*Pages 1--73 from  Microsoft Word - 2883.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of  the  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 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 File  Nos:  SAT-  A/  O-  20000119-  00002  to 
 SAT-  A/  O-  20000119-  00018;  SAT-  AMD-  20000119-  00029  to 
 SAT-  AMD-  20000119-  00041;  SAT-  LOA-  20000119-  00019  to 
 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 
 II.  BACKGROUND  .........................................................................................................................  4 
 III.  SYSTEM  APPLICATION  ..........................................................................................................  6 
 IV.  PLEADINGS  ..............................................................................................................................  8 
 V.  DISCUSSION  ...........................................................................................................................  11 
 A.  Policy  Considerations  ....................................................................................................  11 
 1.  Privatization  as  a  Policy  Goal  ...........................................................................  11 
 2.  INTELSAT  Principles  of  Privatization  ..............................................................  13 
 3.  Mutual  Benefits  of  Licensing  in  the  United  States  ..............................................  15 
 4.  Timeliness  of  Commission  Action  .....................................................................  17 
 5.  Application  of  DISCO  II  Standards  ...................................................................  19 
 6.  Dominant-  Carrier  Treatment  .............................................................................  19 
 7.  Exclusivity  ........................................................................................................  20 


 B.  Foreign  Ownership  ........................................................................................................  21 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 2 
 1.  Section  310(  a)  Review  ......................................................................................  22 
 2.  Section  310(  b)(  4)  Review  ..................................................................................  24 


 C.  Technical  Requirements  and  Waivers  .............................................................................  26 
 1.  Waiver  Standard  ...............................................................................................  27 
 2.  Special  Circumstances  ......................................................................................  28 
 3.  Underlying  Principles  of  FCC  Technical  Rules  ..................................................  30 
 4.  Operating  and  Planned  Satellites  .......................................................................  31 
 5.  Specific  Waiver  Requests  ..................................................................................  34 
 a.  Two-  degree  Spacing  of  Satellite  Orbit  Locations  -  Section 
 25.140(  b)(  2)  .........................................................................................  34 
 b.  C-  band  Frequency  Bands    Section  25.202(  a)(  1)  ..................................  39 
 c.  Telemetry,  Tracking  and  Telecommand  Functions    Section 
 25.202(  g)  .............................................................................................  40 
 d.  Orthogonal  Linear  Polarization    Sections  25.  210(  a)(  1)  and  (3)  ............  41 
 e.  Control  of  Transponder  Saturation  Flux  Densities    Section 
 25.210(  c)  .............................................................................................  43 
 f.  Cross-  Polarization  Isolation    Section  25.210(  i)  ....................................  44 
 g.  C-  band  Downlink  Analog  Video  Transmissions    Section 
 25.211(  a)  .............................................................................................  44 
 h.  Orbital  Longitude  Maintenance    Section  25.  210(  j)(  1)  ..........................  45 
 i.  Frequency  Reuse    Sections  25.210(  g)(  1)  .............................................  45 
 j.  Unused  Orbital  Locations    Section  25.140(  f)  .......................................  46 


 D.  Financial  Requirements  .................................................................................................  49 
 E.  Other  Issues  ..................................................................................................................  52 
 1.  Transfer  of  USA-  IT  Network  Filings  .................................................................  52 
 2.  Milestones  ........................................................................................................  54 
 3.  Frequency  Band  Use  .........................................................................................  55 
 a.  3.42-  3.6  GHz  Frequency  Band  .............................................................  55 
 b.  3.6-  3.7  GHz  Frequency  Band  ...............................................................  55 
 c.  5.850-  5.925  GHz  Frequency  Band  ........................................................  56 
 d.  6.425-  6.650  GHz  Frequency  Band  ........................................................  56 
 e.  10.95-  11.2  GHz  and  11.45-  11.7  GHz  Frequency  Band  .........................  57 
 f.  13.75-  14.0  GHz  Frequency  Band  ..........................................................  57 
 4.  Request  to  Modify  Authorizations  .....................................................................  57 
 5.  License  Terms  ..................................................................................................  58 


 VI.  ORDERING  CLAUSES  ............................................................................................................  58 


 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 


 I.  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 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 3 
 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  INTELSATs  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  INTELSATs  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 


 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  Commissions  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). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 4 
 pursuant  to  applicable  U.  S.  law.  5 
 II.  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  worlds 
 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 


 5  See  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  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). 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 5 
 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  INTELSATs 
 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 


 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). 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 6 
 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 


 III.  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.  INTELSATs  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 
 LLCs  acceptance  of  the  licenses  granted  by  this  Order,  these  network  filings  would  be  transferred  to  the 


 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. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 7 
 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 


 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. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 8 
 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 


 IV.  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  LLCs 
 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  LLCs 


 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. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 9 
 waiver  requests.  48  They  also  maintain  that  grant  of  the  applications  would  be  consistent  with  the  ORBIT 
 Act.  49 


 17.  New  Skies  generally  supports  INTELSATs  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  INTELSATs  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  INTELSATs  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  INTELSATs  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 


 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. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 10 
 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  Commissions  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 
 Commissions  prohibition  on  exclusive  arrangements.  65  PanAmSat  and  GE  Americom  also  contend  that 
 Intelsat  LLC  should  not  be  permitted  to  evade  the  Commissions  two-  degree  spacing  requirements.  66  They 
 oppose  granting  Intelsat  LLCs  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 


 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. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 11 
 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  Commissions  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  LLCs  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 


 V.  DISCUSSION 
 A.  Policy  Considerations 
 1.  Privatization  as  a  Policy  Goal 
 22.  The  privatization  of  INTELSAT  is  a  policy  goal  of  the  United  States.  80  The  Executive 
 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). 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 12 
 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  INTELSATs  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  INTELSATs  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 


 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  INTELSATs 
 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. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 13 
 (  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  INTELSATs  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. 


