**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of the             | * | File Nos:                    |
| Applications of                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) | SAT-A/O-20000119-00002 to    |
| **INTELSAT LLC**                 | * |                              |
|                                  | * | SAT-A/O-20000119-00018;      |
| For Authority to Operate, and to |   |                              |
| Further Construct,               | * | SAT-AMD-20000119-00029 to    |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Launch, and Operate C-band and   | ) | SAT-AMD-20000119-00041;      |
| Ku-band Satellites that Form a   | * |                              |
| Global Communications System in  | * | SAT-LOA-20000119-00019 to    |
| Geostationary Orbit              |   |                              |
|                                  | * | SAT-LOA-20000119-00028       |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION**

**Adopted:** August 2, 2000 **Released:** August 8, 2000

By the Commission: Chairman Kennard issuing a statement; Commissioner
Furchtgott-Roth approving in part, dissenting in part, and issuing a
statement;

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

I. INTRODUCTION [2](#introduction)

II\. BACKGROUND [4](#background)

III\. SYSTEM APPLICATION [6](#system-application)

IV\. PLEADINGS [8](#pleadings)

V. DISCUSSION [11](#discussion)

A. Policy Considerations [11](#policy-considerations)

1\. Privatization as a Policy Goal [11](#privatization-as-a-policy-goal)

2\. INTELSAT Principles of Privatization
[13](#intelsat-principles-of-privatization)

3\. Mutual Benefits of Licensing in the United States
[15](#mutual-benefits-of-licensing-in-the-united-states)

4\. Timeliness of Commission Action
[17](#timeliness-of-commission-action)

5\. Application of *DISCO II* Standards
[19](#application-of-disco-ii-standards)

6\. Dominant-Carrier Treatment [19](#dominant-carrier-treatment)

7\. Exclusivity [20](#exclusivity)

B. Foreign Ownership [21](#foreign-ownership)

1\. Section 310(a) Review [22](#section-310a-review)

2\. Section 310(b)(4) Review [24](#section-310b4-review)

C. Technical Requirements and Waivers
[25](#technical-requirements-and-waivers)

1\. Waiver Standard [27](#waiver-standard)

2\. Special Circumstances [28](#special-circumstances)

3\. Underlying Principles of FCC Technical Rules
[30](#underlying-principles-of-fcc-technical-rules)

4\. Operating and Planned Satellites
[31](#operating-and-planned-satellites)

5\. Specific Waiver Requests [34](#specific-waiver-requests)

a\. Two-degree Spacing of Satellite Orbit Locations - Section
25.140(b)(2)
[34](#two-degree-spacing-of-satellite-orbit-locations---section-25.140b2)

b\. C-band Frequency Bands -- Section 25.202(a)(1)
[39](#c-band-frequency-bands-section-25.202a1)

c\. Telemetry, Tracking and Telecommand Functions -- Section 25.202(g)
[40](#telemetry-tracking-and-telecommand-functions-section-25.202g)

d\. Orthogonal Linear Polarization -- Sections 25.210(a)(1) and (3)
[41](#orthogonal-linear-polarization-sections-25.210a1-and-3)

e\. Control of Transponder Saturation Flux Densities -- Section
25.210(c)
[43](#control-of-transponder-saturation-flux-densities-section-25.210c)

f\. Cross-Polarization Isolation -- Section 25.210(i)
[44](#cross-polarization-isolation-section-25.210i)

g\. C-band Downlink Analog Video Transmissions -- Section 25.211(a)
[44](#c-band-downlink-analog-video-transmissions-section-25.211a)

h\. Orbital Longitude Maintenance -- Section 25.210(j)(1)
[45](#orbital-longitude-maintenance-section-25.210j1)

i\. Frequency Reuse -- Sections 25.210(g)(1)
[45](#frequency-reuse-sections-25.210g1)

j\. Unused Orbital Locations -- Section 25.140(f)
[45](#unused-orbital-locations-section-25.140f)

D. Financial Requirements [49](#financial-requirements)

E. Other Issues [52](#other-issues)

1\. Transfer of USA-IT Network Filings
[52](#transfer-of-usa-it-network-filings)

2\. Milestones [54](#milestones)

3\. Frequency Band Use [55](#frequency-band-use)

a\. 3.42-3.6 GHz Frequency Band [55](#ghz-frequency-band)

b\. 3.6-3.7 GHz Frequency Band [55](#ghz-frequency-band-1)

c\. 5.850-5.925 GHz Frequency Band [56](#ghz-frequency-band-2)

d\. 6.425-6.650 GHz Frequency Band [56](#ghz-frequency-band-3)

e\. 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz Frequency Band
[57](#ghz-and-11.45-11.7-ghz-frequency-band)

f\. 13.75-14.0 GHz Frequency Band [57](#ghz-frequency-band-4)

4\. Request to Modify Authorizations
[57](#request-to-modify-authorizations)

5\. License Terms [58](#license-terms)

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES [58](#ordering-clauses)

APPENDIX A: Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Operational, Planned, and Reassigned
Satellites

APPENDIX B: INTELSAT Investment Shares of Signatories and Investing
Entities

APPENDIX C: Technical Waivers Granted for Respective Satellite
Authorizations

# INTRODUCTION

1.  By this Order, we grant applications of Intelsat LLC requesting
    licenses to operate 17 existing C-band and Ku-band satellites
    presently owned and operated by the International Telecommunications
    Satellite Organization ("INTELSAT").[^1] We also grant applications
    by Intelsat LLC requesting licenses to construct, launch, and
    operate 10 satellites planned by INTELSAT for operation in these
    bands. In addition, we grant Intelsat LLC authority to relocate,
    among 22 orbit locations, certain currently operating satellites
    upon the launch of the 10 planned satellites.

2.  Intelsat LLC has filed these applications in anticipation of the
    privatization of INTELSAT. Because INTELSAT is an intergovernmental
    organization ("IGO"), its global satellite system is not licensed by
    any national licensing authority. Intelsat LLC is a U.S. corporation
    created by INTELSAT for the purpose of owning and operating
    INTELSAT's C-band and Ku-band satellites upon privatization.[^2]
    Intelsat LLC has submitted these applications so that it may obtain
    timely authorization to operate as a U.S-licensed satellite system.
    Intelsat LLC would begin operation upon INTELSAT's transfer of the
    satellites and assets necessary to operate the satellites on the
    effective date of privatization---currently targeted for April 1,
    2001.

3.  Our action here will promote competition in the provision of
    satellite communications services through the privatization of
    INTELSAT in a manner consistent with U.S. law. The licenses granted
    here will become effective upon the date of such privatization,
    under the provisions of this Order. Upon effect, the licenses will
    permit Intelsat LLC to operate pursuant to the principles upon which
    the 1999 INTELSAT Assembly of Parties based its decision to
    privatize INTELSAT. These principles include maintaining global
    connectivity and coverage of the INTELSAT system, protecting
    lifeline users and connectivity, and ensuring continual
    non-discriminatory access to the global system. The United States
    agreed to these principles in joining the Assembly decision to
    privatize.[^3]

4.  By fulfilling the requirements of this Order and accepting these
    licenses, Intelsat LLC will have access to the U.S. domestic and
    international markets for the provision of satellite services in the
    C-band and Ku-band.[^4] If Intelsat LLC decides to obtain operating
    authority from another national licensing authority we would
    consider, in a separate proceeding, its access to the U.S. market as
    a non-U.S. licensed satellite system upon the filing of appropriate
    applications, under our 1997 *DISCO II decision* and pursuant to
    applicable U. S. law*.*[^5]

# BACKGROUND

5.  INTELSAT is a 143-member intergovernmental organization created by
    international agreement.[^6] INTELSAT owns and operates a global
    satellite system over which much of the world's international
    telephone, video, data, Internet, and other communications are
    transmitted. It operates 17 satellites and serves tens of thousands
    of earth stations. INTELSAT currently has a two-tier governance
    structure: (1) an Assembly of Parties, which is comprised of
    government representatives that determines overall policy; and (2) a
    Board of Governors, which is comprised of Signatories that are the
    investors in the system, that make commercial decisions. Comsat is
    the U.S. Signatory to the INTELSAT Operating Agreement and is a
    member of the Board of Governors.

6.  INTELSAT was created as a result of initiatives undertaken in the
    early days of development of space technology by the United States
    under the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 ("1962 Satellite
    Act").[^7] The 1962 Satellite Act declared it U.S. policy to join
    with other countries to create a commercial, global communications
    satellite system that would provide services on a non-discriminatory
    basis.[^8] As one of the first commercial satellite service
    providers, INTELSAT benefited from U.S. taxpayer-funded research and
    development carried out during the early days of space
    communications.[^9] It also benefited from Commission policies
    intended to assure its early commercial success so that the broader
    public policy goals intended through its creation would be
    satisfied.[^10] Subsequently, the United States and other countries
    introduced competition into the satellite communications market by
    authorizing private and government-owned separate satellite
    systems.[^11] Today, INTELSAT faces competition globally from both
    private and government-owned satellite systems and fiber optic
    submarine cable systems.[^12] INTELSAT continues to be an important
    provider of satellite services for commercial and Federal government
    use in the United States.

7.  INTELSAT currently operates as a cost-sharing cooperative, with the
    long-term objective of providing, on a commercial basis, service at
    prices that meet its revenue requirements. It provides space segment
    capacity to users of its global satellite system at charges
    determined by the INTELSAT Board of Governors and reflected in the
    INTELSAT Tariff Manual. As an intergovernmental organization,
    INTELSAT is immune from taxes and from suits in national courts,
    unless it waives its immunity.[^13] Its treaty status helps ensure
    its access to the national markets of member countries.

8.  In response to competition, and the desire of governments to promote
    a more level playing field, INTELSAT and investing Signatories
    decided to restructure as a private commercial entity.[^14] The
    Board of Governors has set a target date of April 1, 2001 to
    complete this transaction.[^15] The final decision on all
    significant aspects of the privatization is anticipated to be taken
    by the INTELSAT Assembly of Parties in November 2000. The Board of
    Governors will thereafter take actions necessary to implement the
    Assembly decision by the target date.

9.  At its September 2000 meeting, the Board of Governors is expected to
    make decisions and recommendations on a comprehensive plan to
    privatize INTELSAT, to be considered at the November 2000 meeting of
    the Assembly of Parties. The plan is expected to include the
    selection of a country or countries that will serve as the national
    licensing jurisdiction for the privatized company. INTELSAT is
    considering other countries in addition to the United States as
    licensing jurisdictions. Intelsat LLC filed the instant applications
    with the expectation of acquiring the respective INTELSAT C-band and
    Ku-band global satellites upon privatization of INTELSAT. The
    applications are contingent upon INTELSAT's decision to transfer the
    operating and 10 planned satellites to Intelsat LLC and the related
    INTELSAT network filings with the International Telecommunication
    Union ("ITU") to the U.S. registry.

10. Our action here on the Intelsat LLC applications, and on any future
    applications that may be filed by or on behalf of a privatized
    INTELSAT, is and will be in accordance with the recently enacted
    Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International
    Telecommunications Act ("ORBIT Act").[^16] In March 2000, by the
    ORBIT Act, Congress amended the 1962 Satellite Act by promoting a
    competitive market for satellite communications services through a
    fully privatized INTELSAT.[^17] Specifically, the ORBIT Act (1)
    provides for the privatization of INTELSAT by April 1,
    2001;[^18] (2) establishes criteria to ensure a pro-competitive
    privatization;[^19] (3) requires the Commission to determine, after
    April 1, 2001, whether INTELSAT has been privatized in a manner that
    will harm competition in the United States;[^20] (4) requires the
    Commission to use the licensing criteria specified in the ORBIT Act
    as a basis for making its competition determination;[^21] and (5)
    directs the Commission to "limit through conditions or deny"
    applications or requests to provide "non-core" services to, from or
    within the United States if it finds that competition will be
    harmed.[^22] The ORBIT Act provides for certain exceptions to
    limitations on non-core services in the event of such a
    determination.[^23] It also provides that, in making determinations
    and decisions under its provisions, the Commission shall construe
    such provisions "in a manner consistent with the United States
    obligations and commitments for satellite services under the Fourth
    Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services."[^24]

# SYSTEM APPLICATION

11. Intelsat LLC requests licenses to operate 17 existing satellites in
    the C-band and Ku-band at the orbital locations specified in
    Appendix A, Table 1. Intelsat LLC also requests licenses to launch
    and operate 10 planned satellites in the C-band and Ku-band at the
    orbital locations specified in Appendix A, Table 2. Additionally,
    Intelsat LLC requests authority to make 13 orbital location changes
    specified in Appendix A, Table 3. The changes are associated with
    the launch of the 10 planned satellites and resulting relocation of
    existing satellites to different orbital locations. Ultimately,
    Intelsat LLC seeks to operate satellites at 22 orbit locations and
    all modifications pertain to these 22 orbit locations.

12. INTELSAT's ITU network filings for all orbital locations associated
    with the applications before us have been filed by the United States
    on behalf of INTELSAT and its members. They are currently shown in
    the ITU listing of network filings as "USA-IT" filings.[^25] Upon
    privatization and Intelsat LLC's acceptance of the licenses granted
    by this Order, these network filings would be transferred to the
    U.S. national registry as "USA" filings.[^26] The INTELSAT 1999
    Assembly of Parties decided, however, as a precondition to
    transferring registrations to the U.S. national registry, that the
    Commission would have to provide assurance that any satellites and
    ITU network filings transferred to the United States would be
    licensed to the applicant in a manner that would allow it to compete
    on a level playing field with U.S. and foreign commercial satellite
    operators.[^27] Intelsat LLC states that our approval of the
    applications before us "would satisfy these preconditions and permit
    INTELSAT to move forward."[^28]

13. Intelsat LLC views the existing and proposed components of the
    INTELSAT system as reflected in its applications as an integrated
    whole and requests authorization of the system in total.[^29] It
    states that only authorization of the entire system will enable it
    to preserve service offerings, including lifeline connectivity for
    thin-route countries.[^30] Intelsat LLC also asks that its licenses
    permit flexibility to operate on both a private and common carrier
    basis.[^31] Further, the applicant states that its anticipated
    ownership structure comports with Section 310(b)(4) of the
    Communications Act.[^32]

14. Finally, Intelsat LLC requests waivers of a number of rules in order
    to accommodate existing design and operation of the INTELSAT system.
    The applicant requests waivers of: (1) Section 25.140(b)(2),
    requiring a demonstration of capability to operate with two-degree
    geostationary satellite orbit ("GSO") spacing and interference
    protection; (2) Section 25.140(f), prohibiting authorization of an
    additional GSO location when the applicant has two or more unused
    orbital positions in a frequency band;[^33] (3) Section
    25.202(a)(1), specifying the frequency bands covered by Part 25 of
    our rules;[^34] (4) Section 25.202(g), requiring telemetry, tracking
    and telecommand ("TT&C") functions for U.S. satellite systems to be
    conducted at either or both edges of the allocated bands;[^35] (5)
    Section 25.210(a)(1) and (a)(3), requiring that C-band operations
    use orthogonal linear polarization with one of the planes defined by
    the equatorial plane that can be switched upon ground
    command;[^36] (6) Section 25.210(c), requiring that space stations
    have a minimum capability to change transponder saturation flux
    densities by ground command in 4 dB steps over a range of 12
    dB;[^37] (7) Section 25.210(i), requiring that space stations be
    designed to provide a cross-polarization isolation such that the
    ratio of the on-axis co-polar gain to the on-axis cross-polar gain
    of the antenna in the assigned frequency band is at least 30dB
    within its primary coverage area;[^38] (8) Section 25.211(a),
    requiring that downlink analog video transmissions in the 3700-4200
    MHz band be transmitted only on a specific center
    frequencies;[^39] (9) Section 25.210(j)(1), requiring that U.S.
    satellites be designed and maintained in orbit within ±0.05° of
    their assigned orbital longitude;[^40] and (10) Section
    25.210(g)(1), requiring space stations to employ dual polarization
    so that they are able to reuse both the uplink and downlink
    frequency bands.[^41]

# PLEADINGS

15. The Intelsat LLC application was placed on public notice on February
    2, 2000.[^42] Seven parties filed comments or petitions to deny.
    Comments were filed by Comsat Corporation (Comsat), New Skies
    Satellites N.V. (New Skies), Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed
    Martin), and Loral Space and Communications Ltd. (Loral). GE
    American Communications Inc. (GE Americom) and PanAmSat Corporation
    (PanAmSat) filed petitions to deny or defer action on the
    applications. Japan Satellite Systems, Inc. (JSAT) filed a petition
    to deny the applications. Intelsat LLC filed a joint opposition to
    the petitions to deny and a reply to the comments. GE Americom,
    Comsat, Lockheed Martin, PanAmSat, and Spacelink International
    ("Spacelink") filed responses to the joint opposition. Intelsat LLC,
    GE Americom, and PanAmSat also filed *ex parte* or supplemental
    information on several occasions.

16. Comsat, Lockheed Martin, Loral, and Spacelink support grant of
    Intelsat LLC's applications. They jointly or separately contend that
    the applications will: (1) promote privatization of INTELSAT
    consistent with U.S. pro-competitive goals;[^43] (2) ensure a smooth
    transition of commercial operations upon privatization;[^44] (3)
    ensure that Intelsat LLC is subject to equitable, transparent and
    fair regulation upon privatization;[^45] (4) promote U.S. consumer,
    manufacturing, and economic interests;[^46] and (5) maintain U.S.
    leadership in satellite communications.[^47] They each support grant
    of Intelsat LLC's waiver requests.[^48] They also maintain that
    grant of the applications would be consistent with the ORBIT
    Act.[^49]

17. New Skies generally supports INTELSAT's privatization, and once
    privatized, the future Commission grant of its licensing
    request.[^50] New Skies, however, requests that the Commission
    ensure that a privatized INTELSAT is not unduly advantaged by its
    legacy as an intergovernmental organization.[^51] It states that the
    Commission must assess INTELSAT's relationships with the regulatory
    authorities of key service providers to assure that there are no
    exclusive service providers. It asks that the Commission look beyond
    the legal regimes and assess practical barriers to entry as
    well.[^52] Notwithstanding, New Skies also asserts that it is too
    early to consider the Intelsat LLC system application because the
    Commission is unable to reliably determine how the new INTELSAT will
    be structured, based on the present status of the proposed
    privatization process.[^53]

18. In its petition to deny, JSAT contends that INTELSAT should be
    dissolved and its assets redistributed.[^54] It states that the
    Commission should restrict INTELSAT's access to the U.S. market to
    achieve this goal.[^55] At a minimum, JSAT contends that the
    Commission: (1) should not authorize use of orbital positions not
    presently occupied by operating satellites;[^56] and (2) require
    Intelsat LLC to meet all Commission technical standards for
    satellites not currently operating.[^57]

19. Neither PanAmSat nor GE Americom object in principle to granting FCC
    licenses to a privatized INTELSAT.[^58] They both contend, however,
    that Commission action on the applications is premature. Without the
    details of INTELSAT's privatization, they argue that the Commission
    cannot make a decision regarding the basis for issuing licenses to
    Intelsat LLC in general, and the ORBIT Act, in particular.[^59]
    Either jointly or separately, they also maintain that Intelsat
    LLC: (1) must show that its privatization is consistent with the
    ORBIT Act;[^60] (2) must be subject to a full competitive analysis
    under the Commission's *DISCO II decision*, without a presumption of
    entry into the U.S. market;[^61] (3) is precluded by Section 310(a)
    from holding a Commission license;[^62] (4) should not be authorized
    to operate satellites at six currently unoccupied orbital locations,
    in violation of Commission anti-warehousing rules;[^63] (5) must be
    regulated as a dominant carrier on non-competitive routes;[^64]
    and (6) must be subject to the Commission's prohibition on exclusive
    arrangements.[^65] PanAmSat and GE Americom also contend that
    Intelsat LLC should not be permitted to evade the Commission's
    two-degree spacing requirements.[^66] They oppose granting Intelsat
    LLC's request for waiver of Commission technical rules for
    satellites that are neither operational nor substantially under
    construction, and any waivers granted should require that satellite
    operations by Intelsat LLC be on a secondary, non-harmful
    interference basis.[^67] Finally, they assert that the Commission
    must dismiss or defer action on the applications until Intelsat LLC
    re-files or amends them to demonstrate compliance with applicable
    U.S. law and Commission rules.[^68]

20. Intelsat LLC responds that there would be significant benefits to
    the United States from being the licensing authority for the future
    privatized INTELSAT.[^69] Intelsat LLC states that delaying or
    deferring action on its application would only prevent privatization
    of INTELSAT as an FCC licensee by April 1, 2001.[^70] It contends
    that its applications are ripe for decision and that any uncertainty
    about the characteristics of the applicant upon privatization or
    consistency with the ORBIT Act can be addressed through conditioning
    the license grant.[^71] Intelsat LLC states that it is legally
    qualified to become a Commission licensee and that grant of such
    licenses would be consistent with Section 310 of the Communications
    Act.[^72] It also states that such a grant would satisfy the
    competition policies set forth in the *DISCO II decision*.[^73]
    Intelsat LLC does not oppose a condition to its licenses prohibiting
    it from seeking exclusive arrangements.[^74] It does, however,
    oppose imposition of dominant carrier treatment on thin routes as
    premature because it is not now seeking to provide common carrier
    service in the United States. It also contends that dominant carrier
    treatment would be unnecessary because INTELSAT will undertake a
    Lifeline Connectivity Obligation (LCO) to thin route countries as a
    part of the privatization, which will prevent exercise of monopoly
    power.[^75]

21. Intelsat LLC further maintains that: (1) authorization of its
    operation from currently unoccupied orbital locations is consistent
    with the Commission's anti-warehousing policy;[^76] (2) imposition
    of two-degree spacing is unwarranted because the cost of compliance
    would exceed the benefits and few other international systems comply
    with these requirements, including U.S. systems;[^77] and (3)
    requiring operation on a secondary, non-harmful interference basis
    is unnecessary for a pre-existing system that already is coordinated
    and that such a requirement would be harmful to Intelsat LLC's
    business plan.[^78] Finally, Intelsat LLC contends that grant of its
    requests for waiver of technical rules is justified in view of the
    fact that the INTELSAT global system was developed apart from U.S.
    systems, that international coordination of the satellites is
    already complete or nearing completion, and that the costs of
    conversion outweigh the benefits of strict compliance with those
    technical rules.[^79]

# DISCUSSION

## Policy Considerations

### Privatization as a Policy Goal

22. The privatization of INTELSAT is a policy goal of the United States.
    [^80] The Executive Branch and this Commission both have long
    supported this goal.[^81] Comsat, as the U.S. Signatory to INTELSAT,
    has promoted privatization of INTELSAT.[^82] Privatization is now
    embodied in U.S. law as the stated purpose of the ORBIT Act. The
    ORBIT Act received widespread endorsement in the United States from
    telecommunications service providers, satellite manufacturers and
    suppliers of telecommunications and information technology products,
    and competing satellite operators.[^83] In addition, it also was
    endorsed by two European satellite service providers, the
    International Maritime Satellite Organization ("Inmarsat") and New
    Skies Satellites N.V.[^84] Privatization of INTELSAT is supported by
    all parties in this proceeding, except JSAT.[^85]

23. According to Intelsat LLC, INTELSAT intends to transfer INTELSAT's
    assets to a national stock corporation with a holding company
    structure.[^86] The holding company likely would be incorporated and
    located in Bermuda. A service company is expected to be located in
    the United States. It would be comprised of the current INTELSAT
    headquarters building, staff and operations center. The service
    company would provide both satellite and business support services
    to Intelsat LLC. One or more licensing companies would own and
    operate INTELSAT satellites and be located in jurisdictions yet to
    be determined, including, possibly, the United States.[^87] If the
    United States is selected as a licensing jurisdiction, Intelsat LLC
    would acquire and operate INTELSAT's existing and 10 planned
    satellites in the C-band and Ku-band in accordance with Commission
    authorizations.[^88] As a private company, INTELSAT would neither
    have treaty-based access to national markets nor any privileges and
    immunities.[^89] It would be subject to and obtain orbital locations
    and spectrum from the ITU pursuant to a national licensing
    regime.[^90] According to Comsat, the privatized INTELSAT expects to
    hold an initial public offering ("IPO") in the future that will
    broaden its ownership profile.[^91] These changes would eliminate
    attributes of the current intergovernmental structure that we have
    found inconsistent with fair competition.[^92]

24. As a privatized company, INTELSAT would be a more effective
    competitor. Intelsat LLC states that privatization will give the
    INTELSAT system more commercial flexibility to competitively respond
    to market changes and customer demands.[^93] It points out that
    INTELSAT's intergovernmental structure constrains its ability to
    react to competition because of a time-consuming deliberative
    process that involves the need to reach consensus on important
    decisions and at times multi-lateral negotiations among 143 Parties
    and Signatories.[^94] Intelsat LLC also points out that INTELSAT
    currently is prevented from providing competing end-to-end services
    in the international market because it is limited to providing space
    segment to Signatories, direct access users and entities appointed
    by non-member governments. Additionally, it is precluded from owning
    and operating earth stations or providing vertically integrated
    communications solutions to deliver services to end users.[^95]
    Privatization of INTELSAT would eliminate its current cumbersome
    decision-making process, and provide INTELSAT with greater
    flexibility to respond to consumer demand in a manner similar to its
    private competitors. No party in this proceeding challenges the
    benefits of making INTELSAT a more effective competitor, provided
    that the privatized INTELSAT does not retain anti-competitive
    attributes associated with its current intergovernmental status.

### INTELSAT Principles of Privatization

25. INTELSAT has decided that certain "core principles" of its current
    mission must be retained after privatization. The United States
    supported the 1999 Assembly decision that INTELSAT must continue to
    maintain global coverage and connectivities and ensure
    non-discriminatory access to the system.[^96] The final Assembly
    decision to privatize INTELSAT will depend on receiving assurances
    from the prospective licensing jurisdictions that the privatized
    entity will continue to operate in accordance with these
    principles.[^97] The 1999 Assembly also created the Penang Working
    Party ("PWP") to study certain issues connected with privatization
    and report its recommendations to the 2000 Assembly of Parties and
    PWP further defined these concepts.[^98]

26. Both the 1999 Assembly and the PWP also determined that lifeline
    users and connectivity must be protected through the creation of a
    residual intergovernmental organization that would ensure such
    connectivity to countries satisfying certain criteria.[^99] The
    residual IGO would neither function as a commercial provider of
    space segment capacity nor a Signatory, as this role would cease to
    exist.[^100] Rather, it would supervise the commitment of Intelsat
    LLC to provide satellite capacity to lifeline users for a
    predetermined number of years with price protection during the life
    of the commitment.[^101] This commitment would be contained in an
    intergovernmental agreement creating the IGO and implemented through
    a "public services" agreement between the company and the residual
    IGO. This arrangement reflects the underlying agreement among
    INTELSAT Parties to privatize INTELSAT -- INTELSAT's satellites and
    other assets and personnel necessary to operate the satellites will
    be transferred to a private company that no longer has privileges
    and immunities and is subject to a national licensing authority, as
    long as that company assures continued services to lifeline users
    under the "core principles." The United States supported creation of
    a residual IGO for this purpose.[^102]

27. The concept of a global satellite system that provides services on a
    non-discriminatory basis has been embodied in U.S. satellite policy
    since 1962, when the Satellite Act was enacted. The 1962 Satellite
    Act declares it the policy of the United States to establish a
    commercial communications satellite system with global coverage "in
    conjunction and in cooperation with other countries."[^103] The 1962
    Act also requires that "care and attention" be directed toward
    providing services to economically less developed countries and
    areas, as well as more economically developed countries.[^104] In
    addition, it requires that "all authorized users have
    nondiscriminatory access to the system."[^105] The recently enacted
    ORBIT Act, which amends the Satellite Act, retains these provisions
    until the Commission determines at a future date that the INTELSAT
    privatization is consistent with requirements of the ORBIT
    Act.[^106]

28. In view of United States participation in the consensus 1999
    Assembly Decision adopting privatization principles, and the
    longstanding provisions in U.S. law and policy, U.S. satellite
    licenses will allow Intelsat LLC to continue to provide global
    coverage and connectivities on a commercial and non-discriminatory
    basis so as to protect lifeline users and global connectivities.
    Because of the importance of these principles, we will expect that
    the U.S. Party to the residual IGO would continue to facilitate
    Intelsat LLC's fulfillment of these objectives as a U.S. licensee.

