# summary

GE Americom supports U.S. licensing of the INTELSAT system, but not on
the terms requested here.

As a threshold matter, the ORBIT Act requires the Commission to make a
determination -- prior to granting any authority to Intelsat LLC -- that
the Company's entry will not harm competition in the U.S. market. The
statute sets forth specific criteria for that analysis. Intelsat LLC
does not meet these criteria today and has not made anything like a firm
commitment to comply with them in the future. At a minimum, the
Commission cannot grant even conditional authority to Intelsat LLC until
the Company has presented a detailed plan for meeting the statute's
terms. The Commission must also be prepared to enforce compliance with
that plan by revoking any authority granted.

The Commission must deny Intelsat LLC's request for licensing of five
new orbital positions. INTELSAT has been warehousing four of these
locations for years, and Intelsat LLC's claim that the positions are now
needed to meet near-term demand is simply not credible. The request
violates the Commission's expansion rule and cannot be considered
outside a processing round. Intelsat LLC's statement that the slots will
not be available for licensing by the Commission unless they are
assigned to Intelsat LLC makes clear that the Company is engaged in
impermissible forum shopping, but does not alter the Commission's
obligation to enforce its policies by denying Intelsat LLC's request.

Intelsat LLC's attempt to evade Commission two-degree spacing
requirements must also be rejected. The Commission has consistently
applied the requirements to both U.S. licensees and other systems like
New Skies that were seeking to serve the U.S. Intelsat LLC has provided
no basis for departing from those decisions here. The Company's claims
of high compliance costs are unsupported and contradicted by the use of
two-degree spacing for the majority of INTELSAT satellites today.

The Commission must take steps to ensure that Intelsat LLC complies with
other Commission policies. The Commission must require future Intelsat
LLC spacecraft to employ linear polarization at C-band to ensure that
consumers can freely choose among competing providers. New satellites
should also use band edges for TT&C. Finally, the Commission must
actively enforce its prohibition against exclusive arrangements to
ensure Intelsat LLC's compliance.

**Before the\
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION\
Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

INTELSAT LLC ) File Nos. SAT-A/O-20000119-0002/18;

) SAT-AMD-20000119-00029/41;

Applications for Authority to Operate, ) SAT-LOA-20000119-00019/28

and to Construct, Launch and Operate )

C- and Ku-Band Geostationary Satellites )

in the Fixed-Satellite Service )

**REPLY OF GE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.**

GE American Communications, Inc. ("GE Americom"), by its attorneys and
pursuant to Section 25.154 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §
25.154, hereby submits its reply regarding the above-captioned
Applications of Intelsat LLC ("Intelsat LLC" or the "Company").

GE Americom explained in its Petition to Deny or Defer that it has no
*per se* objection to U.S. licensing of the satellites operated by the
International Telecommunications Satellite Organization ("INTELSAT").
However, the Applications seek such licensing on terms that conflict
with fundamental Commission policies. The Commission cannot grant
licenses to Intelsat LLC unless and until there is concrete evidence
that Intelsat LLC will comply with applicable competition policies.
Intelsat LLC must also be subject to Commission regulatory and technical
requirements. These conditions are necessary to ensure that Intelsat LLC
competes with other providers on a level playing field and pursuant to
applicable law.

# introduction

When he signed the ORBIT Act[^1] into law, President Clinton stated that
the Administration's goal is "to ensure that a privatized INTELSAT will
compete fairly and fully with other international telecommunications
companies."[^2] He went on to emphasize that:

Fair competition requires a level playing field; INTELSAT must not
retain advantages that result from its former inter-governmental status
or that are unavailable to other satellite competitors, including any
preferential access to orbital slots or foreign markets. *Id*.

GE Americom agrees that privatization of INTELSAT will achieve
substantial public interest benefits if it leads to the creation of an
independent entity that competes without any special advantages. We also
support U.S. licensing of INTELSAT satellites because the Commission has
developed a framework of regulatory policies designed to promote open
market access and fair competition.