 2.  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 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  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  INTELSATs  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). 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 14 
 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    INTELSATs 
 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 


 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  companys  [Intelsat  LLCs]  system;  (2) 
 global  connectivity  would  mean  the  interconnection  capabilities  available  to  the  companys  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). 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 15 
 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 
 LLCs  fulfillment  of  these  objectives  as  a  U.  S.  licensee. 


 3.  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 


 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 
 (continued.) 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 16 
 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 
 INTELSATs  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 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 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. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 17 
 have  a  status  of  a  U.  S.  licensee.  117 
 4.  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  INTELSATs  existing  and  future  orbital  slot  registrations.  123  The  United  States  cannot  remain  a  notifying  administration  unless  it  licenses  Intelsat 


 LLCs  17  existing  and  10  planned  C-  band  and  Ku-  band  operations. 


 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). 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 18 
 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  INTELSATs  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 
 INTELSATs  privatization  as  reflected  in  the  Assembly  decision.  We  will  provide  notice  and  opportunity 
 for  comment  on  Intelsat  LLCs  supplemental  information  and  further  address  any  issues  raised  with  respect 
 to  Intelsat  LLCs  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. 


 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. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 19 
 5.  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 


 6.  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 
 Comsats  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 


 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). 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 20 
 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. 


 7.  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 


 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). 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 21 
 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 


 B.  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  INTELSATs 
 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 
 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,  see 
 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. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 22 
 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  Commissions  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 


 1.  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 


 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. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 23 
 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 


 158  Starsys  Global  Positioning,  Inc.,  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  9392,  9393  (Intl.  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.  ONeill,  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 
 (continued.) 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 24 
 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. 


 2.  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.  Comsats  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. 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 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). 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 25 
 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  INTELSATs  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 


 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  (Intl  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. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 26 
 C.  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  Commissions  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 


 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. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 27 
 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 


 1.  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 


 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. 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 28 
 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. 


 2.  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 


 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). 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 29 
 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 
 INTELSATs  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 


 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  60  W.  L.  to  140 


 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. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 30 
 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. 


 3.  Underlying  Principles  of  FCC  Technical  Rules 
 66.  The  principles  underlying  Commissions  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. 


 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. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 31 
 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. 
 INTELSATs  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. 


 4.  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, 


 212  See  supra  paragraph  32. 
 213  See  supra  n.  204. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 32 
 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  is  fully  constructed  and  is  in  the  final  stages  of  testing; 
 INTELSAT  902  is  fully  constructed  and  the  initial  system  tests  are  completed.  It  still 
 needs  to  complete  environmental  and  final  tests; 
 INTELSAT  903  communication  payload  is  fully  constructed  and  tested  but  it  is  not  yet 
 mated  with  the  rest  of  the  satellite;  218 
 INTELSAT  904  communications  payload  is  under  construction  and  the  service  module 
 is  fully  assembled;  219 
 INTELSAT  905  assembly  has  begun; 
 INTELSAT  906  manufacturing  is  in  progress  as  components  are  separately  being 
 built; 
 INTELSAT  907  manufacturing  is  in  progress  as  components  are  separately  being 
 built; 
 ALPHA  1  preliminary  design  review  is  complete,  including  initial  system  design 
 and  engineering  analysis,  and  final  design  process  is  underway; 
 ALPHA  2  preliminary  design  review  is  scheduled  for  September  2000;  and 
 BETA  1  contract  is  due  to  be  in  place  by  June  2001. 


 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. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 33 
 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  85  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  85  E.  L.  where  it  could  be  directly 
 affected.  Further,  there  are  no  prospects  of  future  U.  S.-  licensed  satellites  being  located  adjacent  to  the  85 
 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  LLCs  cost  estimates  for  modifying  its 


 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. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 34 
 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  Americoms  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  INTELSATs  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  LLCs  competitors 
 that  we  should  impose  requirements  on  it  that  would  weaken  it  as  a  competitor. 


 5.  Specific  Waiver  Requests 
 a.  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 


 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  INTELSATs  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. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 35 
 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  Commissions  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 


 230  Separate  Systems  decision,  101  FCC  2d  at  1167. 
 231  In  the  Matter  of  Amendment  to  the  Commissions  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  INTELSATs  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. 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 36 
 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 


 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  INTELSATs  operating  and  planned  satellites  are  located  in  the  international  arc,  though  several  are  able  to 
 serve  at  least  part  of  the  United  States. 