### Mutual Benefits of Licensing in the United States

29. Intelsat LLC states that INTELSAT selected the United States as a
    candidate licensing jurisdiction because the United States "is a WTO
    \[World Trade Organization\] Member with favorable access to global
    markets, maintains a stable and predictable national regulatory
    regime, has experience representing satellite providers interests in
    the ITU, and offers a vibrant commercial market for expanded
    communications services."[^107] Like other satellite operators
    licensed in the United States, Intelsat LLC would benefit from U.S.
    government efforts to advance independent regulator objectives in
    other countries and to promote competition in the global market, on
    behalf of all U.S. licensees, without special regard to any single
    U.S. licensee. We anticipate that a privatized INTELSAT licensed in
    the United States would support U.S. efforts in this regard.
    Furthermore, as it does for other U. S. licensees, the Commission
    would represent Intelsat LLC in ITU coordination negotiations with
    non-U.S. licensed satellite systems. In addition, Intelsat LLC would
    be accorded the benefits, policies and procedures under U.S. law,
    which ensure fair and transparent treatment of all Commission
    licensees and protects them from arbitrary actions that may threaten
    their right to operate their satellites.[^108] These benefits would
    provide Intelsat LLC the ability to make long-term business plans on
    the introduction of facilities and services.

30. Additionally, as an FCC licensee, Intelsat LLC would have access to
    both the United States domestic as well as international satellite
    service market. The U.S. portion of the global satellite market is
    significant. U.S. transponder leasing revenue is estimated to be 8.7
    billion dollars in 2000.[^109] The U.S. very small aperture
    terminals ("VSAT") service revenue was 684 million dollars in
    1999.[^110] According to Publications Resource Group, the number of
    global broadband subscribers will grow from under one million in
    1999 to nearly 40 million in 2007.[^111] Access to the U.S. market
    will be critical to these global broadband subscribers.

31. The benefits that will accrue to Intelsat LLC by being an FCC
    licensee will be matched by benefits to the United States in serving
    as its licensing jurisdiction. Licensing Intelsat LLC should provide
    a strong impetus to achieve timely privatization in a manner
    consistent with U.S. pro-competitive policy objectives.[^112] This
    consideration is particularly important in view of the clear
    objectives of the ORBIT Act. In addition, the INTELSAT global system
    is and will remain after privatization an important source of
    satellite transmission capacity for commercial and Federal
    Governmental needs in the United States.[^113] In particular, the
    INTELSAT system also is the primary, if not only, means of
    international connectivity between the United States and most
    thin-route countries.[^114] Licensing Intelsat LLC would give the
    United States jurisdiction over the global satellite system and
    enable it to ensure the continued availability of services to U.S.
    commercial and Federal Governmental users of the system.[^115] It
    also would facilitate INTELSAT's fulfillment of its principles of
    privatization, including lifeline service to thin-route countries as
    provided for by the ORBIT Act.[^116]

32. Furthermore, satellite coordination between Intelsat LLC and other
    U.S. licensed satellite systems would be accomplished without
    resorting to the more formal international negotiation process that
    would be required if Intelsat LLC were licensed by another country.
    This informal process would particularly benefit Intelsat LLC and
    current U.S. satellite operators in view of the historical technical
    and operational differences between the INTELSAT system and U.S.
    satellite systems. Coordination between U.S. licensed satellite
    operators is normally conducted without direct Commission
    intervention except as may be necessary to address issues that might
    not be resolved by licensees, consistent with Commission rules that
    reflect ITU requirements. Coordination between non-U.S. licensed
    satellite operators and Intelsat LLC would be conducted in
    accordance with ITU procedures. In this respect, licensing the
    Intelsat LLC global system would facilitate greater U.S. flexibility
    in negotiations with non-U.S.-licensed operators in instances where
    solutions to satellite coordination issues impact both the operation
    of Intelsat LLC satellites and other U.S. licensed systems.

33. Finally, as Intelsat LLC points out, the INTELSAT system has been
    and would continue to be a major purchaser of satellite construction
    and launch services for years to come. The ability of U.S. suppliers
    to compete for such services "would not be harmed and may be
    enhanced if Intelsat LLC were to have a status of a U.S.
    licensee."[^117]

### Timeliness of Commission Action

34. We disagree with PanAmSat and GE Americom that we cannot act on the
    Intelsat LLC applications now.[^118] The petitioners argue that
    Intelsat LLC cannot show that it is qualified to be a Commission
    licensee or that privatization of INTELSAT will not harm competition
    in the U.S. market until it can present all the facts of the
    privatization. They also contend that Intelsat LLC cannot hold a
    space station license pending privatization while it is owned and
    controlled by INTELSAT -- an intergovernmental organization.[^119]
    We find that it is appropriate to act on these applications at this
    time. We note that the licenses we grant to Intelsat LLC are
    effective only upon privatization and are conditioned in a manner
    consistent with applicable U.S. law.

35. We have authority to act on the Intelsat LLC applications at this
    time, under the existing statutory framework and subject to the
    requirements established in our decisions today. The ORBIT Act
    specifically permits, and arguably requires, timely action on the
    applications before us. Section 601(b)(1)(d) permits the Commission
    to act on applications from INTELSAT "including such actions as may
    be necessary for the United States to become the licensing
    jurisdiction for INTELSAT."[^120] It provides, however, that the
    Commission shall "condition a grant of authority pursuant to this
    subsection upon compliance with Sections 621 and 622."[^121]
    Sections 621 and 622 specify the privatization criteria upon which
    we are directed to review applications for access to the U.S.
    market.[^122] In addition, Section 644(b) requires the Commission to
    "take the action necessary to ensure that the United States remains
    the ITU notifying administration for the privatized INTELSAT's
    existing and future orbital slot registrations."[^123] The United
    States cannot remain a notifying administration unless it licenses
    Intelsat LLC's 17 existing and 10 planned C-band and Ku-band
    operations.

36. We find it appropriate to act on these applications at this time. We
    take such action recognizing that INTELSAT must undertake to resolve
    a variety of issues and make requisite decisions in order to
    privatize by April 1, 2001. Commission action on the instant
    applications will provide the September Board of Governors and
    November Assembly of Parties opportunity to fully consider the
    United States as a licensing jurisdiction. In particular, timely
    action will make clear U.S. requirements for authorizing Intelsat
    LLC operations in the U.S. market upon privatization. Failure of the
    Commission to act prior to the September Board meeting would deprive
    INTELSAT members of knowledge of terms of licensing enabling them to
    determine whether its already agreed upon core principles for
    privatization will be satisfied through an FCC license.

37. Intelsat LLC does not object to conditioned licenses. The applicant
    anticipates supplementing the applications as the full parameters of
    the INTELSAT privatization becomes defined.[^124] Intelsat LLC
    further states that to the extent there is residual uncertainty
    about the characteristics of the applicant -- such as the
    non-governmental identity of its future controlling shareholders and
    its precise relationship to any residual IGO -- these issues can be
    addressed through conditioning the grant upon transfer of INTELSAT's
    satellites to Intelsat LLC and its ITU satellite network filings to
    the U.S. registry.[^125] Our action based upon fulfillment of this
    contingent event would be similar to authorizing a license transfer
    based upon future closure between the parties. Although we normally
    do not act on satellite applications on a contingent basis, the
    highly unique circumstances presented clearly warrant the approach
    here.[^126] These goals have been a U.S. objective for a number of
    years and are now mandated by Congress. Action now with appropriate
    conditions would promote privatization and the public interest
    benefits flowing from licensing the privatized INTELSAT in the
    United States. We therefore disagree with PanAmSat that the
    application should be dismissed.[^127]

38. We reject the contention of PanAmSat and GE Americom that we cannot
    grant Intelsat LLC licenses now because it is owned and controlled
    by an intergovernmental organization. The licenses we grant today
    will become effective only upon privatization when the applicant is
    no longer owned and controlled by an intergovernmental organization.
    Operating authority would be conferred upon Intelsat LLC only upon
    the date on which INTELSAT transfers its satellite and associated
    assets to Intelsat LLC and its ITU network filings to the U.S.
    registry. We will, moreover, review the INTELSAT privatization under
    the ORBIT Act prior to the effective date of the licenses. We will
    require Intelsat LLC to supplement its application following the
    November 2000 Assembly of Parties decision to provide the details of
    INTELSAT's privatization as reflected in the Assembly decision. We
    will provide notice and opportunity for comment on Intelsat LLC's
    supplemental information and further address any issues raised with
    respect to Intelsat LLC's satisfaction of the provisions of this
    Order. We will render any further decision before the final Board of
    Governors meeting in 2001 prior to the date of privatization. This
    approach will satisfy procedural and substantive licensing
    requirements under U.S. law and provide INTELSAT the information it
    needs to evaluate the United States as a licensing jurisdiction.

### Application of *DISCO II* Standards

39. We do not now need to make a *DISCO II* *decision* analysis as
    PanAmSat, GE Americom and New Skies contend.[^128] Nor do we find at
    this time that the application satisfies our *DISCO II* standards as
    Intelsat LLC maintains.[^129] The *DISCO II* *decision* provides a
    framework upon which we determine whether to authorize non-U.S.
    licensed satellites to enter the U.S. market. Because our decision
    conditionally awards U.S. licenses to Intelsat LLC, *DISCO II* is
    not applicable. Should INTELSAT choose to operate its satellite
    facilities under the jurisdiction of another country, we would
    consider its provision of service into the U.S. market under a
    *DISCO II* analysis, upon the filing of appropriate applications in
    a separate proceeding. Any competition analysis that we make under
    *DISCO II* would be subject to the ORBIT Act.[^130]

### Dominant-Carrier Treatment

40. At this time, we also do not need to address the issue of
    dominant-carrier status, or declare Intelsat LLC a dominant carrier
    for service to thin route countries as PanAmSat requests.[^131]
    PanAmSat appears to base its contention primarily on the fact that
    we regulate Comsat as a dominant carrier for the provision of
    INTELSAT services between the United States and thin route
    countries.[^132] Addressing this question now would be premature.
    First, at least initially, Intelsat LLC does not propose to provide
    services solely on a common carrier basis nor do we now require it
    to operate in this manner. The question of whether it will have
    market power will depend on the services it offers on a common
    carrier basis and routes on which it offers such services. PanAmSat
    also appears to assume that Intelsat LLC will step into Comsat's
    place in providing satellite capacity to U.S. users and service
    providers for the provision of services to thin route countries --
    thus, requiring regulation in the same manner now imposed on Comsat.
    It is not clear at this time, however, what satellite capacity not
    already committed to Comsat and other Signatories on the existing
    and 10 planned satellites will be available for Intelsat LLC to
    offer directly additional services to U.S. users and service
    providers. We recently initiated a proceeding to consider this
    question as required by the ORBIT Act.[^133] The availability of
    satellite capacity to provide services must be a key consideration
    in any market power analysis.

41. Additionally, if Intelsat LLC does provide satellite capacity
    directly to U.S. users and service providers for the purpose of
    serving thin route countries, we would use the two-part analysis
    enunciated by the D.C. Circuit in *National Association of
    Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. FCC,* to determine whether a
    space station operator offering service to another entity, that then
    offers service to end users, should be regulated as a common
    carrier.[^134] *NARUC I* requires a determination of whether: (1)
    there is or should be any legal compulsion to serve the public
    indifferently; or (2) whether the service is such that the provider
    is likely to hold itself out to serve indifferently all eligible
    users. Whether Intelsat LLC should be deemed a common carrier, in
    part, will require consideration of the post-privatization
    distribution arrangements currently subject to negotiation within
    INTELSAT. If we determine that Intelsat LLC should be treated as a
    common carrier, any consideration of imposing dominant carrier
    regulation on INTELSAT would take into account the commitment
    INTELSAT will make to lifeline users as part of the privatization.
    That commitment is to entail (1) providing satellite capacity to
    maintain connectivity; (2) a twelve-year price ceiling; and (3) a
    reduction in rates if market prices decline.[^135] In view of our
    decision ending rate base regulation of Comsat under similar
    circumstances,[^136] we question whether imposing the full range of
    dominant carrier regulation on INTELSAT would be justified.

### Exclusivity

42. We agree with PanAmSat, GE Americom, and New Skies that we should
    condition Intelsat LLC licenses to preclude it from entering into
    exclusive arrangements for the provision of satellite services
    between the United States and other countries. The ORBIT Act is
    specific on this question. Section 648 provides:

> \(a\) IN GENERAL\--No satellite operator shall acquire or enjoy the
> exclusive right of handling telecommunications to or from the United
> States, its territories or possessions, and any other country or
> territory by reason of any concession, contract, understanding, or
> working arrangement to which the satellite operator or any persons or
> companies controlling or controlled by the operator are parties.

\(b\) Exception: In enforcing the provisions of this section the
Commission\--

> \(1\) shall not require the termination of existing satellite
> telecommunications services under contract with, or tariff commitment
> to, such satellite operator; but
>
> \(2\) may require the termination of new services only to the country
> that has provided the exclusive right to handle telecommunications, if
> the Commission determines the public interest, convenience, and
> necessity so requires.[^137]

43. We will accordingly condition the licenses we issue to Intelsat LLC
    on its compliance with these provisions. In doing so, we note that
    Intelsat LLC accepts this condition.[^138] In addition, the 1999
    Assembly of Parties decided, as a precondition to privatization,
    that Intelsat LLC would not seek arrangements that exclude
    competitors from markets.[^139]

## Foreign Ownership

44. Intelsat LLC is a limited liability company incorporated in the
    state of Delaware.[^140] It is wholly owned and controlled by
    Intelsat Holdings LLC ("Intelsat Holdings"), also a Delaware limited
    liability company.[^141] Intelsat Holdings is wholly owned by
    Intelsat, Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda.
    Currently, Intelsat, Ltd. is wholly owned by INTELSAT. U.S.
    ownership in INTELSAT, through Comsat, is just over 20 percent and
    the remaining foreign ownership is just under 80 percent.[^142]
    Foreign government-owned Signatories account for approximately 30
    percent of INTELSAT's total ownership, distributed among 80
    Signatories.[^143] The remaining 70 percent ownership is held by 63
    private Signatories, including Comsat.[^144] In addition,
    approximately 91 percent of the shares are owned by entities from
    WTO Member countries, including the United States, and approximately
    nine percent of the shares are owned by entities from non-WTO Member
    countries.[^145]

45. Upon privatization, INTELSAT Signatories and other investing
    entities will receive shares of Intelsat, Ltd., directly, and thus
    Intelsat LLC indirectly, in accordance with their investment shares
    in INTELSAT as of a date to be determined by the Assembly of
    Parties, expected to be March 1, 2001.[^146] This share distribution
    is unlikely to change ownership substantially in terms of
    proportional distributions among former INTELSAT Signatories and
    investing entities.

46. PanAmSat maintains that Section 310(a) of the Communications
    Act[^147] precludes INTELSAT, and by association Intelsat LLC, from
    holding FCC radio station licenses.[^148] PanAmSat suggests that the
    30 percent foreign government ownership interest in INTELSAT could
    "easily be a controlling one," even after privatization.[^149]
    PanAmSat also argues that Section 310(b)(4) does not provide an
    exception to Section 310(a) ownership restrictions. It states that
    the Intelsat LLC applications principally seek authority to operate
    as a non-common carrier and that Section 310(b)(4) applies only to
    broadcast, common carriers and aeronautical licensee
    applicants.[^150] It maintains that Congress meant for Section
    310(a) to stand as an absolute prohibition against foreign
    governmental control and that Section 310(b)(4) does not create an
    exception to this prohibition.[^151]

47. Intelsat LLC replies that Section 310(a) does not prevent foreign
    governments or their representatives from holding non-controlling
    interests in Title III licenses.[^152] It states that INTELSAT is
    not the applicant here and will not control Intelsat LLC when the
    licenses become effective.[^153] It argues that the approximate 30
    percent foreign government ownership, dispersed among 80 foreign
    governments, does not allow foreign government control of Intelsat
    LLC upon privatization of INTELSAT.[^154] In any event, Intelsat LLC
    asserts that Section 310(b)(4) provides an exception to 310(a) that
    makes its ownership structure permissible.[^155] Intelsat LLC states
    that its ownership structure is consistent with Section 310(b)(4)
    and is in the public interest under the Commission's foreign
    ownership policies.[^156] Intelsat LLC points out that the
    Commission has "adopted a strong presumption that indirect foreign
    ownership of common carrier radio licenses . . . in WTO Member
    countries serves the public interest."[^157]

### Section 310(a) Review

48. Section 310(a) prohibits any foreign government or the
    representative of any foreign governments from holding radio station
    licenses. In reviewing applications under Section 310(a), the
    Commission applies a "control" test that considers whether a foreign
    government or representative thereof exercises either direct *de
    jure* or *de facto* control over a licensee. Neither form of foreign
    government control is permissible under Section 310(a).[^158]

49. The Commission defines *de jure* control as control as a matter of
    law, as evidenced by a 50 percent or greater voting interest in a
    corporation.[^159] There is no basis to believe that the present 30
    percent government-controlled interest in INTELSAT will
    substantially increase upon privatization.[^160] Of the aggregate 30
    percent ownership by 80 foreign government Signatories, no one
    foreign government has greater than a 4.5 percent share of INTELSAT.
    Therefore, we find that no foreign government or group of foreign
    governments has or is likely to have *de jure* control over Intelsat
    LLC at the effective date of its licensing. We note that this
    finding is predicated on no material changes occurring in the
    current proposed ownership structure that may result in
    government-owned shareholders obtaining *de jure* control upon the
    effective date of privatization.

50. *De facto* control is found to exist if an entity that lacks a
    voting majority is nonetheless in actual control of a company. *De
    facto* control is determined on a case-by-case basis and, as a
    result, decisions regarding *de facto* control are fact-specific.
    Under Commission precedent, a *de facto* control determination is
    based on the "totality of the circumstances," and is governed
    chiefly by the power to dominate the management of corporate
    affairs.[^161] PanAmSat does not explain how the 30 percent
    aggregate ownership interest held by 80 different foreign government
    Signatories will provide any foreign country or countries with the
    ability to dominate the management of Intelsat LLC corporate affairs
    or otherwise exercise control over its operators. While INTELSAT has
    yet to decide the specifics of how management and day-to-day
    operations are to be structured, it has determined that it will have
    a fiduciary board of directors upon privatization. We find no basis
    for concluding that the 30 percent ownership held by various foreign
    government-controlled stockholders will result in *de facto* control
    of the applicant by foreign governments, based on corporate
    structure and management arrangements. Nor does PanAmSat provide any
    basis upon which we should conclude that non-governmental
    shareholders will privatize INTELSAT only to turn over *de facto*
    control to government-controlled shareholders through corporate
    structure and management arrangements.[^162] For these reasons, we
    conclude that at this time there is no material question of fact as
    to whether there will be *de facto* control of Intelsat LLC by a
    foreign government or group of foreign governments that trigger a
    Section 310(a) review. We note that this finding is predicated on no
    material changes occurring in the current proposed ownership
    structure that may result in government-owned shareholders obtaining
    *de facto* control upon the effective date of licensing.

### Section 310(b)(4) Review

51. Intelsat LLC requests space station licenses that designate it as a
    provider of service on both a private and a common carrier basis.
    While Intelsat LLC has no current plans to offer common carrier
    service in the United States, it requests this dual carrier status
    (private/non-common carrier and common carrier) now in order to have
    business flexibility in the future.[^163] The Commission allows dual
    carrier status, as requested, as part of its space station licenses,
    subject to obtaining Section 214 authority prior to the provision of
    international common carrier services.[^164] Thus, prior to
    providing common carrier services, Intelsat LLC will need to obtain
    this additional authority under Section 214 of the Communications
    Act and Part 63 of our rules.[^165]

52. Section 310(b) addresses the level of direct and indirect interest
    that a foreign company, foreign government or representative of a
    foreign government may hold in common carrier, broadcast, or
    aeronautical station licensed by the Commission.[^166] Section
    310(b)(4) declares that no common carrier authorization "shall be
    granted to or held by . . . (4) any corporation directly or
    indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which more than
    one-fourth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by
    aliens, their representatives, or by a foreign government or
    representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the
    laws of a foreign country, if the Commission finds that the public
    interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such
    license."[^167]

53. Comsat's current ownership interest in INTELSAT is expected to be
    its, and the United States', approximate ownership interest in
    Intelsat LLC upon privatization.[^168] Thus, the ownership structure
    upon privatization would place approximately 80 percent of the
    capital stock owned of record under the indirect control of aliens,
    foreign governments, and/or foreign corporations, within the meaning
    of Section 310(b).[^169] This level of indirect foreign ownership
    exceeds the 25 percent level noted in Section 310(b)(4) and,
    therefore, we consider whether such foreign ownership is in the
    public interest.

54. In general, we see no public interest reason to refuse to authorize
    Intelsat LLC under Section 310(b)(4). To the contrary, as addressed
    herein, the authorization of a privatized INTELSAT is in the U.S.
    public interest. The ORBIT Act requires privatization of INTELSAT as
    a means to promote a competitive market for the benefit of consumers
    and satellite service and equipment providers.[^170] The Act
    specifically contemplates licensing the privatized entity in the
    United States and establishes a process toward that end.[^171]
    INTELSAT's diverse foreign ownership was a fact known to Congress
    when it enacted this legislation. Moreover, as a private entity,
    flexibility to provide service on a common carrier as well as a
    private carrier basis would enable INTELSAT to more effectively
    compete and satisfy consumer demands. Under these circumstances, we
    find that authorizing Intelsat LLC under Section 310(b)(4) would
    carry out the purpose of the ORBIT Act and serve the public
    interest.

55. In addition, in the *Foreign Participation Order*, the Commission
    found that foreign investment can promote competition in the U.S.
    market and that therefore the public interest is served by
    permitting more open investment by entities from Members of the
    World Trade Organization in U.S. common carrier radio
    licenses.[^172] Approximately 91 percent of the ownership of
    Intelsat LLC falls into this category and only nine percent of the
    ownership is by individuals and entities that do not have their
    principal place of business in WTO Member countries. Consistent with
    the *Foreign Participation Order* and the market-opening commitments
    made by the U.S. as a Signatory to the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement,
    we presume that indirect foreign ownership by WTO Members serves the
    public interest.[^173] No party in this proceeding rebuts this
    presumption and we are aware of no other reason to rebut the
    presumption here. Because the nine percent non-WTO Member ownership
    in INTELSAT is below the 25 percent level referred to in Section
    310(b)(4), we do not review this ownership under the "effective
    competitive opportunities" ("ECO") test as set forth in the *Foreign
    Participation Order*, applicable to ownership interests of 25
    percent or more from non-WTO Members.[^174] The 91 percent ownership
    by WTO members is sufficient to support our conclusion here.
    Therefore, we find, pursuant to Section 310(b)(4), that the indirect
    foreign ownership of Intelsat LLC, as described in this Order, is in
    the public interest.[^175] We note that this finding is subject to
    the condition that no material changes occur in the current proposed
    ownership upon the effective date of privatization.[^176]

## Technical Requirements and Waivers

56. Intelsat LLC requests multiple waivers of our technical rules "to
    accommodate the existing design and operations of the INTELSAT
    system."[^177] Intelsat LLC emphasizes that the waivers are
    necessary because certain technical parameters of the INTELSAT
    system are historically different and firmly established.[^178] It
    states that, unlike typical satellite applications, the INTELSAT
    system already is operational and was neither designed nor initially
    authorized under Commission licensing jurisdiction.[^179] Intelsat
    LLC contends that it would be "patently unfair and inequitable to
    apply the Commission's current technical rules and regulations
    retroactively."[^180] Intelsat LLC also asserts that grant of
    waivers would not cause increased interference because all of its 17
    operational satellites are fully coordinated and coordination of the
    10 planned satellites has been initiated and is underway, and will
    be mostly complete by the effective date of the respective
    licenses.[^181] Finally, it asserts that it would not be in the
    public interest to apply strictly the technical rules because to do
    so would require interrupting service to customers, including
    lifeline customers, and would be extremely costly.[^182]

57. Comsat, Lockheed Martin, Loral, and Spacelink also urge that we
    grant the various technical waivers, for reasons similar to those
    presented by Intelsat LLC.[^183] Comsat, in particular, states that
    "granting the requested waivers will promote the public interest
    without undercutting the policies underlying the rules."[^184]

58. New Skies asserts that Intelsat LLC should not be given
    "preferential" treatment by a grant of waivers.[^185] PanAmSat, GE
    Americom, and JSAT have no objection to waivers for the operating
    satellites, but state that Intelsat LLC should have to meet
    Commission technical standards for those of the 10 planned
    satellites that are not substantially under construction.[^186]
    PanAmSat and GE Americom assert that any waivers granted should be
    on a temporary, secondary, non-harmful interference basis.[^187] In
    any event, PanAmSat generally maintains that no waivers should be
    granted if the justification is related to the design of earth
    stations, which can be modified at any time.[^188] PanAmSat also
    asserts that the existence of coordination agreements does not
    signify harmonious system operation, because PanAmSat was forced to
    make technical concessions, due to the INTELSAT system design, that
    it normally would not have made.[^189]

### Waiver Standard

59. Under our rules, the Commission may grant a waiver where good cause
    is shown.[^190] Good cause is demonstrated where special
    circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, such
    deviation serves the public interest, and a waiver would be
    consistent with the principles underlying the rule.[^191] In
    reviewing the Commission\'s waiver rule, the United States Court of
    Appeals has stated that granting a waiver may be appropriate if: (1)
    special circumstances support a finding that strict adherence would
    not be in the public interest; and (2) a grant would not undermine
    the underlying policy objectives of the rule in question.[^192] The
    Court further stated, that although "an agency may discharge its
    responsibilities by promulgating rules of general application which,
    in the overall perspective, establish the 'public interest' for a
    broad range of situations, \[this\] does not relieve it of an
    obligation to seek out the 'public interest' in particular,
    individualized cases."[^193] For the following reasons, we find that
    good cause exists to grant various waivers to Intelsat LLC, subject
    to conditions.

