# Before the

# Federal Communications Commission

# Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

ICO-Teledesic Global Limited )

)

Application for Transfer of Control of ) File No. SAT-T/C-20000531-00097

Space Station License of Teledesic LLC ) Call Sign S2136

to ICO-Teledesic Global Limited )

)

ICO Services Limited ) File No. SAT-PDR-20000612-00106

Petition for Declaratory Ruling )

)

Amendment of Letter of Intent of ) File Nos. SAT-AMD-20000612-00107

ICO Services Limited to Access the ) SAT-LOI-19970926-0163

2 GHz MSS Frequency Bands ) 188-SAT-LOI-97

# MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION

**Adopted: January 8, 2001 Released: January 9, 2001**

By the Chief, International Bureau:

# I. INTRODUCTION

1.  In this *Order*, we grant ICO-Teledesic Global Limited ("ITGL")
    authority to transfer control of a license held by Teledesic LLC to
    construct, launch, and operate a non-geostationary orbit ("NGSO")
    Fixed Satellite Service ("FSS") system, from Teledesic Corporation
    ("Teledesic") to ITGL. We also address a related Petition for
    Declaratory Ruling filed by ICO Services Limited ("ICO") regarding
    the same transaction. Specifically, we grant ICO an exemption from
    the space station "cut-off" rule, which will allow ICO to continue
    prosecuting its pending letter of intent ("LOI")[^1] to access the 2
    GHz Mobile Satellite Service ("2 GHz MSS") frequency bands. These
    actions will permit completion of the planned merger of Teledesic
    and ICO within a single organizational structure, ITGL, and will
    serve the public interest by facilitating rapid deployment and
    competition in the provision of advanced broadband services using
    ITGL's satellite authorizations.

# II. BACKGROUND

2.  Teledesic LLC currently holds a license to implement an NGSO FSS
    system in the Ka‑band frequencies.[^2] Teledesic LLC is controlled
    by Teledesic, a Delaware corporation, which is the Manager of
    Teledesic LLC and owns approximately 66.1% of its interests.[^3]
    Teledesic shares are held by a number of investors and no one
    shareholder has sufficient voting power to control the company
    single-handedly.[^4] However, Craig O. McCaw is Chairman of the
    Board and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Teledesic, manages
    Teledesic's business and affairs, and has significant Teledesic
    voting interests. Specifically, Mr. McCaw's investment company,
    Eagle River Investments LLC ("Eagle River"), owns 13.3% of
    Teledesic, and has 49.0% voting control by ownership or proxy.

3.  ICO, a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom,
    filed an LOI proposing to operate a 2 GHz MSS system in the United
    States.[^5] As a result of a reorganization in bankruptcy, ICO is
    100% owned and controlled by New ICO Global Communications
    (Holdings), Inc. ("New ICO"), a Delaware corporation. New ICO's
    controlling shareholder is ITGL, a Delaware corporation. ITGL is
    controlled by Mr. McCaw through his investment company, Eagle
    River.[^6]

4.  Teledesic, ICO, and ITGL now seek to effect a corporate
    reorganization designed to bring the satellite assets in which Mr.
    McCaw holds substantial interest within a single organizational
    structure, ITGL. On May 31, 2000, ITGL applied for authority to
    transfer control of the license held by Teledesic LLC from Teledesic
    to ITGL.[^7] On June 12, 2000, ICO filed an amendment to its LOI,
    disclosing the reorganization of the company pursuant to the
    bankruptcy proceedings, as well as the pending merger of Teledesic
    into ITGL.[^8] ICO also filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling
    seeking to remove any uncertainty as to whether ICO's LOI should
    remain in the 2 GHz MSS processing round, given the significant
    ownership changes described in its amendment.[^9]

5.  The proposed transaction would result in the following ownership
    structure:[^10] Teledesic LLC would remain controlled by Teledesic;
    ICO would remain a wholly-owned subsidiary of New ICO; and ITGL
    would be the parent of both Teledesic and New ICO. Eagle River
    (controlled by Mr. McCaw) would own stock representing 27.0% of the
    equity and 62.3% of the voting rights in ITGL; William H. Gates III
    would own stock representing 10.1% of the equity and 14.2% of the
    voting rights in ITGL; and the remaining 62.9% equity ownership and
    23.5% voting rights would be held by current Teledesic LLC and New
    ICO shareholders, none of whom individually would hold a 10% or
    greater equity or voting interest.[^11]

6.  The International Bureau placed these filings on public notice on
    July 14, 2000.[^12] No petitions to deny or other objections or
    comments were filed in response to the public notice.