 239  PanAmSats  satellites  PAS-  7  and  PAS-  21  are  operating  at  68.5  E.  L.,  2.5  away  from  the  INTELSAT 


 704  located  at  the  66  E.  L.  orbital  location.  The  PAS-  9  is  operating  at  58.  0  W.  L.,  2.  5  away  from  INTELSAT 
 805  located  at  the  55.5  W.  L.  orbital  location.  Loral  Orions  Telstar  12  is  operating  at  15.0  W.  L.,  3  away  from 
 INTELSAT  705  located  at  the  18.0  W.  L.  orbital  location.  Similarly,  the  Loral  Orion  Telstar  11  (Ku-  band)  and 
 the  Columbia  515  (C-  band)  are  operating  at  the  nominal  37.5  W.  L.  orbital  location,  3  away  from  the 
 INTELSAT  601  at  the  34.5  W.  L.  orbital  location.  Finally,  Columbia  (TDRS-  6  -  C-  band)  and  Loral  Orion  (Ku-band) 
 are  authorized  at  47  W.  L.,  3  away  from  the  INTELSAT  709  located  at  the  50.0  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  30  W.  L.  and  60  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). 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 37 
 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  PanAmSats  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  INTELSATs  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 


 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  47  W.  L.  and  the 
 two  INTELSAT  satellites  at  50  W.  L  and  53  W.  L.,  and  (2)  the  Loral  and  Columbia  satellites  at  37.5  W.  L  and 
 the  two  INTELSAT  satellites  at  34.  5  W.  L  and  31.  5  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. 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 38 
 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 


 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.). 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 39 
 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  172  E.  L.,  two  degrees  away  from  INTELSAT  802  at  174  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  174  E.  L.  orbital 
 location.  In  this  case  we  waive  Section  25.140(  b)(  2)  only,  contingent  on  coordination  with  the  Columbia 
 satellite  at  172  E.  L.,  as  this  satellite  will  operate  at  two-  degree  spacing  with  regard  to  the  Columbia 
 satellite,  as  discussed  above.  257 


 b.  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 


 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. 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 40 
 use.  260 
 92.  We  find  that,  except  for  the  3400-  3600  MHz  band,  a  waiver  of  Section  25.202(  a)(  1)  is 
 unnecessary  because  INTELSATs  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 
 Commissions  rules  and  policies.  Given  that  Intelsat  LLCs  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,  INTELSATs 
 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. 


 c.  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  INTELSATs  TT&  C  being  located 
 in  the  center  of  the  band.  263 


 96.  INTELSATs  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 


 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). 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 41 
 band.  This  became  a  regulatory  requirement.  The  impact  of  these  differences  in  system  evolution  is  to 
 cause  INTELSATs  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  INTELSATs  174  q  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 
 PanAmSats  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  q  E.  L.,  the  PAS-  9  and  PAS-  23  at  58  q  W.  L.,  the  Columbia  TDRS  C-  band  payload  and  the  Columbia-  47  at  47  q  W.  L.,  the  Columbia-  515  at  37.7  q  W.  L.  and  the  PAS-  7  and  the  PAS-  21  at 


 68.5  q  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  q  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 
 85  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. 


 d.  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 


 265  PanAmSat  satellite  names  included  here  are  as  licensed.  Its  commercial  names  are  PAS-  5  (at  58  W.  L.) 
 and  PAS-  4  and  PAS-  7  (at  68.5  E.  L.). 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 42 
 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  LLCs  assertions.  268  In  addition, 
 Comsat  states  that  the  use  of  digital  transmission  makes  circular  polarization  versus  linear  polarization 
 irrelevant  for  adjacent  networks.  Intelsat  LLCs  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 
 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. 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 43 
 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  PanAmSats  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  INTELSATs  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. 


 e.  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 
 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  satellites  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. 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 44 
 because  the  satellites  are  already  in  orbit  and  cannot  be  modified.  Further,  Intelsat  LLCs  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 


 f.  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  LLCs  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. 


 g.  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 


 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). 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 45 
 operations.  As  discussed  in  the  TT&  C  waiver  section  above,  the  channel  configuration  of  Intelsat  LLCs 
 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  LLCs  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. 


 h.  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. 


 i.  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. 


 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. 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 46 
 j.  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,  prejudicing  future  applicants.  292  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.  293  PanAmSat  states  that  a 
 waiver  would  perpetuate  INTELSATs  special  IGO  privileges.  294  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.  295 


 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  178.0  E.  L.  (Region  3),  176.0  E.  L.  (Region  3),  and 
 20.0  W.  L.  (340.0  E.  L.)  (Region  1)  orbital  locations.  The  157.0  E.  L.  (Region  3),  85.0  E.  L.  (Region  3),  33.0 
 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  GE  Americom  Petition  at  16;  PanAmSat  Petition  at  14-  15;  JSAT  Petition  at  7. 
 293  GE  Americom  Petition  at  14-  15;  PanAmSat  Petition  at  15;  JSAT  Petition  at  7. 
 294  PanAmSat  Petition  at  15,  16,  citing  Intelsat  LLC  Application  Vol.  I  at  10,  13. 
 295  PanAmSat  Petition  at  16-  17. 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 47 
 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.  296  PanAmSat  goes  further,  claiming  that 
 INTELSATs  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.  297  We  disagree.  We  find  that  there  is  good  cause  to 
 waive  Section  25.  140(  f)  given  the  special  circumstances  associated  with  Intelsat  LLCs  origins  through 
 INTELSAT,  as  well  as  the  implementation  milestones  we  impose  on  its  licenses,  which  will  assure  that  the 
 rule  is  not  undermined. 


