Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

INMARSAT VENTURES Ltd. )

)

Request for Extension of Time Under ) SAT-MSC-20000808-00119

Section 621(5) of the ORBIT Act )

)

INMARSAT VENTURES Plc )

)

Request for Additional Extension of Time ) SAT-MSC-20010405-00029

Under Section 621(5) of the ORBIT Act )

)

# MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: June 25, 2001 Released: June 28, 2001

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  On September 28, 2000, the Commission granted the request of
    Inmarsat Ventures Ltd.

("Inmarsat") for a nine-month extension of the October 1, 2000 deadline
set forth in Section 621(5)(A)(ii) of the Open-Market Reorganization for
the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act (the "ORBIT
Act")[^1] to conduct an initial public offering ("IPO")[^2]. Motient
Services Inc. ("Motient") has petitioned the Commission for
reconsideration of that decision. Inmarsat opposes Motient's petition.

2\. Inmarsat (now d/b/a Inmarsat Ventures plc) subsequently filed a
request for an additional extension of the IPO deadline from July 1 to
December 31, 2001. The Commission placed this second Inmarsat request on
public notice on April 12, 2001[^3]. Lockheed Martin Global
Telecommunications (LMGT), Deere & Company (Deere) the Mobile Satellite
Users Association (MSUA) and the Committee to Restructure the
International Satellite Organizations (CRISO) support Inmarsat's
request. Motient opposes the request.

3\. We deny Motient's petition for reconsideration of the *First
Extension Order* and grant Inmarsat's request for an additional
extension. The ORBIT Act does not permit us to grant a further extension
beyond December 31, 2001.

# BACKGROUND

4\. Inmarsat was originally created as an intergovernmental satellite
organization ("IGO") to provide mobile satellite communications. It
privatized on April 15, 1999 as a stock corporation in the United
Kingdom.[^4] The privatization entailed the transfer of the operational
assets of the IGO to a newly-created U.K. stock corporation, Inmarsat
Holdings Ltd. Inmarsat Holdings Ltd. was renamed Inmarsat Ventures,
Ltd., a private holding company. Inmarsat Ventures, Ltd., in turn, has
an operating company subsidiary, Inmarsat Ltd., which is also a U.K.
corporation. In anticipation of conducting an IPO, Inmarsat Ventures,
Ltd. was converted to a public limited company, Inmarsat Ventures, plc.

5\. The ORBIT Act establishes criteria for Commission review of
applications to serve the U.S. market by "successor entities" of
INTELSAT and Inmarsat. As an entity created as the result of the
privatization of Inmarsat, Inmarsat Ventures plc., constitutes a
"successor entity" under the ORBIT Act[^5]. It is therefore subject to
the requirement in Section 621(5)(A)(ii) that it conduct an IPO within
the timeframe specified in the section, unless the Commission extends
this deadline as provided in this section.[^6]

6\. Section 621(5)(A)(ii) of the ORBIT Act provides that:

> An initial public offering of securities of any successor entity or
> separated entity...(ii) shall be conducted, for the successor entities
> of Inmarsat, on or about October 1, 2000, except that the Commission
> may extend this deadline in consideration of market conditions and
> relevant business factors relating to the timing of an initial public
> offering, but to no later than December 31, 2001.[^7]

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that Inmarsat becomes an
independent commercial entity with a pro-competitive ownership
structure.[^8] The ORBIT Act anticipates that independence will be
achieved, in part, through the substantial dilution of the aggregate
ownership in Inmarsat held by former Inmarsat Signatories.[^9] Thus, our
consideration of Inmarsat's request for an additional extension, as was
the Commission's grant of the previous extension request, must be based
upon whether the proposed extension would serve to achieve the
underlying purpose of the Act's requirement for an IPO.