# III. DISCUSSION

##### Public Interest Considerations

7.  Under Section 310(d) of the Communications Act, we must find that a
    proposed transaction serves the public interest, convenience, and
    necessity before we can approve the transfer of control of
    authorizations or licenses.[^13] To make this finding, we must weigh
    any potential public interest harms against any potential public
    interest benefits, considering competitive effects and other public
    interest factors.[^14] In conducting our analysis of potential
    public interest harms and public interest benefits, we first take
    note of the fact that no party has opposed this transaction.

8.  To evaluate the competitive effects of the proposed transaction, the
    Commission first identifies the relevant product and geographic
    markets. For satellite service providers, the Commission has
    determined that the relevant product markets include domestic and
    international telecommunications markets.[^15] In such cases, we
    consider whether the proposed transaction will lessen or enhance
    competition in the provision of communications services in, to or
    from the United States.[^16]

9.  According to the parties, upon consummation of the proposed
    transaction, Craig O. McCaw and his affiliated companies will
    exercise *de jure* and *de facto* control of Teledesic and ICO,
    under ITGL's corporate umbrella.[^17] Currently, neither Teledesic
    nor ICO provide telecommunications services within the United States
    or internationally, as neither company has any operating facilities
    or services at this time. Accordingly, this transaction will not
    eliminate an existing competitor in any telecommunications service
    market. Mr. McCaw does have substantial interests in at least two
    operational Commission licensees: a commercial mobile radio service
    ("CMRS") operator,[^18] Nextel Communications, Inc. ("Nextel"),[^19]
    and a competitive local exchange carrier, XO Communications, Inc.
    ("XO").[^20] We note that Teledesic plans to provide worldwide,
    broadband access to the Internet, computer networking, interactive
    multimedia and high-quality voice,[^21] and ICO plans to provide
    global Internet protocol services, including data, standard voice
    and fax services.[^22] Both Nextel and XO provide, or plan to
    provide, similar services terrestrially to customers seeking
    individualized market coverage. However, it appears unlikely within
    the near-term future that either of these firms is capable of
    offering the ubiquitous worldwide services proposed by Teledesic and
    ICO to customers demanding extended global coverage, such as
    maritime users, the transportation, oil and gas and construction
    industries, and governmental agencies. Thus, this merger is not
    likely to increase significantly Mr. McCaw's ability to exercise
    market power in the provision of domestic telecommunications
    services, nor will it adversely affect competition in any
    international telecommunications market.

10. In evaluating the public interest benefits of this transaction, we
    review the parties' claims of public interest benefits based on a
    consolidation of resources and increased operational efficiencies.
    Particularly, we note Teledesic's assertion that the proposed
    transaction will strengthen its financial position, enabling the
    resulting entity to attract financing more effectively, and thus,
    expedite the construction, launch, and operation of its global
    satellite constellation,[^23] originally licensed in 1997. According
    to ICO, the ITGL financing package increases the likelihood that ICO
    will complete build-out of its system and launch service rapidly,
    bringing wider choice of MSS services and service providers to U.S.
    consumers.[^24] Given our finding that the proposed transaction is
    not likely to cause competitive harm in either domestic or
    international telecommunications services, we find that there should
    be significant competitive and other public interest benefits in
    authorizing this transaction, including moving idle assets into
    productive use. Therefore, on balance, we find that the proposed
    transaction is in the public interest under Section 310(d) of the
    Communications Act.