 119.  INTELSATs  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.  298  In  its  status 
 as  an  intergovernmental  organization,  INTELSAT  possesses  juridical  personality  with  capacity  to  execute 
 functions  necessary  to  carry  out  its  objectives.  299  These  functions  include  notifying  the  ITU  of  the 
 frequencies  to  be  used  for  the  INTELSAT  space  segment.  300  Through  special  arrangement  and 
 longstanding  practice,  the  U.  S.  has  served  as  the  notifying  administration  to  the  ITU  of  INTELSATs 
 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  INTELSATs  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.  301 
 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 


 296  PanAmSat  Petition  at  13-  16;  JSAT  Petition  at  6-  7;  GE  Americom  Petition  at  12-  18. 
 297  Letter  from  Joseph  A.  Godless  on  behalf  of  PanAmSat  Corporation  to  the  Secretary,  Federal 
 Communications  Commission,  dated  July  26,  2000.  (  July  26  PanAmSat  letter) 
 298  INTELSAT  Agreement,  Article  II(  a). 


 299  INTELSAT  Agreement,  Article  IV. 
 300  INTELSAT  Agreement,  Article  X(  a)(  xxxiii). 
 301  As  the  notifying  administration  on  behalf  of  INTELSAT,  the  Commission  has  not  asserted  any 
 regulatory  authority  over  INTELSATs  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 
 INTELSATs  behalf.  There  currently  is  no  regulatory  review  of  INTELSATs  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. 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 48 
 INTELSATs  ability  to  maintain  global  coverage  and  connectivity,  including  to  lifeline  users.  302  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.  INTELSATs  concerns  are,  however,  unnecessary.  INTELSATs  privatization  will  be 
 implemented  by  a  transfer  of  its  satellites  and  other  assets  from  the  intergovernmental  organization  to 
 Intelsat  LLC  and  a  transfer  of  INTELSATs  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.  303  We  see  no  reason  to  deny 
 INTELSATs  present  standing  in  regard  to  these  unused  orbital  locations  as  well.  No  arguments 
 persuasively  demonstrate  why  INTELSATs  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  INTELSATs  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.  304 


 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.  305  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.  306  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.  307  Intelsat 


 302  See  Letter  from  Nancy  J.  Victory  on  behalf  of  Intelsat  LLC  to  Secretary,  FCC,  dated  June  30,  2000 
 (  June  30  Intelsat  LLC  letter). 
 303  47  USC    310(  d). 


 304  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). 


 305  See  also  Appendix  A,  Table  3  which  shows  the  respective  orbit  locations  at  issue  --  178.0  E.  L.,  176.0 


 E.  L.,  157.0  E.  L.,  85.0  E.  L.,  33.0  E.  L.,  and  20.0  W.  L.  (340.0  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. 


 306  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. 
 307  See  infra. 
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 49 
 LLC  recognizes  that  it  will  be  subject  to  milestones.  308  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.  309 


 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  178.0  E.  L.,  176.0  E.  L.,  157.0  E.  L.,  85.0  E.  L.,  33.0 
 E.  L.,  and  20.0  W.  L.  (340.0  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. 


 D.  Financial  Requirements 
 124.  Commission  rules  require  fixed-  satellite  space  station  applicants  to  demonstrate  financial 
 ability  to  construct,  launch,  and  operate  proposed  satellites.  310  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.  311  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.  312  The  applicant  must  further  submit  evidence  of  a 
 financial  commitment  by  the  corporate  parent  when  it  is  owned  by  more  than  one  corporate  parent.  313  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;  314  (2)  the  terms  of  any  fully 
 negotiated  sale  or  placement  of  any  equity;  315  (3)  the  terms  of  any  grant  or  other  external  funding 
 commitment;  316  or  (4)  the  terms  of  any  contingent  financing  arrangements.  317 


 308  Intelsat  LLC  Reply  and  Opposition  at  26-  27. 
 309  See  Pub.  Law  106-  180,    62  (3)(  c). 
 310  47  C.  F.  R.    25.114(  c)(  13)  and  25.140(  c)  &  (d). 
 311  47  C.  F.  R.    25.114(  c)(  13)  and  25.140(  b)(  3)  &  (4). 
 312  47  C.  F.  R.    25.140(  c)(  1). 
 313  Id. 
 314  47  C.  F.  R.    25.140(  c)(  2)(  i). 
 315  47  C.  F.  R.    25.140(  c)(  2)(  ii). 
 316  47  C.  F.  R.    25.140(  c)(  2)(  iii). 
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 50 
 125.  Of  the  27  satellites  for  which  Intelsat  LLC  is  seeking  10-  year  licenses,  17  are  operating.  318 
 Consequently,  we  need  only  consider  the  financial  qualifications  for  the  10  planned  satellites  that  have  not 
 yet  been  fully  constructed  and  launched.  319  All  of  these  proposed  spacecraft  either  have  been  committed  to 
 or  are  currently  under  construction.  320 


 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.  321 
 These  estimated  costs  are  based  on  contractual  commitments,  price  proposals,  and  INTELSAT  industry 
 experience.  322  Estimated  operating  expenses  for  the  first  full  year  of  operation  is  $110  million.  323  These 
 operating  expenses  include  TT&  C,  in-  orbit  insurance,  selling,  marketing,  administrative,  and  satellite 
 performance  incentive  payments.  324 


 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.  325  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.  326  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.  327  Intelsat  LLC  notes  that  revenues  from  the  period  of  1997-  1999  were  $962  million,  $1.  020 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  317 
 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). 


 318  47  C.  F.  R.    25.140  (b)(  4). 


 319  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. 
 320  Intelsat  LLC  Application  Vol.  I  at  23. 


 321  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. 


 322  Id.  at  24. 


 323  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  INTELSATs  901,  902, 
 903,  &  904  in  2002;  INTELSATs  905,  906,  &  907  in  2003;  and  INTELSATs  NI-  ALPHA  1,  NI-  ALPHA-  2  & 
 NI-  BETA  1  in  2004. 