However, GE Americom demonstrated in its Petition that the instant
Applications seek U.S. licensing on terms that are unacceptable.
Intelsat LLC asks the Commission to prejudge the outcome of the
privatization process by granting licenses now, before the steps
necessary to establish the Company's independence from INTELSAT have
been either determined or implemented. Furthermore, Intelsat LLC seeks
preferential treatment from the Commission in a number of areas. It asks
for assignment of new orbital locations in contravention of the
Commission's anti-warehousing policies and processing round
requirements. Intelsat LLC also seeks a unique exemption from the
two-degree spacing rules applied to all other U.S. service providers,
and open-ended waivers of other Commission technical standards.

Intelsat LLC fails to justify these requests for special treatment in
its Opposition to GE Americom's Petition. In fact, the Opposition is
more telling for what it does not say than for what it does. For
example, Intelsat LLC's pleading refers to the ORBIT Act, which was
awaiting the President's signature at the time the Opposition was filed.
Opposition at 6. However, Intelsat LLC does not commit to compliance
with the statute's requirements, or even clarify whether it still
intends to pursue its Applications -- INTELSAT representatives had
previously threatened to expel the U.S. from the organization and move
elsewhere if S.376 became law.[^3]

Similarly, Intelsat LLC attempts to defend its request for five new
orbital locations, claiming that grant would be consistent with
Commission policy against warehousing. Opposition at 22-27. Yet Intelsat
LLC does not even

acknowledge the fact that the original ITU registrations for four of the
five slots date back to 1983 -- clearly indicating that the slots have
already been warehoused for seventeen years.

The same pattern applies to Intelsat LLC's attempt to evade Commission
requirements regarding two degree spacing. The Company continues to
insist that its situation is unique because it is seeking licensing for
an existing system. Opposition at 15. However, Intelsat LLC studiously
avoids mention of recent decisions in which the Commission applied
two-degree requirements to New Skies and Eutelsat, both of which had
operational satellite systems.

These attempts to evade Commission policies must be rejected. The
Commission can grant licenses to Intelsat LLC if and only if it has
evidence that the Company will meet the pro-competitive standards set
forth in the ORBIT Act. Intelsat LLC's request for new orbital locations
must be denied, and Intelsat LLC must operate subject to the
Commission's technical requirements.

# i. the commission cannot make a finding that granting the applications would be pro-competitive based on the record here 

As a threshold matter, the record before the Commission does not permit
a finding that licensing of Intelsat LLC would be consistent with
applicable law. GE Americom demonstrated in its Petition that under
clear Commission policy, licenses can be granted to Intelsat LLC only if
the Commission is able to determine that Intelsat LLC is independent
from INTELSAT. *See* GE Americom Petition at 5-11. GE Americom also
showed, however, that there was no factual basis on which the Commission
could make the required finding because to date the steps necessary to
establish Intelsat LLC's independence from INTELSAT have not even been
agreed to, much less implemented. *Id*. at 11-12. *See also* PanAmSat
Petition at 6-11.

Now, of course, the Commission's own policies designed to ensure that
IGO affiliates cannot harm competition in the U.S. satellite services
marketplace have been reinforced by a statutory mandate. The ORBIT Act
requires the Commission to make a finding regarding the impact on
competition before deciding whether to grant U.S. licenses or market
access to Intelsat LLC. *See* ORBIT Act at § 601. The applicable
criteria for making this finding are set forth in Section 621, which
imposes explicit requirements for separation of the ownership and
control of INTELSAT and its affiliate. *Id*. at § 601.

Intelsat LLC clearly does not satisfy these criteria. In its Petition,
GE Americom observed that if the ORBIT Act became law, Intelsat LLC
would need to supplement its Applications by making a detailed showing
of compliance with each of the statute's criteria, and the Commission
should in turn solicit comment on the supplemental information Intelsat
LLC provided. GE Americom Petition at 8. GE Americom continues to
believe that this is the appropriate procedure to be followed to address
the impact of the new statute on Intelsat LLC's Applications.[^4]

Intelsat LLC, however, asserts that it has already provided sufficient
information to satisfy the ORBIT Act's provisions. Opposition at 11.
This claim is frivolous on its face. Intelsat LLC does not deny that
critical decisions regarding its management and ownership have not yet
been made. Nor does Intelsat LLC even commit to complying with ORBIT's
terms. In fact, the Company probably lacks authority to make such a
commitment pending further action by the INTELSAT Assembly of Parties.