##### Cut-Off Rule

11. ICO has an LOI pending in the 2 GHz MSS space station processing
    round.[^25] This processing round was established pursuant to public
    notices in which the Commission established filing deadlines for
    applications and LOIs.[^26] Applications or LOIs filed after a
    cut-off date are not entitled to comparative consideration with
    applications or LOIs filed on or before the cut-off date.[^27]

12. Section 25.116(c) of the Commission's rules provides generally that
    if a major amendment to a processing round application is submitted
    after a cut-off date, the application will be considered to be newly
    filed,[^28] and will lose its status in the processing group.
    Section 25.116(b)(3) defines a major amendment as, *inter alia*, one
    that "specifies a substantial change in beneficial ownership or
    control" of the underlying entity.[^29] Section 25.116(c)(2) allows
    for an exemption to the cut-off rule, however, where the major
    amendment reflects only a change in ownership or control found by
    the Commission to be in the public interest and for which a
    requested exemption from the cut-off date is granted.[^30] ICO
    requests such an exemption,[^31] acknowledging that the merger of
    Teledesic into ITGL disclosed in the ICO LOI Amendment presents a
    significant change in the beneficial ownership and control of
    ICO.[^32] In previous decisions in which the International Bureau
    granted an exemption to the cut-off rules, the Bureau considered two
    factors: (1) whether the proposed transaction had a legitimate
    business purpose; and (2) whether the change in ownership otherwise
    served the public interest.[^33]

13. With respect to the first factor, the Commission's overriding
    concern is whether the applicant or LOI filer has attempted to
    profit solely from the sale of an application.[^34] Unless there is
    evidence of this, we see no reason to prevent applicants or LOI
    filers from procuring partners to help finance the enormous cost of
    these systems.[^35] Because the transactions described in the ICO
    LOI Amendment involve a reorganization and infusion of capital
    necessary for ICO to emerge from bankruptcy, there are no
    substantial questions concerning profits deriving solely from the
    sale of an application. ICO has articulated a clearly defined and
    legitimate business purpose for its transfers of control to New ICO
    and ultimately, post-merger ITGL: in order to emerge from
    bankruptcy, launch its satellites, and deploy its service, it was
    essential that ICO obtain the new financing provided by the group of
    investors led by Mr. McCaw.[^36] We find that the transfers of
    control disclosed in the ICO LOI Amendment serve a legitimate
    business purpose, and are not primarily for acquiring pending
    applications.[^37]

14. With respect to the second factor, for the reasons discussed in
    Section III.A. above, we find that the public interest would be
    served by approving the change in ownership. Consequently, we will
    exempt ICO's pending LOI from the Section 25.116(c) cut-off rule,
    and will continue to consider ICO's LOI concurrently with the other
    applications and LOIs in the 2 GHz MSS processing group. Although
    ICO argues that this rule is not applicable to LOI filers,[^38] in
    light of our conclusion that continued consideration of ICO's LOI
    would serve the public interest, we need not address this
    contention.

# IV. CONCLUSION

15. In view of the foregoing, we find that approval of the proposed
    transaction will serve the public interest, convenience and
    necessity by increasing competition in the satellite services market
    to the benefit of U.S. consumers. For this reason, and the reasons
    described in this *Order*, we grant ITGL's application for consent
    to the transfer of Teledesic LLC's authorization to construct,
    launch, and operate an NGSO FSS system in the Ka-band frequencies
    from Teledesic to ITGL. We also grant ICO's related request for
    exemption of Section 25.116(c) of the Commission's rules, which will
    allow ICO to prosecute its pending LOI in the 2 GHz MSS processing
    round, notwithstanding the significant change in the beneficial
    ownership and control of ICO resulting from merger of Teledesic into
    ITGL.[^39]

# V. ORDERING CLAUSES

16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the FCC Form 312 Application for
    Transfer of Control of Space Station License of Teledesic LLC to
    ICO-Teledesic Global Limited, File No. SAT-T/C-20000531-00097, IS
    GRANTED.

17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed
    by ICO Services Limited, File No. SAT-PDR-20000612-00106, IS DENIED
    to the extent indicated herein.

18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 25.116(c)(2) of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.116(c)(2), the request of ICO
    Services Limited for an exemption from the space station processing
    round cut-off rule IS GRANTED, and that the consummation of the
    transactions disclosed in the ICO LOI Amendment, File No.
    SAT-AMD-20000612-00107, will not disqualify ICO's Letter of Intent,
    File Nos. 188-SAT-LOI-97,
    SAT-LOI-19970926-00163, SAT-AMD-20000612-00107,
    SAT-AMD-20001103-00155, from Commission consideration in the
    currently-pending 2 GHz MSS processing group.

