# Before the

# FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

# Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | File No.                     |
|                                  |   | SAT-WAV-20001215-00164       |
| NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C.        | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| For Authority to Construct,      | ) |                              |
| Launch, and Operate a Ka-Band    |   |                              |
| Communications Satellite in the  | ) |                              |
| Fixed-Satellite Service in       |   |                              |
| Orbital Location 95º W.L.        | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
|                                  |   |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

Adopted: May 24, 2001 Released: May 25, 2001

By the Chief, International Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1 In this Order, we grant a petition for waiver of a construction
commencement milestone filed by NetSat 28 Company L.L.C. (NetSat 28).
This action will enable NetSat 28 to complete construction of its
Ka-band satellite system.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2 In 1997, the International Bureau (Bureau) authorized NetSat 28 to
construct, launch, and operate a geostationary-orbit satellite at the
95° W.L. orbital location to provide fixed-satellite service in the
United States in the Ka-band.[^1] 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, including NetSat 28's
system.[^2] 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.[^3]

3 NetSat 28's license, like all satellite licenses, required the
licensee to meet explicit system implementation 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."[^4] NetSat 28's authorization stated the authorization would be
null and void unless NetSat 28 commenced construction of its system by
May 1998.[^5] In response to our request that NetSat 28 provide a copy
of its non-contingent construction contract,[^6] so we could determine
whether it had met its construction commencement milestone, NetSat 28
provided a contract that took effect on December 17, 1999.[^7] Thus,
NetSat 28 missed its milestone by approximately 18 months.[^8] NetSat 28
had not requested an extension of its construction commencement
milestone, and the record at that time did not provide any basis for
extending or waiving that milestone.[^9] Accordingly, the Bureau
concluded that NetSat 28\'s Ka-band license was null and void, and that
the orbital assignment granted to NetSat 28 was available for
reassignment.[^10]

4 On December 15, 2000, NetSat 28 petitioned for waiver of the
construction commencement milestone, and requested us to grant a
transfer of control application.[^11] We placed the petition on public
notice.[^12] Pacific Century Group, Inc. (PCG) and TRW, Inc. (TRW) filed
oppositions to NetSat 28\'s petition, and NetSat 28 filed a reply.[^13]
NetSat 28 asserts that it has provided \"good cause\" for a waiver
within the meaning of Section 1.3 of the Commission\'s rules.[^14] PCG
and TRW assert that we cannot grant a waiver of a license condition
after the license has been declared null and void.

5 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that NetSat 28 has shown
good cause for a waiver of its construction commencement milestone.
Accordingly, on our own motion, we reinstate NetSat 28\'s license under
Section 25.163(a) of the Commission\'s rules,[^15] and we grant its
petition for waiver.[^16] NetSat 28 also requests an extension of its
construction completion and launch milestones. We conclude below that
NetSat 28 provides adequate justification for extension of those two
milestones. Finally, we dismiss a NetSat 28 motion for stay as moot, and
we defer action on NetSat 28\'s transfer of control application to
another proceeding.

**III. DISCUSSION**

**A. Waiver** **Standard**

6 Rules may be waived if there is \"good cause\" to do so.[^17] Waiver
is appropriate if (1) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the
general rule, and (2) such deviation would better serve the public
interest than would strict adherence to the general rule.[^18]
Circumstances that would justify a waiver include \"considerations of
hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall
policy.\"[^19] Also, if the Commission grants waivers, it must identify
and articulate reasonable standards that are predictable, workable, and
not susceptible to discriminatory application.[^20] Generally, the
Commission may grant a waiver of its rules in a particular case only if
the relief requested would not undermine the policy objective of the
rule in question, and would otherwise serve the public interest.[^21]

**1. Special Circumstances**

7 We find that the Commission\'s actions in the *MobileMedia* proceeding
made it more difficult than it would have been otherwise for NetSat 28
to attract investors; and this constitutes special circumstances that
justify a waiver of its construction completion milestone. In April
1997, the Commission issued an Order to Show Cause with respect to
MobileMedia Corporation and several of its subsidiaries (MobileMedia),
which held several Commission licenses to operate paging services.[^22]
There was reason to believe that MobileMedia had misrepresented facts in
several applications for Commission paging licenses, thereby raising a
substantial and material question of fact as to MobileMedia\'s
qualifications to be a Commission licensee, as well as the
qualifications of its corporate officers and members of its Board of
Directors.[^23]