 324  Id. 


 325  Id.  at  Attachment  D. 
 326  Id.  at  25-  26. 
 327  Id.  at  26. 
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 51 
 billion,  and  $977  million,  respectively.  328  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.  329  With  total  revenues  of  approximately  $1  billion,  operating  income  exceeded 
 $383  million.  330  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.  331 


 128.  The  financial  showing,  including  Intelsat  LLCs  assertions  and  financial  documents  are 
 undisputed.  Comsats  comments  fully  support  the  INTELSAT  financial  showing.  332  Moreover, 
 INTELSATs  documented  financial  track  record  over  the  past  several  years  supports  Intelsat  LLCs 
 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  LLCs  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.  333  This  finding  is  conditioned  on  Intelsat  LLC 


 328  Id.  at  26  n.  50. 
 329  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. 


 330  Id. 


 331  Intelsat  LLC  Application  Vol.  I  at  24. 
 332  Comsat  Comments  at  9-  10. 
 333  47  C.  F.  R.    25.140(  c)(  1) 
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 52 
 having  comparable  financially  ability,  as  is  demonstrated  here,  upon  its  privatization  and  the  effective  date 
 of  its  authorizations. 


 E.  Other  Issues 
 1.  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.  334  The  PWP 
 recommended  for  consideration  three  alternatives.  335  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  INTELSATs  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.  336  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  INTELSATs  existing  and  future  orbital  slot  registration.  337 


 132.  In  view  of  the  unique  nature  of  INTELSATs  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. 


 334  Intelsat  LLC  June  30  letter. 
 335  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. 


 336  July  26  PanAmSat  letter;  Further  Response  of  GE  Americom  Communications,  Inc.,  at  10,  dated  July 


 26,  2000. 
 337  Pub.  L.  106-  180,    644(  b). 
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 53 
 INTELSATs  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.  338  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  INTELSATs  orbital  locations.  339  Licensing  Intelsat  LLC 
 operations  in  the  C-  band  and  the  Ku-  band  furthers  the  intent  of  Section  644(  b).  340  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.  341  Thus,  nothing  in  the  ORBIT  Act  precludes  the  Commission  from 


 338  Pub.  Law  106-  180    221(  2)(  c). 
 339  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  INTELSATs  existing  and  future  orbital  slot  registrations.) 


 340  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. 


 341  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 
 (continued.) 
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 54 
 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  LLCs  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. 


 2.  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.  342 
 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.  343  Failure  to  proceed  consistent  with  the 
 milestone  schedule,  unless  the  licensee  requests  an  extension  that  demonstrates  delay  is  due  to 
 circumstances  beyond  the  licensees  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.  344  All,  according  to  Intelsat  LLC,  are  scheduled  to  commence 
 operations  within  approximately  the  next  three  years.  345  The  milestone  schedule  we  implement  here  takes 
 into  account  the  Intelsat  LLC  proposed  schedule.  346  This  milestone  schedule  is  consistent  with  typical 
 milestone  schedules  set  for  U.  S.  licenses.  347 


 (Continued  from  previous  page) 
 Communications  Commission,  to  Tom  Bliley,  Chairman,  House  Committee  on  Commerce,  dated  February  28, 
 2000. 


 342  See  Licensing  Space  Stations  in  Domestic  Fixed-  Satellite  Service,  1  FCC  Rcd  682,  685  (1986)  (  1986 


 Domsat  Report  and  Order). 
 343  See  In  The  Matter  of  GE  American  Communications,  Inc.,  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd.  6475  (1997). 


 344  They  include  INTELSATs  901-  907,  ALPHA-  1  and  -2,  and  BETA-  1. 
 345  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. 


 346  See  ex  parte  letter  from  Intelsat  LLC  Counsel,  Jennifer  Wheatley,  to  Magalie  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal 


 Communications  Commission,  June  20,  2000  at  Attachment  A. 
 347  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). 
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 55 
 3.  Frequency  Band  Use 
 a.  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  LLCs  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. 


 b.  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.  348  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.  349  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.  350  In  May  of  this  year,  the  Commission  modified  this  NPRM  by  partially  lifting  the  freeze  to  allow 


 348  47  C.  F.  R.    2.106  n.  US245. 
 349  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). 
 350  The  3650-  3700  MHz  band  is  a  portion  of  the  extended  C-  band.  See  In  the  Matter  of  Amendment  of 


 the  Commissions  Rules  with  Regard  to  the  3650-  3700  MHz  Government  Transfer  Band,  Notice  of  Proposed 
 Rulemaking  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  1295  (1998). 
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 56 
 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.  351  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. 


 c.  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.  352  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  systems  deployment  and  because  of  the  limited  number  of  FSS  earth  stations.  353  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 


 d.  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.  354 


 351  In  the  Matter  of  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  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). 


 352  47  C.  F.  R.    2.106  n.  US245. 


 353  In  the  Matter  of  Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  90  of  the  Commissions  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). 


 354  We  recognize  that  the  Intelsat  LLC  proposed  use  includes  the  6.425-  6.650  GHz  portion  of  the  band. 
56
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 57 
 e.  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  Commissions  rules.  355  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. 


 f.  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.  356  Footnote  US337  to  Section  2.106  of  the  Commissions  rules  requires 
 that  earth  stations  operating  in  the  13.  75-  13.  8  GHz  band  be  coordinated  through  NTIA  Interdepartment 
 Radio  Advisory  Committees  (  IRAC)  Frequency  Assignment  Subcommittee  to  minimize  interference  to 
 the  forward  space-  to-  space  link  of  the  National  Aeronautics  and  Space  Administrations  (  NASA) 
 Tracking  and  Data  Relay  Satellite  System.  357  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.  358  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. 