Based on the information now before it, the Commission clearly cannot
make the required findings that grant of the requested licenses would be
consistent with the public interest and pro-competitive. Intelsat LLC
cannot show that it complies with any of the ORBIT Act's requirements.
The company is wholly-owned and controlled by INTELSAT signatories, and
nothing has been done to address the Act's requirements for separate
officers and directors or arm's length dealings between Intelsat LLC and
INTELSAT. Similarly, the bare assertion that "over time it is expected"
that the ownership of Intelsat LLC by signatories of INTELSAT will be
diluted (Opposition at 5) obviously cannot substitute for a
demonstration of compliance with the ORBIT Act's specific mandates
regarding a public offering to dilute signatory ownership. *See* ORBIT
Act at § 621(2).

Intelsat LLC is asking the Commission to predict the future, and grant
licenses now on the assumption that at the completion of the
privatization process Intelsat LLC will comply with the law's
requirements. The Commission, however, is bound by statute to determine
whether competition would adversely be affected *before* it grants
licenses or market access. On the record before it, the Commission
cannot rationally make such a judgment.

Intelsat LLC's fallback position is that any uncertainty regarding the
privatization process should be addressed by the imposition of
conditions on Intelsat LLC's licenses. As Intelsat LLC points out, the
ORBIT Act states that the Commission can award licenses to an INTELSAT
affiliate prior to completion of the privatization process, conditioned
on compliance with the Act's independence requirements. Opposition at 6
n.11, *citing* ORBIT Act § 601(b)(1)(D). However, this statutory
provision is clearly permissive. In contrast, the language of section
601 is mandatory, and *requires* the Commission to make a finding of
absence of harm to competition prior to granting licenses or market
access.

At this stage, the Commission lacks the record to make even a
conditional grant to Intelsat LLC. As noted above, to date Intelsat LLC
has not yet committed -- and most likely cannot now commit -- to meeting
the terms of the ORBIT Act. At a minimum, the Commission should not
consider a conditional grant of licenses to Intelsat LLC unless and
until INTELSAT's Assembly of Parties expressly confirms its intention to
complete privatization pursuant to the terms set forth in the ORBIT Act.
Specifically, the Commission should require Intelsat LLC to submit a
detailed plan that sets forth the timetable and mechanisms for
compliance with each of the Act's provisions. The Commission should also
require Intelsat LLC to file quarterly reports of its progress towards
each of the plan's objectives.[^5]

Any licensing or market access authority granted to Intelsat LLC should
become effective only *after* all the conditions have been satisfied. In
addition, the Commission must make clear that failure by Intelsat LLC to
meet the terms of its commitments will warrant the immediate revocation
of any authority already in effect. These terms are necessary to ensure
that Congress' objectives in passing the ORBIT Act are achieved and that
entry by Intelsat LLC does not harm competition in the U.S. market.

# ii. intelsat llc's request for new orbital locations is inconsistent with applicable law

Any license granted to Intelsat LLC must be limited to positions where
INTELSAT has operational spacecraft; the Company's request for authority
for five new orbital locations must be denied.[^6]

In its Petition, GE Americom demonstrated that grant of Intelsat LLC's
request for five new orbital locations would allow the Company to
unfairly benefit from its IGO heritage and would violate the
Commission's processing round requirement and expansion rule. GE
Americom Petition at 12-18; *see also* JSAT Petition at 2-7; PanAmSat
Petition at 13-17. The orbital positions at issue here were never
subjected to any regulatory oversight involving a public interest
analysis or meaningful due diligence requirements and were not
considered in light of competing interests of other providers. Instead,
INTELSAT used its preferential access to orbital locations to register
the slots and then proceeded to let them go unused for years. In these
circumstances, permitting Intelsat LLC to retain the assignments would
reward exactly the kind of behavior the Commission has been fighting
against for years in its efforts to improve ITU due diligence
requirements.

Intelsat LLC's attempts to defend its slot grab must be rejected. First,
Intelsat LLC claims that it is entitled to the new positions without the
need for a waiver of the expansion rule, 25 C.F.R. § 25.140(f). Intelsat
LLC claims that it is entitled to two orbital locations in each ocean
region, and that its request here is consistent with that limit.
Opposition at 24. Intelsat LLC, however, conveniently ignores the actual
language of the rule, which states that an incumbent provider can be
assigned only one orbital location in each frequency band, provided that
its existing spacecraft are filled and that it holds no more than two
authorizations for unlaunched satellites. Intelsat LLC does not satisfy
these conditions.