8 Because one of MobileMedia\'s principles is the owner of a company
with ownership interests in NetSat 28, the Bureau reconsidered the
*NetSat 28 Authorization Order* on its own motion in June 1997 to
condition NetSat 28\'s Ka-band license on the outcome of the
investigation in the *MobileMedia* proceeding.[^24] The Commission,
however, later clarified the *MobileMedia Hearing Designation Order* to
state that the allegations of lack of candor should have been limited to
only four MobileMedia officers, none of which were the holder of NetSat
28 interests identified in the *NetSat 28 Reconsideration Order*.[^25]
The Bureau terminated this condition in April 1998.[^26] NetSat 28
observes that the license condition imposed in response to the
*MobileMedia* proceeding remained in effect for several months, and
claims it substantially limited NetSat 28\'s ability to raise capital to
implement its Ka-band satellite system.[^27]

9 Ordinarily, efforts to raise financing cannot justify an extension or
a waiver of a milestone.[^28] Financing usually involves business
decisions wholly within the control of the licensee, and the Commission
does not grant waivers or extensions of milestones based on licensees\'
business decisions.[^29] In this case, however, NetSat 28 faced
difficulty in raising financing as a direct result of a Commission Order
which the Commission later determined was overbroad. Thus, NetSat 28
faced hardship as a consequence of a Commission action, and so equity
considerations weigh in favor of granting the waiver NetSat 28
seeks.[^30]

**2. Policy Objective of the Rule in Question**

10 The policy objective of the Commission\'s milestone requirements is
to ensure that licensees cannot \"warehouse\" increasingly scarce
orbital resources.[^31] The construction commencement milestone is
crucial to the Commission\'s warehousing policies, to ensure that unused
spectrum is reassigned as quickly as possible to another qualified
entity when there are substantial doubts as to whether the licensee
intends to or is able to proceed with its business plan.[^32]

11 NetSat 28 has entered into a construction contract that is sufficient
to show that NetSat 28 can complete the construction of its satellite
and launch it within a reasonable time frame. Therefore, granting NetSat
28 a waiver in this case does not appear to be likely to result in any
significant delay in bringing the 95° W.L. orbital location into use.
Thus, granting NetSat 28 a waiver will not facilitate warehousing, and
so will not undermine the Commission\'s milestone policy.

**B. Timing of Waiver Request**

12 PCG and TRW argue that NetSat 28 should have filed its petition for
waiver before the construction commencement milestone expired. PCG and
TRW assert that we cannot waive a condition in NetSat 28\'s license
after we declared that license null and void.[^33]

13 We disagree with PCG and TRW that we are precluded from considering
NetSat 28\'s waiver request because it was filed after NetSat 28\'s
license was rescinded. We revoked the license because NetSat 28 did not
meet a condition in that license.[^34] If NetSat 28 had justified a
waiver of that condition at the time of the *NetSat 28 Revocation
Order*, we would have had no basis for revoking NetSat 28\'s
license.[^35] Section 25.163(a) of the Commission\'s rules allows the
Commission to reinstate licenses if it would \"best serve the public
interest, convenience, and necessity.\"[^36] Because NetSat 28 has shown
that a waiver of the construction commencement milestone is warranted,
and there is no other basis in the record for revoking NetSat 28\'s
license, we conclude that reinstating NetSat 28\'s Ka-band license would
\"best serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity\" within
the meaning of Section 25.163(a).

14 The Commission has interpreted Section 25.161(a) as precluding
consideration of a milestone waiver request filed after the milestone
has passed.[^37] We find that, for the same reasons that there is good
cause for reinstating NetSat 28\'s license and waiving its construction
commencement milestone, there is good cause for waiving Section
25.161(a) for purposes of considering NetSat 28\'s waiver request filed
after its construction commencement milestone had passed.

15 As we explained above, a rule waiver is appropriate if (1) special
circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and (2) such
deviation would better serve the public interest than would strict
adherence to the general rule.[^38] We also found above that NetSat 28
faced special circumstances because the *MobileMedia* investigation made
it difficult for NetSat 28 to attract financing, and that equity
considerations compel us to reinstate NetSat 28\'s license. It would be
inconsistent to conclude that equity compels us to reinstate NetSat
28\'s license, but then refuse to do so because NetSat 28 did not file
its waiver request in a timely fashion.

16 The purpose of Section 25.161(a) is to facilitate reassignment of an
orbital location as quickly as possible. We concluded above that waiving
NetSat 28\'s construction commencement milestone is unlikely to result
in any significant delay in bringing the 95° W.L. orbital location into
use, and so a waiver of the construction commencement milestone would
not undermine the purpose of that rule. For the same reason, we conclude
that waiving Section 25.161(a) will not cause significant delay in
bringing the 95° W.L. orbital location into use.