60. We consider here a "particular individualized" situation -- the
    authorization of an already operating system of an intergovernmental
    organization that is undergoing privatization that heretofore has
    not been subject to a national licensing regime.[^194] The special
    circumstances surrounding creation of the INTELSAT global system \--
    including the fact that the basic design characteristics of INTELSAT
    satellites were conceived before most of our technical rules were
    adopted \-- show that strict adherence to our technical rules, with
    respect to the authorizations granted herein, would not be in the
    public interest. Furthermore, as detailed below, the principles
    underlying our policy objectives for these technical rules -- those
    of minimizing interference, maximizing efficient use of the radio
    frequency spectrum, and encouraging competition \-- will not be
    undermined by grant of the requested waivers, as conditioned.[^195]
    Denial of these waivers could lead to increased interference,
    unnecessary costs, and major service disruptions.[^196] Below, we
    generally consider the special circumstances present and the
    underlying principles of our rules before addressing separately each
    waiver request.

### Special Circumstances

61. The INTELSAT system was developed as a result of a U.S. policy
    initiative to work with other countries in the early days of space
    technology to develop a commercial satellite system to provide
    services on a global basis. This policy initiative, born out of the
    1962 Satellite Act, was grounded in the concept that communications
    satellite technology should be utilized as an instrument to improve
    global communications. The INTELSAT Agreement reflects the basic
    tenet of this U.S. policy \-- the availability of commercial
    satellite services "on a non-discriminatory basis to all areas of
    the world."[^197]

62. The 1962 Satellite Act created Comsat and made it subject to U.S.
    government oversight to assure that the newly created global
    satellite system satisfied these objectives.[^198] Comsat was
    required to obtain Commission approval to provide services in the
    United States via INTELSAT and to participate in procuring INTELSAT
    satellite assets.[^199] The 1962 Satellite Act also provided for the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration ("NASA") to advise the
    Commission on technical characteristics of the INTELSAT satellite
    system.[^200] Thus, the design and technical parameters of the
    INTELSAT system have always been subject to U.S. government review
    and oversight.

63. The development of the INTELSAT system preceded the creation of
    commercial U.S. satellite systems. INTELSAT, in fact, faced little
    competition in the provision of international satellite services for
    many years. Consequently, at that time, it was able to design its
    system to accomplish its mission and operate alongside other
    satellites in a relatively uncrowded geostationary satellite orbit.
    For example, INTELSAT was able to achieve its mission of global
    coverage and connectivity, essential for life-line areas, through
    the use of global beams dedicated for this purpose and other beams
    having diverse pointing directions.[^201] While global coverage and
    connectivity usually could be achieved more efficiently without
    global beams, this technology provides assurance to thin-route users
    that their service needs will continue to be satisfied, consistent
    with U.S. policy and the INTELSAT Agreement. The web of coverage
    created by multiple satellites having some transponders with global
    beams will continue to be part of INTELSAT's business plan following
    privatization. At this time, the INTELSAT system is composed of 17
    satellites serving tens of thousands of earth stations with an
    extensive customer base.

64. After the INTELSAT system was operating, the United States began to
    implement policies and rules for supporting commercial satellite
    systems with footprints in the United States.[^202] The Commission
    adopted an "open skies" policy with the objective of accommodating
    as many satellite operators as possible in the U.S. domestic orbital
    arc.[^203] These policies and rules included implementation of
    spectrum efficiency requirements such as two-degree orbital spacing
    and frequency reuse by means of orthogonal linear
    polarization.[^204] Initially, these policies only applied to the
    traditional domestic arc.[^205] While U.S.-licensed international
    systems later were made subject to these policies and rules,[^206]
    some technical rules have not been fully implemented on
    U.S.-licensed international systems to date.[^207] These technical
    requirements never have been applicable to INTELSAT because, as an
    intergovernmental organization, it is not directly under U.S.
    jurisdiction and INTELSAT has provided only international service to
    and from the United States. INTELSAT, however, has provided services
    to the United States for over 30 years in coordination with
    U.S.-licensed systems. The INTELSAT system, while technically
    different from later satellite systems in certain respects, is
    nevertheless their technological equivalent.

65. Accordingly, we find that these are special circumstances that exist
    with respect to the Intelsat LLC system application, including its
    17 operational and the 10 planned satellites, and the subsequent 13
    orbit location reassignments addressed herein.

### Underlying Principles of FCC Technical Rules

66. The principles underlying Commission's rules and policies that are
    the subject of waiver requests in this proceeding are minimizing
    interference, maximizing efficient use of the radio frequency
    spectrum and encouraging competition.[^208] These principles have
    been enumerated in Commission decisions establishing our satellite
    licensing policies and rules.[^209] The Commission has minimized
    interference among satellites through uniform technical rules and
    coordination requirements. It has attempted to achieve efficiency in
    the use of orbit locations and frequencies through a variety of
    rules and policies. For instance, Commission rules require
    U.S.-authorized satellites to comply with two-degree orbital spacing
    and to construct spacecraft using state-of-the-art technology.[^210]
    The Commission also has instituted policies especially designed to
    promote competition.[^211] As discussed below, granting the various
    waiver requests will not undermine these policies.

67. Granting the requested waivers will not undermine the principle of
    non-interference. INTELSAT satellites have operated for many years
    without unacceptable interference with U.S. licensees. All the
    INTELSAT satellite orbit locations at issue have been coordinated or
    are in the process of being coordinated with U.S.-licensed satellite
    systems. Therefore, in general, the grant of these waivers will not
    increase interference potential. On the other hand, strictly
    applying the rules would actually increase interference to both
    U.S.-licensed and Intelsat LLC satellites in those cases where the
    satellites were moved closer together. If there were a high number
    of small antennas accessing either of the satellites affected by the
    move, the useable communications capacity could effectively be
    reduced. Moreover, any orbital location move would require
    re-coordination with all affected satellites, both U.S.-licensed and
    non-U.S. licensed. Such coordination would be time-consuming and
    costly for multiple providers. It would also change the priority of
    the filings at the ITU, which could place certain of the Intelsat
    LLC operations at risk for interference from systems of other
    countries that had entered into coordination.

68. Further, with Intelsat LLC as a U.S. licensee, the Commission would
    have direct jurisdiction over operation of its satellites. As note
    above, Intelsat LLC could participate in a relatively informal
    coordination process with other U.S. licensees.[^212] In this
    manner, without special regard to any single entity, Intelsat LLC
    and other U.S. licensees would more readily be able to resolve
    interference issues. On the other hand, if Intelsat LLC were
    licensed in another country, this process would require more formal
    and protracted international coordination procedures. In addition,
    if Intelsat LLC were to request waiver of our technical rules
    pursuant to a *DISCO II* application to serve the U.S. market, the
    Commission would evaluate the effect on our underlying principles,
    such as non-interference, based on a separate record. We would
    weigh, among other things, the lack of direct jurisdiction over the
    satellites in considering any such waiver requests.

69. Granting the waivers requested generally also will not undermine our
    efficiency goals. INTELSAT's technical design differences make
    INTELSAT satellites at least as efficient as other U.S.-licensed
    satellites that comply completely with our rules. INTELSAT
    traditionally has been at the forefront of satellite efficiency,
    particularly in the areas of antenna design and frequency reuse. The
    number of times a particular frequency band is reused on a given
    satellite is one measure of efficiency. From any one orbital
    location, a particular frequency band can be used, at most, twice at
    any given point on earth. This is accomplished by polarization
    isolation.[^213] Additionally, with the use of spatial isolation,
    the same frequency band may be used again at other points on Earth,
    provided the geographic spatial separation is adequate. Spatial
    isolation is a technique that allows reuse of the frequency spectrum
    by transmitting signals of the same frequency and polarization over
    separate satellite antenna beams that are pointing to areas of the
    Earth sufficiently far apart from each other that the isolation
    inherent in spot beam antennas allows transmissions to occur without
    harmful mutual interference. This is accomplished by multiple-beam
    antenna technology. INTELSAT technology first implemented
    dual-polarization on the INTELSAT-IVA series and multiple-beam
    technology on the INTELSAT-V series. Today INTELSAT is constructing
    the INTELSAT-IX series with seven-fold frequency reuse, comprising
    two beams in one polarization and five beams in the other. INTELSAT
    also has been a pioneer and is a leader in the commercial
    application of satellite-switched time division multiple access
    ("SS/TDMA") technology to improve further the achievable efficiency
    on the INTELSAT-VI and the INTELSAT-IX series. SS/TDMA is a
    technology that allows the connections among multiple satellite
    antenna beams to be dynamically switched in a manner that matches
    the beam-to-beam traffic demand. In this manner, the utilization
    efficiency of the satellite capacity is maximized.

70. In view of the above, as a general matter, we find that our
    underlying policy principles of minimizing interference and
    maximizing efficiency, as well as promoting competition, will not be
    undermined by a grant of the requested waivers with regard to both
    existing and the 10 planned satellites.

### Operating and Planned Satellites

71. No party opposes waivers for the 17 operating satellites. Indeed, it
    would be unreasonably and unnecessarily costly to require Intelsat
    LLC to make the requisite technical changes immediately, in order to
    strictly comply with our rules. Since most of the technical
    parameters of a satellite already in orbit cannot be changed,
    compliance would require replacing entire satellites immediately --
    a costly option that would be compounded by losing the full lifetime
    use of the respective satellites and as discussed below, customers
    having to construct new or modify existing earth stations in order
    to communicate with the differently configured satellites.[^214]

72. As for the 10 planned satellite, nine will be in the manufacturing
    cycle by the time the instant authorizations are expected to take
    effect.[^215] Assembly has either begun or been completed on the
    first five. Component manufacturing has begun on the next two
    satellites and assembly will have begun by the effective date of
    privatization.[^216] The eighth and ninth satellites are in the
    design stages and will be under construction by the effective date
    of their authorizations.[^217] Thus, by the effective date of the
    respective licenses, nine of the 10 satellites will be substantially
    in the assembly process, fully assembled, undergoing system testing,
    or delivered for launch and operation. The last spacecraft is in the
    initial planning stages and is not yet under contract. In
    particular, Intelsat LLC states that the specific status of each of
    the 10 planned satellites is as follows:

[INTELSAT 901]{.underline} is fully constructed and is in the final
stages of testing;

[INTELSAT 902]{.underline} is fully constructed and the initial system
tests are completed. It still needs to complete environmental and final
tests;

[INTELSAT 903]{.underline} communication payload is fully constructed
and tested but it is not yet mated with the rest of the satellite;[^218]

[INTELSAT 904]{.underline} communications payload is under construction
and the service module is fully assembled;[^219]

[INTELSAT 905]{.underline} assembly has begun;

[INTELSAT 906]{.underline} manufacturing is in progress as components
are separately being built;

[INTELSAT 907]{.underline} manufacturing is in progress as components
are separately being built;

[ALPHA 1]{.underline} preliminary design review is complete, including
initial system design and engineering analysis, and final design process
is underway;

[ALPHA 2]{.underline} preliminary design review is scheduled for
September 2000; and

[BETA 1]{.underline} contract is due to be in place by June 2001.

73. The first seven satellites are clearly in advanced stages of the
    manufacturing cycle. GE Americom and PanAmSat, apparently, do not
    contest waivers for these planned satellites because they can be
    classified as "substantially" under construction.[^220] Given these
    advanced stages, the cost for redesigning, remanufacturing and
    reassembling the 10 planned satellites likely would total in the
    tens of millions of dollars. For example, Intelsat LLC estimates
    that a changeover from circular polarization to linear polarization
    of those satellites under construction would lead to related costs
    of between \$270 million and \$3 billion for earth station
    modifications or replacement.[^221] Intelsat LLC also asserts that
    there would be lost revenue amounting to between \$4.8-\$6.4 billion
    caused by resultant service disruptions and delays over the
    implementation period. Additionally, Intelsat LLC states that there
    would be non-quantifiable costs, such as service interruptions,
    departure of customers, and loss of credibility, among others.[^222]

74. The next two satellites will also be in advanced stages of the
    manufacturing cycle by the effective date of privatization. These
    two satellites are now in the design phase and would have to be
    redesigned to strictly comply with our technical requirements before
    beginning the construction process anew. In particular, the eighth
    satellite has undergone its preliminary design review and is
    undergoing its final design process. The preliminary design review
    for the ninth satellite is scheduled next month. We expect by the
    effective of date of authorizations that component manufacturing and
    some assembly will have begun for the eighth and ninth satellites.
    If Intelsat LLC were required to make the changes to its satellites
    it would incur redesign and remanufacturing costs. Additionally,
    there would be costs in redesigning the earth stations that
    communicate with these satellites. The costs of redesigning the
    earth stations accessing each of these two satellites would be
    roughly the same as for each of the seven satellites noted above. As
    with the first seven spacecraft, there also would be contract
    penalties and launch and service delays, and their associated costs.

75. As for the final satellite not yet under contract, waivers are
    requested for only three of our rules: two-degree spacing, TT&C
    frequencies, and on-axis polarization isolation. The 85º E.L. orbit
    location where this satellite will be placed is well outside the
    domestic arc. The only U.S. possession it will be able to serve is
    Guam. No U.S.-licensed satellite is adjacent to the 85º E.L. where
    it could be directly affected. Further, there are no prospects of
    future U.S.-licensed satellites being located adjacent to the 85º
    E.L. orbital location that could be affected. Thus, there would be
    *de minimis* benefit from compliance as this waiver only involves
    one satellite in the INTELSAT system and no other U.S. licensed
    satellite would be impacted. With respect to a waiver of the TT&C
    frequency requirement, it would be unreasonable to require Intelsat
    LLC to bear the costs to build new Ku-band TT&C earth stations to
    replace existing ones at C-band, in view of these
    considerations.[^223]

76. GE Americom and PanAmSat, assert that Intelsat LLC's cost estimates
    for modifying its earth and space segment are substantially
    overstated.[^224] GE Americom specifically contends that there would
    be virtually no impact on space and earth segment costs and
    revenues. It asserts that there are ways to make these changes which
    would result in reduced costs.[^225] However, GE Americom provides
    only rough estimates and PanAmSat does not include figures. Based on
    GE Americom's cost figures, Intelsat LLC would still incur some
    significant financial costs to changeover, even without taking into
    account the additional costs associated with delays and disruption
    of services.

77. In view of the above, we conclude that it would be unreasonable to
    subject Intelsat LLC to the added costs, and its customers to
    potential service delays or disruptions, that would be associated
    with requiring it to redesign and/or remanufacture its 10 planned
    satellites in order to comply with those technical rules for which
    it seeks waivers. It also would be inefficient to require that
    INTELSAT's planned satellites immediately conform to our technical
    requirements at this time because it would require Intelsat LLC to
    institute redundant operations of its space and ground segments in
    order to have the ability for continuous service. Without redundant
    operations there likely would be service interruptions. The cost and
    complexity of such a changeover would be exacerbated by the
    necessity to modify tens of thousands of earth stations in order to
    comply.[^226] The costs associated with complying with the rule
    requiring linear polarization ("LP"), as opposed to the circular
    polarization employed by INTELSAT, would be significant. We
    anticipate that Intelsat LLC will transition over time toward a
    system that complies with the technical rules upon which other U.S.
    systems operate. However, we do not agree with Intelsat LLC's
    competitors that we should impose requirements on it that would
    weaken it as a competitor.

### Specific Waiver Requests 

#### Two-degree Spacing of Satellite Orbit Locations - Section 25.140(b)(2)

78. In 1983, the Commission instituted its uniform geostationary
    two-degree spacing satellite orbit assignment policy for domestic
    FSS space stations.[^227] It was established to advance efficient
    use of the radio frequency spectrum by maximizing the number of
    domestic U.S. satellites in the portion of the geostationary
    satellite orbit used to serve the United States.[^228] The policy
    was also meant to provide more opportunities for new entry.[^229]
    The *Separate Systems decision* extended this policy to include
    international satellite systems (or "separate systems") licensed by
    the United States. It confirmed that U.S.-licensed international
    separate systems would also be subject to our two-degree spacing
    requirement, even though technical issues were not specifically
    addressed.[^230] In 1996, the Commission adopted its *DISCO I
    decision*, allowing both domestic and international U.S.-licensed
    satellites to provide both domestic and international
    services.[^231] The result was that all U.S.-authorized FSS
    satellites, domestic and international, would be under a single
    regulatory regime -- including two-degree spacing
    requirements.[^232]

79. Intelsat LLC requests a waiver of our two-degree spacing
    requirements, including a specific waiver of Section 25.140(b)(2) of
    our rules.[^233] Intelsat LLC generally seeks a minimum orbital
    spacing of 2.5 degrees from non-INTELSAT satellites.[^234] It is
    unclear, states Intelsat LLC, how the two-degree requirement applies
    to satellites "providing principally international services."[^235]
    It further contends that licensing its satellites on a "secondary,
    non-harmful interference" basis would be unfair, because it would
    result in unknowable and unpredictable technical limitations.[^236]
    PanAmSat and GE Americom disagree, asserting that a waiver would
    impose an unfair burden on other operators and Commission precedent
    requires compliance.[^237]

80. We conclude that a waiver of the two-degree orbital spacing
    requirement is justified with respect to the orbit locations and
    current service now being provided as well as for the 10 planned
    satellites. The Commission's ability to impose two-degree spacing on
    our licensees in the international arc is limited by practical
    reasons, such as the difficulty of coordinating such operations with
    satellites from other administrations. Further, it would be
    excessively burdensome to require compliance in this case, given the
    prohibitive financial costs necessary to reconfigure the INTELSAT
    system. Finally, converting the system to make it two-degree
    compliant also would result in service disruptions.

81. First, from a practical standpoint, the two-degree spacing
    requirement normally only can be applied where the neighboring
    satellites are licensed by the United States (or are foreign
    satellites authorized to provide service to the United States). We
    routinely have been able to apply two-degree spacing in the domestic
    arc because most neighboring satellites are U.S.-authorized. In the
    international arc, it has been more difficult because of the number
    of administrations that do not restrict their licensees to
    two-degree spacing.[^238] Even though we may require two-degree
    spacing of our licensees in the international arc, to date, there
    have been no mutually exclusive license applications (in the C-band
    and Ku-band) that would have required assigning U.S. licensed
    satellites strictly on the basis of our two-degree policy. Thus,
    historically, the Commission has licensed satellite systems at
    spacing greater than two-degrees when coordination agreements have
    been reached and when the demand for orbital locations allows. For
    example, PanAmSat has coordinated its networks as far away as 2.5
    degrees from INTELSAT, and Columbia and Loral Orion have coordinated
    their networks as far away as 3 degrees from INTELSAT. [^239] In
    these cases, strictly applying our two-degree spacing rules would
    have imposed an undue burden on the U.S. licensees without a
    practical need or benefit.[^240] Nevertheless, licensees have been
    aware that at any time, we may authorize U.S.-licensed satellites or
    U.S.-licensed services on foreign satellites as close as two-degrees
    away from the U.S. licensees' respective locations.[^241]

82. All INTELSAT satellites currently operating and planned are, or are
    proposed to be, located in the "international arc," outside the
    traditional "domestic arc," though service to at least part of the
    United States from several INTELSAT orbital locations would be
    possible. With the exception of two orbital arc segments, it would
    be practically impossible to impose two-degree spacing on Intelsat
    LLC given the present orbital population, including INTELSAT
    satellites, and satellites licensed by the United States and other
    administrations. Any additional satellite orbital locations could
    only be created by reassigning U.S.-licensed or INTELSAT satellites
    two degrees apart in those two exceptional cases.[^242] In
    implementing such a plan, however, the in-orbit satellites, whether
    INTELSAT or U.S.-licensed satellites, would be operating closer to
    each other and therefore would experience a higher level of
    interference than that currently coordinated. This incremental
    interference would be more significant if the preponderance of
    existing earth station antennas were smaller than our routinely
    licensed antennas.[^243] Thus, rearranging U.S.-licensed satellites
    (including INTELSAT) would not necessarily result in a more
    efficient use of the orbital arc and spectrum in view of the
    practical constraints on operations that may result from such a
    rearrangement. It may result in the need to modify existing earth
    stations with larger antennas, or a possible loss of service or
    satellite capacity in order to achieve this two-degree spacing.

83. Second, a waiver of the two-degree spacing rule under the present
    circumstances would not materially undermine our ability to maintain
    a reasonable level of efficiency -- that is, maximizing the number
    of satellites in the geostationary arc without unduly increasing
    interference -- for the practical reasons discussed above. Further,
    most of the orbital locations at or around the orbital location of
    the INTELSAT satellites currently are occupied and have completed
    the coordination process. These coordinations represent agreements
    negotiated in good faith by all sides under the rules and charters
    then in effect. If we were to enforce two-degree spacing on Intelsat
    LLC at the time of privatization, we would effectively unilaterally
    terminate these coordination agreements. To do so would violate the
    trust that was assumed by all parties when the agreements were
    reached. In addition it would create uncertainty and confusion among
    users of the affected satellites, as well as create unfavorable
    precedent. It would also affect the priority status of INTELSAT
    filings with the ITU and may subject INTELSAT to significantly more
    constraints in the coordination process.

84. We disagree with PanAmSat's assertion, in this regard, that an
    earlier coordination agreement with INTELSAT does not necessarily
    signify harmonious operations.[^244] By its very nature, the
    coordination process involves give-and-take that may lead to a less
    than perfect agreement from the perspective of each participant. In
    any event, we take, on face value, that once a coordination
    agreement is reached it is agreeable to all parties involved and
    should be respected. Reopening these agreements to coordinate anew
    under these circumstances would set a dangerous precedent, while, in
    this case, not producing a practical benefit.

85. Third, a waiver here will not increase interference concerns for
    currently operational and the 10 planned INTELSAT satellites, at the
    relevant orbital locations, including subsequent reassignments of
    INTELSAT satellites. All of INTELSAT's orbital locations and
    satellites have been coordinated or are in the coordination process.
    Those fully coordinated have not previously raised serious
    interference issues. Those still needing to complete coordination
    (to resolve any potential interference issues) will mostly do so
    prior to the effective date of these authorizations. If we were to
    require compliance with our rule, interference would likely increase
    to both INTELSAT and adjacent satellites. This is largely due to the
    inherent antenna performance characteristics of the current earth
    station population -- particularly those using smaller dishes than
    routinely licensed antennas.

86. We note that the most significant factor leading to a need for
    spacing greater than two degrees is the size of the smallest earth
    station antennas in either network and their associated power
    spectral densities.[^245] We recognize this in our rules by allowing
    for the routine licensing of C-band earth station antennas 4.5
    meters or larger and Ku-band earth station antennas 1.2 meters or
    larger.[^246] We are confident that for earth station antennas that
    qualify for routine licensing, coordination at C-band and Ku-band
    between INTELSAT and other U.S. licensed satellites could be
    accomplished at two-degree spacing without significant constraints
    on either Intelsat LLC or other U.S. licensed networks.

87. With respect to whether Intelsat LLC should be required to operate
    on a secondary, non-harmful interference basis with respect to
    future U.S. licensees at two degree orbital spacing, we find that
    the detriments of requiring such here would outweigh the
    benefits.[^247] Previously, the Commission has conditioned any
    non-conforming satellite network operations on the licensee
    accommodating future satellite networks serving the United States
    that are two-degree compliant. Such was the case in the *New Skies
    decision*.[^248] If we applied this to Intelsat LLC, its U.S.
    customers could be subject to interruption of service by satellites
    that are two-degree compliant and authorized two degrees or more
    from an INTELSAT satellite. In this case, we believe the resultant
    detriment to U.S. customers through service disruptions makes this
    unsound. In the *New Skies Order* we waived certain technical
    requirements related to two-degree spacing. Because the New Skies
    satellites already had been coordinated with all satellites in their
    vicinity, they were not expected to cause harmful
    interference.[^249] New Skies was required to coordinate with future
    satellites or operate on a non-harmful interference basis.[^250] We
    waived the two-degree policy on our own motion. In doing so, we did
    not extend the waiver to include future two-degree compliant
    satellites authorized in the vicinity of the New Skies satellites,
    nor grant New Skies the right to claim protection against
    interference should New Skies be unable to coordinate. On the other
    hand, Intelsat LLC has justified its requests for waivers. We base
    our findings on the record here, including the special circumstances
    present. Therefore, the waivers apply to Intelsat LLC satellites
    authorized herein relative to two-degree compliant satellites
    prospectively authorized in their vicinity.[^251]

88. Finally, we believe that a grant of a waiver of our two-degree
    spacing policy and rules would be appropriate because the associated
    financial costs of requiring two-degree spacing would outweigh the
    benefits.[^252] To effect compliance with this policy would require
    repointing all the antennas accessing the satellites that are moved.
    This could not be done simultaneously and, therefore, would lead to
    service disruptions.[^253] Further, if the impact of implementing
    two-degree spacing were a severe increase in interference, certain
    antennas accessing either Intelsat LLC satellites or neighboring
    U.S. or non-U.S. licensed satellites might need to be replaced with
    larger antennas in order to overcome the interference or be
    re-coordinated.[^254] Although compliance with two-degree spacing
    would be accomplished, there would be little accompanying benefit
    and it would not solve a current problem.

89. Nevertheless, we note that we already have authorized Columbia
    Communications to operate a satellite at 172º E.L., two degrees away
    from INTELSAT 802 at 174º E.L.[^255] In this instance, we require
    Columbia and INTELSAT to coordinate these two locations with each
    other on an equal footing where associated earth station sizes are
    smaller than our routinely licensed earth station antenna sizes.
    However, for antennas meeting our routinely licensed earth station
    requirements, as noted above, we are confident that there will be no
    significant coordination difficulties and so we place no further
    restrictions on the parties.

90. For the foregoing reasons, we find that requiring full compliance
    with the two-degree requirement would not be in the public interest.
    Thus, we grant a waiver of Section 25.140(b)(2) and our two-degree
    spacing policy enumerated in the *Two-degree Spacing decision* and
    its progeny.[^256] We waive this requirement for satellites at their
    respective and proposed locations listed in Appendix A, Tables 1-3,
    with the exception of the INTELSAT 802 spacecraft. INTELSAT 802 is
    located at the 174º E.L. orbital location. In this case we waive
    Section 25.140(b)(2) only, contingent on coordination with the
    Columbia satellite at 172º E.L., as this satellite will operate at
    two-degree spacing with regard to the Columbia satellite, as
    discussed above.[^257]

#### C-band Frequency Bands -- Section 25.202(a)(1)

91. Intelsat LLC requests a waiver of Section 25.202(a)(1), which
    requires that C-band use in the United States be between 3700-4200
    MHz on the downlink and 5925-6425 MHz on the uplink (conventional
    C-band).[^258] The international allocation permits operations in a
    larger part of the C-band, which additionally includes 3400-3700 MHz
    on the downlink and both 6425-6725 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz on the
    uplink (extended C-band).[^259] Parts of these extended C-band
    frequency ranges also are allocated to the fixed-satellite service
    under Section 2.106, but subject to certain restrictions. Intelsat
    LLC seeks to continue using the extended C-band frequencies,
    internationally allocated for fixed-satellite service use.[^260]

92. We find that, except for the 3400-3600 MHz band, a waiver of Section
    25.202(a)(1) is unnecessary because INTELSAT's use of extended
    C-band complies with established regulations. Section 25.202(b) of
    our Rules provides that other frequencies and associated bandwidths
    of emission may be assigned on a case-by-case basis to space systems
    in conformance with Section 2.106 and the Commission's rules and
    policies. Given that Intelsat LLC's operations are consistent with
    Section 2.106, for all the extended C-band operations except for
    3400-3600 MHz, a waiver of Section 25.202(a)(1) is not necessary for
    these bands. We find that this request is consistent with the
    aforementioned rules and policies and we allow it based upon
    demonstrated compliance with Section 25.202(b) with the exception
    that follows.

