancellation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18721 (para. 5),
    *citing* application of PanAmSat Licensee Corporation, File No.
    SAT-MOD-19980521-00070 (PanAmSat 1998 Modification Application).

[^14]: *PanAmSat Cancellation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18721 (para. 5).
    *See also* PanAmSat 1998 Modification Application.

[^15]: Letter from Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and
    Radiocommunication Division, FCC, to Joseph A. Godles, counsel to
    PanAmSat (dated July 23, 1998) (*July 1998 Letter*).

[^16]: Letter from Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and
    Radiocommunication Division, FCC, to Joseph A. Godles, counsel to
    PanAmSat (dated October 9, 1998) (*October 1998 Letter*); Letter
    from Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and Radiocommunication
    Division, FCC, to Joseph A. Godles, counsel to PanAmSat (dated
    December 22, 1999) (*December 1999 ISL Letter*).

[^17]: Letter from Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and
    Radiocommunication Division, FCC, to Joseph A. Godles, counsel to
    PanAmSat (dated December 9, 1999) (*December 1999 Contract Letter*).

[^18]: *See PanAmSat Cancellation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18722 (para. 7).

[^19]: *PanAmSat Cancellation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18723 (para. 10).

[^20]: *PanAmSat Cancellation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18723 (para. 11).

[^21]: PCG Opposition at 4-6.

[^22]: PanAmSat Reply at 3.

[^23]: PanAmSat Reply at 3-4.

[^24]: PanAmSat Reply at 4.

[^25]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.161(a) (an authorization is terminated
    automatically when a milestone passes and the licensee fails to
    certify that it has met that milestone, unless the licensee has
    requested an extension of the milestone and the Commission has not
    acted on that request). The *PanAmSat Authorization Order*
    established a construction commencement milestone of the end of May
    1998. *PanAmSat Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1414 (para. 28).
    Because May 31, 1998 fell on a Sunday, PanAmSat\'s deadline became
    June 1, 1998. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(j).

[^26]: ^?^ National Exchange Satellite, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 1990, 1991 (para. 8) (Com. Car. Bur. 1992)
    (*Nexsat Order*); MCI Communications Corporation, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 233 (1987) (*MCI Order*); Hughes
    Communications Galaxy, *Order and Authorization*, 5 FCC Rcd 3423,
    3424 (paras. 10-11) (Com. Car. Bur. 1990) (*Hughes Milestone
    Order*); *PanAmSat Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1412 (para.
    23); Columbia Communications Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 15566, 15571 (para. 11) (Int\'l Bur. 2000)
    (*First Columbia Milestone Order*).

[^27]: ^?^ *Nexsat Order*, 7 FCC Rcd at 1991 (para. 8); *MCI Order*, 2
    FCC Rcd at 233 (para. 5); *First Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 15571 (para. 11).

[^28]: PanAmSat Application at 2-3.

[^29]: PanAmSat Application at 2-3.

[^30]: PanAmSat Application at 12.

[^31]: *MCI Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 234 (para. 7); *First Columbia
    Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15571 n.35; Columbia Communications
    Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 16496,
    16500-01 (para. 12) (Int\'l Bur. 2000) (*Second Columbia Milestone
    Order*). *See also* Pegasus Opposition at 6-7; PCG Opposition at
    12-14.

[^32]: Advanced Communications Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 13337, 13341 (para. 14) (Int\'l Bur., 1995)
    (*Advanced Order*); Tempo Enterprises, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 1 FCC Rcd 20 (1986); *First Columbia Milestone Order*, 15
    FCC Rcd at 15571-72 (para. 12); *PanAmSat Cancellation Order*, 15
    FCC Rcd at 18723 (para. 10). *See also* Pegasus Opposition at 6-7;
    PCG Opposition at 12-14.