 4.  Request  to  Modify  Authorizations 
 145.  Intelsat  LLC  requests  authority  to  modify  certain  licenses,  that  we  grant  herein,  in  order 


 355  47  C.  F.  R.    2.106  n.  NG104. 
 356  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. 


 357  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  Systems 
 forward  space-  to-  space  link  (TDRSS  forward  link-  to-  LEO). 


 358  See  Letter  from  William  Hatch,  Acting  Associate  Administrator,  Office  of  Spectrum  Management, 


 NTIA,  to  Roderick  Porter,  Acting  Chief,  International  Bureau,  FCC  (May  11,  1999). 
57
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 58 
 that  they  may  be  reassigned  to  alternative  orbital  locations.  359  It  presently  holds  the  orbital  locations  and 
 frequency  bands  at  issue  in  its  capacity  as  an  intergovernmental  organization.  360  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.  361  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.  362  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. 


 5.  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  applicants  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.  363  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.  364 


 VI.  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 


 359  The  satellites  at  issue  are  INTELSATs  601-  605,  702,  704,  705,  707,  709,  and  801.  See  Appendix  A, 
 Table  3. 
 360  See  Appendix  A,  Table  3. 


 361  Intelsat  LLC  Application  Vol.  I  at  10. 
 362  See  47  C.  F.  R.    25.101  et.  seq. 
 363  See  Appendix  A,  Table  1. 
 364  See  Appendix  A,  Table  2.  47  C.  F.  R.    25.114(  c)(  13)  and  25.140(  c)  &  (d). 
58
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 59 
 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  Commissions  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 
 Commissions  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  Commissions  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 
59
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 60 
 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  INTELSATs 
 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. 
60
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 61 
 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  NTIAs 
 Interdepartment  Radio  Advisory  Committees  Frequency  Assignment  Subcommittee  to  minimize 
 interference  to  the  forward  space-  to-  space  link  of  the  National  Aeronautics  and  Space  Administrations 
 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 
61
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 APPENDIX  A 
 Table  1 
 17  Currently  Operating  Satellites 


 Satellite  August/  2000 
 511  29.5  W.  L.  (330.5  E.  L.) 
 601  34.5  W.  L.  (325.5  E.  L.) 
 602  62.0  E.  L. 
 603  24.5  W.  L.  (335.5  E.  L.) 
 604  60.0  E.  L 
 605  27.5  W.  L.  (332.5  E.  L.) 
 701  180.0  E.  L. 
 702  177.0  E.  L. 
 704  66.0  E.  L. 
 705  18.0  W.  L.  (342.0  E.  L.) 
 706  53.0  W.  L.  (307.0  E.  L.) 
 707  1.0  W.  L.  (359.0  E.  L.) 
 709  50.0  W.  L.  (310.0  E.  L.) 
 801  31.5  W.  L.  (328.5  E.  L.) 
 802  174.0  E.  L. 
 804  64.0  E.  L. 
 805  55.5  W.  L.  (304  .5  E.  L.) 


 Table  2 
 10  Planned  Satellites 
 Satellite  Location  Operational  Date 
 901  62.0  E.  L.  August  31,  2001 
 902  60.0  E.  L.  August  31,  2001 
 903  24.5  W.  L.  (335.5  E.  L.)  November  30,  2001 
 904  34.5  W.  L.  (325.5  E.  L.)  February  28,  2002 
 905  27.5  W.  L.  (332.5  E.  L.)  August  31,  2002 
 906  18.0  W.  L.  (342.0  E.  L.)  November  30,  2002 
 907  31.5  W.  L.  (328.5  E.  L.)  February  28,  2003 
 A-  1  50.0  W.  L.  (310.0  E.  L.)  May  31,  2003 
 A-  2  1.  0  W.  L.  (359.0  E.  L.)  November  30,  2003 
 B-  1  85.0  E.  L.  August  31,  2003 
62
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 2 
 APPENDIX  A 
 Table  3 


 13  Orbit  Reassignment  Modifications 


 Satellite  August/  2000  First  Modification 
 Location 
 First  Mod 
 Month 
 Second  Mod 
 Location 
 Second  Mod 
 Month 
 601  34.5  W.  L. 
 (325.5  E.  L.) 
 85  E.  L.  10/  2001 


 602  62.0  E.  L.  178  E.  L.  4/  2001  157  E.  L.  8/  2002 
 603  24.5  W.  L. 
 (335.5  E.  L.) 
 62  E.  L.  8/  2001 


 604  60.0  E.  L  33  E.  L.  5/  2001  62  E.  L.  9/  2003 
 605  27.5  W.  L. 
 (332.5  E.  L.) 
 20  W.  L. 
 (340  E.  L.) 
 1/  2002 


 702  177.0  E.  L.  176  E.  L.  10/  2000 
 704  66.0  E.  L  33  E.  L.  8/  2003 
 705  18.0  W.  L. 
 (342.0  E.  L.) 
 178  E.  L.  7/  2002 