93. The band 3400-3600 MHz is not compliant with Section 2.106. However,
    INTELSAT's use of this band is compliant with Commission precedent
    as discussed below. We grant a waiver of Section 25.202(a)(1) for
    the band 3400-3600 MHz on INTELSAT 805 only, as indicated in
    Appendix C, with the conditions.

#### Telemetry, Tracking and Telecommand Functions -- Section 25.202(g)

94. Intelsat LLC requests a waiver of Section 25.202(g) of our rules,
    which requires that TT&C functions be conducted, "at either or both
    edges of the allocated band(s)."[^261] Intelsat LLC seeks to
    continue using its TT&C functions at the center of the conventional
    C-band (3700-4200 MHz and 5925-6425 MHz).[^262]

95. PanAmSat objects to this waiver contending that in coordinations
    with INTELSAT, adjacent satellite operators were forced to accept
    restrictions on type and power of carriers that they may transmit in
    co-frequency transponders. This was necessary, it states, in order
    to provide the level of protection upon which INTELSAT has
    arbitrarily insisted because of INTELSAT's TT&C being located in the
    center of the band.[^263]

96. INTELSAT's earliest satellites utilized the 500-megahertz bandwidth
    ordinarily allocated by dividing it into two broadband service
    channels with a narrow guard band in the center. TT&C was
    accomplished within this guard band. As technology advanced,
    INTELSAT replaced each broadband channel with six 36 megahertz
    channels, each separated by 4 megahertz guard bands, leaving a guard
    band of approximately 20 megahertz in the center of the 500
    megahertz band, where it continued to conduct its TT&C. In licensing
    U.S. satellite systems, we specified center frequencies for analog
    video service channels at C-band.[^264] This requirement in the
    C-band led to satellite designs with service channels in the center
    of the band for U.S.-licensed satellites. As a result, the logical
    placement of the TT&C frequencies for U.S. systems was in the narrow
    guard-bands (approximately 2 megahertz), at either end of the
    service band. This became a regulatory requirement. The impact of
    these differences in system evolution is to cause INTELSAT's TT&C to
    coincide with service frequencies in two service channels at the
    center of the band on an adjacent U.S.-licensed satellite.

97. As discussed above, with one exception, the satellites for which the
    waiver is requested are either in orbit or will be under
    construction at the time of INTELSAT privatization and are either
    fully coordinated at the locations for which authorization is sought
    or are in the process of coordination. In addition, there are
    relatively few INTELSAT locations where U.S.-licensed satellites are
    the nearest neighbor and all of those are spaced 2.5 degrees or more
    from INTELSAT satellites, with one exception noted above at
    INTELSAT's 174° E.L. orbital location. The satellites that are under
    construction can not be modified without significant redesign. In
    particular, the frequencies of the telemetry transmitters and
    command receivers would need to be changed, as well as any filters
    that may be used to combine the command and telemetry signals with
    the communication signals when they are routed to the same antenna.

98. While we are sensitive to the fact that the differences between
    INTELSAT TT&C frequencies and those of U.S.-licensed satellites can
    lead to coordination difficulties, we are not swayed by PanAmSat's
    arguments, which would effectively require re-coordination of the
    Intelsat LLC TT&C frequencies. We assume that once a coordination
    agreement has been reached, operations of both networks are in
    harmony with each other. We see no justification for revisiting
    these coordination agreements by denying this waiver.

99. We note that there are only five U.S.-authorized locations and seven
    U.S.-authorized satellites at C-band that are, or would be, the
    nearest neighbor to an INTELSAT satellite. These are the
    Columbia-172 at 172° E.L., the PAS-9 and PAS-23 at 58° W.L., the
    Columbia TDRS C-band payload and the Columbia-47 at 47° W.L., the
    Columbia-515 at 37.7° W.L. and the PAS-7 and the PAS-21 at 68.5°
    E.L.[^265] Of these, only the Columbia-172 has yet to be
    coordinated.

100. For the foregoing reasons, we grant this waiver of Section
     25.202(g) as indicated in Appendix C. This waiver applies to those
     satellites transmitting at their respective or proposed locations
     listed in Appendix A, Tables 1-3. In addition, we waive our usual
     requirement that TT&C be accomplished in the same band as the
     service channels for the NI-Beta spacecraft. It will only operate
     service channels in the Ku-band, but will operate TT&C in the
     C-band. The NI-Beta satellite will be operating in the Asia Pacific
     region at 85° E.L. as a follow-on to the INTELSAT 601 satellite.
     INTELSAT 601, currently provides service in the C-band and Ku-band.
     It is planned to be relocated to the 85º E.L. orbital location in
     October 2001. We would anticipate that any coordination issues
     involving C-band frequencies would be addressed in connection with
     INTELSAT 601. Therefore, we do not anticipate that operation of
     TT&C frequencies outside the service band will complicate unduly
     the coordination process. Further, as noted above, denying this
     waiver would lead to unreasonable and unnecessary costs associated
     with the construction or modification of Ku-band TT&C stations.

#### Orthogonal Linear Polarization -- Sections 25.210(a)(1) and (3)

101. Intelsat LLC requests a waiver of Section 25.210(a), the relevant
     portions of which provide that all space stations in the Fixed
     Satellite Service used for domestic service in the 4/6 GHz
     frequency band shall use orthogonal linear polarization and shall
     be capable of switching polarization sense upon ground command.
     Intelsat LLC seeks to use circular polarization and will not be
     able to switch polarization sense between right-hand circular and
     left-hand-circular polarization upon ground command.

102. The purpose of this rule, in conjunction with the center frequency
     requirements of Section 25.211(a) for analog video transmissions at
     C-band, is to allow adjacent satellites to operate with opposite
     sense polarization on the same frequency in order to reduce the
     potential interference between analog video signals. In addition,
     satellites that are moved to new orbital locations during their
     lifetimes may be required to switch polarization in order to retain
     opposite-sense polarization to their new neighbors. Intelsat LLC
     asserts that the aggregate effect of adjacent satellite
     interference is approximately the same from a dual circularly
     polarized satellite into a linearly polarized satellite as it is
     from a dual linearly polarized satellite, assuming the same power
     spectral densities.[^266] Thus, its use of circular polarization
     will have negligible impact on the aggregate interference to and
     from adjacent linearly polarized satellites.[^267] However,
     Intelsat LLC points out that there are well-understood techniques
     for sharing between linear and circular polarization. It contends
     that uniform polarization is less relevant due to the waning
     importance of analog TV in favor of digital emissions.

103. Comsat supports this waiver and agrees with Intelsat LLC's
     assertions. [^268] In addition, Comsat states that the use of
     digital transmission makes circular polarization versus linear
     polarization irrelevant for adjacent networks. Intelsat LLC's
     remaining analog video transmission and its use of dual circular
     polarization already is coordinated. Further, Comsat contends that
     circular polarization does not increase interference compared to a
     requirement to operate at two degree spacing. Finally, Comsat
     points out that the sum of interference from dual circularly
     polarized signals into dual linearly polarized receivers is nearly
     the same as dual linearly polarized into dual linearly polarized
     systems of the same power spectral densities (evidence is supported
     by ITU Rec. S.736-3 and ITU-R Document PDNR 4A/TEMP/200
     (2/24/00)).[^269]

104. PanAmSat states that "the claim made by Intelsat and Comsat that
     there is no more interference from an adjacent circularly polarized
     satellite network into a linearly polarized network than would
     result from an adjacent linearly polarized network is
     misleading."[^270] PanAmSat's position is based on the fact that
     the assumptions of ITU-R Rec S.736-3 and ITU-R Document PDNR
     4A/TEMP/200 (2/24/00) may not apply in all cases. These documents
     assume that the interfering network is subject to approximately
     equal levels of interference from two orthogonally polarized
     carriers on the adjacent satellite.[^271] PanAmSat states that
     "when that assumption is inapplicable, it matters considerably
     whether the adjacent satellite utilizes circular or linear
     polarization."[^272]

105. Adjacent satellites with linear orthogonal polarizations will gain
     10 dB of isolation on the transponder with opposite sense
     polarization, thereby facilitating frequency planning. If one of
     the satellites is circularly polarized, this benefit is
     absent.[^273] We note that in some cases \-- where co-channel
     transponders employ different power spectral densities such as with
     analog video transmissions \-- this may be the case. However, all
     of INTELSAT's use of analog video transmissions is currently
     coordinated and no new use of analog emissions is anticipated.
     Finally, because Intelsat LLC will use circular polarization, the
     lack of capacity to switch polarization sense is irrelevant. A
     circularly polarized emission causes the same amount of
     interference to a linearly polarized system regardless of its sense
     of polarization (left- or right-hand).

106. We grant a waiver of Section 25.210(a)(1) and (3) of our rules for
     those satellites transmitting in the C-band frequency spectrum, at
     their respective or proposed locations, as indicated in Appendix C,
     with the exception of the INTELSAT 805 spacecraft, which complies
     with the requirement for orthogonal linear polarization. However,
     INTELSAT 805 is not capable of switching polarization sense by
     ground command. We waive Section 25.210(a)(3) in this case, as the
     satellite is already in orbit.

#### Control of Transponder Saturation Flux Densities -- Section 25.210(c)

107. Intelsat LLC requests a waiver of Section 25.210(c), which requires
     that "\[a\]ll space stations in the Fixed Satellite Service shall
     have a minimum capability to change transponder saturation flux
     densities by ground command in 4 dB steps over a range of 12
     dB."[^274] The more recent series of INTELSAT satellites meet this
     requirement.[^275] However, the INTELSAT VA and VI series have
     minimum gain steps between 5.0 dB and 7.5 dB. Intelsat LLC seeks to
     continue using the one series VA satellite and the five series VI
     satellites that do not comply with this rule.[^276]

108. We waive Section 25.210(c) of our rules for the operational
     satellites identified below because the satellites are already in
     orbit and cannot be modified. Further, Intelsat LLC's existing
     series VA and VI satellites, for which this waiver applies, are
     already coordinated so the objective of the rule will not be
     undermined. This waiver will be temporary in nature, since all
     current and future Intelsat LLC satellites from the VII series
     onward will meet the requirements of Sections 25.210(c). This
     waiver applies to the following satellites at their respective
     locations and proposed locations in the instant application: 511,
     601, 602, 603, 604, 605, as indicated in Appendix C.[^277]

#### Cross-Polarization Isolation -- Section 25.210(i)

109. Intelsat LLC requests a waiver of Section 25.210(i), which requires
     that all "\[s\]pace station antennas in the Fixed-Satellite
     Services be designed to provide a cross-polarization isolation such
     that the ratio of the on axis co-polar gain to the on axis
     cross-polar gain of the antenna in the assigned frequency band will
     be at least 30 dB within its primary coverage area."[^278] Intelsat
     LLC seeks to continue using its existing satellites at their
     current level although their current satellite beams fall short of
     the 30 dB requirement.[^279] Comsat agrees with Intelsat LLC that
     only Intelsat LLC will experience interference resulting from
     cross-polarization isolation of less than 30 dB.[^280]

110. Intelsat LLC has indicated that the ratio of the on-axis co-polar
     gain to the on-axis cross-polar gain of the antennas in the
     assigned frequency is band in the 17-35 dB range,[^281] typically
     will be around 27 dB.[^282] Moreover, Intelsat LLC's satellites are
     already coordinated with existing U.S. systems and non-compliance
     with Section 25.210(i) will not result in a significant increase in
     interference except to Intelsat LLC, which has taken it into
     account. Therefore, we grant a waiver of Section 25.210(i). This
     waiver applies to those satellites transmitting at their respective
     or proposed locations, as indicated in Appendix C.

#### C-band Downlink Analog Video Transmissions -- Section 25.211(a)

111. Intelsat LLC requests a waiver of Section 25.211(a), which provides
     that downlink analog video transmissions in the band 3700-4200 MHz
     shall be transmitted only on a center frequency of 3700+20N MHz,
     where N=1 to 24. The corresponding uplink frequency shall be 2225
     megahertz higher.[^283] Intelsat LLC seeks to continue operating
     its satellites according to its existing analog video operations.
     As discussed in the TT&C waiver section above, the channel
     configuration of Intelsat LLC's satellites precludes complete
     compliance with this rule. Further, requiring Intelsat LLC to
     comply with this rule would seriously limit its flexibility in the
     operation of multicarrier television, wherein, for example, video
     carriers can be 18, 24 or 36 megahertz apart within the same 72
     megahertz transponder, a transponder whose center frequency and
     bandwidth are not consistent with Section 25.211(a).

112. Intelsat LLC's existing analog video operations already are
     coordinated and have operated this way for years without
     interference. In addition, Section 25.211(a) does not apply to
     digital emissions. Eventually, Intelsat LLC will replace all analog
     video operations with digital operations. Therefore, we grant a
     waiver of Section 25.211(a). This waiver applies to those
     satellites transmitting at their respective or proposed locations,
     as indicated in Appendix C.

#### Orbital Longitude Maintenance -- Section 25.210(j)(1)

113. Intelsat LLC requests a waiver of Section 25.210(j)(1) which states
     that space stations in the geostationary satellite orbit must be
     designed with the capability of being maintained in orbit within
     0.05° of the assigned orbital longitude.[^284] Intelsat LLC seeks
     to utilize its 511 satellite, which is designed to operate within
     0.1° of its assigned orbital longitude. Another satellite, which is
     in compliance with Section 25.210(j)(1), eventually will replace
     the existing, non-compliant satellite. By its nature, this waiver
     is temporary given the expected end of life for INTELSAT 511 (late
     2001). In addition, concerns by parties such as PanAmSat over
     future Intelsat satellites conforming to the rule are satisfied, as
     Intelsat LLC will replace the existing satellite with one having
     the required specifications. Therefore, we grant this waiver of
     Section 25.210(j) for the INTELSAT 511 for the remainder of its
     lifetime, as indicated in Appendix C.

#### Frequency Reuse -- Sections 25.210(g)(1)

114. Intelsat LLC requests a waiver of Section 25.210(g)(1), which
     requires that U.S.-licensed space stations providing international
     service employ dual polarization so that they are able to re-use
     both the uplink and downlink frequency band assignments.[^285]
     Intelsat LLC seeks to continue using its INTELSAT 805 satellite
     with only one polarization on the uplink and one on the downlink at
     Ku-band. It indicates that this satellite was built and launched to
     satisfy special requirements and a specific mission that existed at
     the time the satellite was constructed and launched and that it
     cannot be changed now because it is already in orbit.[^286]

115. For reasons previously noted, and in view of the fact that INTELSAT
     805 is operating and coordinated, we grant waivers of Section
     25.210(g)(1) at its current location, as indicated in Appendix C.

#### Unused Orbital Locations -- Section 25.140(f)

116. Section 25.140(f) of our rules limits to one the number of GSO
     orbit locations a licensee may be assigned beyond any current
     authorizations.[^287] The intent of this rule is twofold: to
     prevent applicants from warehousing orbital locations and
     frequencies, and to allow for later entry by qualified
     applicants.[^288] INTELSAT comes to us, through Intelsat LLC, with
     the unusual circumstances of holding six "unused" orbital locations
     acquired under ITU procedures.[^289] It presently holds these
     orbital locations in its capacity as an intergovernmental
     organization and has near-term plans for their use. In light of
     this, it requests a waiver of Section 25.140(f).[^290]

117. Lockheed Martin supports the Intelsat LLC request. It maintains
     that there is no justification for treating INTELSAT satellites
     intended for deployment at orbital locations registered with the
     ITU any differently than those already operating.[^291] GE
     Americom, JSAT, and PanAmSat, however, oppose a waiver asserting
     that such would violate the purpose served by the rule and result
     in the assignment of "an excessive number of slots to one
     entity,[^292] prejudicing future applicants.[^293] These parties
     contend that the Commission should instead initiate a competitive
     processing round for the six currently unused orbital locations
     identified for use in the Intelsat LLC application.[^294] PanAmSat
     states that a waiver would perpetuate INTELSAT's special IGO
     privileges.[^295] It also asserts that five of the 10 new
     satellites for which Intelsat LLC seeks authority, were not
     "committed" at the time the privatization process began in 1998 and
     others are just now under construction.[^296]

118. In opposing the grant of a waiver here the various parties appear
     to assume that Intelsat LLC has no claim whatsoever to the "unused"
     orbit locations at issue and, as such, Section 25.140(f), would
     prohibit authorization at most of these orbital locations.[^297]
     PanAmSat goes further, claiming that INTELSAT's orbital locations
     belong to the United States because of the historical U.S. role in
     making network filings with the ITU on behalf of INTELSAT.[^298] We
     disagree. We find that there is good cause to waive Section
     25.140(f) given the special circumstances associated with Intelsat
     LLC's origins through INTELSAT, as well as the implementation
     milestones we impose on its licenses, which will assure that the
     rule is not undermined.

119. INTELSAT's present right to use these orbital locations is
     reflected in the ITU satellite network filings made on its behalf
     by the United States, on behalf of INTELSAT member countries, under
     ITU procedures. INTELSAT was created to carry out the "design,
     development, contraction, establishment, operation and maintenance
     of the space segment of the global commercial telecommunications
     satellite system" that provides services on a non-discriminatory
     basis.[^299] In its status as an intergovernmental organization,
     INTELSAT possesses juridical personality with capacity to execute
     functions necessary to carry out its objectives.[^300] These
     functions include notifying the ITU of the frequencies to be used
     for the INTELSAT space segment.[^301] Through special arrangement
     and longstanding practice, the U.S. has served as the notifying
     administration to the ITU of INTELSAT's assignments. ITU filings
     are prepared by INTELSAT reflecting the technical parameters of
     INTELSAT satellites, but are submitted to the ITU by the Commission
     on behalf of INTELSAT's concurring administration members for
     transmission to the ITU. INTELSAT orbital registrations, therefore,
     appear under a special United States designation (USA-IT) on behalf
     of INTELSAT and its member countries.[^302] They are unavailable
     for assignment to operators licensed by the United States or any
     other INTELSAT member country. Any decision to require INTELSAT to
     relinquish its claim to these orbital locations would be
     inconsistent with the INTELSAT Agreement and with longstanding
     arrangements the United States has had with INTELSAT in its
     intergovernmental organization role.

120. Many INTELSAT members are concerned that a national licensing
     authority could assign INTELSAT orbital locations to its own
     licensed operators, and fear that such a result would jeopardize
     INTELSAT's ability to maintain global coverage and connectivity,
     including to lifeline users.[^303] Indeed, as discussed below,
     INTELSAT has determined that it would not consent to transfer its
     ITU filings to an administration that would reassign these orbital
     locations to other licensees and is considering alternatives to
     ensure that no one administration is able to appropriate INTELSAT
     orbital locations for its own use after privatization. INTELSAT's
     concerns are, however, unnecessary. INTELSAT's privatization will
     be implemented by a transfer of its satellites and other assets
     from the intergovernmental organization to Intelsat LLC and a
     transfer of INTELSAT's ITU network filings to a national licensing
     jurisdiction. Effectively, this presents the Commission with a
     unique situation where the applicant for licenses is already in
     control of the orbital locations at issue. In an analogous
     situation involving a transfer of control of a U.S.-licensed system
     -- where a licensee would already be in control of the respective
     orbital locations at issue -- the Commission would not open up
     these respective licenses (orbital locations) to a competitive
     process. In fact, the Communications Act forbids the Commission to
     consider reassigning the licenses (or orbital locations) "to a
     person other than the proposed transferee or assignee."[^304] We
     see no reason to deny INTELSAT's present standing in regard to
     these "unused" orbital locations as well. No arguments persuasively
     demonstrate why INTELSAT's privatization should occasion INTELSAT
     relinquishing to another U.S. licensed operator orbital locations
     that it acquired as an intergovernmental organization and which it
     is transferring to Intelsat LLC upon privatization. Instead, as
     discussed below, we believe it is more appropriate to condition
     INTELSAT's use of these six orbital locations on a going-forward
     basis to ensure that they are timely brought into use. Therefore,
     we conclude that these orbital locations are not available for
     reassignment to U.S.-licensed satellite systems, and cannot be
     subject to a processing round.[^305]

121. Furthermore, authorizing Intelsat LLC to use these orbital
     locations will not undermine the policy objectives of the
     "warehousing" rule. Intelsat LLC has committed contracts and firm
     construction and operational deadlines for nine of the 10 planned
     satellites, and has already completed or is in the process of
     completing ITU coordination on most of these satellites.[^306]
     Consequently, we expect that all of the "unused" orbit locations
     will have satellites placed in service by mid-2003, due to the
     relocation of older satellites.[^307] As a result of U.S.
     licensing, however, Intelsat LLC will be subject to milestone
     requirements for new satellite construction and operation,
     consistent with these target dates.[^308] Intelsat LLC recognizes
     that it will be subject to milestones.[^309] Imposing such
     milestones will ensure, on a going forward basis, that Intelsat LLC
     will make expeditious use of all orbital locations to be
     transferred to the United States upon privatization. As a result,
     our warehousing policy will not be undermined. In addition, this
     approach will implement the ORBIT Act which requires application of
     due diligence to INTELSAT to prevent warehousing of orbital
     locations.[^310]

122. Finally, we note that if INTELSAT selects another national
     licensing authority and subsequently seeks access to the United
     States under our *DISCO II decision*, it would not be required to
     include its orbital locations in a processing round, since it would
     not be a licensee, nor would it be required to surrender these
     orbit locations to the ITU for cancellation.

123. For these reasons, we conclude that there is good cause to grant
     waiver of Section 25.140(f) for the authorizations associated with
     the 178.0º E.L., 176.0º E.L., 157.0º E.L., 85.0º E.L., 33.0º E.L.,
     and 20.0º W.L. (340.0º E.L.) orbit locations, included in
     Appendix A. Therefore, none of these orbital locations are
     available for assignment to another satellite system. In
     particular, we should not be considering assigning orbit locations
     to U.S. licensees where we have specifically recognized through
     coordination agreements that these orbit locations/frequency bands
     are being used by INTELSAT.

## Financial Requirements

124. Commission rules require fixed-satellite space station applicants
     to demonstrate financial ability to construct, launch, and operate
     proposed satellites.[^311] As a part of this showing, applicants
     must include an estimate of the cost of construction and launch, as
     well as operating expenses for the first year after launch.[^312]
     An applicant may demonstrate financial ability by submitting a
     balance sheet current for the latest fiscal year and documentation
     of any financial commitments that show current assets and operating
     income sufficient to meet these costs.[^313] The applicant must
     further submit evidence of a financial commitment by the corporate
     parent when it is owned by more than one corporate parent.[^314] If
     this submission does not reflect sufficient financial resources to
     meet the costs, the applicant must submit either (1) the terms of
     any fully negotiated loan or credit arrangement;[^315] (2) the
     terms of any fully negotiated sale or placement of any
     equity;[^316] (3) the terms of any grant or other external funding
     commitment;[^317] or (4) the terms of any contingent financing
     arrangements.[^318]

125. Of the 27 satellites for which Intelsat LLC is seeking 10-year
     licenses, 17 are operating.[^319] Consequently, we need only
     consider the financial qualifications for the 10 planned satellites
     that have not yet been fully constructed and launched.[^320] All of
     these proposed spacecraft either have been committed to or are
     currently under construction.[^321]

126. Intelsat LLC estimates total system construction and launch costs
     for the 10 planned satellites to be approximately \$2.28 billion
     U.S. dollars over the four-year period from 2000 to 2004.[^322]
     These estimated costs are based on contractual commitments, price
     proposals, and INTELSAT industry experience.[^323] Estimated
     operating expenses for the first full year of operation is \$110
     million.[^324] These operating expenses include TT&C, in-orbit
     insurance, selling, marketing, administrative, and satellite
     performance incentive payments.[^325]

127. Intelsat LLC has submitted certain financial information, including
     the following: (1) INTELSAT Audited Financial Statements from its
     1999 Annual Report; (2) Unaudited (Internal Format) Financial
     Status for the Nine Months Ending 30 September 1999; (3) Unaudited
     (Internal Format) Balance Sheets as of 30 September 1999 and 31
     December 1998; and (4) Certification Verification for the 1999
     Financial Statements.[^326] Intelsat LLC states that the source of
     funds to meet the costs described above will come primarily through
     revenue received from its existing operating system, which it
     expects to be approximately \$1 billion a year over the next four
     years.[^327] It specifically projects revenues for the 2000-2004
     period to be \$1.014 billion, \$1.064 billion, \$1.151 billion,
     \$1.309 billion, and \$1.439 billion, respectively.[^328] Intelsat
     LLC notes that revenues from the period of 1997-1999 were \$962
     million, \$1.020 billion, and \$977 million, respectively.[^329]
     Its most recently submitted financials in this proceeding,
     including balance sheet and investments, as of December 31, 1999,
     show a combined total of operating income (of about \$384 million)
     and current assets (approximately \$324 million) of \$708 million,
     with total assets of over \$3 billion.[^330] With total revenues of
     approximately \$1 billion, operating income exceeded \$383
     million.[^331] The total specific costs that Intelsat LLC states
     that it will incur during the 2000-2003 period are as follows:
     \$641 million in 2000, \$763 million in 2001; \$635 million in
     2002; and \$242 million in 2003.[^332]

128. The financial showing, including Intelsat LLC's assertions and
     financial documents are undisputed. Comsat's comments fully support
     the INTELSAT financial showing.[^333] Moreover, INTELSAT's
     documented financial track record over the past several years
     supports Intelsat LLC's operating income projections. However,
     strictly speaking, the Intelsat LLC financial showing does not
     satisfy our financial qualification requirements because it does
     not presently have enough current assets and operating income
     sufficient to cover the \$2.28 billion U.S. dollar costs to
     construct, launch, and operate its entire proposed system. However,
     its showing does demonstrate an otherwise unusual financial ability
     to carry out its proposal. Given the special circumstances present
     here, as well as the fact that a waiver will not undermine the
     principles underlying our financial rule, we conclude that good
     cause exists for waiver of our financial qualification
     requirements.