19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the transaction approved herein shall be
    completed within 60 days from the date of this *Order*. Within 30
    days of consummation, ICO-Teledesic Global Limited shall notify the
    Commission in writing of the date of consummation and the file
    numbers of the applications involved in the transaction. 47 C.F.R. §
    25.119(f).

20. This *Order* is issued pursuant to Section 0.261 of the Commission's
    rules on delegated authority, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, and is effective
    upon release.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Donald Abelson

    Chief, International Bureau

[^1]: ^?^ An LOI is filed by a non-U.S.-licensed satellite system
    requesting that the Commission "reserve" spectrum for that system in
    a space station processing round, in anticipation of earth station
    applications to be filed in the future to access the
    non-U.S.-licensed satellite system. *See Amendment of the
    Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space
    Stations to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in
    the United States*, IB Docket No. 96-111, Report and Order, 12 FCC
    Rcd 24094, 24173-74 ¶ 185 (1997) ("*DISCO II Order*") (detailed
    discussion of the procedures under which
    foreign-licensed satellite systems may provide service in the United
    States).

[^2]: ^?^ *See Teledesic Corporation*, Order and Authorization, 12 FCC
    Rcd 3154 (Int'l Bur. 1997), *modified*, *Teledesic LLC*, Order and
    Authorization, 14 FCC Rcd 2261 (Int'l Bur. 1999). *See also* Letter
    from Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and Radiocomm. Div. to Mark A.
    Grannis, Counsel for Teledesic LLC (January 26, 1998) (File No.
    28-SAT-AL-98) (granting *pro forma* assignment of license from
    Teledesic Corporation to Teledesic LLC).

    The term "Ka-band" generally refers to the space-to-Earth (downlink)
    frequencies at 17.7-20.2 GHz and the corresponding Earth-to-space
    (uplink) frequencies at 27.5-30.0 GHz. Teledesic was authorized to
    operate its customer service links on a primary basis in the
    28.6-29.1 GHz (uplink) and 18.8-19.3 GHz (downlink) bands.

[^3]: ^?^ Motorola Inc. (18.4%) and Teledesic Holdings Limited (15.5%)
    own the remainder of Teledesic LLC.

[^4]: ^?^ Teledesic's primary investors are Craig O. McCaw, William H.
    Gates III, Motorola, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, the Abu Dhabi
    Investment Company and the Boeing Company.

[^5]: ^?^ Letter of Intent of ICO Services Limited, File No.
    188-SAT-LOI-97; IBFS File Nos. SAT-LOI-19970926-00163,
    SAT-AMD-20000612-00107, SAT-AMD-20001103-00155.

[^6]: ^?^ Letter from Cheryl Tritt, Counsel for ICO Services Limited to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission
    (May 17, 2000). As a result of the reorganization, the original
    shareholders and creditors of ICO hold approximately 20.3% ownership
    and 8.5% voting interests in New ICO.

[^7]: ^?^ *See* FCC Form 312 Application for Transfer of Control of
    Space Station License of Teledesic LLC to ICO-Teledesic Global
    Limited, File No. SAT-T/C-20000531-00097 (May 31, 2000)
    ("Teledesic/ITGL Application").

[^8]: ^?^ *See* Amendment of Letter of Intent of ICO Services Limited to
    Access the 2 GHz MSS Frequency Bands, File No.
    SAT-AMD-20000612-00107 (June 12, 2000) (attaching FCC Form 312)
    ("ICO LOI Amendment").

[^9]: ^?^ *See* Petition for Declaratory Ruling of ICO Services Limited,
    File No. SAT-PDR-20000612-00106 (June 12, 2000) ("ICO Petition for
    Declaratory Ruling").

[^10]: ^?^ Some intermediate steps in the merger transaction as
    described in the Teledesic/ITGL Application and ICO LOI Amendment
    were subsequently modified for tax purposes. *See* Letter from
    William M. Wiltshire, Counsel for Teledesic Corporation to Magalie
    Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (August
    25, 2000) ("Teledesic Update Letter"); Letter from Cheryl A. Tritt,
    Counsel for ICO Services Limited to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission (August 25, 2000) ("ICO Update
    Letter"). However, the ultimate ITGL ownership and voting structure
    remains as set forth in the original filings.