**C. Other Considerations**

17 NetSat 28 argues that the spot beams of its satellite will be
particularly well suited to provide broadband service to rural
communities, and this would further a Commission policy goal.[^39] PCG
argues that NetSat 28 is no better suited to provide broadband service
to rural communities than other Ka-band licensees.[^40]

18 We recognize that promoting broadband service to rural communities is
a very important policy goal. However, we disagree with NetSat 28 that
it can justify a waiver of a milestone merely by asserting that its
proposed service is more beneficial than services that might be provided
by another satellite operator. As we explained above, the Commission
grants milestone extensions and waivers only for circumstances outside
the licensee\'s control. Choosing to provide a particular service is
clearly within the licensee\'s control. Accordingly, we place no weight
on this argument.

**D. Extension of Construction Completion and Launch Milestones**

19 NetSat 28 requests one-year extensions of its construction completion
and launch milestones.[^41] NetSat 28 claims that it needs additional
time to make up for delays in system development and to reassemble its
construction teams.[^42] NetSat 28 also argues that it had entered into
a noncontingent construction contract which, although it took effect too
late to meet the construction commencement milestone, had initially
provided for completing construction and launching the satellite within
the deadlines established in the *NetSat 28 Authorization Order*.[^43]
NetSat also notes that it had over 50 people working on satellite
construction, completed arrangements for the satellite launch, and has
expended over \$10 million on system development.[^44]

20 In the past we have found that unanticipated technical problems can
justify a milestone extension.[^45] NetSat 28\'s license was conditioned
on the outcome of an unrelated Commission investigation, and the
Commission later concluded that this condition was not warranted. We
find that, in this case, NetSat 28 faced an unanticipated legal problem
that had a similar effect as an unanticipated technical problem, and
therefore an extension of the construction completion and launch
milestones is justified in NetSat 28\'s case.

21 Although milestone extensions are generally granted only when the
delay in implementation is due to circumstances beyond the control of
the licensee, in every instance where the Commission has denied a
milestone extension request, construction of the satellite either had
not begun or was not continuing, thus raising questions regarding the
licensee's intention to proceed.[^46] Because NetSat 28 has commenced
construction of its satellite,[^47] and has arranged for the launch of
the satellite,[^48] it has shown a firm commitment to proceed with its
business plan. Therefore, this case is distinguishable from cases in
which the licensee seeks extension of a construction *commencement*
milestone, in which the licensee has not even begun construction of its
satellite by the date specified in its license.[^49]

22 We also find that a one-year milestone extension is not excessive in
this case. Approximately ten months has passed since we cancelled NetSat
28\'s contract.[^50] This has resulted in placing the construction of
its satellite ten months behind schedule. An additional two months to
reassemble its construction team is reasonable. In addition, we believe
that it is appropriate to extend NetSat 28\'s milestones an additional
four months to account for the time that has passed since it filed its
petition for waiver.

**E. Petition for Stay**

23 On August 22, 2000, NetSat 28 filed a motion to \"stay\" the finding
that its license was null and void. In light of our action in this
Order, we dismiss that motion as moot.

**F. Transfer of Control Application**

24 NetSat 28 filed a transfer of control application on July 27, 1999.
We dismissed that application as moot in the *NetSat 28 Revocation
Order*.[^51] NetSat 28 now requests us to grant its transfer of control
application.[^52] Section 25.112(b)(2) of the Commission\'s rules gives
us authority to consider otherwise defective applications upon our own
motion.[^53] In light of our waiver of NetSat 28\'s construction
commencement milestone in this Order, we find that its transfer of
control application should no longer be considered moot. Accordingly,
under Section 25.112(b)(2), we will consider NetSat 28\'s transfer of
control application, together with all the pleadings filed in response
to that application, in a future Order.

**IV. ORDERING CLASUES**

25 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 25.163(a) of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.163(a), the license declared null
and void in the *NetSat 28 Revocation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 11321 (2000) IS
REINSTATED.

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3, NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C., IS
GRANTED a waiver of Section 25.161(a) of the Commission\'s rules, 47
C.F.R. § 25.161a), to the extent necessary to allow us to consider
NetSat 28\'s petition for waiver of its construction commencement
milestone.

27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3, the petition for waiver of a
construction commencement milestone, filed by NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C.,
on December 15, 2000, IS GRANTED.

28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request to extend construction
completion and launch milestones, filed by NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C., on
December 15, 2000, IS GRANTED.