More fundamentally, grant of the authority Intelsat LLC requests would
directly contravene the purposes of the rule -- to prevent warehousing
or the assignment of an excessive number of orbital locations to one
operator. In its Opposition, Intelsat LLC repeats its claim that these
locations are needed to meet near-term demand and asserts that "the
concept of warehousing has no applicability" here. Opposition at 24-25.
The facts, however, show that Intelsat LLC has allowed these locations
to lay fallow for years. Four out of five of the positions were
registered at the ITU in 1993 -- after previous unused INTELSAT
registrations dating back to 1983 expired. A clearer case of warehousing
is hard to imagine.

Intelsat LLC also claims that the Commission can address any concern
about warehousing by assigning the locations to Intelsat LLC with strict
milestones. Then, if Intelsat LLC fails to comply with the milestones,
the Commission can reclaim the locations. Opposition at 26-27. Again,
however, this argument ignores the history of these assignments. If the
Commission's due diligence requirements had been applicable to these
locations, INTELSAT's assignments would have been revoked years ago. The
Commission cannot, consistent with its policy against warehousing of
orbital locations, permit Intelsat LLC to retain these positions.

Assigning these locations to Intelsat LLC would also contravene the
Commission's processing round requirement, which is intended to ensure
that the interests of all qualified applicants are considered in the
assignment of orbital positions. *See* GE Americom Petition at 14-15;
JSAT Petition at 2, 7. Intelsat LLC argues that its Applications are in
the nature of a transfer of control, and that the Commission does not
view transfers of control as requiring the initiation of a processing
round. Opposition at 26.

Intelsat LLC's analogy to a transfer proceeding is fundamentally flawed,
however. In a typical transfer proceeding, the Commission must determine
whether to permit a change in ownership of an entity that holds U.S.
satellite licenses. There is no need for a processing round in that
instance because the Commission is considering licenses that were
granted pursuant to Commission procedures. As a result, the Commission
has already made a determination that granting the licensee the right to
use orbital locations was in the public interest. In contrast, these
orbital locations were registered at the ITU without regulatory
oversight by the Commission or any other licensing authority. They have
never been evaluated under a public interest analysis or considered in
the context of any competing applications, and they have never been
subject to meaningful due diligence requirements.

Intelsat LLC also claims that holding a processing round is pointless
because unless these new locations are licensed to Intelsat LLC, they
will not be available for the Commission to assign. Specifically,
Intelsat LLC makes clear that the Assembly of Parties will not consent
to transfer of the ITU registrations to USASAT status unless the
Commission agrees to grant licenses to Intelsat LLC. Opposition at 26.

This argument simply makes clear that Intelsat LLC is engaged in forum
shopping, using veiled threats to seek licensing elsewhere in hopes of
getting the Commission to meet the Company's regulatory demands.
Obviously the Commission cannot allow its regulatory processes to be
misused in this fashion. Clear Commission policy prohibits granting
Intelsat LLC authority for new orbital locations. The Commission cannot
permit its assessment of this issue to be swayed by Intelsat LLC's
pressure tactics here.

Of course, if Intelsat LLC does carry through on its threat to seek
licenses for these slots elsewhere, it will still need to request
Commission authority in order to provide U.S. services from these
locations. In determining whether to grant such access, the Commission
will need to make a public interest finding, and the factual background
regarding these locations will clearly be relevant to that analysis.

Finally, Intelsat LLC alleges that GE Americom and others are
challenging Intelsat LLC's request for new locations out of a desire to
hamper a future competitor. Opposition at 23. This allegation is
meritless. GE Americom is merely seeking a level playing field on which
to compete with Intelsat LLC. Grant of these new orbital locations would
allow Intelsat LLC to benefit unfairly from its IGO heritage and permit
it to play by different rules than those that apply to other Commission
licensees. It is Intelsat LLC, not GE Americom, that is trying to tip
the scales in its own favor.

Under clear Commission precedent, Intelsat LLC's request for new orbital
positions must be denied.