129. The primary policy reason for our financial qualification
     requirements is to insure that a prospective licensee has the
     financial ability to proceed expeditiously with the implementation
     of its proposed system. In adhering to this policy, the Commission
     has recognized the financial difficulty of constructing, launching,
     and operating a satellite system without a present ability to
     obtain the necessary funds. The special circumstances present here
     illustrate that this concern by the Commission \-- that our rules
     are not undermined \-- is certainly tempered with respect to
     Intelsat LLC. In particular, the INTELSAT satellite system is
     already operational with 17 C-band and Ku-band satellites that are
     producing income and have demonstrated the ability to do so over
     the course of several years. Consequently, its revenue projections
     seem reasonable in light of its past financial revenue history.
     Most proposed systems that the Commission considers do not have
     such a large fleet that can be relied in this capacity. Secondly,
     Intelsat LLC's projected costs anticipate staggered launch and
     construction over the next three to four years. Therefore, in
     practical terms, Intelsat LLC will not need the entire funds to
     cover the cost immediately. Finally, Intelsat has demonstrated it
     financial commitment by commencing construction on nine of the 10
     new satellites that make up the bulk of the associated financial
     costs. Consequently, we find that a waiver of our financial
     qualification requirements is warranted. Therefore, on our own
     motion, we waive Section 25.140(c)(1) of rules.[^334] This finding
     is conditioned on Intelsat LLC having comparable financially
     ability, as is demonstrated here, upon its privatization and the
     effective date of its authorizations.

## Other Issues

### Transfer of USA-IT Network Filings

130. Following the recently concluded Penang Working Party ("PWP"),
     Intelsat LLC advised the Commission of recommendations of the PWP
     to the November 2000 Assembly of Parties concerning the transfer of
     INTELSAT ITU network filings to licensing jurisdictions upon
     privatization.[^335] The PWP recommended for consideration three
     alternatives.[^336] Under the first two alternatives, the United
     States (or other selected licensing jurisdiction) either would (1)
     cancel any transferred frequency assignments and orbital locations
     under ITU procedures should Intelsat LLC or its successors no
     longer be authorized by the licensing jurisdiction to use such
     frequency assignments and orbital locations, or (2) transfer such
     frequency assignments and orbital locations, pursuant to ITU
     procedures (if available), to another party designated by the
     residual IGO being created to supervise INTELSAT's provision of
     service to lifeline users after privatization. Intelsat LLC states
     that these two alternatives are being considered because of the
     concerns of PWP participants that a licensing jurisdiction may
     authorize use of INTELSAT frequency assignments and orbital
     locations by other operators or adopt policies that threaten global
     coverage and connectivity. The third alternative would involve the
     residual IGO continuing to hold frequency assignments and orbital
     locations on behalf of the privatized company. Intelsat LLC points
     out that this alternative would moot the application before us.

131. Both PanAmSat and GE Americom oppose any of the alternatives posed
     by Intelsat LLC.[^337] They contend that alternatives would be
     inconsistent with Commission responsibilities under the ORBIT Act
     to "take all action necessary to ensure that the United States
     remains the ITU notifying administration for the privatized
     INTELSAT's existing and future orbital slot registration."[^338]

132. In view of the unique nature of INTELSAT's ITU network filings as
     discussed above, we find that we can issue authorizations to
     Intelsat LLC based on the first alternative. The second and third
     alternatives, however, would raise unacceptable competition
     concerns and could undermine ITU procedures. Should INTELSAT select
     other licensing jurisdictions that agree to authorize its
     operations based on either the second or third alternative, we
     would consider potential effects on competition in acting upon any
     applications under our *DISCO II* decision to enter the U.S. market
     as a non-U.S.-licensed system.

133. As Intelsat LLC points out, the first alternative preserves the
     international status quo with respect to frequency assignments and
     orbital locations to be transferred to selected licensing
     jurisdictions. INTELSAT's current policy is that it cancels any ITU
     network filings that it does not intend to use. In the event of
     such cancellation, the cancelled orbital locations previously
     registered on behalf of all INTELSAT member countries, are returned
     to the ITU to be made available to the next administration eligible
     to use the locations under ITU procedures. Under the first
     alternative, the licensing jurisdictions selected upon
     privatization would have no ability to assign INTELSAT frequencies
     and orbital locations to other licensees. However, Intelsat LLC
     would have incentive to comply with the rules of the licensing
     jurisdiction at the risk of losing its licenses and cancellation of
     its orbital locations with the ITU.

134. In comparison, Intelsat LLC may not have the same incentives under
     either alternatives two and three. Alternative two would permit it
     to appeal to the residual IGO in order to require transfer of
     frequency assignments and orbital locations to another licensing
     jurisdiction, should Intelsat LLC be dissatisfied with its current
     licensing jurisdiction. The ability to "forum shop" in this manner,
     under the auspices of the residual IGO, would give Intelsat LLC a
     clear competitive advantage over other private operators, whether
     licensed in the United States or other countries. The third
     alternative clearly would not constitute full privatization because
     it would effectively make Intelsat LLC immune from the rules of any
     licensing jurisdiction. Nor would it appear to be consistent with
     the ORBIT Act, which requires that INTELSAT, when privatized, be
     subject to "the legal and regulatory process of a national
     government that applies due diligence requirements intended to
     prevent warehousing of orbital locations."[^339] Both alternatives
     two and three would also raise substantial questions with respect
     to compliance with ITU procedures. Alternative two raises
     trafficking concerns with respect to the international resources of
     orbital locations and frequency assignments among ITU
     Administrations. Alternative three raises the question of whether a
     private company should be permitted under to ITU procedures to use
     orbital locations and frequency assignments held by an
     intergovernmental organization.

135. Finally, PanAmSat and GE Americom misread the ORBIT Act as to the
     responsibilities it places on this Commission. Section 644(b)
     directs the Commission to take the action necessary to remain the
     notifying administration of privatized INTELSAT's orbital
     locations.[^340] Licensing Intelsat LLC operations in the C-band
     and the Ku-band furthers the intent of Section 644(b).[^341] We
     also note that the ORBIT Act does not direct the Commission to take
     any particular action should it no longer license these locations
     for use by Intelsat LLC.[^342] Thus, nothing in the ORBIT Act
     precludes the Commission from canceling ITU filings for orbital
     locations as provided in international agreements entered into as
     part of the privatization of INTELSAT.

136. For the above reasons, we would not authorize Intelsat LLC as a
     U.S. licensee on the basis of alternatives two and three. We will
     condition Intelsat LLC's license on the basis of alternative one
     provided that this condition applies only to those orbital
     locations identified in Attachment A, as being transferred from the
     USA-IT to the USA registration upon privatization. Any other
     locations assigned to Intelsat LLC at a later date will be subject
     to our normal procedures.

### Milestones

137. Commission authority for satellite launch and operation includes a
     milestone schedule that assigns dates by which the satellite
     licensee shall construct, launch, and operate the proposed
     satellites.[^343] It is designed to ensure that licensees proceed
     expeditiously to implement their systems. A milestone schedule
     generally concludes five years after the date of grant.[^344]
     Failure to proceed consistent with the milestone schedule, unless
     the licensee requests an extension that demonstrates delay is due
     to circumstances beyond the licensee's control, results in
     nullification of the license.

138. Intelsat LLC has 10 proposed satellites, in various stages of
     construction, which will be subject to milestones as a U.S.
     licensee.[^345] All, according to Intelsat LLC, are scheduled to
     commence operations within approximately the next three
     years.[^346] The milestone schedule we implement here takes into
     account the Intelsat LLC proposed schedule.[^347] This milestone
     schedule is consistent with typical milestone schedules set for
     U.S. licenses.[^348]

### Frequency Band Use

#### 3.42-3.6 GHz Frequency Band

139. The 3.40-3.6 GHz frequency band is not allocated to the FSS service
     in the United States and its possessions. Accordingly, we will not
     authorize earth stations operating in this band within the United
     States and its possessions. We recognize, however, that the
     3.42-3.6 GHz extended C-band (the portion of the band for which
     Intelsat LLC has applied) is allocated to the FSS (space-to-Earth)
     on a worldwide basis in the ITU Radio Regulations. Therefore, we
     will permit Intelsat LLC to continue to utilize the frequency band
     on its INTELSAT 805 satellite to serve earth stations outside the
     United States and its possessions, consistent with Intelsat LLC's
     ability to acquire appropriate authority to use these frequency
     bands in other countries. We also note, however, that the U.S.
     government utilizes the 3.40-3.6 GHz band on a worldwide basis as
     part of its military operations, including high-powered, highly
     mobile, shipborne and airborne radar systems. When these satellites
     were procured, INTELSAT was informed of this situation through the
     INTELSAT Board of Governors process. Because INTELSAT currently is
     operating in this band it, of course, has been aware of this
     situation. This is especially true in areas where INTELSAT has had
     to address certain interference situations that may have resulted
     from the use of these radars in areas of conflict. INTELSAT,
     therefore, understands this environment and has undertaken
     appropriate steps to address such situations in its current
     operations. We anticipate that INTELSAT will continue its
     operations in accordance with these constraints and will inform its
     customers, as appropriate, or as circumstances dictate these
     constraints on its operations.

#### 3.6-3.7 GHz Frequency Band

140. The band 3.6-3.7 GHz is allocated to the non-government fixed
     satellite service (space-to-Earth) and to the Government
     radiolocation and aeronautical radionavigation services on a
     co-primary basis. FSS operations in the United States and
     possessions in the 3.6-3.7 GHz frequency band are limited by
     footnote US245 to the U.S. domestic table of allocations, which
     states, "the fixed satellite service is limited to international
     intercontinental systems and subject to case-by-case
     electromagnetic compatibility analysis."[^349] We also note,
     however, that the U.S. government utilizes the 3.6-3.65 GHz band on
     a worldwide basis as part of its military operation, including
     high-powered, highly mobile, shipborne, and airborne radar systems.
     Based on US 245, the coordination of receiving FSS earth stations
     operating in the United States and possessions will be required
     with respect to Federal Government transmitting radio location
     stations. In February 1995, the National Telecommunications and
     Information Administration ("NTIA"), pursuant to the Omnibus Budget
     Reconciliation Act of 1993, identified the 3650-3700 MHz band for
     transfer, effective January 1999, from Government/non-Government
     shared-use status to a mixed-use status.[^350] The Commission later
     adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order proposing to
     allocate the 3650-3700 MHz band to non-government fixed service on
     a primary basis while imposing a freeze on applications for new
     earth stations and major modifications to existing earth stations
     in this band.[^351] In May of this year, the Commission modified
     this NPRM by partially lifting the freeze to allow new applications
     or major modifications (of existing) for extended C-band earth
     stations that are within 10 miles of an existing grandfathered
     extended C-band earth station receive site.[^352] Any future use of
     this band by Intelsat LLC or any other entity in the United States
     will be subject to the provisions of these Orders and the pending
     Report and Order, which will establish the domestic allocation of
     this band.

#### 5.850-5.925 GHz Frequency Band

141. In the United States, the 5.850-5.925 GHz band is allocated to the
     government radiolocation service on a co-primary basis with
     non-government FSS (Earth-to-space) and mobile service use. As a
     result, FSS operations in the United States and possessions in the
     5.850-5.925 GHz frequency band are also limited by footnote US245
     to the U.S. domestic table of allocations, which states, "the fixed
     satellite service is limited to international intercontinental
     systems and subject to case-by-case electromagnetic compatibility
     analysis."[^353] We also note, however, that the U.S. government
     utilizes the 5.850-5.925 GHz band as part of its military
     operations, including high-powered radar systems. Although INTELSAT
     has been operating in this band on a worldwide basis, there have
     been limited operations in this frequency band in the United States
     and its possessions. Consequently, any future Intelsat LLC
     operations will need to be coordinated with the U.S. government
     operations in this band in accordance with footnote US245.
     Additionally, on October 21, 1999, the Commission adopted a Report
     and Order in ET Docket 98-95, which allocated this band for
     Intelligent Transportation Services ("ITS") on a co-primary basis.
     The Report and Order concluded that ITS operations could share this
     band with FSS operations due to the nature of each system's
     deployment and because of the limited number of FSS earth
     stations.[^354] Also, we note that this band is normally paired
     with the 3625-3700 MHz band and, consequently, these operations
     will be similarly constrained by the requirements of the 3650-3700
     MHz band in the United States

#### 6.425-6.650 GHz Frequency Band

142. The uplink portion of the extended C-band, 6.425-6.650 GHz, is
     subject to coordination for all FSS licensees. The frequency range
     6.425-6.525 GHz is shared in the United States on a primary basis
     with the mobile service, including the Television ("TV") Broadcast
     Auxiliary Service, Cable TV Relay Service, Private Operational
     Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service, and Local Television
     Transmission Service. The frequency range 6.525-6.650 GHz is shared
     on a primary basis with the fixed service, including the Common
     Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service and Private
     Operational Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service. Any future
     applicants for earth stations located within the United States
     requesting access to the Intelsat LLC satellites using this
     frequency band must coordinate with these services prior to
     receiving an earth station license.[^355]

#### 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz Frequency Band

143. The use of the 10.95-11.20 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz frequency bands
     by the FSS in the United States is limited to international service
     under footnote NG104 to the United States Table of Frequency
     Allocations in Section 2.106 of the Commission's rules.[^356] We
     note that INTELSAT is currently using these bands in the United
     States to provide international services. Accordingly, Intelsat LLC
     may provide international service only and is not authorized to
     provide domestic service within the United States in this frequency
     band.

#### 13.75-14.0 GHz Frequency Band

144. The 13.75-14.0 GHz frequency band has been allocated domestically
     and internationally to the FSS subject to certain restrictions. In
     particular, footnotes S5.502 (WRC-97), S5.503 (WRC-97), and S5.503A
     (WRC-97) to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio
     Regulations place certain restrictions on FSS operations.[^357]
     Footnote US337 to Section 2.106 of the Commission's rules requires
     that earth stations operating in the 13.75-13.8 GHz band be
     coordinated through NTIA Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee's
     ("IRAC") Frequency Assignment Subcommittee to minimize interference
     to the forward space-to-space link of the National Aeronautics and
     Space Administration's ("NASA") Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
     System.[^358] In this regard, we have received a letter from the
     NTIA requesting that we identify these requirements in any grant of
     authority to operate a satellite in the 13.75-14.0 GHz frequency
     band.[^359] Taking these considerations into account, we require
     that the operations of Intelsat LLC satellites in the 13.75-14.0
     GHz band be consistent with these various international and
     domestic regulatory footnotes.

### Request to Modify Authorizations

145. Intelsat LLC requests authority to modify certain licenses, that we
     grant herein, in order that they may be reassigned to alternative
     orbital locations.[^360] It presently holds the orbital locations
     and frequency bands at issue in its capacity as an
     intergovernmental organization.[^361] In this Order, we authorize
     Intelsat LLC to operate at the orbital locations for which it seeks
     modification. No party specifically opposes the modification
     requests. Intelsat LLC makes this request now due to the unique
     circumstances surrounding the authorization of an existing
     satellite system and its particular need to have its system
     application acted upon in total, as part of its privatization
     process.[^362] Ordinarily, a request for modification would come
     subsequent to any authorization. Upon the effective date of these
     modification authorizations, Intelsat LLC will have the requisite
     authority to operate space stations at the proposed orbital
     reassignment locations.

146. Accordingly, we find that Intelsat LLC is legally and technically
     qualified to receive authorizations for the various orbit
     reassignment modification requests, notwithstanding the waivers
     granted in this proceeding.[^363] Therefore, we grant Intelsat LLC
     authority to make these modifications, in accordance with our rules
     and policies and the terms of this Order, as also indicated in
     Appendices A and C, Table 3. Intelsat LLC shall inform the
     Commission within 48 hours each time it relocates a satellite
     pursuant to this authority.

### License Terms

147. Section 25.121(a) of our rules states that "\[l\]icenses for
     facilities governed by this part will be issued for a period of 10
     years." Section 25.121(b) states that "\[t\]he Commission reserves
     the right to grant or renew station licenses for less than 10 years
     if, in its judgment, the public interest, convenience and necessity
     will be served by such action." Section 25.121(d) notes that
     "\[f\]or geostationary satellite orbit satellites, the license term
     will begin a 3 a.m. EST on the date the licensee certifies to the
     Commission that the satellite has been successfully placed into
     orbit and that the operations of the satellite fully conform to the
     terms and conditions of the space station radio authorization."

148. For the applicant's 17 currently operating satellites, some of
     which have been operating for several years, we grant license terms
     for 10 years or end of life, whichever comes first.[^364] With
     respect to the 10 planned satellites in the instant application, we
     grant license terms for a ten-year period, beginning at 3 a.m. EST
     on the date Intelsat LLC certifies that the respective satellites
     have been successfully placed in orbit.[^365]

# ORDERING CLAUSES

149. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that application File Nos.
     SAT-A/O-20000119-00002 to SAT-A/O-20000119-00018 ARE GRANTED,
     subject to the terms of this Order, and Intelsat LLC IS AUTHORIZED
     to operate at the orbital locations specified in Appendix A, Table
     1, 17 satellites operating in the C-band and Ku-band in accordance
     with the technical specifications set forth the application and
     this Order.

150. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license terms for application File
     Nos. SAT-A/O-20000119-00002 to SAT-A/O-20000119-00018 is ten years
     or end of life, whichever comes first, and will commence on the
     date of privatization, which is the effective date of this
     authorization.

151. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that application File Nos.
     SAT-LOA-20000119-00019 to SAT-LOA-20000119-00028 ARE GRANTED,
     subject to the terms of this Order, and Intelsat LLC IS AUTHORIZED
     to launch and operate at the orbital locations specified in
     Appendix A, Table 2, 10 satellites operating in the C-band and/or
     Ku-band, in accordance with the technical specifications set forth
     in the application and this Order.

152. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license term for application File
     Nos. SAT-LOA-20000119-00019 to SAT-LOA-20000119-00028 is ten years
     and will commence on the date the licensee certifies to the
     Commission that the particular satellite has been successfully
     placed into orbit and the operations conform to the terms and
     conditions of this authorization.

153. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Intelsat LLC requests for waiver of
     Sections 25.140(b), 25.202(a)(1), 25.202(g), 25.210(a)(1)&(3),
     25.210(c), 25.210(i), 25.211(a), 25.210(j)(1), and 25.210(g)(1) of
     the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.140(b), 25.202(a)(1),
     25.202(g), 25.210(a), 25.210(c), 25.210(i), 25.211(a),
     25.210(j)(1), and 25.210(g)(1), pursuant to Section 1.3 of the
     Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3, ARE GRANTED as provided in
     this Order for the satellites as specifically indicated in Appendix
     C.

154. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Intelsat LLC requests for waiver of
     Section 25.140(f) of our Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(f), pursuant to
     Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3, ARE
     GRANTED, as provided in this Order.

155. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a waiver of Section 25.140(c)(1) of our
     rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(c)(1), IS GRANTED, as provided in this
     Order. This finding is conditioned on Intelsat LLC having
     comparable financially ability, as is demonstrated herein, upon the
     effective date of its authorizations.

156. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that unless extended by the Commission for
     good cause shown, each of the authorizations for launch and
     operation, File Numbers SAT-LOA-20000119-00019 -
     SAT-LOA-20000119-00028, shall become null and void in the event the
     space station is not constructed, launched, and successfully placed
     into operation in accordance with the technical parameters, terms,
     and conditions of the authorizations by the following dates.

  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------
  Satellite\*              Finish Construction     Launch\*\*

  INTELSAT 901:            June 2001               August 2001

  INTELSAT 902:            June 2001               August 2001

  INTELSAT 903:            September 2001          November 2001

  INTELSAT 904:            December 2001           February 2002

  INTELSAT 905:            June 2002               August 2002

  INTELSAT 906:            September 2002          November 2002

  INTELSAT 907:            December 2002           February 2003

  ALPHA-1:                 March 2003              May 2003

  BETA-1:                  June 2003               August 2003

  ALPHA-2:                 September 2003          November 2003
  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------

\*All contracts for delivery of spacecraft are in place except for the
BETA-1, which is expected to be finalized by June 2001.

\*\*In-Service date is six to eight weeks after a successful launch.

157. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that application File Nos.
     SAT-AMD-20000119-00029 to SAT-AMD-2000119-00041 ARE GRANTED,
     subject to the terms of this Order, and Intelsat LLC IS AUTHORIZED
     to modify its orbital assignments as specified in Appendix A, Table
     3 and in accordance with the technical specifications set forth in
     its system application and this Order.

158. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the authorizations herein shall be
     effective upon the date in which INTELSAT transfers its satellites
     and associated assets to Intelsat LLC and INTELSAT's ITU network
     filings, for the orbital locations associated with the operation of
     its satellites, are transferred on a permanent basis to the United
     States national registry, subject to the paragraph below.

159. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that any of the orbital
     locations identified in Appendix A are no longer assigned for use
     by Intelsat LLC or its successors, such orbital locations shall be
     cancelled in accordance with procedures of the International
     Telecommunication Union.

160. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the authorizations granted herein upon
     the condition that INTELSAT privatizes in a manner consistent with
     Sections 621 and 622 of the ORBIT Act.

161. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intelsat LLC shall file with the
     Commission 15 days after conclusion of the 25^th^ Assembly of
     Parties, supplemental information describing fully all aspects of
     the decision of the Assembly to privatize INTELSAT.

162. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intelsat LLC shall prepare the remaining
     information necessary for submission to the International
     Telecommunication Union, to the extent applicable, to initiate the
     advance publication, international coordination, and notification
     process, in accordance with the International Telecommunication
     Union Radio Regulations. No protection from interference caused by
     radio stations authorized by other Administrations is guaranteed
     unless coordination procedures are timely completed or, with
     respect to individual administrations, by successfully completing
     coordination agreements. Any radio stations authorization for which
     coordination has not been completed may be subject to additional
     terms and conditions as required to effect coordination of the
     frequency assignments of other Administrations, 47 C.F.R. §
     25.111(b).

163. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Deny or Defer filed by
     GE American Communications, Inc. IS DENIED.

164. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Deny filed by Japan
     Satellite Systems, Inc., IS DENIED.

165. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Deny in part or Defer
     filed by PanAmSat Corporation IS DENIED.

166. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intelsat LLC shall not permit any earth
     station in the United States and its possessions to operate with
     the INTELSAT 805 satellite in the frequency band 3.42 GHz to 3.6
     GHz.

167. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intelsat LLC shall coordinate its future
     operations in the frequency bands 3.6-3.65 GHz and 5.850-5.925 GHz,
     in accordance with footnote US245, with the U.S. government in
     order to minimize the potential for interference between U.S.
     government radiolocation systems and Intelsat LLC operations.

168. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intelsat LLC operations in the
     13.75-14.00 GHz frequency band shall be in accordance with
     footnotes S5.502 (WRC-97), S5.503 (WRC-97), and S5.503A (WRC-97) to
     the ITU Radio Regulations.

169. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to footnote US337 to 47 C.F.R.
     § 2.106, Intelsat LLC shall coordinate operations in the
     13.75-13.80 GHz frequency band through NTIA's Interdepartment Radio
     Advisory Committee's Frequency Assignment Subcommittee to minimize
     interference to the forward space-to-space link of the National
     Aeronautics and Space Administration's Tracking and Data Relay
     Satellite System.

170. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that transmissions from Intelsat LLC space
     stations in the 10.95-11.20 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz frequency bands
     shall be limited to the provision of Fixed-Satellite Service
     between the United States and international points, in accordance
     with NG104 or our rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

171. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intelsat LLC shall comply with the
     applicable laws, regulations, rules, and licensing procedures in
     those countries in which it provides service.

172. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, subject to Section 648 of the ORBIT
     Act, Intelsat LLC shall not acquire or enjoy the exclusive right of
     handling telecommunications to or from the United States, its
     territories or Possessions, and any other country or territory by
     reason of any concession, contract, understanding or working
     arrangement to which the satellite operator or any persons or
     companies controlling or controlled by the operator or parties.

173. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither this authorization, nor any
     right granted by this authorization, shall be transferred to any
     person except upon application to the Commission and upon a finding
     by the Commission that the public interest, convenience, and
     necessity will be served thereby.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**[Table 1]{.underline}**

**[17 Currently Operating Satellites]{.underline}**

  -------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  **Satellite**        **August/2000**

  511                  29.5º W.L. (330.5º E.L.)

  601                  34.5º W.L. (325.5º E.L.)

  602                  62.0º E.L.

  603                  24.5º W.L. (335.5º E.L.)

  604                  60.0º E.L

  605                  27.5º W.L. (332.5º E.L.)

  701                  180.0º E.L.

  702                  177.0º E.L.

  704                  66.0º E.L.

  705                  18.0º W.L. (342.0º E.L.)

  706                  53.0º W.L. (307.0º E.L.)

  707                  1.0º W.L. (359.0º E.L.)

  709                  50.0º W.L. (310.0º E.L.)

  801                  31.5º W.L. (328.5º E.L.)

  802                  174.0º E.L.

  804                  64.0º E.L.