29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless extended by the Commission for
good cause shown, this authorization shall become NULL AND VOID in the
event the space station is not launched and successfully placed into
operation in accordance with this authorization by the following dates:

[Complete Construction Launch]{.underline}

August 2003 September 2003

30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for stay filed by NetSat 28
Company, L.L.C., on August 22, 2000, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

31 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. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or
applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.115, may be filed within 30 days of the date of
the release of this Order. (*See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(2).)

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Donald Abelson

Chief, International Bureau

[^1]: NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C., *Order and Authorization*, 13 FCC Rcd
    1392 (Int'l Bur. 1997) (*NetSat 28 Authorization Order*). For
    purposes of this Order, the Ka-band is the 19.7--20.2 GHz,
    28.35--28.6 GHz, and 29.25--30.0 GHz frequency bands.

[^2]: Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Ka-band,
    *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 13737 (1996).

[^3]: *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).

[^4]: *NetSat 28 Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1401 (para. 26);
    Columbia Communications Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    15 FCC Rcd 15566, 15571 (para. 11) (Int\'l Bur. 2000).

[^5]: *NetSat 28 Authorization Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1403 (para. 31).

[^6]: Letter from Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and
    Radiocommunication Division, FCC, to Albert Shuldiner, Esq., Vinson
    & Elkins, L.L.P., Counsel for NetSat 28 (Dec. 9, 1999) (*December 9
    Letter*).

[^7]: NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 11321, 11323 (para. 7) (Int'l Bur. 2000) (*NetSat 28 Revocation
    Order*), *application for review pending*.

[^8]: *NetSat 28 Revocation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11323 (para. 7).

[^9]: *NetSat 28 Revocation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11323 (para. 7).

[^10]: *NetSat 28 Revocation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11324 (paras. 10-12).

[^11]: NetSat 28 filed a transfer of control application in July 1999.
    The Bureau dismissed that application as moot. *NetSat 28 Revocation
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11323 (para. 9).

[^12]: Satellite Policy Branch Informaton, *Public Notice*, Report No.
    SAT-00063 (released Jan. 5, 2001).

[^13]: PCG filed its opposition on December 29, 2000, and TRW on
    December 26, 2000. NetSat 28 filed its reply on January 3, 2001. PCG
    also filed a motion to accept late-filed pleadings. Because PCG did
    not file its comments late, we dismiss its motion as moot.

[^14]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.163(a).

[^16]: NetSat 28 also filed an application for review of the *NetSat 28
    Revocation Order* on July 26, 2000. The Commission will address the
    arguments in NetSat 28\'s application in a future Order.

[^17]: ^?^ *See* Section 1.3 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    1.3. *See also* WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
    (*WAIT Radio*); Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d
    1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (*Northeast Cellular*).

[^18]: *Northeast Cellular*, 897 F.2d at 1166. *See also* Comsat
    Corporation, Petition for Partial Relief from the Current Regulatory
    Treatment of Comsat World Systems\' Switched Voice, Private Line,
    and Video and Audio Services, *Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 9622, 9625 (para.
    10) (1996); Petition of General Communications, Inc. for a Partial
    Waiver of the Bush Earth Station Policy, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 2535, 2536 (para. 4) (Int\'l Bur. 1996).

[^19]: *WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d at 1159.

[^20]: *Northeast Cellular*, 897 F.2d at 1166.

[^21]: *WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d at 1157; Dominion Video Satellite, Inc.,
    *Order and Authorization*, 14 FCC Rcd 8182, 8185 (para. 5) (Int\'l
    Bur., 1999) (*Dominion Video*).

[^22]: MobileMedia Corporation, *Order to Show Cause, Hearing
    Designation Order, and Notice of Opportumity for Hearing for
    Forfeiture*, WT Docket No. 97-115, 12 FCC Rcd 14896 (1997)
    (*MobileMedia Hearing Designation Order*).

[^23]: *MobileMedia Hearing Designation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    14899-14900 (paras. 8-9).

[^24]: NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C., *Order on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd
    7727 (Int'l Bur. 1997) (*NetSat 28 Reconsideration Order*).

[^25]: MobileMedia Corporation, *Order*, WT Docket No. 97-115, 12 FCC
    Rcd 11861 (1997) (*MobileMedia Clarificiation Order*).

[^26]: NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C., *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 16434 (Int'l Bur.
    1998).

[^27]: NetSat 28 Petition at 4-5.