# DISCUSSION

### A. Motient Petition for Reconsideration

7\. The Commission granted Inmarsat its first extension because (1) it
demonstrated due diligence in preparing for the IPO; (2) its actions in
preparation were reasonably related to the goal of making the company
attractive to potential investors; and (3) it exercised reasonable
business judgment in preparing for an IPO that will achieve the goals of
the ORBIT Act as well as supporting the business needs of the
company.[^10] The Commission said that Inmarsat should make all good
faith efforts to conduct its IPO as soon as practicable based on market
conditions and relevant business factors.[^11] But it concluded that a
nine-month extension will not only allow Inmarsat time to adequately
ready itself for its IPO but it will provide reasonable flexibility for
Inmarsat to time entry into the market at a time that will result in
"substantial dilution" of its aggregate ownership as required by the
ORBIT Act.[^12]

8\. Motient asks that we reconsider the Commission's decision, alleging
that the Commission failed to adequately address Motient's arguments in
opposition to the then proposed extension (including its allegations
that Inmarsat failed to identify "business factors" or market
"conditions" justifying an extension consistent with the Commission's
earlier *New Skies* decision.)[^13] Motient also contends that the
Commission erred in finding that Section 601(b)(1)(D) of the ORBIT Act
allows it to grant applications from entities proposing to use Inmarsat
to provide domestic mobile satellite services (MSS) and other "non-core
sources" prior to the date that Inmarsat conducts its IPO.[^14]

9\. Inmarsat opposes Motient's petition for reconsideration, arguing
that the Commission: correctly interpreted Section 601(b)(1)(D) of the
Act, and examined the relevant business factors reported by Inmarsat in
granting the first extension.[^15] Inmarsat also contends that there is
no inconsistency with the Commission's earlier *New Skies* decision
because that decision relied on "market conditions" rather than
"business factors" as a basis for an extension under the Act.[^16]
Motient replies that the Commission must consider both market conditions
and business factors in granting an extension,[^17] and that Section
601(b)(1)(D) applies only to applications of Inmarsat itself and not to
third party applications.[^18]

[10.]{.underline} [Basis for First Extension]{.underline} - The ORBIT
Act gives the Commission authority to extend the deadline for Inmarsat's
IPO to no later than December 31, 2001 in consideration of market
conditions and relevant business factors relating to the timing of an
initial public offering.[^19] The Act provides no further directions as
to how the Commission is to exercise its discretion under this
provision. In its *First Extension Order,* the Commission considered
primarily business factors in deciding to grant Inmarsat an extension.
Those factors involved internal restructuring and business development
to make an IPO attractive to investors. The Commission stated that, by
giving Inmarsat more time to position itself so that it is more
attractive to investors there is a greater likelihood of a successful
IPO resulting in substantial dilution, as required by the ORBIT
Act.[^20] The Commission said that conducting an IPO before the
necessary preparations have been completed could undermine the ORBIT Act
goal of substantial dilution. On the other hand, entry of a strong
independent Inmarsat -- through capital infusion and shareholder
dilution -- will contribute to a more competitive ownership
structure.[^21] Under this analysis, then existing market conditions
merited less weight in our decision. In the absence of specific guidance
in the Act, we believe that the Act gives the Commission discretion to
place different weight on the factors it considers in granting extension
if doing so would achieve the purpose of the Act. The Commission decided
that Inmarsat acted reasonably, based on strong advice of its financial
advisors, in deciding that internal restructuring and further
development of next generation business plans was necessary for a
successful IPO that would achieve "substantial dilution".

11\. [Authorization of Service Pending an IPO]{.underline} - In its
*First Extension Order*, the Commission found that the ORBIT Act
specifically provides for the authorization of services pending an IPO,
provided other requirements of the ORBIT Act are satisfied.[^22] The
Commission made its finding in response to Motient's contention that, in
the event it granted an extension of the IPO deadline, the Commission
should deny any application from Inmarsat or any other entity to use
Inmarsat satellites until Inmarsat conducts its IPO. The Commission has
recently made the same finding in licensing Intelsat LLC to operate its
satellite and provide services upon the privatization of INTELSAT.[^23]

12\. The ORBIT Act requires the Commission to determine whether the
provision of "non-core" services by Inmarsat harms competition in the
U.S. telecommunications market and directs the Commission to limit by
conditions, deny or revoke authority to provide "non-core" service if it
determines that competition is not harmed.[^24] The Act directs the
Commission to apply the privatization criteria specified by the Act in
making this determination, including the requirement for an IPO.[^25]
Section 601(b)(1)(D) provides, however, the following:

> "(D) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. -- Nothing in this subsection is intended
> to preclude the Commission from acting upon applications of INTELSAT,
> Inmarsat, or their successor entities prior to the latest date set out
> in Section 621(5)(A), including such actions as may be necessary for
> the United States to become the licensing jurisdiction for INTELSAT,
> but the Commission shall condition a grant of authority pursuant to
> this sub section upon compliance with sections 621 and 622.