[^33]: *See* American Telephone and Telegraph Company, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 4431, 4435 (paras. 30-31) (1987)
    (*AT&T Order*) (incorporating new hybrid capabilities into satellite
    design does not justify construction commencement milestone
    extension); Advanced Communications, Application for Extension of
    Time to Construct, Launch and Operate a Direct Broadcast Satellite
    System, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 3399, 3412
    (paras. 30-32) (1995) (*Advanced Review Order*) (promoting
    technological development cannot substitute for concrete progress
    towards construction and operation of system).

[^34]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Hughes Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    1361-62 (para. 29).

[^35]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Hughes Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1362
    (para. 29).

[^36]: *See*, *e.g.*, *PanAmSat Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1414
    (para. 28).

[^37]: PanAmSat Application at 6.

[^38]: PanAmSat Reply at 7.

[^39]: Norris Satellite Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22299, 22303-04 (para. 9) (1997) (*Norris Review
    Order*), *cited in* *December 1999 Contract Letter* at 1.

[^40]: *See Second Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16500-01
    (para. 12) (licensee could have executed construction contract that
    accounted for possibility of future Commission approval of pending
    transfer of control application), *citing* Volunteers in Technical
    Assistance, *Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 3094, 3108 (para. 43) (1997)
    (accounting for contingencies in construction and launch contracts
    is \"not extraordinary.\")

[^41]: *See* Teledesic Corporation, *Order and Authorization*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 3154, 3163-64 (para. 21) (Int\'l Bur., 1997) (*Teledesic
    Authorization Order*); Comm, Inc., *Order and Authorization*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 23001, 23010 (para. 28) (Int\'l Bur., 1997) (*Motorola
    Authorization Order*); Lockheed Martin Corporation, *Order and
    Authorization*, 12 FCC Rcd 23014, 23023 (para. 27) (Int\'l Bur.,
    1997) (*Astrolink Authorization Order*); *Hughes Authorization*
    *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1361-62 (para. 29); KaStar Satellite
    Communications Corp., *Order and Authorization*, 13 FCC Rcd 1366,
    1374 (para. 24) (Int\'l Bur., 1997) (*KaStar Authorization Order*);
    Loral Space & Communications, Ltd., *Order and Authorization*, 13
    FCC Rcd 1379, 1387-88 (para. 27) (Int\'l Bur., 1997) (*CyberStar
    Authorization Order*); EchoStar Satellite Corporation, *Order and
    Authorization*, 13 FCC Rcd 5664, 5672 (para. 25) (Int\'l Bur., 1997)
    (*EchoStar Authorization Order*).

[^42]: GE American Communications, Inc., Application for Authority to
    Construct, Launch, and Operate a Ka-band Satellite System in the
    Fixed-Satellite Service, *Order and Authorization*, DA 01-225
    (Int\'l Bur., released Jan. 31, 2001).

[^43]: PanAmSat Application at 6.

[^44]: PanAmSat Application at 8, *citing* Request for Declaratory
    Ruling Filed by Satellite CD Radio, *Declaratory Ruling*, 9 FCC Rcd
    2569 (Com. Car. Bur. 1994); Starsys Global Positioning, Inc.,
    Request for a Declaratory Ruling Concerning Section 25.116 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, *Declaratory Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 1662 (1993);
    Airsignal International, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 81 FCC 2d
    472 (1980); Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection
    Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Sprint
    Communications Company, L.P., Petition for Waiver, *Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 16487 (Com. Car. Bur., 2000).

[^45]: We observed above that mergers cannot justify a milestone
    extension request. *MCI Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 234 (para. 7); *First
    Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15571 n.35; *Second
    Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16500-01 (para. 12). We
    have also determined that construction contract negotiations cannot
    justify a milestone extension request. *Advanced Review Order*, 11
    FCC Rcd at 3417 (para. 45); *First Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 15571 n.35.

[^46]: *See Second* *Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16502-03
    (para. 17).

[^47]: The first three Orders PanAmSat cites considered petitions for
    waiver of the \"cut-off\" rule. The last Order considered a petition
    for waiver of the \"presubscription\" rules, governing procedures
    for long distance customers seeking to switch their long distance
    telephone service provider.

[^48]: PanAmSat Application at 13-14.