# III. intelsat llc has not justified a departure from the two degree spacing requirements that apply to all other u.s. service providers

GE Americom and others have argued that Intelsat LLC should be subject
to the same standards as other providers with respect to two-degree
spacing. Specifically, existing non-compliant INTELSAT spacecraft should
be required to operate on a secondary, non-interference basis to
spacecraft that meet the Commission's two-degree spacing rules.
Furthermore, new spacecraft should be required to comply with Commission
spacing policies. GE Americom Petition at 18-22; JSAT Petition at 7-8;
PanAmSat Petition at 18-29.

This is the framework the Commission has applied consistently to both
U.S. licensees and other providers seeking access to the U.S. market,
including New Skies. The New Skies decision is directly relevant here
because New Skies, like Intelsat LLC, was seeking authority for a
constellation of operational spacecraft transferred from the INTELSAT
system.

Despite this obviously controlling precedent, Intelsat LLC continues to
attempt to evade the Commission's two-degree spacing policies. First,
Intelsat LLC repeats its argument that two-degree spacing does not
necessarily apply outside the U.S. domestic arc. As GE Americom showed
in its Petition, this argument is clearly contradicted by the
Commission's decision to apply two-degree spacing requirements to New
Skies and other applicants for U.S. market entry.[^7] Furthermore, the
Commission has granted U.S. licenses for international orbital locations
based on two-degree spacing. For example, Columbia was assigned to
172˚ E.L., two degrees away from an INTELSAT spacecraft operating at
174˚ E.L.[^8] Intelsat LLC does not even attempt to explain away these
decisions, which make clear that the Commission considers two-degree
spacing to be an important global policy for U.S. licensees and market
entrants.

Intelsat LLC complains that making its non-compliant operations
secondary would be unfair. Opposition at 17. Intelsat LLC claims that GE
Americom and others have provided no reason why the Commission should
make Intelsat LLC the "junior party" in coordination discussions. *Id*.
To the contrary, GE Americom and the other Petitioners explained clearly
why secondary treatment of non-compliant operations was both necessary
and fair: because that is the policy that applies to other U.S.
licensees and market entrants. It is Intelsat LLC that has failed to
justify its request that the Commission exempt Intelsat LLC alone from
policies that apply to every other U.S. service provider.

Intelsat LLC's complaints that the costs of complying with two-degree
spacing would outweigh any potential benefits (Opposition at 17) are
also unpersuasive for several reasons. First, as noted above, other
systems seeking U.S. access are subject to the same framework that GE
Americom and others advocate applying to Intelsat LLC here. None of
these systems has suggested to the Commission that the compliance costs
are unreasonable. And Intelsat LLC itself provides absolutely no support
for its assertion that compliance costs would be substantial.

Second, as GE Americom demonstrated in its Petition, thirteen of the
locations in Intelsat LLC's own orbital plan are spaced at two-degree
intervals. GE Americom Petition at 20. Furthermore, Intelsat LLC does
not dispute GE Americom's observation that there are technical reasons
why coordination at two degree spacing between an INTELSAT spacecraft
and a non-INTELSAT spacecraft could be easier than coordination among
two INTELSAT spacecraft. Specifically, the difference in the C-band
polarization schemes provides an additional margin that is not available
between two circularly polarized satellites. *Id*. at 20-21. Thus, its
own orbital plan and technical analysis contradict Intelsat LLC's
complaints about two-degree spacing.

Finally, contrary to Intelsat LLC's assertions, there is a clear public
interest rationale for requiring Intelsat LLC to conform its operations
to a two-degree spacing environment. In adopting its two-degree spacing
rules, the Commission recognized that closer spacing would impose limits
on the power levels and satellite capacity of all operators. However,
the Commission determined that these restrictions were justified because
of the resulting increase in usable orbital positions, which permitted
additional competition and an overall expansion of available
capacity.[^9] Thus, Intelsat LLC is correct when it states that
compliance with Commission requirements on two-degree spacing will limit
bandwidth availability. Opposition at 17. However, these restrictions
are no different than those faced by any other U.S. service provider --
every operator is subject to the same requirements. The Commission has
previously determined that the expanded number of orbital positions made
possible by two-degree spacing justifies these costs, and Intelsat LLC
presents absolutely no basis for the Commission to reconsider that
judgment here.