  805                  55.5º W.L. (304 .5º E.L.)
  -------------------- --------------------------------------------------

**[Table 2]{.underline}**

**[10 Planned Satellites]{.underline}**

  --------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------
  **Satellite**   **Location**                  **Operational Date**

  901             62.0º E.L.                    August 31, 2001

  902             60.0º E.L.                    August 31, 2001

  903             24.5º W.L. (335.5º E.L.)      November 30, 2001

  904             34.5º W.L. (325.5º E.L.)      February 28, 2002

  905             27.5º W.L. (332.5º E.L.)      August 31, 2002

  906             18.0º W.L. (342.0º E.L.)      November 30, 2002

  907             31.5º W.L. (328.5º E.L.)      February 28, 2003

  A-1             50.0º W.L. (310.0º E.L.)      May 31, 2003

  A-2             1.0º W.L. (359.0º E.L.)       November 30, 2003

  B-1             85.0º E.L.                    August 31, 2003
  --------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------

**APPENDIX A**

**[Table 3]{.underline}**

**[13 Orbit Reassignment Modifications]{.underline}**

+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| *    | *              | **First        | *      | *       | *       |
| *Sat | *August/2000** | Modification   | *First | *Second | *Second |
| elli |                | Location**     | Mod**  | Mod**   | Mod**   |
| te** |                |                |        |         |         |
|      |                |                | **M    | **Loc   | **      |
|      |                |                | onth** | ation** | Month** |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 601  | 34.5º W.L.\    | 85º E.L.       | 1      |         |         |
|      | (325.5º E.L.)  |                | 0/2001 |         |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 602  | 62.0º E.L.     | 178º E.L.      | 4/2001 | 157º    | 8/2002  |
|      |                |                |        | E.L.    |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 603  | 24.5º W.L.\    | 62º E.L.       | 8/2001 |         |         |
|      | (335.5º E.L.)  |                |        |         |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 604  | 60.0º E.L      | 33º E.L.       | 5/2001 | 62º     | 9/2003  |
|      |                |                |        | E.L.    |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 605  | 27.5º W.L.\    | 20º W.L.\      | 1/2002 |         |         |
|      | (332.5º E.L.)  | (340º E.L.)    |        |         |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 702  | 177.0º E.L.    | 176º E.L.      | 1      |         |         |
|      |                |                | 0/2000 |         |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 704  | 66.0º E.L      | 33º E.L.       | 8/2003 |         |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 705  | 18.0º W.L.\    | 178º E.L.      | 7/2002 |         |         |
|      | (342.0º E.L.)  |                |        |         |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 707  | 1.0º W.L.\     | 66º E.L.       | 7/2003 |         |         |
|      | (359.0º E.L.)  |                |        |         |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 709  | 50.0º W.L.\    | 157º E.L.      | 4/2003 |         |         |
|      | (310.0º E.L.)  |                |        |         |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+
| 801  | 31.5º W.L.\    | 29.5º W.L.\    | 1      |         |         |
|      | (328.5º E.L.)  | (330.5º E.L.)  | 0/2002 |         |         |
+------+----------------+----------------+--------+---------+---------+

**APPENDIX B**

**INTELSAT Signatories (S) and Investing Entities (IE)**

**Names and investment share amounts,**

**following the annual determination of investment shares on 1 March
2000**

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Country         Signatory (S) / Investing Entity (IE)        Investment   WTO
                                                               Share (%)    Member
  --------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------ --------
  Afghanistan     Ministry of Communications of the Islamic    0.050000     No
                  State of Afghanistan (S)                                  

  Algeria         Government of the Democratic and Popular     0.361785     No
                  Republic of Algeria (S)                                   

  Angola          Empresa de Telecomunicações de Angola,       0.228888     Yes
                  Angola Telecom, E.P. (S)                                  

  Argentina       Total Country                                3.240205     Yes

                  Secretaría de Comunicaciones (S)             0.050000     

                  Advance Telecom (IE)                         0.090385     

                  Comsat Argentina (IE)                        1.071186     

                  GTECH Argentina S.A. (IE)                    0.013110     

                  Impsat S.A. (IE)                             0.428431     

                  Kavulakian Comunicaciones S.A. (IE)          0.000000     

                  Pramer S.C.A. (IE)                           0.008833     

                  Servicios Para El Transporte De Informacion  0.012711     
                  S.A. (SPTI) (IE)                                          

                  Servicios Satelitales S.A. (SERSAT) (IE)     0.000474     

                  Tecoar S.A. (IE)                             0.155282     

                  Telecom Soluciones S.A. (IE)                 0.156658     

                  Telefonica de Argentina (IE)                 0.122145     

                  Tiba, S.A. (IE)                              1.116522     

                  Wold Internacional, S.A. (IE)                0.014468     

  Armenia         Ministry of Telecommunications (S)           0.050000     No

  Australia       Telstra Corporation Limited (S)              2.534281     Yes

  Austria         Telekom Austria Aktiengesellschaft (S)       0.213868     Yes

  Azerbaijan      Ministry of Communication of Azerbaijan      0.050000     No
                  Republic (S)                                              

  Bahamas         The Bahamas Telecommunication Corporation    0.118957     No
                  (BATELCO) (S)                                             

  Bahrain         Bahrain Telecommunications Company (BATELCO) 0.373412     Yes
                  (S)                                                       

  Bangladesh      Telegraph and Telephone Board of Bangladesh  0.234820     Yes
                  (S)                                                       

  Barbados        Cable & Wireless BET Limited (S)             0.089269     Yes

  Belgium         BELGACOM (S)                                 0.238965     Yes

  Benin           Office des Postes et Télécommunications de   0.057417     Yes
                  la République du Bénin (S)                                

  Bhutan          Department of Telecommunications, Ministry   0.050000     No
                  of Communications (S)                                     

  Bolivia         Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones       0.255617     Yes
                  (ENTEL) (S)                                               

  Bosnia and      Public Enterprise PTT Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.051692     No
  Herzegovina     (S)                                                       

  Botswana        Botswana Telecommunications Corporation (S)  0.050000     Yes

  Brazil          Total Country                                2.104549     Yes

                  Empresa Brasileira de Telecomunicações S.A.  2.104549     
                  (EMBRATEL) (S)                                            

                  Impsat Brazil (IE)                           0.000000     

                  Linksat Sistemas de Co. (IE)                 0.000000     

                  Tectelcom Brazil (IE)                        0.000000     

  Brunei          Department of Telecommunications, Ministry   0.249352     Yes
  Darussalam      of Communications (S)                                     

  Bulgaria        Bulgarian Telecommunications Company Ltd.    0.050000     Yes
                  (BTC) (S)                                                 

  Burkina Faso    Office National des Télécommunications       0.051437     Yes
                  (ONATEL) (S)                                              

  Cameroon        Cameroon Telecommunications (CAMTEL) \*(S)   0.153313     Yes

  Canada          Teleglobe Canada Inc. (S)                    3.058182     Yes

  Cape Verde,     Cabo Verde Telecom, SARL (S)                 0.050000     No
  Rep. Of                                                                   

  Central Africa  Government of the Central African Republic   0.060000     Yes
  Republic        (S)                                                       

  Chad            Société des Télécommunications               0.050000     Yes
                  Internationales du Tchad (T.I.T.) (S)                     

  Chile           Total Country                                0.741694     Yes

                  Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones S.A.  0.646702     
                  (ENTEL) (S)                                               

                  Bellsouth Chile S.A.(IE)                     0.029454     

                  Chilesat (IE)                                0.000000     

                  CTC Mundo S.A. (IE)                          0.057758     

                  Firstcom Long Distance (IE)                  0.007780     

  China, People's Total Country                                2.347435     No
  Republic of                                                               

                  CHINA TELECOM (S)                            1.665799     

                  Cable & Wireless HKT (IE)                    0.681636     

  Colombia        Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones de    1.504048     Yes
                  Colombia (TELECOM)(S)                                     

  Comoros, Fed.   Office Nationale des Postes et               0.050000     No
  and Islamic     Télécommunications (S)                                    
  Rep. of                                                                   

  Congo, Dem.     Office Congolais des Postes et               0.151737     Yes
  Rep. of         Télécommunications (OCPT) (S)                             

  Congo, Rep. of  Government of the Republic of Congo (S)      0.050000     Yes

  Costa Rica      Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (S)  0.099994     Yes

  Côte D'Ivoire   Total Country                                0.198319     Yes

                  Agence des Télécommunications de Côte        0.198319     
                  d'Ivoire (ATCI)(S)                                        

                  CI-Telecom (IE)                              0.000000     

  Croatia         Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and  0.060009     No
                  Communications (S)                                        

  Cyprus          Cyprus Telecommunications Authority (S)      0.066005     Yes

  Czech Republic  CESKÉ RADIOKOMUNIKACE A.S. (S)               0.100874     Yes

  Denmark         Total Country                                0.427331     Yes

                  Tele Danmark A/S (S)                         0.197248     

                  TELE Greenland (IE)                          0.230083     

  Dominican       Compañía Dominicana de Teléfonos, C. por A.  0.286305     Yes
  Republic        (S)                                                       

  Ecuador         Total Country                                0.230238     Yes

                  Consejo Nacional de Telecomunicaciones       0.000000     
                  (CONATEL) (S)                                             

                  Andinatel S.A. (IE)                          0.152229     

                  E.T.A.P.A. (IE)                              0.000000     

                  Impsatel de Ecuador (IE)                     0.000000     

                  Occidental Exploration (IE)                  0.000000     

                  Pacifictel S.A. (IE)                         0.078009     

                  Radio HCJB (IE)                              0.000000     

  Egypt           TELECOM EGYPT (S)                            0.482729     Yes

  El Salvador                                                  0.059133     Yes

                  Compañía de Telecomunicaciones de El Salvado 0.059133     
                  S.A. de C.V. (CTE, S.A. de C.V.) (S)                      

                  Americatel El Salvador, S.A. (IE)            0.000000     

                  Telefonical De El Salvador (IE)              0.000000     

  Equatorial      Ministry of Transportation and               0.050000     No
  Guinea          Communications of the Republic of Equatorial              
                  Guinea (S)                                                

  Ethiopia        Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation (S)  0.138477     No

  Fiji            Fiji International Telecommunications        0.069126     Yes
                  Limited (FINTEL) (S)                                      

  Finland         SONORA Limited (S)                           0.072651     Yes

  France          Total Country                                2.319689     Yes

                  FRANCE TELECOM (S)                           2.230384     

                  Afripa Telecom (IE)                          0.000001     

                  Belgacom Teleport S.A. (IE)                  0.000000     

                  Gensat (France) (IE)                         0.000001     

                  Informatique Telematique SA, I & T (IE)      0.001846     

                  Mensat Service (IE)                          0.000001     

                  Offices des Postes et Télécommunications de  0.087455     
                  Polynesie Francaise (IE)                                  

                  Protel (IE)                                  0.000001     

  Gabon           Office des Postes et Télécommunications (S)  0.085697     Yes

  Germany         Deutsche Telekom AG (S)                      3.450000     Yes

  Ghana           Total Country                                0.222302     Yes

                  Ghana Telecommunications Company Limited (S) 0.209056     

                  Western Telesystems (Ghana) Ltd              0.013246     

  Greece          Hellenic Telecommunications Organization     0.312210     Yes
                  S.A. (OTE) (S)                                            

  Guatemala       Telecomunicaciones de Guatemala S.A. (S)     0.279568     Yes

  Guinea          Total Country                                0.067763     Yes

                  Ministère des Postes et Télécommunications   0.057570     

                  Sotelgui                                     0.010193     

  Haiti           Total Country                                0.088148     Yes

                  Conseil National des Télécommunications      0.000000     
                  (CONATEL) (S)                                             

                  Haitel S.A. (IE)                             0.006586     

                  Telecom Haiti (IE)                           0.081562     

  Honduras        Total Country                                0.050000     Yes

                  Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones      0.000000     
                  (CONATEL) (S)                                             

                  Empresa Hondurena de Telecomunicaciones      0.050000     
                  (HONDUTEL) (IE)                                           

  Hungary         Hungarian Satellite Communications           0.108716     Yes
                  Associations (HUNSAT) (S)                                 

  Iceland         Iceland Telecom Ltd. (S)                     0.131691     Yes

  India           Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (S)             5.233549     Yes

  Indonesia       PT INDOSAT (S)                               0.576327     Yes

  Iran, Islamic   Telecommunication Company of Iran (S)        1.464398     No
  Republic of                                                               

  Iraq            Government of the Republic of Iraq (S)       0.211100     No

  Ireland         Total County                                 0.131217     Yes

                  Bord Telecom Eireann plc (S)                 0.038795     

                  Radio Telefis Eireann (IE)                   0.092422     

  Israel          "BEZEQ" The Israel Telecommunication Corp.   0.973546     Yes
                  Ltd. (S)                                                  

  Italy           Telecom Italia S.p.A. (S)                    3.382934     Yes

  Jamaica         Cable & Wireless Jamaica Limited\* (S)       0.221626     Yes

  Japan           KDD Corporation (S)                          1.427487     Yes

  Jordan          Total Country                                0.250000     No

                  Ministry of Post & Communications (S)        0.050000     

                  Jordan Telecom (IE)                          0.200000     

  Kazakhstan      Total Country                                0.180171     No

                  Ministry of Transportation and Communication 0.000000     
                  of the Republic of Kazakhstan (S)                         

                  Inkatel (IE)                                 0.000000     

                  JSC TNS-Plus (IE)                            0.180171     

                  Kazakh Telecom (IE)                          0.000000     

                  Kazinform Telecom (IE)                       0.000000     

                  Rahat Telecom (IE)                           0.000000     

  Kenya           Kenya Posts and Telecommunications           0.324625     Yes
                  Corporation (S)\*                                         

  Korea, Rep. of  Korea Telecom (S)                            1.341693     Yes

  Kuwait          The Ministry of Communications, The State of 0.778646     Yes
                  Kuwait (S)                                                

  Kyrgyzstan      Ministry of Transport and Communications (S) 0.050000     Yes

  Lebanon         Government of Lebanon (S)                    0.169091     No

  Libyan Arab     Government of the Great Socialist People's   0.314050     No
  Jamahiriya      Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (S)                                

  Liechtenstein   Government of the Principality of            0.050000     Yes
                  Liechtenstein (S)                                         

  Luxembourg      Government of Luxembourg (S)                 0.050000     Yes

  Madagascar      Total Country                                0.083228     Yes

                  TELECOM MALAGASY S.A. (S)                    0.083228     

                  Digital Telecommunications Inc. (IE)         0.000000     

  Malawi          Malawi Posts and Telecommunications          0.058984     Yes
                  Corporation\* (S)                                         

  Malaysia        Telekom Malaysia Berhad\* (S)                0.741817     Yes

  Mali            Société des Télécommunications               0.099994     Yes
                  Internationales du Mali (SOTELMA) (S)                     

  Malta           MALTACOM p.l.c. (S)                          0.068271     Yes

  Mauritania      Government of the Islamic Republic of        0.053154     Yes
                  Mauritania (S)                                            

  Mauritius       Mauritius Telecom Limited (S)                0.170000     Yes

  Mexico          TELECOMICACIONES DE MEXICO (TELECOMM) (S)    0.328050     Yes

  Micronesia      Federated States of Micronesia               0.050000     No
                  Telecommunications Corporation (S)                        

  Monaco          MONACO TELECOMS.A.M. (S)                     0.104666     No

  Mongolia        Mongolia Telecom (S)                         0.050000     Yes

  Morocco         Itissalat Al Maghrib S.A.                    0.163135     Yes

  Mozambique      Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicações de      0.155039     Yes
                  Moçambique (S)                                            

  Namibia         Telecom Namibia (Ltd.) (S)                   0.050000     Yes

  Nepal           Nepal Telecommunications Corporation (S)     0.072692     No

  Netherlands     Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV (KPN) (S)       1.217503     Yes

  New Zealand     Total Country                                0.495658     Yes

                  Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd. (S)  0.493608     

                  Gennet Services Ltd. (IE)                    0.000000     

                  Television New Zealand Ltd. (IE)             0.002050     

  Nicaragua       Instituto Nicaragüense de Telecomunicaciones 0.053805     Yes
                  y Correos (TELCOR) (S)                                    

  Niger           Government of the Republic of Niger (S)      0.073926     Yes

  Nigeria         Nigerian Telecommunications Limited (NITEL)  0.600000     Yes
                  (S)                                                       

  Norway          Total Country                                4.478431     Yes

                  Telenor Satellite Services AS (S)            4.478431     

                  Norse Electronics AS (IE)                    0.000000     

  Oman            General Telecommunications Organization      0.216711     No
                  (GTO) (S)                                                 

  Pakistan        Government of the Islamic Republic of        0.675645     Yes
                  Pakistan (S)                                              

  Panama          C&W Panamá S.A. (S)                          0.377174     Yes

  Papua New       Telikom PNG Limited (S)                      0.067592     Yes
  Guinea                                                                    

  Paraguay        Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones      0.151229     Yes
                  (CONATEL) (S)                                             

  Peru            Total Country                                0.986851     Yes

                  Ministry of Transportation, Communications,  0.000000     
                  Housing and Construction (S)                              

                  Panamericana Television S.A. (IE)            0.000000     

                  Radio A Frecurencia Modulada Sa (IE)         0.000000     

                  Radio Sabor Mix Sa (IE)                      0.000000     

                  Radio San Luis Sri (IE)                      0.000000     

                  Studio Stereo (IE)                           0.000000     

                  Telefonica del Peru (IE)                     0.986851     

  Philippines     Philippine Communications Satellite          0.279385     Yes
                  Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) (S)                              

  Poland          The Polish Telecommunications Company (S)    0.259876     Yes

  Portugal        Companhia Portuguesa Rádio Marconi (S)       0.874788     Yes

  Qatar           Qatar Telecom Q.S.C. (Q-TEL)\* (S)           0.228110     Yes

  Romania         Societatea Nationala de Radiocomicatii S.A.  0.153436     Yes
                  (S)                                                       

  Russian         Total Country                                0.201684     No
  Federation                                                                

                  The State Committee for Telecommunications   0.201684     
                  of the Russian Federation\* (S)                           

                  Central Bank of Russia (IE)                  0.000000     

                  JSC Teleport (IE)                            0.000000     

                  Russian Satellite Communication (IE)         0.000000     

  Rwanda          RWANDATEL S.A.\* (S)                         0.050000     Yes

  Saudi Arabia    Saudi Telecom Company (S)                    0.925892     No

  Senegal         Sonatel (S)                                  0.228789     Yes

  Singapore       Total Country                                0.992468     Yes

                  Singapore Telecommunications Limited (S)     0.992424     

                  St Teleport Pte Ltd. (IE)                    0.000044     

  Somalia         Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of  0.050000     No
                  the Somali Democratic Republic (S)                        

  South Africa    TELKOM SA Limited (S)                        1.161013     Yes

  Spain           Telefónica de España, S.A.                   0.815864     Yes

  Sri Lanka       Total Country                                0.257268     Yes

                  Sri Lanka Telecom\* (IE)                     0.257035     

                  M-S Electroteks Ltd. (IE)                    0.000233     

  Sudan           Government of the Republic of the Sudan (S)  0.093878     No

  Swaziland       Posts and Telecommunications Corporation     0.050000     Yes
                  (Public) (S)                                              

  Sweden          Total Country                                0.430455     Yes

                  Telia AB (S)                                 0.429851     

                  Nordiska Tele8 AB (IE)                       0.000603     

                  TELE2 AB (IE)                                0.000001     

  Switzerland     Swisscom AG\* (S)                            1.075870     Yes

  Syrian Arab     Government of the Syrian Arab Republic       0.140168     No
  Republic                                                                  

  Tajikistan      Ministry of Communications, Public (S)       0.050000     No

  Tanzania        Total Country                                0.130000     Yes

                  Tanzania Telecommunications Company Ltd. (S) 0.130000     

                  Zanzibar Telecom Ltd. (IE)                   0.000000     

  Thailand        Communications Authority of Thailand (S)     0.627591     Yes

  Togo            Société des Télécommunications du Togo (TOGO 0.087445     Yes
                  TELECOM) (S)                                              

  Trinidad &      Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and  0.067591     Yes
  Tobago          Tobago Limited (TSTT) (S)                                 

  Tunisia         Ministère des Transport et des               0.050000     Yes
                  Communications (S)                                        

  Turkey          Türk Telekomünikasyon A.S. (S)               1.505094     Yes

  Uganda          Total Country                                0.050000     Yes

                  Uganda Communications Commission (S)         0.050000     

                  Mtn Uganda Ltd. (IE)                         0.000000     

                  Uganda Telecom Ltd. (IE)                     0.000000     

  United Arab     Ministry of Communications of the Government 1.091369     Yes
  Emirates        of the United Arab Emirates (S)                           

  United Kingdom  Total Country                                8.310633     Yes

                  British Telecommunications plc (S)           5.185172     

                  Cable & Wireless PLC (IE)                    1.472973     

                  Cable and Wireless Communications PLC (IE)   0.383006     

                  Caprock UK LTD. (IE)                         0.000001     

                  Comsat General (UK) (IE)                     1.037407     

                  Comsat International Ventures (IE)           0.000001     

                  Datasat Comm. (IE)                           0.051954     

                  Data Marine Systems Ltd. (IE)                0.004906     

                  Detesat Deutsche Telekom (IE)                0.005459     

                  Globecast Northern Europe Ltd. (IE)          0.018601     

                  Kingston TLI (IE)                            0.057930     

                  Loral Orion (IE)                             0.000001     

                  Loral Orion Europe GmbH (IE)                 0.000000     

                  Lyman Brothers (IE)                          0.000000     

                  Muslim Television (IE)                       0.000001     

                  Multipoint Communications Ltd. (IE)          0.000001     

                  Natl Transcom. Ltd. (IE)                     0.000001     

                  Newsforce (IE)                               0.017403     

                  Primus telecommunications UK Ltd             0.000001     

                  Radio Telefis Eirean (UK)                    0.000001     

                  RedWing Satellite Solutions Ltd. (IE)        0.019803     

                  Satellite Media Services (IE)                0.003242     

                  Spaceline Communications Services (UK) (IE)  0.000001     

                  Spacelink Int'l Ltd. (IE)                    0.046682     

                  Spacetel International UK (IE)               0.006084     

                  TeleBermuda International Ltd. (IE)          0.000000     

                  Teleglobe - Canada (IE)                      0.000001     

                  Williams Communication Group (IE)            0.000001     

  United States   COMSAT Corporation (S)                       20.424065    Yes

  Uruguay         Administración Naçional de                   0.052693     Yes
                  Telecomuniçaciones (S)                                    

  Uzbekistan      Posts and Telecommunications Agency of       0.050000     No
                  Uzbekistan (S)                                            

  Vatican City    Government of the Vatican City State (S)     0.060009     No
  State                                                                     

  Venezuela       Venezuelan Telephone Company (Compañia       1.427508     Yes
                  Anónima Nacional Teléfonos de Venezuela) (S)              

  Viet Nam        Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications         0.315446     No
                  Corporation (S)                                           

  Yemen           Government of the Republic of Yemen (S)      0.086106     No

  Yugoslavia      Community of the Yugoslav Posts, Telegraphs  0.060009     No
                  and Telephones                                            

  Zambia          Zambia Telecommunications Company Limited    0.083584     Yes
                  (S)                                                       

  Zimbabwe        Government of Zimbabwe (S)                   0.050000     Yes
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"\*" denotes new names for Signatories or investing entities for which
formal diplomatic notifications have not yet been completed.

**APPENDIX C**

Part 25 Waivers Granted to the Particular Satellites

  --------------------------- ----------- ----------- -------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- -----------
  [Satellites/\               140(b)(2)   202(a)(1)   202(g)   210(a)(1)   210(c)   210(i)   211(a)   210(j)(1)   210(g)(1)
  Location]{.underline}                                        &\                                                 
                                                               210(a)(3)                                          

  [OPERATING]{.underline}                                                                                         

  511/330.5E                  X                       X        X           X        X        X        X           

  601/325.5E                  X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  602/62E                     X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  603/335.5E                  X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  604/60E                     X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  605/332.5E                  X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  701/180E                    X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  702/177E                    X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  704/66E                     X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  705/342E                    X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  706/307E                    X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  707/359E                    X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  709/310E                    X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  801/328.5E                  X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  802/174E                    X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  804/64E                     X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  805/304.5E                  X           X           X        X\*                  X        X                    X

  **[PLANNED]{.underline}**                                                                                       

  **901/62E**                 X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  **902/60E**                 X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  **903/335.5E**              X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  **904/325.5E**              X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  **905/332.5E**              X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  **906/342E**                X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  **907/328.5E**              X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  **NI-Alpha 1/310E**         X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  **NI-Alpha 2/359E**         X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  **NI-Beta/85E**             X                       X                             X                             

  **[MODS]{.underline}**                                                                                          

  *601/85E*                   X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  *602/178E*                  X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  *602/157E*                  X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  *603/62E*                   X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  *604/33E*                   X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  *604/62E*                   X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  *605/340E*                  X                       X        X           X        X        X                    

  *702/176E*                  X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  *704/33E*                   X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  *705/178E*                  X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  *707/66E*                   X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  *709/157E*                  X                       X        X                    X        X                    

  *801/330.5E*                X                       X        X                    X        X                    
  --------------------------- ----------- ----------- -------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- -----------

**"X" denotes a granted waiver "\*" 805 receives a waiver for 210(a)(3)
but not 210(a)(1).**

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN WILLIAM E. KENNARD**

The approval of Intelsat LLC's licenses is an important step in
promoting competition for the benefit of consumers.

Congress, the Administration and this Commission have long viewed the
privatization of INTELSAT as necessary for achieving competition in
satellite communications. Through this action, we are implementing the
recently-enacted ORBIT Act, which establishes a framework for U.S.
satellite policy. Authorizing Intelsat LLC to become an FCC licensee
should provide a strong impetus to the international negotiations that
are now taking place to privatize INTELSAT next year. Today's action
also should demonstrate to other countries in those negotiations that
U.S. policies and procedures are fair and transparent, and that the
Commission issues licenses with the goal of promoting competition.

This action also provides the opportunity to pursue one of the goals I
feel most strongly about - expanding access in developing countries.
Many countries rely on INTELSAT as the primary, if not only, means of
connecting to the rest of the world. Maintaining global connectivity is
essential to the economies of those countries as they seek to expand
their telecom infrastructures. The licenses that we issue today permit
INTELSAT to continue to undertake its obligation to provide lifeline
connectivity services. In addition, FCC licensing of Intelsat LLC allows
the Commission to work more closely with INTELSAT to support our common
goals to support expanded access to thin route countries. I am deeply
and personally committed to ensuring that the needs of INTELSAT's
lifeline users are met and look forward to working with INTELSAT towards
that goal in the future.

Finally, we have before us a unique situation: the authorization of the
already operating system of an intergovernmental organization that is
undergoing privatization. This system has never been subject to a
national licensing regime. In this respect, we are rejecting the demands
of those who believe we should not take steps to accommodate this
transition. Our failure to take these steps would have resulted in added
costs and service delays that would weaken INTELSAT both as a competitor
and provider of access to the developing world.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH**

**APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART**

I generally support today's decision that paves the way for Intelsat's
privatization and potential licensing in the United States. Despite my
support for these public policy objectives, I write separately to
express my continued concern about the Commission's practice of
regulating licensees (or in this case a potential licensee) on a
company-specific basis.[^366] Today's Order grants no less than 10 types
of waivers ultimately applying to 22 Intelsat LLC satellites. Although I
am not convinced that all of these waivers are necessary, I am most
concerned about the ad hoc public policy process that produced them.

In the past, license transfer proceedings have all too often involved
the Commission imposing conditions that have handicapped one company
relative to others in an industry. In these instances, license transfers
have led to industrial policy\--different rules applying to different
companies within the same industry\--to the detriment of one company. In
this proceeding, the Commission chooses to waive certain rules for one
company that apply to other companies. Again, we have industrial
policy\--different rules applying to different companies within the same
industry\--to the benefit of one company. Industrial policy that favors
one company is no more to be applauded than industrial policy that
disfavors one company.

If our technical rules are too stringent, we should change them. Indeed,
I have long supported a more flexible approach to our technical rules
and interference concerns generally.[^367] However, a company-specific
proceeding is not the ideal forum for such increased flexibility. Once
again, members of the public looking to discover the technical rules
applicable to one of our licensees will find no relevant information in
the CFR. Once again, we will be faced with the prospect of a series of
"me too" waivers. The better course is to conduct industry-wide
rulemakings to modify our rules to more accurately reflect the state of
the industry and technology. I look forward to such a proceeding here to
bring our rules into conformity with our more flexible Intelsat
regulatory approach.

[^1]: The Intelsat LLC application was filed on January 18, 2000.

[^2]: For purposes of this proceeding, the C-band encompasses the
    3.420-4.200 GHz and 5.850-6.650 GHz frequency bands. The Ku-band
    encompasses the 10.950-11.200 GHz, 11.450-12.200 GHz, 12.500-12.750
    GHz, and 13.750-14.500 GHz frequency bands. In referring to the
    C-band and Ku-band in the United States, the frequency bands
    3.700-4.200 GHz, 5.925-6.425 GHz, 11.7-12.2 GHz, and 14.0-14.5 GHz
    are considered the "conventional" C-band and Ku-band. The remaining
    frequency bands -- 3.420-3.700 GHz, 5.850-5.925 GHz, 6.425-6.650
    GHz, 10.95-11.20 GHz, 11.45-11.70 GHz, and 13.75-14.00 GHz -- are
    considered the "extended" C-band and Ku-band and are either not
    allocated or are shared with other services in the United States,
    including the Federal Government, and subject to special conditions
    when used for the fixed-satellite service ("FSS").