In the *INTELSAT ORBIT Act Compliance Order*, the Commission construed
this provision to mean that it may authorize non-core services prior to
INTELSAT conducting an IPO under the timeframe provided in the Act,
i.e., the "date set out in Section 621(5)(A)"[^26] In granting any such
authorization, the Commission said that it would assess whether
INTELSAT's privatization is "consistent" with other criteria in the Act
and impose such conditions as may be necessary to ensure compliance with
the criteria.[^27] The same approach applies here with respect to
Inmarsat. We do not agree with Motient that Section 601(b)(1)(D) applies
only to applications filed by Inmarsat itself and not to other entities
seeking to use the Inmarsat system. Under Motient's reading of the
provision the Commission would be able to authorize Inmarsat's access to
the U.S. market pending an IPO but not act on applications of its U.S.
customers to operate earth stations with Inmarsat satellites. The
purpose of the provision is to give the Commission discretion to
authorize Inmarsat services pending conduct of an IPO under favorable
market conditions within the timeframe provided in the Act. The Act does
not intend to penalize Inmarsat by delaying access to the U.S. market
pending an IPO if Inmarsat privatization is otherwise consistent with
the Act's criteria.[^28]

13\. In view of the above discussion, we deny Motient's petition for
reconsideration of the *First Extension Order.*

B. Second Extension Request

14\. Inmarsat states that it has carried out the business preparations
necessary to make an IPO commercially attractive to investors, including
streamlining its business practices and developing innovative
services.[^29] It states that it is committed to conducting its IPO at
the earliest possible date and has made all necessary preparations to do
so.[^30] Inmarsat has concluded, however, based on advice from its
financial advisor, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, that current market
conditions make it impossible to conduct an IPO.[^31] It has therefore
refrained from beginning "road show" presentations pending more
favorable market conditions.[^32] Inmarsat argues that there is good
cause for a further extension under these circumstances because: (1) it
has diligently pursued preparations necessary to conduct an IPO; (2) an
extension will serve the goals of the ORBIT Act by resulting in greater
shareholder dilution under better market conditions; (3) the need for an
extension is based upon its own reasonable business judgment based on
advice of financial advisors; and (4) an extension will not harm the
public interest or any private party.[^33]

15\. In its opposition to a further extension, Motient contends that
Inmarsat has failed to justify its request.[^34] Motient argues that
Inmarsat would not be in its current situation had it exercised
reasonable diligence to conduct an IPO soon after enactment of the ORBIT
Act.[^35] It also argues that Inmarsat fails to provide specific numbers
to demonstrate how an IPO conducted at the time would not result in
substantial dilution of shareholder ownership as required by the
Act.[^36]

16\. In support of Inmarsat's request, LMGT emphasizes that Inmarsat has
taken all necessary steps toward an IPO, but the extreme volatility of
world financial markets has resulted in an unfavorable environment for
IPOs.[^37] Deere states that an extension of time is warranted based on
current market conditions and that it is beyond the Commission's
knowledge base and scope of authority to make specific business
decisions such as the timing of an IPO.[^38] Deere believes that
Inmarsat must be provided flexibility to issue an IPO at a time
considered optimum by its financial advisors, and that any extension
should not delay authorization of Inmarsat access to the U.S. market for
non-core services.[^39] MSUA believes that grant of the requested
extension is critical to ensure the continued viability of not only
Inmarsat as the "bellwether" of the MSS industry but also the MSS
industry in general.[^40] MSUA also argues that the Commission should
not authorize Inmarsat "non-core" services in the United States pending
conduct of an IPO.[^41] CRISO supports Inmarsat's current request but
also states that we should allow Inmarsat to file for an additional
extension if, by October 1, 2001, market conditions continue to be
unfavorable.[^42] In addition, it asks us to direct Comsat Corporation
(Comsat), as the U.S. Signatory to Inmarsat, to provide monthly reports
of Inmarsat's plans to conduct an IPO.[^43]