# iv. intelsat llc must be required to use linear c-band polarization and band-edge TT&C on new satellites

With respect to Intelsat LLC's other requests for technical waivers,
GE Americom did not oppose grandfathering of operational spacecraft.
However, GE Americom argued that new satellites should be required to
comply with Commission requirements. GE Americom Petition at 22-23; *see
also* JSAT Petition at 7-8; PanAmSat Petition at 18-29; Loral Comments
at 4. Intelsat LLC, on the other hand, argues that it is entitled to an
exemption from Commission technical rules even for spacecraft that are
not yet being built. Opposition at 15. The Commission must reject this
argument and apply its technical rules to new Intelsat LLC satellites.

Specifically, the Commission should require future spacecraft in the
Intelsat LLC system to use linear polarization at C-band. As GE Americom
demonstrated, this issue is critical to the interests of users and
necessary for a level competitive playing field. GE Americom Petition at
22-23; *see also* PanAmSat Petition at 21-22. We explained that the use
of circular C-band polarization by INTELSAT locks in customers, who
cannot easily switch to services provided by a satellite that uses
linear polarization. *Id*.

Intelsat LLC responds that any "lock-in" effect will work to Intelsat
LLC's detriment as well, making it more difficult for Intelsat LLC to
attract customers currently served by a satellite with linear
polarization. Opposition at 19-20. GE Americom agrees, but that is
precisely why uniformity in polarization techniques is the best outcome
for all satellite users. Only when polarization differences are
eliminated will users be in a position to choose providers based on
service quality and price, without regard to polarization issues. This
clearly is the optimum outcome for customers.

Uniformity can most readily be achieved by requiring the INTELSAT system
to transition to linear C-band polarization, the technique used not only
by U.S. licensees but by most other systems around the globe. Allowing
Intelsat LLC to make the change over time, implementing it first on new
satellites, will minimize the costs of the transition.

Similarly, the Commission should require new Intelsat LLC spacecraft to
use the band edges for TT&C operations. INTELSAT's current practice of
transmitting TT&C signals in the center of the band makes coordination
more difficult, and has no specific engineering justification. There is
simply no reason why Intelsat LLC should not have to conform to
Commission rules for its future satellites.

# v. the commission must actively enforce intelsat llc's commitment to comply with the prohibition on exclusive arrangements

Finally, GE Americom demonstrated in its Petition that Intelsat LLC must
be subject to the Commission's prohibition on exclusive arrangements for
satellite services. GE Americom Petition at 23. PanAmSat and New Skies
agreed. PanAmSat Petition at 32; New Skies Comments at 3-6. To its
credit, Intelsat LLC acknowledges that it must comply with this
Commission policy. Opposition at 27-28.

Specifically, Intelsat LLC states that under the privatization plan
there is agreement that Intelsat LLC will seek market access on the same
basis as other providers of similar services. Opposition at 27-28. In
addition, the signatories have committed not to preclude or seek to
preclude landing rights for competitors of Intelsat LLC. *Id*. The
Commission must ensure that Intelsat LLC and its owners live up to these
commitments by making clear that the Commission will revoke or limit
Intelsat LLC's operating authority as redress for any violations.

# conclusion

The Commission has a statutory mandate to ensure that entry of Intelsat
LLC into the U.S. market would be pro-competitive. Until it has a
sufficient record to make that finding, it cannot act on these
Applications. Furthermore, Intelsat LLC must be subject to the same
regulatory and technical framework as other U.S. service providers.

Respectfully submitted,

GE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Philip V. Otero                 | By:                                |
|                                 | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_             |
| Senior Vice President and       | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                 |                                    |
| General Counsel                 | > Peter A. Rohrbach\               |
|                                 | > Karis A. Hastings\               |
| GE American Communications,     | > Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.\          |
| Inc.                            | > 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.\     |
|                                 | > Washington, D.C. 20004\          |
| Four Research Way               | > (202) 637-5600                   |
|                                 |                                    |
| Princeton, NJ 08540             |                                    |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+