[^11]: ^?^ Specifically, pre-merger Teledesic LLC stakeholders (other
    than Messrs. McCaw and Gates) will hold ITGL stock representing
    approximately 49.6% of the equity and 19.2% of the voting rights,
    and original ICO stakeholders will hold ITGL stock representing
    approximately 13.3% of the equity and 4.3% of the voting rights.

[^12]: ^?^ *See* Public Notice, Report No. SAT-00051 (rel. July 14,
    2000).

[^13]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 310(d).

[^14]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, *Lockheed Martin Corporation, COMSAT Government
    Systems, LLC, and COMSAT Corporation*, Order and Authorization, FCC
    00-277, at ¶ 15 (rel. July 31, 2000) ("*Lockheed/COMSAT Merger
    Order*"); *GE American Communications, Inc., CCC Merger Sub, Inc.,
    and Columbia Communications Corp.*, Order and Authorization, 15 FCC
    Rcd 11590, 11592 ¶ 5 (Int'l Bur. 2000) ("*GE Americom/Columbia
    Merger Order*"). The Commission evaluates whether an applicant has
    met its burden of proof that the transfer will advance the public
    interest by considering four factors: "(1) whether the transaction
    would result in a violation of the Communications Act or any other
    applicable statutory provision; (2) whether the transaction would
    result in a violation of Commission rules; (3) whether the
    transaction would substantially frustrate or impair the Commission's
    implementation or enforcement of the Communications Act, or would
    interfere with the objectives of the Communications Act or other
    statutes; and (4) whether the transaction promises to yield
    affirmative public interest benefits." *See Applications for Consent
    to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214
    Authorizations from MediaOne Group, Inc., Transferor, to AT&T Corp.,
    Transferee*, CS Docket No. 99-251, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15
    FCC Rcd 9816, 9820-21 ¶ 9 (2000) (citations omitted).

[^15]: ^?^ *See Application of WorldCom, Inc., and MCI Communications
    Corporation for Transfer of Control of MCI Communications
    Corporation to WorldCom, Inc.*, CC Docket No. 97-211, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 18025, 18039 ¶ 23, 18070 ¶ 78 (1998);
    *GE Americom/Columbia Merger Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11593 ¶ 7.

[^16]: ^?^ *Lockheed/COMSAT Merger Order*, FCC 00-277, at ¶ 18.

[^17]: ^?^ Teledesic Update Letter at 2; ICO Update Letter at 3.

[^18]: ^?^ Section 332(d)(1) of the Communications Act defines
    "commercial mobile service" as "any mobile service . . . that is
    provided for profit and makes interconnected service available (A)
    to the public or (B) to such class of eligible users as to be
    effectively available to a substantial portion of the public, as
    specified by regulation of the Commission." 47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1).

[^19]: ^?^ Nextel Communications, Inc. lists FCC licenses among its
    significant intangible assets, and discloses that "entities
    controlled by Craig O. McCaw hold significant blocks of our
    outstanding stock. In addition, an affiliate of Mr. McCaw may
    designate at least one fourth of our board of directors and may
    select, from these McCaw representatives on the board of directors,
    a majority of the operations committee of our board of directors,
    which has significant authority relating to our business strategy,
    budgets, financing arrangements and in the nomination and oversight
    of specified executive officers. As a result, Mr. McCaw may exert
    significant influence over our affairs." *See, e.g.*, Nextel
    Communications, Inc., Amendment 1 to Form S-3, Registration
    Statement Under the Securities Act of 1933, at 12, U.S. Securities
    and Exchange Comm'n, Registration No. 33‑37102 (filed
    June 16, 2000), available at
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/824169/000095013300002613/0000950133-00-002613-0001.txt.

[^20]: ^?^ XO Communications, Inc. (formerly, NEXTLINK Communications,
    Inc.) states that it has acquired FCC fixed wireless licenses
    covering 95% of the population of the 30 largest U.S. cities, and
    "is majority controlled by Craig O. McCaw through shares of Class A
    and Class B common stock held by Eagle River Investments, LLC, an
    entity controlled by Mr. McCaw, and other shares of the Company's
    Class A and Class B common stock owned by Mr. McCaw or over which he
    has voting control." *See, e.g.*, XO Communications, Inc., Form
    10-Q, Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
    Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, For the Quarterly Period Ended
    September 30, 2000 at 6, 12, U.S. Securities and Exchange Comm'n,
    Commission File No. 0-30900, available at
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1111634/000095013300004526/w42519e10-q.htm.