17\. Inmarsat's second extension request is not unlike that of New Skies
which we granted nearly one year ago.[^44] Inmarsat informs us that it
has made necessary preparations for an IPO. But it seeks an additional
extension based upon current market conditions which in its business
judgment are not favorable to a successful IPO. There is, however, one
difference with New Skies. This is Inmarsat's second request, which, if
granted, would extend the deadline for an IPO to the final day which is
permitted under the ORBIT Act \-- December 31, 2001.

18\. Based upon the information presented by Inmarsat, we conclude that
a grant of the further extension requested by Inmarsat would serve to
achieve the purpose of the ORBIT Act and be in the public interest. In
doing so, we find that Inmarsat has demonstrated diligence in preparing
for an IPO since the *First Extension Order*. Inmarsat has taken the
actions to prepare for an IPO that it said it would undertake when it
requested the first extension. Inmarsat has (1) prepared and continued
to update necessary disclosure information for regulatory and marketing
purposes and (2) restructured the company to be compliant with the
corporate governance guidelines in the Combined Code in the Listing
Rules of the United Kingdom Listing Authority.[^45] With respect to the
first area, Inmarsat has: (1) finished legal and business due diligence
necessary to draft its prospectus for regulatory review and prepare
necessary financial statements; (2) selected the London Stock Exchange
and the New York Stock Exchange on which to list; (3) submitted the
draft prospectus to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and made similar filings with the U.K. Listing Authority (UKLA); (4)
worked with its financial advisors to reflect comments from the SEC and
UKLA in its prospectus; and (5) consulted with its financial advisors as
to preparation and timing of its "road show".[^46] In restructuring the
company, Inmarsat held general shareholders' meetings in October, 2000,
and then in March 2001, first to change the composition of the company's
board of directors and second, to change from a private limited company
to a public limited company for conduct of the IPO as required by
English law.[^47]

19\. Having completed these preparatory actions, Inmarsat decided,
however, that current market conditions are unfavorable to proceeding
with an IPO.[^48] It therefore has delayed its "road show" prior to an
IPO. Inmarsat states that its decision to delay the IPO based upon
market conditions was based on its business judgement and the advice of
its financial advisor. Inmarsat's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter, (MSDW) advised it "that market risks are currently too high to
guarantee that an offering of any size would be able to proceed to
completion."[^49] In support, MSDW has provided its analyses to the
Commission of the volatility and decline in the U.S. and international
capital markets since February 1, 2001. MSDW states that the performance
of technology and satellite sectors has been particularly negative and
provides information showing the recent decline in major indices of
stock valuation.[^50] It also provides information that IPOs conducted
in the United States and Europe in the past year to demonstrate a weak
market for new issues. It also estimates a current worldwide "equity
backlog" of \$27.2 billion, with 32% of the backlog comprised of
postponed telecommunications offerings. MSDW believes that it is
unlikely that market conditions will improve by the current July 1,
2001, and that additional time is necessary \""to build in an adequate
time cushion if the markets take longer than anticipated to
recover"[^51]. It does not believe that an IPO at this time would be
successful.

20\. We find that Inmarsat has acted reasonably in delaying its IPO
based on the advice of its financial advisor. Motient does not appear to
dispute the information presented by Inmarsat and its financial advisor
as to current market conditions. Rather, Motient first argues that
Inmarsat should have conducted its IPO much earlier after passage of the
ORBIT Act. This argument, however, is essentially a restatement of the
position Motient took in opposition to Inmarsat's first request for an
extension and which we rejected in granting that extension.[^52] Nor are
we persuaded by Motient's other argument that Inmarsat now should be
required to demonstrate how an IPO conducted today would prevent it from
meeting the "substantial dilution" requirements. Under the ORBIT Act,
the Commission assesses whether "substantial dilution" has been achieved
based on the size of the IPO in light of existing market conditions at
the time it was concluded.[^53] Inmarsat will have to satisfy this
standard after it has conducted its IPO. For an extension of the IPO
deadline, however, Inmarsat need not make an affirmative demonstration
that substantial dilution cannot now be achieved, but must only show
diligence in preparing for an IPO and reasonable business judgement in
its timing, within the period provided by the Act. We believe that
Inmarsat has made such a showing here.