[^3]: INTELSAT Assembly of Parties, Record of Decisions of the
    Twenty-Fourth Meeting, AP 24-3E Final August 10, 1999 (Penang,
    Malaysia, October 26-29, 1999) ("1999 Assembly Decision").

[^4]: *See Amendment to the Commission's Regulatory Policies Governing
    Domestic Fixed-Satellites and Separate International Satellite
    Systems*, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2429, 2420 (1996) ("*DISCO I
    decision*") (allowing all U.S.-licensed satellites in the
    fixed-satellite service to provide both domestic and international
    services).

[^5]: *See* Amendment *of the Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow
    Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic and
    International Satellite Services in the United States,* Report and
    Order, 12 FCC Rcd 24094, 24112 (1997) ("*DISCO II decision*"),
    petitions for reconsideration pending, petition for review pending
    *sub nom.* *Comsat Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission,* Case
    No. 1011 (D.C. Cir.). *See also*, *e.g.,* Open-Market Reorganization
    for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act, Pub. L.
    106-180, 114 Stat. 48 (2000) ("ORBIT Act").

[^6]: *See* Agreement Relating to the International Telecommunications
    Satellite Organization, "INTELSAT," 23 U.S.T. 3813; TIAS No. 7532,
    (February 12, 1973) ("INTELSAT Agreement"). *See also* Operating
    Agreement Relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite
    Organization, "INTELSAT," 23 U.S.T. 4091, (August 20, 1971)
    ("INTELSAT Operating Agreement").

[^7]: Communications Satellite Act of 1962, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 701
    *et. seq.*.

[^8]: *Id.* §§ 701 (a) and (b).

[^9]: *See Comsat Study*, 77 FCC 2d 564, 582-599 (1980).

[^10]: *See Policy for the Distribution of United States International
    Carrier Circuits Among Available Facilities during the Post-1988
    Period*, 3 FCC Rcd 2156 (1988) ("*Circuit Distribution decision*").

[^11]: *See Separate Satellite Systems decision*, 101 FCC 2d 1046
    (1985), imposing restrictions on coverage of Public Switched Network
    (PSN) traffic by competing private satellite systems; *on recon*.,
    61 RR 649 (1986); *further recon*., 1 FCC 2d 439 (1986) ("*Separate
    Satellite Systems decision*").

[^12]: *See Comsat Corporation*, Order and Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 14083 (1998) ("*Comsat Non-Dominant Order and
    NPRM*").

[^13]: INTELSAT and its Signatories, including Comsat, enjoy three
    categories of immunities: immunity from jurisdiction, which prevents
    courts from considering lawsuits of any type against INTELSAT;
    archival and testimonial immunity, which protects INTELSAT from
    being compelled to provide documents or testimony of its employees;
    and immunity of assets, which prevents courts from enforcing
    monetary judgements against INTELSAT. *See Comsat Non-Dominant
    Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 14161-14163; *DISCO II decision,* 2 FCC Rcd at
    24149. *See also* Headquarters Agreement between the Government of
    the United States of America and the International
    Telecommunications Satellite Organization, effective November 24,
    1976 ("Headquarters Agreement") that provides that INTELSAT and the
    representatives of the parties and of the Signatories shall be
    immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by
    them in their official capacity and falling within their functions,
    except as such immunity is waived by INTELSAT.

[^14]: 1999 Assembly Decision, AP 24-24-3E Final.

[^15]: Intelsat LLC Application for C-Band and Ku-Band Global Satellite
    System Volume I at 5-6, January 18, 2000 ("Intelsat LLC Application"
    Vol. I).

[^16]: ORBIT Act, Pub. L. 106-180, 114 Stat. 48.

[^17]: Pub. L. 106-180, § 2.

[^18]: *Id.* at § 621(1).

[^19]: *Id.* at §§ 621 and 622.

[^20]: *Id.* at § 601(b).

[^21]: *Id*.

[^22]: *Id.* The ORBIT Act states that "non-core" INTELSAT services are
    services other than public switched network voice telephony and
    occasional use television services. Pub. L. 106-180 at 681(ll).

[^23]: *Id.*at § 601(b).

[^24]: *Id*. This refers to the U.S. commitments under the World Trade
    Organization ("WTO") Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services
    ("WTO Basic Telecom Agreement").

[^25]: *See* Intelsat LLC Application Vol. II, Annex 1 at 61.

[^26]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 7.

[^27]: *Id.* at 7.

[^28]: *Id.* at 8.

[^29]: *Id.* at 10.

[^30]: *Id.*

[^31]: *Id.* at 14. Intelsat LLC states that it has no current plans to
    provide common carrier services in the United States and will seek
    Section 214 authority if it decides to offer such services.

[^32]: *Id.* at 19-21.

[^33]: *Id.* at 59-61.

[^34]: *Id.* at 61-64.

[^35]: *Id.* at 64.

[^36]: *Id.* at 64-65.

[^37]: *Id.* at 66.

[^38]: *Id.* at 66-67.

[^39]: *Id.* at 67-68.

[^40]: *Id.* at 68.

[^41]: *Id.* at 68-69.

[^42]: Public Notice, DA No. 00-192 (February 2, 2000).

[^43]: Comments of Comsat Corporation (March 6, 2000) ("Comsat
    Comments") at 3; Comments of Lockheed Martin Corporation (March 6,
    2000) ("Lockheed Martin Comments") at 1; Comments of Loral Space and
    Communications Ltd. (March 6, 2000) ("Loral Comments") at 2;
    Response of Spacelink International (March 23, 2000) ("Spacelink
    Response") at 1.

[^44]: Lockheed Martin Comments at 4; Spacelink Response at 2.

[^45]: Lockheed Martin Comments at 3.

[^46]: Lockheed Martin Comments at 3; Loral Comments at 1-2; Spacelink
    Response at 7-8.

[^47]: Loral Comments at 1-2; Spacelink Response at 8-9.

[^48]: Response of Comsat Corporation (March 23, 2000) ("Comsat
    Response") at 10-18; Lockheed Martin Comments at 6; Loral Comments
    at 4; Spacelink Response at 5-6.

[^49]: Comsat Comments at 2; Lockheed Martin Comments at 5; Spacelink
    Response at 6-7.

[^50]: Comments of New Skies Satellites N.V. (March 6, 2000) ("New Skies
    Comments") at 2.

[^51]: *Id.*

[^52]: *Id.* at 4.

[^53]: *Id.* at 5.

[^54]: Japan Satellite Systems, Inc., Petition to Deny (March 6, 2000)
    ("JSAT Petition") at 2.

[^55]: *Id*.

[^56]: *Id.* at 6-7

[^57]: *Id.* at 7-8.

[^58]: PanAmsat Corporation Petition to Deny in Part or Defer (March 6,
    2000) ("PanAmSat Petition") at 4; Petition to Deny or Defer of GE
    American Communications, Inc. (March 6, 2000) ("GE Americom
    Petition") at 1; and Reply of GE American Communications, Inc.
    (March 23, 2000) ("GE Americom Response") at 1.

[^59]: PanAmSat Petition at 8-10 and Response of PanAmSat Corporation
    (March 23, 2000) ("PanAmSat Response") at 6-7; GE Americom Petition
    at 4 and GE Americom Response at 4.

[^60]: PanAmSat Response at 6-7; GE Americom Response at 4.

[^61]: PanAmSat Petition at 7-8 and PanAmSat Response at 7; GE Americom
    Petition at 5-8.

[^62]: PanAmSat Petition at 11-13 and PanAmSat Response at 10-13.

[^63]: PanAmSat Petition at 5 and 13-15 and PanAmSat Response at 18-21;
    GE Americom Petition at 12-18 and GE Americom Response at 8-12.

[^64]: PanAmSat Petition at 29-31 and PanAmSat Response at 20-22.

[^65]: PanAmSat Petition at 32; GE Americom Petition at 23 and GE
    Americom Response at 18.

[^66]: PanAmSat Petition at 18-26 and PanAmSat Response at 14-15; GE
    Americom Petition at 18-22 and GE Americom Response at 13-16.

[^67]: PanAmSat Petition at 18-29 and PanAmSat Response at 13-17; GE
    Americom Petition at 11 and 18-23 and GE Americom Response at 13-17.

[^68]: PanAmSat Response at 23; GE Americom Response at 19.

[^69]: Reply of Intelsat LLC to Comments and Opposition to Petitions to
    Deny (March 16, 2000) ("Intelsat LLC Reply") at 2-3.

[^70]: *Id.*

[^71]: *Id.* at 3-5.

[^72]: *Id.* at 7-10.

[^73]: *Id.* at 10-12.

[^74]: *Id.* 27-28.

[^75]: *Id.* 28-33.

[^76]: *Id.* 22-26.

[^77]: *Id.* at 15-17.

[^78]: *Id.* at 17.

[^79]: *Id.* at 13-15.

[^80]: *See Direct Access to the INTELSAT System,* Report and Order, 14
    FCC Rcd 15703, 15759 (1999) *("Direct Access decision*"), stating
    Commission support for privatization and citing the Statement of
    Administration Position by Ambassador Vonya B. McCann, United States
    Coordinator, International Communications and Information Policy,
    Department of State, before Senate Committee on Commerce, Science
    and Transportation, Subcommittee on Commerce, dated March 25, 1999.
    *See also In the Matter of New Skies Satellites, N.V. for
    Authorization to Access the U.S. Market*, Order and Authorization,
    14 FCC Rcd. 13003 (1999) *("New Skies decision"*).

[^81]: *See* Comsat Comments filed in the *Direct Access proceeding* and
    in the *Comsat Non-Dominant proceeding.*

[^82]: *Id.*

[^83]: *See* Joint letters from American Mobile Satellite Corporation,
    AT&T Corp., Columbia Communications Corporation, Ellipse, Inc.,
    General Electric Company, Hughes Electronics Corporation, Iridium
    LLC, Level 3 Communications, Inc., MCI Worldcom, PanAmSat
    Corporation, Sprint, and Teledesic Corporation to President Clinton,
    dated March 16, 2000, and to Representative Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
    dated February 28, 2000; Letter from the Telecommunications Industry
    Association (TIA) to President Clinton, dated March 6, 2000.

[^84]: *See* Letter from Robert W. Ross, CEO, New Skies Satellites N.V.,
    to Senator Conrad Burns and Representative Thomas J. Bliley, dated
    March 8, 2000; Letter from W. Allen Moore on behalf of Inmarsat
    Holdings Ltd., to President Clinton, dated March 1, 2000.

[^85]: *See* Comsat Comments at 1-5; GE Americom Petition at 3; Lockheed
    Martin Comments at 2 and 5; Loral Comments at 3; New Skies Comments
    at 2; PanAmSat Petition at 2; Spacelink Response at 6-8; JSAT
    Petition at 2.

[^86]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 15-22.

[^87]: Location and incorporation of the licensing company in the United
    States would not affect INTELSAT's flexibility in selecting
    jurisdictions for location and incorporation of the holding and
    service companies, either initially or at a later date, should it
    choose to relocate those companies.

[^88]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 21-22; Comsat Response at 5.

[^89]: 1999 Assembly Decision at 7 and 9; Intelsat LLC Reply at 2;
    Comsat Comments at 5.

[^90]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 7.

[^91]: *Id.*.

[^92]: *See DISCO II decision,* 12 FCC Rcd at 24149; *Comsat
    Non-Dominant Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 14161-14163; *Direct Access
    decision,* 14 FCC Rcd at 15746-15748.

[^93]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 5 and Intelsat Reply at 2.

[^94]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 31.

[^95]: *Id.* at 31-32.

[^96]: 1999 Assembly Decision at 8.

[^97]: *Id.* The Assembly stated that: "Before any final decision on
    selecting a jurisdiction for New INTELSAT is made, the Board of
    Governors must receive adequate assurances that the laws and
    regulations of the jurisdiction(s) ultimately selected for New
    INTELSAT will not impair New INTELSAT's ability to provide global
    connectivity and, in the case of the jurisdiction(s) for physical
    location, that New INTELSAT will be able to locate its staff and
    facilities within that jurisdiction(s)."

[^98]: The PWP recommended to the Assembly the following definitions:
    (1) "non-discriminatory access" would mean the provision of fair and
    equal opportunity to access the company's \[Intelsat LLC's\] system;
    (2) "global connectivity" would mean the interconnection
    capabilities available to the company's users through the global
    coverage the company provides to make communication possible within
    and between the five International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
    regions defined by the plenipotentiary conference of the ITU, held
    in Montreux in 1965; and (3) "global coverage" would mean the
    maximum geographic coverage of the earth toward the parallels of the
    northern and southern hemispheres from satellites deployed in
    geostationary orbital locations. *See Report of the Penang Working
    Party to the Twenty-fifth (Extraordinary) Assembly of Parties*.
    AP-25-7EW/11/00, June 27, 2000.

[^99]: *Id.* 8 and 10-12. The Assembly directed Intelsat LLC to extend
    lifeline connectivity protection to jurisdictions: (1) defined by
    the World Bank as "\[l\]ow income," or (2) possessing a teledensity
    of less than three as defined by the ITU; or (3) lacking any "cost
    effective alternative provider of equivalent service." *See also*
    Intelsat LLC Reply and Opposition at 30-31.

[^100]: Comsat Comments at 5.

[^101]: 1999 Assembly Decision, AP 24-3E Final at 2.

[^102]: *Id*.

[^103]: 47 U.S.C. § 701(a).

[^104]: 47 U.S.C. § 701(b).

[^105]: 47 U.S.C. § 701(c).

[^106]: Pub. L. 106-180 at 645(4).

[^107]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 7.

[^108]: INTELSAT thus would have the same prospects of replacing
    satellites at their end-of-life as any other U.S. licensee. The
    Commission has stated that if a location is available for assignment
    to another U.S. satellite with the technical characteristics of the
    proposed replacement, we will generally authorize the replacement
    satellite at the same location. *See, e.g., In The Matter of
    Assignment of Orbital Locations To Space Stations in the Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite Service and the Application of GE American
    Communications, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd.
    686, 689 (1998); *In the Matter of the Applications of GE American
    Communications, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd
    15,030, 15034-35 (1996); *In the Matter if the Application of GE
    American Communications, Inc*., Order and Authorization, 10 FCC Rcd
    13,775 (1995); *In the Matter of Assignment of Orbital Locations to
    Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed- Satellite Service*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6972, n.31(1988).

[^109]: See Letter from Elaine C. Gresham on behalf of Futron
    Corporation to Mr. Donald Abelson, Chief, International Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission, dated June 20, 2000.

[^110]: Satellite Industry Indicators Fact Sheet, p. 15, Satellite
    Industry Association ("SIA") and Futron Corporation, June 5, 2000.
    *See also* Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Association
    (SBCA) and Satellite Industry Association (SIA), *The Global
    Satellite Industry: Proven Success & Future Growth*, citing DTT
    Consulting May 5, 2000..

[^111]: Pioneer Consulting, LLC, *Next Generation Broadband Satellite
    Networks: A Market & Technology Assessment Report* (1999).

[^112]: Comsat Comments at 2-3 and Comsat Response at 10; Spacelink
    Response at 1.

[^113]: *See Direct Access decision*, 14 FCC Rcd at 15723-15727.

[^114]: *See Comsat* *Non-Dominant Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14141-14148.

[^115]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 36-37 (stating that approval
    of the Intelsat LLC applications would assure no disruption of
    customer service). *See also* Spacelink Response at 2-5.

[^116]: Loral Comments at 3-4.

[^117]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 37.

[^118]: PanAmSat Petition at 8-10 and PanAmSat Response at 7; GE
    Americom Petition at 4 and Response at 4.

[^119]: PanAmSat Petition at 12; GE Americom Petition at 4.

[^120]: *Id.*

[^121]: Pub. L. 106-180 § 601(b)(1)(d).

[^122]: *Id.* at §§ 621 and 622. Criteria specified in these provisions
    for privatization of INTELSAT include: (1) conversion to a national
    corporation or similar accepted commercial structure; (2) conducting
    an IPO by October 1, 2001, but no later than December 31, 2002,
    giving consideration of market conditions and relevant business
    factors; (3) creation of a fiduciary board of directors, the
    majority of which must be independent of former signatories, and
    none of which hold positions with an intergovernmental organization;
    (4) elimination of privileges and immunities; (5) maintenance of
    arms length relationships with spin-offs (New Skies); (6) reliance
    on a national licensing authority for ITU network filings; (7)
    location in a jurisdiction that has effective competition laws, is a
    signatory to the WTO Agreement and has a schedule of commitments
    under the Agreement that includes non-discriminatory access to its
    satellite market; and (8) conducting technical coordinations under
    ITU procedures.

[^123]: Pub. L. 106-180 § 644(b).

[^124]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 8-9.

[^125]: Intelsat LLC Reply at 5-6; Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at
    7-8 and n.18; Comsat Response at 6-7.

[^126]: These unique circumstances include ongoing international
    negotiations in order to achieve an important national policy goal
    with substantial competition and other public interest benefits.

[^127]: PanAmSat Response at 10.

[^128]: PanAmSat Petition at 7 and PanAmSat Response at 6-8; GE Americom
    Petition at 6; New Skies Comments at 3.

[^129]: Intelsat LLC Reply at 10-12.

[^130]: Pub. L. 106-180, §§ 621 and 622.

[^131]: PanAmSat Petition at 29-31.

[^132]: *Id.*, citing the *Comsat Non-Dominant Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    14090.

[^133]: *See Availability of INTELSAT Space Segment Capacity to Users
    and Service Providers Seeking to Access INTELSAT Directly,* IB
    Docket No. 00-91, FCC 00-186 (rel. May 24, 2000).

[^134]: *National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v.
    FCC*, 525 F.2d 630, 642 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("*NARUC I*"). *See also
    DISCO I decision*, 11 FCC Rcd at 2436 (in which we decided to allow
    U.S. FSS licensees to elect between providing service on a common
    carrier or non-common carrier basis, subject to *NARUC I*) .

[^135]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 31.

[^136]: *See Policies and Rules for the Alternative Incentive Based
    Regulation of Comsat*, 14 FCC Rcd 3065 (1999).

[^137]: Pub. L. 106-180, § 648(b).

[^138]: Intelsat LLC Reply at 27-28, citing 1999 Assembly Decision.

[^139]: *Id.*

[^140]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol I at 15.

[^141]: *Id.*

[^142]: *See ex parte* letter from Intelsat LLC Counsel, Carl Frank, to
    Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, May 17,
    2000 at Exhibit 1. Comsat has a 20.42 percent ownership share and
    79.58 percent is held by other Signatories and Investing Entities.

[^143]: *Id.* *See also* Intelsat LLC Reply at 9.

[^144]: *Id.*

[^145]: *Id.* at Exhibit 3. *See also* Intelsat LLC Application Vol I at
    Attachment B (for the names and investment share amounts of each
    member country). Investment shares in INTELSAT are apportioned
    annually on March 1 and, historically, there have been relatively
    small shifts in INTELSAT shareholding. Intelsat LLC seeks Commission
    approval for the ownership changes that will occur on March 1, 2001.
    *Id.* at 15-16. For a list of current Members of the World Trade
    Organization, s*ee*
    <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm>.

[^146]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol I at 17.

[^147]: PanAmSat Petition at 11-13.

[^148]: PanAmSat Petition at 13; PanAmSat Response at 11.

[^149]: PanAmSat Response at 11.

[^150]: *Id.* at 12.

[^151]: *Id.* at 11-12.

[^152]: Intelsat LLC Reply at 8.

[^153]: *Id.*

[^154]: *See* Intelsat LLC Reply at 9 n.20; Intelsat LLC Application Vol
    I at Attachment B, "INTELSAT Signatories and Investing Entities."

[^155]: Intelsat LLC Reply at 9-10.

[^156]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4). Intelsat LLC Application Vol I at 19;
    Comsat Comments at 6-8.

[^157]: *See* Intelsat LLC Application Vol I at 20. *See also Rules and
    Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications
    Market and Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign-Affiliated
    Entities*, 12 FCC Rcd 23891, 23940 (1997) ("*Foreign Participation
    Order*"), *recon. pending*.

[^158]: *Starsys Global Positioning, Inc.*, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9392, 9393
    (Int'l. Bur. 1995) ("*Starsys decision*"); *Alpha Lyracom, d/b/a Pan
    American Satellite, et al.*, Order, 8 FCC Rcd 376, 378 n.21 (Comm.
    Car. Bur. 1992); *Orion Satellite Corp.*, Order, 5 FCC Rcd 4937,
    4939 n.26 (1990).

[^159]: Albert J. Feyl, 15 F.C.C. 823, 825-26, 7 Rad. Reg. 83, 86
    (1951), and Section 1.948(b)(1) of our rules, providing that: "A
    change from less than 50% ownership to 50% or more ownership shall
    always be considered a transfer of control." 47 C.F.R. §
    1.948(b)(1); *see also* Berns Enters, Inc., 55 F.C.C.2d 721, 35
    R.R.2d 174 (1975).

[^160]: The share distribution provided in the application is based on
    March 1999 information and is not materially altered by new
    information submitted by Intelsat LLC that is based on INTELSAT
    March 2000 distribution information.

[^161]: *See e.g.,* *In re* *Application of Brian L. O'Neill*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability*,* 6
    FCC Rcd 2572, 2574-75 (1991); *In re* *Application of Stereo
    Broadcasters, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order*,* 55 FCC 2d 819,
    ¶ 7 (1975); *In re News International*, Order, 97 FCC 2d 349 (1984).

[^162]: The Commission has held that: "it is not appropriate to infer,
    in the absence of information to the contrary, that \[a party\] will
    not faithfully carry out its representations or that it will be
    controlled and operated in a manner that differs from the agreement
    under consideration." *In re News International, PLC*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 97 FCC 2d 349, 356 (1984). Prospective
    representations by the parties regarding control, however, may be
    highly self-serving, and thus must be accorded the weight indicated
    by a review of the complete record. *In re Baker Creek* ¶ 8.

[^163]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol I at 14.

[^164]: 47 U.S.C. § 214; 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.01 *et seq*.

[^165]: *Id.*

[^166]: *Id.* at § 310(b).

[^167]: *Id.* Section 310(b)(4) does not limit the level of alien
    ownership interest where the Commission does not find that the
    public interest will be served by refusing to grant a particular
    license.

[^168]: *See* Appendix B**.**

[^169]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b).

[^170]: Pub L. 106-180 § 2.

[^171]: Pub L. 106-180 §§ 601(b)(1)(D) and 644(b).

[^172]: *Foreign Participation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 23940.

[^173]: *Id.* at 23940.

[^174]: *Id.* at 23946 (stating that "We will deny an application if we
    find that more than 25 percent of the ownership of an entity that
    controls a common carrier radio licensee is attributable to parties
    whose principal place(s) of business are in non-WTO Member countries
    that do not offer effective competitive opportunities to U.S.
    investors..."); *see also, e.g.,* *In re Applications of VoiceStream
    Wireless Corporation or Omnipoint Corporation for Consent to
    Transfer of Control and Assignment of Licenses and Authorizations*,
    FCC 00-53, DA 99-2737 (Int'l Bur. rel. Feb. 15, 2000) ¶ 20 (stating
    that "the merged company may acquire up to and including 25 percent
    indirect foreign ownership in addition to \[the already-approved
    ownership\]...").

[^175]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(b)(4).

[^176]: *See* Appendix B.

[^177]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 38.

[^178]: *Id.* at 40.

[^179]: *Id.* at 38

[^180]: *Id.* at 43-46.

[^181]: *Id.* at 42-43. *See also ex parte* letter from Intelsat LLC
    Counsel, Jennifer Hindin, to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, July 17, 2000, at Attachment B.
    Coordination refers to the negotiations undertaken between
    administrations of operators of satellites in orbit or those having
    coordination requests filed with and published by the ITU. The
    agreements between administrations ensure harmonious operation of
    all adjacent satellite systems and frequently include alterations to
    the technical characteristics of the system, including satellites
    and earth stations. Successful conclusion of all coordination
    requirements leads to notification to the ITU and inclusion in the
    ITU Master Register. Entry in the Master Registry grants protection
    from interference from future satellite networks.

[^182]: *Id.* at 46-48.

[^183]: Comsat Comments at 11; Lockheed Martin Comments at 6; Loral
    Comments at 4; Spacelink Response at 5.

[^184]: Comsat Comments at 11.

[^185]: New Skies Comments 3-4.

[^186]: PanAmSat Petition at 23; GE Americom Petition at 22; JSAT
    Petition at 2.

[^187]: PanAmSat Petition at 18; GE Americom Response at 13.

[^188]: PanAmSat Petition at 29.

[^189]: *Id.* at 20.

[^190]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 ("Any provision of the rules may be waived by
    the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good cause
    therefore is shown."). *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir.
    1969) (\"*WAIT Radio*\").

[^191]: *See In the Matter of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- Review
    of Depreciation Requirements for Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers*,
    CC Docket No. 98-137, *Ameritech Corporation Telephone Operating
    Companies\' Continuing Property Records Audit, et. al.*, CC Docket
    No. 99-117, *GTE Telephone Operating Companies Release of
    Information Obtained during Joint Audit*, AAD File No. 98-26,
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 00-119, 2000 WL 339773
    (F.C.C.) (rel. April 3, 2000) at n.8 (citing *Northeast Cellular
    Tel. Co. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1990)); *WAIT Radio*, 418
    F.2d 1153; *Thomas Radio v. FCC*, 716 F.2d 921 (D.C. Circ. 1983).

[^192]: *WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d at 1157.

[^193]: *Id.*

[^194]: *Id.*

[^195]: *See, e.g., In the Matter of Establishment of Domestic
    Communication-Satellite Facilities by Non-Government Entities*,
    Report and Order, 22 FCC 2d 86 (1970), Second Report and Order, 35
    FCC 2d 844 (1972), *recon. in part*, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    38 FCC 2d 665 (1972) ("*Open Skies decisions*"); *In the matter of
    Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service
    and Related Revisions of Part 25 of the Rules and Regulations*,
    Report and Order, FCC 83-184, 48 FR 40233, 54 RR 2d (P&F) 577 (1983)
    ("*Two-degree Spacing decision*").

[^196]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 38

[^197]: INTELSAT Agreement, 23 U.S.T. 3813, Article III. *See also
    Comsat Study*, 77 FCC 2d at 584-588.

[^198]: Communications Satellite Act of 1962, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §
    701 *et. seq.*

[^199]: *See* *Comsat Study* at 723-742. *See also Communications
    Satellite Corp*., 46 FCC 2d 338 (1974) (establishing procedures for
    Comsat to obtain Commission authorization to participate in the
    construction and operation of INTELSAT facilities, pursuant to Title
    III and Section 214 of the Communications Act, and Section 201(c) of
    the Communications Satellite Act).

[^200]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 201(b), terminated by the ORBIT Act, Pub. L.
    106-180 § 645(1).

[^201]: *See* Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 53.

[^202]: *Domestic Communication Satellite Facilities*, 22 FCC 2d 86
    (1970); 35 FCC 2d 844 (1972); 38 FCC 2d 665 (1972) ("Open Skies
    decisions")*.*

[^203]: *Id.* The domestic arc historically has been considered to
    approximately encompass 60º W.L. to 140º W.L.