 707  1.0  W.  L. 
 (359.0  E.  L.) 
 66  E.  L.  7/  2003 


 709  50.0  W.  L. 
 (310.0  E.  L.) 
 157  E.  L.  4/  2003 


 801  31.5  W.  L. 
 (328.5  E.  L.) 
 29.5  W.  L. 
 (330.5  E.  L.) 
 10/  2002 
63
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 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 
 Share  (%) 
 WTO 
 Member 
 Afghanistan  Ministry  of  Communications  of  the  Islamic  State  of  Afghanistan  (S)  0.050000  No 
 Algeria  Government  of  the  Democratic  and  Popular  Republic  of  Algeria  (S)  0.361785  No 
 Angola  Empresa  de  Telecomunicaes  de  Angola,  Angola  Telecom,  E.  P.  (S)  0.228888  Yes 
 Argentina  Total  Country  3.240205  Yes 
 Secretara  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  S.  A.  (SPTI)  (IE)  0.012711 
 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  Republic  (S)  0.050000  No 
 Bahamas  The  Bahamas  Telecommunication  Corporation  (BATELCO)  (S)  0.118957  No 
 Bahrain  Bahrain  Telecommunications  Company  (BATELCO)  (S)  0.373412  Yes 
 Bangladesh  Telegraph  and  Telephone  Board  of  Bangladesh  (S)  0.234820  Yes 
 Barbados  Cable  &  Wireless  BET  Limited  (S)  0.089269  Yes 
 Belgium  BELGACOM  (S)  0.238965  Yes 
 Benin  Office  des  Postes  et  Tlcommunications  de  la  Rpublique  du  Bnin  (S)  0.057417  Yes 
 Bhutan  Department  of  Telecommunications,  Ministry  of  Communications  (S)  0.050000  No 
 Bolivia  Empresa  Nacional  de  Telecomunicaciones  (ENTEL)  (S)  0.255617  Yes 
 Bosnia  and 
 Herzegovina 
 Public  Enterprise  PTT  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  (S)  0.051692  No 


 Botswana  Botswana  Telecommunications  Corporation  (S)  0.050000  Yes 
 Brazil  Total  Country  2.104549  Yes 
 Empresa  Brasileira  de  Telecomunicaes  S.  A.  (EMBRATEL)  (S)  2.104549 
 Impsat  Brazil  (IE)  0.000000 
 Linksat  Sistemas  de  Co.  (IE)  0.000000 
 Tectelcom  Brazil  (IE)  0.000000 
 Brunei 
 Darussalam 
 Department  of  Telecommunications,  Ministry  of  Communications  (S)  0.249352  Yes 
64
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 2 
 Country  Signatory  (S)  /  Investing  Entity  (IE)  Investment 
 Share  (%) 
 WTO 
 Member 
 Bulgaria  Bulgarian  Telecommunications  Company  Ltd.  (BTC)  (S)  0.050000  Yes 
 Burkina  Faso  Office  National  des  Tlcommunications  (ONATEL)  (S)  0.051437  Yes 
 Cameroon  Cameroon  Telecommunications  (CAMTEL)  *(  S)  0.153313  Yes 
 Canada  Teleglobe  Canada  Inc.  (S)  3.058182  Yes 
 Cape  Verde,  Rep. 
 Of 
 Cabo  Verde  Telecom,  SARL  (S)  0.050000  No 


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


 Chad  Socit  des  Tlcommunications  Internationales  du  Tchad  (T.  I.  T.)  (S)  0.050000  Yes 
 Chile  Total  Country  0.741694  Yes 
 Empresa  Nacional  de  Telecomunicaciones  S.  A.  (ENTEL)  (S)  0.646702 
 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,  Peoples 
 Republic  of 
 Total  Country  2.347435  No 


 CHINA  TELECOM  (S)  1.665799 
 Cable  &  Wireless  HKT  (IE)  0.681636 
 Colombia  Empresa  Nacional  de  Telecomunicaciones  de  Colombia  (TELECOM)(  S)  1.504048  Yes 
 Comoros,  Fed. 
 and  Islamic 
 Rep.  of 


 Office  Nationale  des  Postes  et  Tlcommunications  (S)  0.050000  No 


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


 Congo,  Rep.  of  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Congo  (S)  0.050000  Yes 
 Costa  Rica  Instituto  Costarricense  de  Electricidad  (S)  0.099994  Yes 
 Cte  DIvoire  Total  Country  0.198319  Yes 
 Agence  des  Tlcommunications  de  Cte  dIvoire  (ATCI)(  S)  0.198319 
 CI-  Telecom  (IE)  0.000000 
 Croatia  Ministry  of  Maritime  Affairs,  Transport  and  Communications  (S)  0.060009  No 
 Cyprus  Cyprus  Telecommunications  Authority  (S)  0.066005  Yes 
 Czech  Republic  CESK  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 
 Republic 
 Compaa  Dominicana  de  Telfonos,  C.  por  A.  (S)  0.286305  Yes 


 Ecuador  Total  Country  0.230238  Yes 
 Consejo  Nacional  de  Telecomunicaciones  (CONATEL)  (S)  0.000000 
 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 
 Compaa  de  Telecomunicaciones  de  El  Salvado  S.  A.  de  C.  V.  (CTE,  S.  A.  de 
 C.  V.)  (S) 
 0.059133 
65
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 3 
 Country  Signatory  (S)  /  Investing  Entity  (IE)  Investment 
 Share  (%) 
 WTO 
 Member 
 Americatel  El  Salvador,  S.  A.  (IE)  0.000000 
 Telefonical  De  El  Salvador  (IE)  0.000000 
 Equatorial  Guinea  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communications  of  the  Republic  of 
 Equatorial  Guinea  (S) 
 0.050000  No 