March 23, 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Page]{.underline}

SUMMARY
......................................................................................
i

introduction [2](#introduction)

i\. the commission cannot make a finding that granting the applications
would be pro-competitive based on the record here
[4](#i.-the-commission-cannot-make-a-finding-that-granting-the-applications-would-be-pro-competitive-based-on-the-record-here)

ii\. intelsat llc's request for new orbital locations is inconsistent
with applicable law
[8](#ii.-intelsat-llcs-request-for-new-orbital-locations-is-inconsistent-with-applicable-law)

III\. intelsat llc has not justified a departure from the two degree
spacing requirements that apply to all other u.s. service providers
[13](#iii.-intelsat-llc-has-not-justified-a-departure-from-the-two-degree-spacing-requirements-that-apply-to-all-other-u.s.-service-providers)

iv\. intelsat llc must be required to use linear c-band polarization and
band-edge TT&C on new satellites
[16](#iv.-intelsat-llc-must-be-required-to-use-linear-c-band-polarization-and-band-edge-ttc-on-new-satellites)

v\. the commission must actively enforce intelsat llc's commitment to
comply with the prohibition on exclusive arrangements
[18](#v.-the-commission-must-actively-enforce-intelsat-llcs-commitment-to-comply-with-the-prohibition-on-exclusive-arrangements)

conclusion [19](#conclusion)

**Before the\
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION\
Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

INTELSAT LLC ) File Nos. SAT-A/O-20000119-0002/18;

) SAT-AMD-20000119-00029/41;

Applications for Authority to Operate, ) SAT-LOA-20000119-00019/28

and to Construct, Launch and Operate )

C- and Ku-Band Geostationary Satellites )

in the Fixed-Satellite Service )

**REPLY OF GE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.**

+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Philip V. Otero                 | > Peter A. Rohrbach\               |
|                                 | > Karis A. Hastings\               |
| Senior Vice President and       | > Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.\          |
|                                 | > 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.\     |
| General Counsel                 | > Washington, D.C. 20004\          |
|                                 | > (202) 637-5600                   |
| GE American Communications,     |                                    |
| Inc.                            |                                    |
|                                 |                                    |
| Four Research Way               |                                    |
|                                 |                                    |
| Princeton, NJ 08540             |                                    |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+

March 23, 2000

[^1]: "Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International
    Telecommunications Act," Pub. Law 106-180, 114 Stat. 48 (2000)
    ("ORBIT Act").

[^2]: Statement of the President on Signing of S.376, U.S. Newswire,
    March 17, 2000.

[^3]: *See, e.g.*, "INTELSAT Plays Hard Ball in Bid to Head Off New
    Satellite Bill," TR Daily, March 2, 2000.

[^4]: Intelsat LLC also seems to acknowledge that additional proceedings
    might be necessary. In its Opposition (filed the day before the
    President signed the ORBIT Act into law), Intelsat LLC stated that
    new issues or requirements raised by the legislation could be
    addressed "if and when the Act becomes law." Opposition at 6.

[^5]: In the *New Skies Order*, the Commission imposed similar reporting
    requirements so that it could track New Skies' progress toward
    conducting an initial public offering. *See New Skies Satellites,
    N.V*., 17 CR 109, 120 (1999) ("*New Skies Order*").

[^6]: The ORBIT Act expressly addresses requests by INTELSAT affiliates
    for new orbital locations to provide additional services.
    Specifically, the statute states that until privatization is
    achieved, the U.S. shall "oppose and decline to facilitate"
    applications by IGO entities for new orbital locations for
    additional services, including direct-to-home service and Ka-band
    and V-band services. ORBIT Act at § 602(b). Thus, to the extent
    Intelsat LLC proposes to use the new slots for any of these
    offerings, the statute requires the Commission to deny authority.

[^7]: GE Americom Petition at 18-20, *citing New Skies Order*, 17 CR at
    128. *See also BT North America Inc. and CBS Broadcasting, Inc.*, DA
    00-162 (Int'l Bur. rel. Feb. 1, 2000) at ¶¶ 12-13; *Telesat Canada*,
    DA 99-2752 (Int'l Bur. rel. Dec. 9, 1999) at ¶¶ 14-16.

[^8]: *Columbia Communications Corporation*, 14 FCC Rcd 3318 (Int\'l
    Bur. 1999).

[^9]: *See, e.g., Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite Service*, 54 RR 2d 577, 584-591 (1983).