[^49]: Pegasus Opposition at 7, *citing* Letter from Arthur S.
    Landerholm, Counsel to Hughes, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary,
    FCC (dated Jan. 19, 2000). *See also* PCG Opposition at 9-10.

[^50]: PCG Opposition at 10.

[^51]: PanAmSat Reply at 8.

[^52]: *AT&T Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 4435 (paras. 30-31). *See also*
    EarthWatch Incorporated, *Order and Authorization*, 15 FCC Rcd
    18725, 18728 (para. 9) (*EarthWatch Order*).

[^53]: ^?^ *See Advanced Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 13341 (para. 14); Tempo
    Enterprises, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 1 FCC Rcd 20
    (1986) (*Tempo Order*); *First Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    at 15571-72 (para. 12).

[^54]: *See* Section III.C.

[^55]: PanAmSat Application at 12-13.

[^56]: *Hughes Milestone Order*, 5 FCC Rcd at 3424 (para. 11). Hughes
    was granted a waiver under Section 319(d) of the Commission\'s rules
    to begin construction at its own risk.

[^57]: ^?^ *See* Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in
    the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, GE American Communications,
    Inc. Request for Extension of Construction and Launch Milestones for
    GE-3, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 13863, 13865-66
    (paras. 5-7) (1998) (*1998 GE Americom Order*) (granting GE Americom
    a 60-day extension of its construction commencement milestone in
    conjunction with reassigning its satellite to another orbit
    location, to help resolve complicated international coordination
    issues with other countries); *MCI Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 234 (paras.
    7-9) (extending the milestones for one of MCI\'s two licenses
    because a series of launch failures that disrupted the industry at
    that time, including the *Challenger* disaster, may have played a
    part in MCI\'s failure to begin construction of that satellite). In
    addition, we have employed a different standard, a \"totality of the
    circumstances\" test, to determine whether to extend Direct
    Broadcast Satellite (DBS) milestones. *See*, *e.g.*, Petition of R/L
    DBS Company, L.L.C. for Extension of its Direct Broadcast Satellite
    Construction Permit, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 9
    (Int\'l. Bur., 2000).

[^58]: *See* NetSat 28 Company, LLC, For Authority to Construct, Launch
    and Operate a Ka-Band Communications Satellite in the
    Fixed-Satellite Service in Orbital Location 95° W.L., *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, File No. SAT-WAV-20001215-00164, DA 01-1284
    (rel. May 25, 2001).

[^59]: AMSC Subsidiary Corporation, Applications to Modify Space Station
    Authorizations in the Mobile Satellite Service, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 4040, 4042-43 (paras. 13-14) (1993) (*AMSC
    Order*); Application of GE American Communications, Inc., for
    Orbital Reassignment and for Modification of Authorization to
    Construct and Launch the Satcom H-1 Domestic Fixed-Satellite,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 5169, 5169 (para. 3) (Com.
    Car. Bur. 1992) (*1992 GE Americom Order*); *Norris Review Order*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 22306 (para. 17); *Second Columbia Milestone Order*,
    15 FCC Rcd at 16503 (para. 16); *EarthWatch Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    18728 (para. 9).

[^60]: PanAmSat Application at 9-10.

[^61]: PCG Opposition at 8.

[^62]: Pegasus Opposition at 7, *citing* *Second Columbia Milestone
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16500 (para. 11).

[^63]: *See Teledesic Authorization Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 3163-64 (para.
    21); *Motorola Ka-band Authorization Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 23001, 23010
    (para. 28); *Astrolink Ka-band Authorization Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    23023 (para. 27); *Hughes Ka-band Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd
    at 1361-62 (para. 29); *KaStar Ka-band Authorization Order*, 13 FCC
    Rcd at 1374 (para. 24); *CyberStar Ka-band Authorization Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd at 1387-88 (para. 27); *EchoStar Ka-band Authorization
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 5672 (para. 25).

[^64]: Section III.D.2., *supra*, *citing AT&T Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 4435
    (paras. 30-31).