[^204]: Orthogonal linear (dual) polarization is a means of achieving
    frequency reuse by taking advantage of inherent characteristics of
    radio waves. It is possible to transmit two radio waves at the same
    frequency with different polarizations, for example horizontal and
    vertical polarizations, without mutual interference. In this manner,
    the spectrum can be reused through "polarization isolation." This is
    also achievable with orthogonal circular polarization.

[^205]: *Two-Degree Spacing decision*, FCC 83-184, 48 FR 40233, 54 RR 2d
    (P&F) 577, 581 (1983) ("*Two-degree Spacing* decision"). To
    "maintain entrepreneurial opportunities for expansion and new entry
    in the U.S.-domestic arc . . . given the limited portion of the
    geo-stationary orbit usable to serve the United States," the
    Commission adopted a uniform two-degree orbital spacing policy for
    newly launched C-band and Ku-band domestic fixed-satellites. *Id*.

[^206]: The United States did not adopt a policy for competition from
    private international satellite systems until the mid-1980s. *See
    Establishment of Satellite Systems Providing International
    Communications*, Report and Order, 101 FCC 2d 1046, 1048, 1167-1169
    (1985) ("*Separate Systems decision*"). *See also* Presidential
    Determination (PD No. 85-2), dated November 28, 1984, declaring that
    competing satellite systems are "required in the national interest."
    47 U.S.C. 701(d).

[^207]: For example, U.S.-licensed international system licensees
    usually operate their FM video transmissions at frequencies agreed
    to with foreign operators, under the ITU coordination procedures.
    These frequencies may not correspond to the frequency requirements
    of Section 25.211(a), 47 C.F.R. § 25.211(a), FM video center
    frequency requirements.

[^208]: *See, e.g., Open Skies decisions*, 22 FCC 2d 86 (1970); 35 FCC
    2d 844 (1972), 38 FCC 2d 665 (1972); *Two-Degree Spacing decision*,
    FCC 83-184, 48 FR 40233, 54 RR 2d (P&F) 577 (1983); *Separate
    Systems decision*, 101 FCC 2d 1046, 1048, 1167-1169 (1985); *DISCO I
    decision*, 11 FCC Rcd. 2429 (1996).

[^209]: *Id.*

[^210]: *Two-Degree Spacing decision*, 54 RR 2d at 598. We have
    preserved a "strong commitment to maintaining efficient use of the
    orbit/spectrum resource," while recognizing that the satellite
    industry would continue to experience continual change. Therefore,
    we entertained showings "by applicants that particular satellite
    configurations which do not meet the standards . . . should be
    permitted." *Separate Systems decision*, 101 FCC 2d at 1173**.**

[^211]: *See, e.g., supra* at n.4.

[^212]: *See supra* paragraph 32.

[^213]: *See supra* n.204.

[^214]: Certain modifications to earth stations, such as converting from
    circular to linear polarization, typically cannot be accomplished
    without taking the earth station out of service.

[^215]: *See ex parte* letter from Intelsat LLC Counsel, Jennifer
    Wheatley, to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, June 20, 2000 at Attachment A. The BETA-1 spacecraft
    will not yet be under construction on the effective date of these
    authorizations.

[^216]: *Id*.

[^217]: For purposes of this opinion, the "manufacturing cycle" refers
    to either the design, assembly, or testing phases of the satellite
    construction process. The farther along one is in this process the
    more "advanced" is the manufacturing cycle.

[^218]: The Communications payload is the receivers, transmitters,
    antennas, etc., that accomplish the communications service.

[^219]: The service module comprises the telemetry and command
    subsystem, the power subsystem, the thermal control subsystem, and
    the attitude and orbit control subsystems.

[^220]: GE Americom Further Response at 5. PanAmSat Opposition at 29 (it
    would only agree with waivers for those planned spacecraft so far
    advanced that changes to the design are no longer possible).

[^221]: *Ex parte* letter from Intelsat LLC Counsel, Jennifer Wheatley,
    to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, June
    20, 2000 at Attachment C. This cost range applies to all ten of the
    planned satellites.

[^222]: GE Americom Further Response at 5.

[^223]: The NI-BETA satellite will only operate at Ku-band and therefore
    our rules would require the TT&C to operate in the Ku-band as well.

[^224]: *See ex parte* letter from PanAmSat Corporation Counsel, Joseph
    Godles, to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, July 26, 2000 (July 26, 2000 PanAmSat letter"). Further
    Response of GE American Communications, Inc., In the Matter of
    Intelsat LLC, July 26, 2000 ("GE Americom Further Response").

[^225]: GE Americom Further Response at 4-8. PanAmSat concludes that the
    costs of not switching to linear polarization, to other satellite
    operators, the public, and INTELSAT's customers, are not being
    considered. It provided no additional support for this debatable
    statement. PanAmSat July 25 letter at 2.

[^226]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 46-48.

[^227]: *Two-degree Spacing decision,* Report and Order, 54 RR 2d (P&F)
    577 (1983). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 25.209.

[^228]: *Id*.

[^229]: *Id*.

[^230]: *Separate Systems decision*, 101 FCC 2d at 1167.

[^231]: *In the Matter of Amendment to the Commission's Regulatory
    Policies Governing Domestic Fixed Satellites and Separate
    International Satellite* Systems, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2429
    (1996) ("*DISCO I decision*").

[^232]: *Id*.

[^233]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(b) (requires each applicant to provide an
    "interference analysis to demonstrate the compatibility of its
    proposed system 2 degrees from any authorized space station."). *See
    also Two-degree Spacing decision* at 598.

[^234]: We recognize that many of INTELSAT's satellites currently
    operate two-degrees from each other.

[^235]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 48.

[^236]: Intelsat LLC Reply at 17; PanAmSat Petition at 18; GE Americom
    Response at 13.

[^237]: *Id*.

[^238]: It was easier to apply this policy to satellites located in the
    traditional domestic arc in light of how the U.S. satellite industry
    first developed. The "international arc" refers to orbit locations
    outside the domestic arc. All INTELSAT's operating and planned
    satellites are located in the international arc, though several are
    able to serve at least part of the United States.

[^239]: PanAmSat's satellites PAS-7 and PAS-21 are operating at 68.5º
    E.L., 2.5º away from the INTELSAT 704 located at the 66º E.L.
    orbital location. The PAS-9 is operating at 58.0º W.L., 2.5º away
    from INTELSAT 805 located at the 55.5º W.L. orbital location. Loral
    Orion's Telstar 12 is operating at 15.0º W.L., 3º away from INTELSAT
    705 located at the 18.0º W.L. orbital location. Similarly, the Loral
    Orion Telstar 11 (Ku-band) and the Columbia 515 (C-band) are
    operating at the nominal 37.5º W.L. orbital location, 3º away from
    the INTELSAT 601 at the 34.5º W.L. orbital location. Finally,
    Columbia (TDRS-6 - C-band) and Loral Orion (Ku-band) are authorized
    at 47º W.L., 3º away from the INTELSAT 709 located at the 50.0º W.L.
    orbital location.

[^240]: We have not applied our two-degree spacing policy when
    coordinating with satellite systems from other administrations that
    are not subject to two-degree spacing requirements within their
    respective licensing jurisdictions. Any enforcement of two-degree
    spacing has been confined to U.S.-authorized satellites.
    Nevertheless, we generally require that other countries wishing to
    serve the U.S. domestic market be two-degree compliant. Satellites
    serving the United States that are not two-degree compliant have
    normally been authorized subject to coordination with future
    two-degree compliant satellites two degrees away or, absent
    coordination agreement, subject to operation on a non-harmful
    interference basis.

[^241]: We note that for that portion of the arc between 30º W.L. and
    60º W.L., the Commission has imposed a freeze on C-band and Ku-band
    applications since 1985, due to congestion in this part of the arc.
    *Processing of Pending Applications for Space stations to Provide
    International Communications Service*, FCC 85-296 (*rel.* June 6,
    1985) ("*Freeze decision*"). The Commission has waived the
    application of the freeze to allow the authorization of several
    C-band and Ku-band satellite systems. *In the Matter of the
    Application of Columbia Communications Corporation*, Order and
    Authorization, 14 FCC Rcd 3318 (1999) ("*Columbia decision*"); *In
    the Matter of PanAmSat Licensee Corp.*, Order and Conditional
    Authorization, 11 FCC Rcd 22098 (1996); *In the Matter of PanAmSat
    Licensee Corp*., Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 8 FCC
    Rcd 3905 (1993).

[^242]: The two possible exceptions where rearranging satellites to
    within two-degrees of each other could create an additional orbit
    location include the (1) Loral authorization and Columbia satellite
    at 47º W.L. and the two INTELSAT satellites at 50º W.L and 53º W.L.,
    and (2) the Loral and Columbia satellites at 37.5º W.L and the two
    INTELSAT satellites at 34.5º W.L and 31.5º W.L. However, in both
    cases, there are additional complications created by satellite
    networks from other administrations that would have to be taken into
    account.

[^243]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.212 (c) and 25.212 (d).

[^244]: PanAmSat Petition at 20.

[^245]: Power spectral density is a measure of the amount of power
    transmitted within a segment of frequency spectrum and is usually
    listed in terms of power per hertz, per four kilohertz or per
    megahertz.

[^246]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.212 (c) and 25.212 (d).

[^247]: This would normally apply to non-routinely licensed earth
    stations as well as space station parameters that exceed what is
    required for two-degree orbital spacing.

[^248]: *New Skies decision*, 14 FCC Rcd at 35.

[^249]: *Id.* at 13051.

[^250]: *Id*.

[^251]: *See* PanAmSat Petition at 27-29 which asserts that Intelsat LLC
    should be treated similar to New Skies.

[^252]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 58 ("requiring compliance
    with any two degree spacing policy would cost billions of dollars to
    displace virtually all existing services to nearly all existing
    customers.").

[^253]: Most of these earth stations do not have tracking antennas so
    they would have to be manually repointed.

[^254]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 58.

[^255]: *See In the Matter of Columbia Communications Corporation*,
    Order and Authorization, 14 FCC Rcd 3318 (1999) ("*Columbia
    Order*").

[^256]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(b).

[^257]: *Id.*

[^258]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 (Table of Frequency Allocations).

[^259]: *Id.*

[^260]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. 1 at 61-62.

[^261]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.202(g).

[^262]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 64.

[^263]: PanAmSat Petition at 17-18.

[^264]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.211(a).

[^265]: PanAmSat satellite names included here are as licensed. Its
    commercial names are PAS-5 (at 58º W.L.) and PAS-4 and PAS-7 (at
    68.5º E.L.).

[^266]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 65.

[^267]: *Id*.

[^268]: Comsat Comments at 13-16.

[^269]: These documents are International Telecommunication Union --
    Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) Recommendation S.736-3 (Rec
    S.736-3) and ITU-R Preliminary Draft New Recommendation (PDNR)
    Document 4A/TEMP/200 (2/24/00), which represent theoretical analyses
    of interference between dual orthogonal circularly polarized
    transmissions and dual orthogonal linearly polarized transmissions.
    Identical power spectral densities are also assumed. This PDNR
    demonstrates that the use of dual circular polarization in a
    satellite network adjacent to a network employing dual linear
    polarization typically results in worst case incremental downlink
    interference of less than 1dB decrease in C/I. (C/I is the ratio of
    the wanted signal power to the interfering signal power.) The worst
    case uplink interference would be somewhat higher than the downlink
    interference. (The uplink interference is higher than the downlink
    interference because the two cross-polar interference sources
    typically emanate from separate earth station antennas, whereas, in
    the downlink case, the two sources come from the same satellite
    antenna.) On average however, the aggregate interference from a dual
    circularly polarized system into a dual linearly polarized system is
    nearly equal to the aggregate average interference between two dual
    linearly polarized systems when of equal power density. We note that
    the continuing replacement of analog video emissions with digital
    emissions by satellites also tends to reduce the requirement for
    standardized polarization types. This stems from the fact that
    digital emissions tend to have uniform spectral densities compared
    to analog video emissions, which have non-uniform spectral
    densities.

[^270]: PanAmSat Response at 16.

[^271]: *Supra* n.269, ITU-R PDNR Document 4A/TEMP/200 (2/24/00).

[^272]: PanAmSat Response at 16-17.

[^273]: *Id.* at 17.

[^274]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(c). Transponder saturation flux
    densities is a measure of a satellite's sensitivity or overall
    transponder gain. The higher the saturation flux density, the more
    interfering is the uplink and the more resistant to interference.

[^275]: This includes the VII-IX series and the ALPHA and BETA
    satellites.

[^276]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 66.

[^277]: *See also* Appendix A, Tables 1 and 3.

[^278]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(i).

[^279]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 67.

[^280]: Comsat Comments at 20.

[^281]: The impact on a neighboring satellite system would be negligible
    ("second order") because the additional interference would be
    further reduced by the sidelobe isolation of the earth station. For
    example, an on-axis cross-polarization isolation of 30 dB (meeting
    our requirements of Section 25.210(i)) increases the off-axis
    interference power into the neighboring satellite system by one part
    per thousand. Whereas, a cross-polarization isolation of 17 dB would
    increase the interference power by two parts per hundred. Both are
    negligible.

[^282]: *See ex parte* letter from Intelsat LLC Counsel, Jennifer
    Wheatley, to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, June 20, 2000 at Attachment B.

[^283]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.211(a).

[^284]: Intelsat LLC actually requests waiver of Section 25.210(j), 47
    C.F.R. § 25.210(j), however, in the details of the waiver request,
    Intelsat LLC is clearly requesting waiver of only sub-paragraph (1)
    of 25.210(j), 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(j)(1). Intelsat LLC Application
    Vol. I at 68, as amended by letter from Intelsat LLC Counsel,
    Jennifer Wheatley, to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, May 18, 2000.

[^285]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(g)(1).

[^286]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 68.

[^287]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(f). Section 25.140(f) provides that
    "each applicant found to be qualified pursuant to this section may
    be assigned no more than one additional orbital location beyond its
    current authorizations in each frequency band in which it is
    authorized to operate, provided that its in-orbit satellites are
    essentially filled and that it has no more than two unused orbital
    locations for previously authorized but unlaunched satellites in
    that band." *Id*.

[^288]: *See In the Matter of Licensing Space Stations in Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite Service*, Report and Order, 1 FCC Rcd 682, 685
    (1986).

[^289]: Intelsat LLC will have a net of five orbit locations registered
    with the ITU, that are presently "unused" because the sixth involves
    an orbital location exchange. Of these six orbit locations, none are
    located in Region 2 where the U.S. domestic arc is located. Three of
    the orbital locations, however, are capable of serving Region 2
    (which includes North and South America), including the 178.0º E.L.
    (Region 3), 176.0º E.L. (Region 3), and 20.0º W.L. (340.0º E.L.)
    (Region 1) orbital locations. The 157.0º E.L. (Region 3), 85.0º E.L.
    (Region 3), 33.0º E.L. (Region 1) orbital locations generally serve
    Regions 1 and 3 only.

[^290]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(f).

[^291]: Lockheed Comments at 2. Comsat also generally supports the
    Intelsat LLC request. *See* Comsat Reply at 11.

[^292]: ^"^

[^293]: GE Americom Petition at 16; PanAmSat Petition at 14-15; JSAT
    Petition at 7.

[^294]: GE Americom Petition at 14-15; PanAmSat Petition at 15; JSAT
    Petition at 7.

[^295]: PanAmSat Petition at 15, 16, citing Intelsat LLC Application
    Vol. I at 10, 13.

[^296]: PanAmSat Petition at 16-17.

[^297]: PanAmSat Petition at 13-16; JSAT Petition at 6-7; GE Americom
    Petition at 12-18.

[^298]: Letter from Joseph A. Godless on behalf of PanAmSat Corporation
    to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated July 26,
    2000. ("July 26 PanAmSat letter")

[^299]: INTELSAT Agreement, Article II(a).

[^300]: INTELSAT Agreement, Article IV.

[^301]: INTELSAT Agreement, Article X(a)(xxxiii).

[^302]: As the notifying administration on behalf of INTELSAT, the
    Commission has not asserted any regulatory authority over INTELSAT's
    decision to register with the ITU for spectrum and orbital
    locations. The Commission only acts as a "copper wire" or "mail box"
    in officially submitting the filings to the ITU on INTELSAT's
    behalf. There currently is no regulatory review of INTELSAT's
    submissions; they are often transmitted to the ITU the day after
    being submitted to the Commission by INTELSAT. *See Comsat
    Non-Dominant Order and NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at 14130-14131.

[^303]: *See* Letter from Nancy J. Victory on behalf of Intelsat LLC to
    Secretary, FCC, dated June 30, 2000 ("June 30 Intelsat LLC letter").

[^304]: 47 USC § 310(d).

[^305]: While the recently enacted ORBIT Act conditionally provides for
    U.S. licensing of INTELSAT satellites upon privatization and for the
    continuation of the United States as the notifying administration,
    it does not require INTELSAT orbital locations to be made available
    to U.S. satellite operators. *See* Pub. L. 106-180, §§ 601(b)(1)(D)
    and 644(b).

[^306]: *See also* Appendix A, Table 3 which shows the respective orbit
    locations at issue \-- 178.0º E.L., 176.0º E.L., 157.0º E.L., 85.0º
    E.L., 33.0º E.L., and 20.0º W.L. (340.0º E.L.) -- and the
    approximate times these orbit locations will be put into use. *See
    also ex parte* letter from Intelsat LLC Counsel, Jennifer Hindin, to
    Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, July
    17, 2000, at Attachment A.

[^307]: *See ex parte* letter from Intelsat LLC Counsel, Jennifer
    Wheatley, to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, June 20, 2000 at Attachment A. *See also* Intelsat LLC
    Application Vol. I at 12.

[^308]: *See infra*.

[^309]: Intelsat LLC Reply and Opposition at 26-27.

[^310]: *See* Pub. Law 106-180, § 62 (3)(c).

[^311]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.114(c)(13) and 25.140(c) & (d).

[^312]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.114(c)(13) and 25.140(b)(3) & (4).

[^313]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(c)(1).

[^314]: *Id*.

[^315]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(c)(2)(i).

[^316]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(c)(2)(ii).

[^317]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(c)(2)(iii).

[^318]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140 (c)(2)(iv). The Commission may also require
    other information or details. 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(c)(3).

[^319]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140 (b)(4).

[^320]: *See, e.g.*, *In the Matter of BT North America and CBS
    Broadcasting*, Order, File Nos. SES-MOD-19990811-01485 and
    SES-MOD-19990831-01488, respectively, DA 00-162 (Feb. 1, 2000) at ¶
    11.

[^321]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 23.

[^322]: *Id.* The \$2.28 billion figure includes: (1) Capital
    expenditures of \$2.14 billion, associated with the spacecraft,
    launch vehicle, launch support, launch and post-separation
    insurance, capitalized management, and other support costs; (2)
    approximately \$36 million for ground network upgrades; and (3)
    approximately \$109 million on pre-operating expenses for the
    four-year period.

[^323]: *Id.* at 24.

[^324]: *Id.* at 25. The \$110 million figure breaks down to \$44
    million in 2002, \$33 million in 2003, and \$33 million in 2004. The
    particular satellites expected to be operating during these years
    are INTELSAT's 901, 902, 903, & 904 in 2002; INTELSAT's 905, 906, &
    907 in 2003; and INTELSAT's NI-ALPHA 1, NI-ALPHA-2 & NI-BETA 1 in
    2004.

[^325]: *Id*.

[^326]: *Id.* at Attachment D.

[^327]: *Id.* at 25-26.

[^328]: *Id.* at 26.

[^329]: *Id.* at 26 n.50.

[^330]: Supplement to Application of Intelsat LLC, File Nos.:
    SAT-A/O-20000119-00002 through SAT-A/O-2000019-00018;
    SAT-LOA-20000119-00019 through SAT-LOA-20000119-00028;
    SAT-AMD-20000119-00029 through SAT-AMD-20000119-00041, May 17, 2000.

[^331]: *Id.*

[^332]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 24.

[^333]: Comsat Comments at 9-10.

[^334]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(c)(1)

[^335]: Intelsat LLC June 30 letter.

[^336]: The alternatives are presented in the context of text for
    amendments to the current INTELSAT Agreement which would provide for
    the residual intergovernmental organization that supervises Intelsat
    LLCs fulfillment of the "core principles". *See* Report of the Penan
    Working Part to the twenty-fifth (Extraordinary) Assembly of
    Parties, AP-25-7E W/11/00, June 27, 2000.

[^337]: July 26 PanAmSat letter; Further Response of GE Americom
    Communications, Inc., at 10, dated July 26, 2000.

[^338]: Pub. L. 106-180, § 644(b).

[^339]: Pub. Law 106-180 § 221(2)(c).

[^340]: Pub. L. 106-180, § 644(b) ("ITU Notifying Administration.---The
    President and the Commission shall take the action necessary to
    ensure that the United States remains the ITU notifying
    administration for the privatized INTELSAT's existing and future
    orbital slot registrations.")

[^341]: *See supra*, paragraph 35. While the C-band and Ku-band orbital
    locations associated with satellites we are licensing would be
    transferred to the U.S. registry, other INTELSAT orbital locations
    would not be transferred due to legal and procedural complications
    associated with the Commission processing rounds. INTELSAT has not
    filed with the Commission for licenses for its Ka-band locations,
    three C-band and Ku-band locations that will be associated with its
    Ka-band broadband plans, or for DBS-band and V-band orbital
    locations. All of these locations would be transferred to the
    registry of another licensing jurisdiction upon privatization.

[^342]: A draft compromise bill under consideration by the House and
    Senate conference committee contained a provision prohibiting the
    FCC from transferring INTELSAT orbital locations and spectrum to
    another administration in the event that INTELSAT selected that
    administration. That provision was not, however, included in the
    ORBIT Act upon enactment by Congress. *See* Letter of William E.
    Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, to Tom Bliley,
    Chairman, House Committee on Commerce, dated February 28, 2000.

[^343]: *See Licensing Space Stations in Domestic Fixed-Satellite
    Service*, 1 FCC Rcd 682, 685 (1986) ("*1986 Domsat Report and
    Order*").

[^344]: *See In The Matter of GE American Communications*, *Inc*.,
    Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd. 6475 (1997).

[^345]: They include INTELSATs 901-907, ALPHA-1 and -2, and BETA-1.

[^346]: Intelsat LLC proposes to begin operating its 10 planned
    satellites according to the following schedule: I-901 -- August
    2001; I-902 -- August 2001; I-903 -- November 2001 2001; I-904 --
    February 2002; I-905 -- August 2002; I-906 -- November 2002; I-907
    -- February 20032; ALPHA-1 -- May 2003; BETA-1 -- August 2003; and
    ALPHA-2 --November 2003.

[^347]: *See ex parte* letter from Intelsat LLC Counsel, Jennifer
    Wheatley, to Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, June 20, 2000 at Attachment A.

[^348]: *See In the Matter of the Applications of AT&T Corp.,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15,038 (1996) ; *In the
    Matter of the Applications of Echostar Satellite Corporation*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20,446 (1996); *In the
    Matter of the Applications of GE American Communications, Inc.*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15,030 (1996); *In the
    Matter of the Applications of Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc.,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 16,425 (1996); *In the
    Matter of the Applications of Loral Space and Communications, Ltd.,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20,441 (1996); *In the
    Matter of the Applications of Orion Network Systems, Inc.*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20,434 (1996).

[^349]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 n.US245.

[^350]: *See* Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66,
    Title VI, § 6001 (2) (3), 107 Stat. 312 (enacted Aug. 10, 1993);
    *see also* H.R. Rep. No. 103-213, 103^rd^ Cong., 1^st^ Sess. (1993).

[^351]: The 3650-3700 MHz band is a portion of the "extended C-band."
    *See In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's Rules with
    Regard to the 3650-3700 MHz Government Transfer Band*, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 1295 (1998).

[^352]: *In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's Rules With
    Regard to the 3650-3700 MHz Government Transfer Band*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 98-237, FCC 00-181 (*rel*. May 22,
    2000).

[^353]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 n.US245.

[^354]: *In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the
    Commission's Rules to Allocate the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band to the
    Mobile Service for Dedicated Short Range Communications of
    Intelligent Transportation Services*, Report and Order, FCC 99-305,
    17 Comm. Reg. (P&F) 1015 (1999).

[^355]: We recognize that the Intelsat LLC proposed use includes the
    6.425-6.650 GHz portion of the band.

[^356]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 n.NG104.

[^357]: Footnote S5.502 (WRC-97) to the international Radio Regulations
    places certain restrictions on the minimum effective isotropically
    radiated power (E.I.R.P.) and minimum antenna size for earth
    stations operating in this band. Footnote S5.503 (WRC-97) limits FSS
    earth station E.I.R.P. spectral density in the 13.772-13.778 GHz
    frequency band until those geostationary space stations in the space
    research service, for which advance publication information was
    received by the ITU prior to January 31, 1992, cease to operate in
    this band. Footnote S5.503A (WRC-97) states that "\[u\]ntil 1
    January 2000, stations in the fixed-satellite service shall not
    cause harmful interference to non-geostationary space stations in
    the space research and Earth exploration satellite services. After
    that date, these non-geostationary space stations will operate on a
    secondary basis in relation to the fixed-satellite service.
    Additionally, when planning earth stations in the fixed-satellite
    service to be brought into service between 1 January 2000 and 1
    January 2001, in order to accommodate the needs of spaceborne
    precipitation radars in the band 13.793-13.805 GHz, advantage should
    be taken of the consultation process and the information given in
    Recommendation ITU-R SA.1071."

[^358]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 n.US337 specifically states the following: "in
    the band 13.75-13.80 GHz, earth stations in the fixed-satellite
    service shall be coordinated on a case-by-case basis through the
    frequency assignment subcommittee in order to minimize harmful
    interference to the Tracking and Data Satellite System's forward
    space-to-space link (TDRSS forward link-to-LEO)."

[^359]: *See* Letter from William Hatch, Acting Associate Administrator,
    Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, to Roderick Porter, Acting
    Chief, International Bureau, FCC (May 11, 1999).

[^360]: The satellites at issue are INTELSAT's 601-605, 702, 704, 705,
    707, 709, and 801. *See* Appendix A, Table 3.

[^361]: *See* Appendix A, Table 3.

[^362]: Intelsat LLC Application Vol. I at 10.

[^363]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.101 *et. seq.*

[^364]: *See* Appendix A, Table 1.

[^365]: *See* Appendix A, Table 2. 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.114(c)(13) and
    25.140(c) & (d).

[^366]: *See* Separate Statement of Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth,
    concurring in part, dissenting in part, *in Order, In re Matter of
    MCI Worldcom Communications, Inc.*, 2000 WL 725473 (File No.
    EB-00-TC-055) (rel. June 6, 2000); *See also* Separate Statement of
    Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth, *In re Applications of Ameritech
    Corp., Transferor, and SBC Communications Inc*., 14 FCC Rcd. 14,712
    (rel. October 8, 1999).

[^367]: *See* Separate Statement of Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth,
    approving in part and concurring in part, *In re Service Rules For
    746-764, 776-794 MHz Bands*, 15 FCC Rcd. 5299 (rel. Mar 09, 2000).