[^28]: *See* Advanced Communications Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 3399, 3417 (para. 45) (1995) (*Advanced
    Order*) (delays related to negotiations with potential investors do
    not constitute adequate justification for extension of milestones).
    *See also* Columbia Communications Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 15566, 15571-72 n.35 (Int\'l Bur. 2000)
    (*First Columbia Modification Order*).

[^29]: *Advanced Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 3417 (para. 45); MCI
    Communications Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 2 FCC
    Rcd 233, 234 (para. 7) (1987) (*MCI Order*); American Telephone and
    Telegraph Company and Ford Aerospace Satellite Services Corporation,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 4431, 4433-34 (paras.
    21-23) (1987); Tempo Enterprises, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 1 FCC Rcd 20 (1986).

[^30]: The Court in *WAIT Radio* directed the Commission to include
    considerations of hardship and equity in reviewing waiver petitions.
    *WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d at 1159.

[^31]: *First Columbia Modification Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15571 (para.
    11), National Exchange Satellite, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 1990, 1991 (para. 8) (Com. Car. Bur. 1990); *MCI
    Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 233.

[^32]: Columbia Communications Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 16496, 16504 (para. 21) (Int\'l Bur. 2000)
    (*Second Columbia Modification Order*).

[^33]: PCG Opposition at 3-5; TRW Opposition at 2-4.

[^34]: *NetSat 28 Revocation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11323 (para. 8).

[^35]: *See NetSat 28 Revocation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11323 (para. 8)
    (revoking NetSat 28\'s license in part because the record at that
    time provided no basis for waiving or otherwise extending the
    construction commencement milestone).

[^36]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.163(a).

[^37]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.161(a); Norris Satellite Communications,
    Inc., Application for Review of Order Denying Extension of Time to
    Construct and Launch Ka-band Satellite System, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22299, 22307 (para. 20) (1997) (*Norris
    Review Order*).

[^38]: *See*, *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3; *Northeast Cellular*, 897 F.2d at
    1166.

[^39]: NetSat 28 Petition at 3-4.

[^40]: PCG Opposition at 5-6; TRW Opposition at 5.

[^41]: NetSat 28 seeks extension of its construction completion
    milestone from April 2002 to April 2003, and its launch milestone
    from May 2002 to May 2003. NetSat 28 Petition at 6.

[^42]: NetSat 28 Petition at 6.

[^43]: NetSat 28 Petition at 3.

[^44]: NetSat 28 Petition at 3.

[^45]: *See* AMSC Subsidiary Corporation, Application for Modification
    of Construction Permit and License for the AMSC-1 Satellite, *Order
    and Authorization*, 10 FCC Rcd 3791 (Int\'l Bur., Sat. and Rad.
    Div., 1995) (short milestone extension granted to permit licensee to
    resolve unanticipated technical problems with antenna); American
    Telephone and Telegraph Company, Application for Modification of
    Construction Permit and License for the Telstar 402 Satellite,
    *Order and Authorization*, 9 FCC Rcd 2607 (Domestic Facilities Div.,
    1994) (short milestone extension granted to permit licensee to
    resolve unanticipated technical problems).

[^46]: Application of AMSC Subsidiary Corporation for to Modify Space
    Station Authorizations in the Mobile Satellite Service, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 4040, 4042 (para. 13) (1993) (*AMSC
    Order*); EarthWatch, Incorporated, Modification of Authorization to
    Construct, Lauch, and Operate a Remote Sensing Satellite System,
    *Order and Authorization*, 15 FCC Rcd 13594, 13597-98 (para. 10)
    (Int\'l Bur., Sat. and Rad. Div., 2000).

[^47]: *See* NetSat 28 Application for Review at 22.

[^48]: *See* NetSat 28 Opposition Petitions to Deny its Transfer of
    Control Application at 4-8.

[^49]: The Commission has concluded on several occasions that failure to
    begin construction raises substantial doubts as to whether the
    licensee intends to or is able to proceed with its business plan.
    *See* AMSC Subsidiary Corporation, Applications to Modify Space
    Station Authorizations in the Mobile Satellite Service, *Memorandum
    Opinion and 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). *See also* *AMSC
    Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 4040, 4042-43 (para. 14) (construction
    commencement demonstrates intention to proceed with business plan);
    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)
    (construction commencement demonstrates intention to proceed with
    business plan); *EarthWatch Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18727 (para. 8).

[^50]: The *NetSat 28 Revocation Order* was released on June 26, 2000.

[^51]: ^?^ *NetSat 28 Revocation Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 11323 (para. 9).

[^52]: ^?^ NetSat 28 Petition at 7.

[^53]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 25.112(b)(2).