[^65]: Section III.D.2., *supra*, *citing* *Advanced Order*, 10 FCC Rcd
    at 13341 (para. 14); *Tempo Order*, 1 FCC Rcd at 20; *First Columbia
    Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15571-72 (para. 12).

[^66]: ^?^ *First Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15571 (para.
    11); *citing Nexsat Order*, 7 FCC Rcd at 1991 (para. 8); *MCI
    Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 233.

[^67]: PanAmSat Application at 11.

[^68]: PanAmSat Application at 11-12, *citing* Letter from Peter A.
    Rohrbach to Thomas S. Tycz (dated Dec. 23, 1999).

[^69]: PCG Opposition at 11.

[^70]: Pegasus Opposition at 8-9.

[^71]: PanAmSat Application at 11-12.

[^72]: *AMSC Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 4042 (para. 13) (failing to begin
    construction raises questions regarding the licensee\'s intention to
    proceed); *Norris Review Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22306 (para. 17) (by
    failing to commence construction or request extension within the
    milestone deadline, licensee in that Order did not demonstrate a
    commitment to proceed with its proposed system); *Second Columbia
    Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16502 (para. 16).

[^73]: PanAmSat Application at 5-6, 9; PanAmSat Reply at 6.

[^74]: *AMSC Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 4042 (para. 13) (failing to begin
    construction raises questions regarding the licensee\'s intention to
    proceed); *Norris Review Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22306 (para. 17) (by
    failing to commence construction or request extension within the
    milestone deadline, licensee in that Order did not demonstrate a
    commitment to proceed with its proposed system); *Second Columbia
    Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16502 (para. 16).

[^75]: *See First Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15571 (para.
    11) (anti-warehousing policy helps make services available to the
    public \"at the earliest possible date\"), *citing* *Nexsat Order*,
    7 FCC Rcd at 1991 (para. 8); *MCI Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 233.

[^76]: PanAmSat Application at 6.

[^77]: Pegasus Opposition at 9.

[^78]: PCG Opposition at 14-15.

[^79]: PanAmSat Reply at 8-9.

[^80]: *PanAmSat Cancellation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18722 (para. 8).

[^81]: Section II, *supra*, *citing July 1998 Letter*.

[^82]: Section II, *supra*, *citing October 1998 Letter*; *December 1999
    ISL Letter*.

[^83]: PanAmSat Application at 3-4, *quoting July 1998 Letter*. PanAmSat
    quotes similar language in the *October 1998 Letter* and *December
    1999 ISL Letter*.

[^84]: PanAmSat Application at 4.

[^85]: PanAmSat Application at 5-6, 8-11, *citing*, *e.g.*, Petroleum
    Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164, 1172 (D.C. Cir., 1994)
    (Commission must take into account particular circumstances of each
    case). *But see* PCG Opposition at 6-8 (*Petroleum Communications*
    is not relevant. In that case, the Commission invited comment in a
    rulemaking proceeding and then did not consider those comments).

[^86]: PanAmSat Reply at 5.

[^87]: PanAmSat Application at 3.

[^88]: PCG Opposition at 10-11.

[^89]: Pegasus Opposition at 5-6.

[^90]: Pegasus Opposition at 8.

[^91]: *July 1998 Letter* at 1.

[^92]: *See* Section 25.111(a).

[^93]: Section III.B.

[^94]: Section III.B.

[^95]: Section III.C.

[^96]: *Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC*, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C.
    Cir. 1970); *AT&T v.* *FCC*, 236 F.3d 729, 726-37 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

[^97]: PanAmSat Reply at 5.

[^98]: PanAmSat Application at 3.

[^99]: PanAmSat Application at 7; PanAmSat Reply at 7-8.

[^100]: PanAmSat Application at 11.

[^101]: PanAmSat Reply at 7, *citing* Assignment of Orbital Locations in
    the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, GE American Communications,
    Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 13863 (1998) (*1998
    GE Americom Order*).

[^102]: *1998 GE Americom Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 13865 (para. 5). *See
    also* *Second Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16503 n.46.

[^103]: *Second Columbia Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16499-16500
    (para. 10).