21\. Congress gave the Commission discretion to extend the ORBIT Act IPO
deadline to give Inmarsat flexibility to achieve ORBIT Act goals as well
as act within its own business interests. The best timing for conducting
an IPO cannot be accurately forecast. More importantly, denying an
additional extension could have the effect of decreasing the market
value of the offering because potential investors could be positioned to
offer only a low price to purchase the available shares. Such an outcome
would be counter to the intended purpose of obtaining substantial
dilution in the ownership of Inmarsat. Inmarsat has shown that it is
prepared to conduct its IPO. We believe that a six-month extension will
give it a clear opportunity to do so at a time that will achieve the
purpose of the ORBIT Act. It has incentive to move forward to assure its
continued access to the U.S. market. As market conditions improve, any
Inmarsat failure to move forward would become self-evident.

22\. We therefore find that Inmarsat has made a sufficient showing of
market conditions and relevant business factors relating to the timing
of an IPO so as to warrant an additional extension of six months.
However, this is the last extension that we may grant to Inmarsat under
the ORBIT Act. If Inmarsat fails to conduct its IPO by December 31,
2001, or if "substantial dilution" is not achieved through an IPO or
other means, the ORBIT Act directs the Commission to "limit through
conditions or deny" any pending application or request, and "limit or
revoke previous authorizations" to use Inmarsat non-core services
consistent with section 601(b)(1).[^54]

## IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

23\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of
Motient Services, Inc., of the *First Extension Order*, is DENIED.

24\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 621(2) and 621(5) of
the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International
Telecommunications Act, Pub. L. 106-180, 114 Stat. 48 (2000), §§ 621(2)
and 621(5), that the Inmarsat Ventures, plc request for an extension of
the July 1, 2001 deadline to conduct an IPO IS GRANTED, and the deadline
for Inmarsat Ventures, plc to conduct its IPO consistent with the ORBIT
Act is December 31, 2001.

25\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Inmarsat plc shall file with the
Commission 30 days after conduct of its IPO a demonstration that the IPO
is consistent with Section 621(2) and 621(5)(A)(11) of the ORBIT Act.

26\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall
be effective upon adoption.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[^1]: ORBIT Act, Pub. L. 106-180, 114 Stat. 48(20000). *See also*
    Communications Satellite Act of 1962, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 701
    *et. seq.*

[^2]: Inmarsat Ventures Ltd., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-356
    (released October 3, 2000)(*First Extension Order*).

[^3]: Public Notice Report No. SAT-MSC-20010405-00029, April 12, 2001.

[^4]: *See* Report of the Twelfth Session of the Inmarsat Assembly of
    Parties, Assembly/12/Report (May 8, 1998); Report of the Thirteenth
    (Extraordinary) Session of the Assembly of Parties,
    Assembly/13/Report (October 8, 1998).

[^5]: *See* Pub. L. 106-180 § 681(a)(7)

[^6]: Pub. L. 106-180 § 621(5)(A)(ii)

[^7]: Pub. L. 106-180 § 621(5)(A)(ii)

[^8]: *See* Pub. L. 106-180 § 621(2), which provides, in part: (2)
    INDEPENDENCE -- The privatized successor entities and separated
    entities of INTELSAT and Inmarsat shall conduct an initial public
    offering in accordance with paragraph (5) to achieve such
    independence. Such offering shall substantially dilute the aggregate
    ownership of such entities by such signatories or former
    signatories. In determining whether a public offering attains such
    substantial dilution, the Commission shall take into account the
    purposes and intent, privatization criteria, and other provisions of
    this title, as well as market conditions.

[^9]: *See* Pub. L. 106-180 § 621(2)

[^10]: *First Extension Order* at ¶ 8-10

[^11]: *Id.* at ¶ 11

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *Id.* at 1 and 5-7.