[^21]: ^?^ *See* http://www.teledesic.com/about/about.htm.

[^22]: ^?^ *See* http://www.icoglobal.com/about/index.htm.

[^23]: ^?^ *See* Teledesic/ITGL Application, Exhibit B at 5-6.

[^24]: ^?^ *See* ICO Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 6-7; ICO LOI
    Amendment at 4.

[^25]: ^?^ *See* footnote 5, *supra*.

[^26]: ^?^ *See* Public Notice, Report No. SPB-88, 12 FCC Rcd 10446
    (1997) (establishing August 21, 1997 as cut-off date for
    applications and LOIs for the 2 GHz MSS systems); Public Notice,
    Report No. SPB-95 (rel. August 13, 1997) (extending deadline for
    filing 2 GHz MSS applications and LOIs from August 21, 1997 to
    September 5, 1997); Public Notice, Report No. SPB-99 (rel. September
    4, 1997) (extending deadline for filing 2 GHz MSS applications and
    LOIs from September 5, 1997 to September 26, 1997). The Commission
    received six applications from entities seeking FCC licenses and
    three LOIs from non-U.S.-licensed companies to provide service in
    the United States. *See* Public Notice, Report No. SPB-119 (rel.
    March 19, 1998) (providing summary of each of the applications and
    LOIs filed prior to the cut-off date, including ICO's LOI, and
    establishing deadlines for filing comment/petitions to deny and
    responsive pleadings).

[^27]: ^?^ *See DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24158 ¶ 149 ("\[A\]
    foreign operator may choose to participate in a U.S. space station
    processing round, a vehicle by which we concurrently consider all
    requests to implement satellites in the same frequency bands.").

[^28]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 25.116(c).

[^29]: ^?^ *Id.* § 25.116(b)(3).

[^30]: ^?^ *Id.* § 25.116(c)(2).

[^31]: ^?^ ICO Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 8.

[^32]: ^?^ *Id.* at 6.

[^33]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, *Loral Space & Communication Ltd. and Orion
    Network Systems, Inc., et al.*, Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd
    4592, 4598-99 ¶¶ 14-19 (Int'l Bur. 1998) (granting exemption of the
    cut-off rule to allow Loral to "strengthen its financial resources"
    by merging with Orion); *Satellite CD Radio, Inc*, Declaratory
    Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8359, 8362-64 ¶¶ 7-13 (Int'l Bur. 1997) (granting
    a waiver of the cut-off date to allow a public offering); *Starsys
    Global Positioning, Inc.*, Order and Authorization, 11 FCC Rcd 1237,
    1238 ¶¶ 8-11 (Int'l Bur. 1995) (granting a waiver of the cut-off
    date to allow GE Americom to acquire a controlling interest in
    Starsys). *See also* *Airsignal International Inc*., Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 81 F.C.C.2d 472, 474-76 ¶¶ 6-10 (1980).

[^34]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, *Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc.*, Order
    and Authorization, 10 FCC Rcd 2268, 2270 ¶ 11 (Int'l Bur. 1995)
    ("*Iridium License*"), *erratum*, 10 FCC Rcd 3925 (Int'l Bur. 1995),
    *recon. denied*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18502
    (1996).

[^35]: ^?^ *See, e.g., Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P.*, Order and
    Authorization, 10 FCC Rcd 2333, 2334 ¶ 12 (Int'l Bur. 1995);
    *Iridium License*, 10 FCC Rcd at 2270 ¶ 11.

[^36]: ^?^ ICO LOI Amendment at 4.

[^37]: ^?^ *Airsignal*, 81 F.C.C.2d at 475 ¶ 9.

[^38]: ^?^ ICO Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 5-6. *But see DISCO II
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24162 ¶ 159 (rules governing participation in
    processing rounds equally applicable to U.S. and non-U.S. space
    stations).

[^39]: ^?^ The documents we considered here did not address public
    interest considerations with respect to any other pending
    applications filed by ITGL or its affiliated companies. Therefore,
    our rulings today are limited only to those filings before us, and
    are without prejudice to any action that we may take in response to
    requests to amend other pending applications. *See, e.g.*, Public
    Notice, Report No. SAT-00013, at 3 (rel. March 23, 1999).