[^14]: Motient petition for Reconsideration at 1 and 5. Motient also
    raised, and other parties filed comments, on, this issue in
    connection with Inmarsat's request for an additional extension of
    time.

[^15]: Inmarsat Opposition at 2 and 3-5.

[^16]: *Id.* at 2 and 5-7.

[^17]: Motient reply at 2.

[^18]: *Id.* at 2.

[^19]: Pub. L. 106-180 § 621(5)(A)(ii).

[^20]: *First Extension Order* at ¶ 10.

[^21]: *Id.*

[^22]: *First Extension Order* at ¶ 12.

[^23]: *Applications of Intelsat LLC for Authority to Operate and to
    Further Construct, Launch and Operate C-band and Ku-band Satellites
    that Form a Global Communications System in Geostationary Orbit,*
    Memorandum Opinion order and Authorization, FCC 01-183 (released May
    29, 2001)(*Intelsat ORBIT Act Compliance Order*) at ¶'s 23-24.

[^24]: Pub. L. 106-180 § 601(b)(I). Non-core services are defined as
    services other than global maritime distress and safety services or
    other existing maritime or aeronautical services for which there are
    not alternative providers with respect to Inmarsat. Pub. L. No.
    106-180, § 681(a)(11).

[^25]: Pub. L. 106-180 § 601(b)(2).

[^26]: *INTELSAT ORBIT Act Compliance Order* at 24.

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: *Id.*

[^29]: Inmarsat Ventures plc Request for Extension of Time at I, 5-6 and
    11.

[^30]: *Id.* at I, 5-6, and 11-12

[^31]: *Id.* at I, 6-9.

[^32]: *Id.* at I.

[^33]: *Id.* at 11-14.

[^34]: Motient opposition at 4-5.

[^35]: *Id.* at 5.

[^36]: *Id.*

[^37]: LMGT comments at 2-3.

[^38]: Deere comments at 4.

[^39]: *Id.* at 5.

[^40]: MSUA reply comments at 1-2.

[^41]: *Id.* at 2.

[^42]: CRISO comments at 1 and 5.

[^43]: *Id.* at 5. CRISO's request that we require Comsat to report
    Inmarsat's progress toward an IPO is misplaced. Comsat's status as
    the U.S. Signatory to Inmarsat existed only when Inmarsat was an
    intergovernmental organization and ended upon Inmarsat's
    privatization. Upon privatization, former Inmarsat Signatories
    became shareholders in the privatized company. The Commission need
    not obtain periodic reports from Comsat as an Inmarsat shareholder.
    We may obtain any information we deem necessary directly from
    Inmarsat. CRISO offers no basis for requiring monthly reports on
    Inmarsat's IPO progress and we will not impose such a requirement.

[^44]: *In the Matter of New Skies Satellites, N.V., Request for an
    Extension* under Section 623(1) of the ORBIT Act, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, FCC 00-234 (June 30, 2000)(*New Skies Extension Order*).

[^45]: Inmarsat *Extension Request* at 5 and Attachment A, statement of
    Marion Parker.

[^46]: Inmarsat *Extension Request* at 5 and Attachment A.

[^47]: *Id.* In addition to U.K. listing requirements, Inmarsat states
    that the restructuring of its board also is in compliance with the
    privatization criteria of the ORBIT Act. We will consider this
    issue, however, in acting upon applications now pending before the
    Commission to use Inmarsat services in the United States. It is not
    necessary to address whether the restructured board complies with
    ORBIT Act requirements in deciding whether to grant an extension of
    the IPO deadline.

[^48]: Inmarsat Extension Request at 6-9 and Attachment A.

[^49]: Inmarsat Extension Request citing letter to Donald Abelson,
    Chief, International Bureau, from Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, dated
    April 4, 2001.

[^50]: April 4 Morgan Stanley Dean Witter letter.

[^51]: *Id.*

[^52]: *First Extension Order* at ¶

[^53]: *In the Matter of New Skies Satellites, N,.V. Request for
    Unconditional Authority to Access the U.S. market,* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, FCC 01-107, ¶ 19 (rel. March 29, 2001)(*New Skies
    ORBIT Act Compliance Order*).

[^54]: Pub. L. 106-180 § 601(b)(1)