 Ethiopia  Ethiopian  Telecommunication  Corporation  (S)  0.138477  No 
 Fiji  Fiji  International  Telecommunications  Limited  (FINTEL)  (S)  0.069126  Yes 
 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  Tlcommunications  de  Polynesie  Francaise  (IE)  0.087455 
 Protel  (IE)  0.000001 
 Gabon  Office  des  Postes  et  Tlcommunications  (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  S.  A.  (OTE)  (S)  0.312210  Yes 
 Guatemala  Telecomunicaciones  de  Guatemala  S.  A.  (S)  0.279568  Yes 
 Guinea  Total  Country  0.067763  Yes 
 Ministre  des  Postes  et  Tlcommunications  0.057570 
 Sotelgui  0.010193 
 Haiti  Total  Country  0.088148  Yes 
 Conseil  National  des  Tlcommunications  (CONATEL)  (S)  0.000000 
 Haitel  S.  A.  (IE)  0.006586 
 Telecom  Haiti  (IE)  0.081562 
 Honduras  Total  Country  0.050000  Yes 
 Comisin  Nacional  de  Telecomunicaciones  (CONATEL)  (S)  0.000000 
 Empresa  Hondurena  de  Telecomunicaciones  (HONDUTEL)  (IE)  0.050000 
 Hungary  Hungarian  Satellite  Communications  Associations  (HUNSAT)  (S)  0.108716  Yes 
 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 
 Republic  of 
 Telecommunication  Company  of  Iran  (S)  1.464398  No 


 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.  Ltd.  (S)  0.973546  Yes 
 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 
66
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 4 
 Country  Signatory  (S)  /  Investing  Entity  (IE)  Investment 
 Share  (%) 
 WTO 
 Member 
 Kazakhstan  Total  Country  0.180171  No 
 Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communication  of  the  Republic  of 
 Kazakhstan  (S) 
 0.000000 


 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  Corporation  (S)*  0.324625  Yes 
 Korea,  Rep.  of  Korea  Telecom  (S)  1.341693  Yes 
 Kuwait  The  Ministry  of  Communications,  The  State  of  Kuwait  (S)  0.778646  Yes 
 Kyrgyzstan  Ministry  of  Transport  and  Communications  (S)  0.050000  Yes 
 Lebanon  Government  of  Lebanon  (S)  0.169091  No 
 Libyan  Arab 
 Jamahiriya 
 Government  of  the  Great  Socialist  Peoples  Libyan  Arab  Jamahiriya  (S)  0.314050  No 


 Liechtenstein  Government  of  the  Principality  of  Liechtenstein  (S)  0.050000  Yes 
 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  Corporation*  (S)  0.058984  Yes 
 Malaysia  Telekom  Malaysia  Berhad*  (S)  0.741817  Yes 
 Mali  Socit  des  Tlcommunications  Internationales  du  Mali  (SOTELMA)  (S)  0.099994  Yes 
 Malta  MALTACOM  p.  l.  c.  (S)  0.068271  Yes 
 Mauritania  Government  of  the  Islamic  Republic  of  Mauritania  (S)  0.053154  Yes 
 Mauritius  Mauritius  Telecom  Limited  (S)  0.170000  Yes 
 Mexico  TELECOMICACIONES  DE  MEXICO  (TELECOMM)  (S)  0.328050  Yes 
 Micronesia  Federated  States  of  Micronesia  Telecommunications  Corporation  (S)  0.050000  No 
 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  Telecomunicaes  de  Moambique  (S)  0.155039  Yes 
 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  Nicaragense  de  Telecomunicaciones  y  Correos  (TELCOR)  (S)  0.053805  Yes 
 Niger  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Niger  (S)  0.073926  Yes 
 Nigeria  Nigerian  Telecommunications  Limited  (NITEL)  (S)  0.600000  Yes 
 Norway  Total  Country  4.478431  Yes 
 Telenor  Satellite  Services  AS  (S)  4.478431 
 Norse  Electronics  AS  (IE)  0.000000 
 Oman  General  Telecommunications  Organization  (GTO)  (S)  0.216711  No 
 Pakistan  Government  of  the  Islamic  Republic  of  Pakistan  (S)  0.675645  Yes 
 Panama  C&  W  Panam  S.  A.  (S)  0.377174  Yes 
 Papua  New 
 Guinea 
 Telikom  PNG  Limited  (S)  0.067592  Yes 
67
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 5 
 Country  Signatory  (S)  /  Investing  Entity  (IE)  Investment 
 Share  (%) 
 WTO 
 Member 
 Paraguay  Comisin  Nacional  de  Telecomunicaciones  (CONATEL)  (S)  0.151229  Yes 
 Peru  Total  Country  0.986851  Yes 
 Ministry  of  Transportation,  Communications,  Housing  and  Construction  (S)  0.000000 
 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  Corporation  (PHILCOMSAT)  (S)  0.279385  Yes 
 Poland  The  Polish  Telecommunications  Company  (S)  0.259876  Yes 
 Portugal  Companhia  Portuguesa  Rdio  Marconi  (S)  0.874788  Yes 
 Qatar  Qatar  Telecom  Q.  S.  C.  (Q-  TEL)*  (S)  0.228110  Yes 
 Romania  Societatea  Nationala  de  Radiocomicatii  S.  A.  (S)  0.153436  Yes 
 Russian 
 Federation 
 Total  Country  0.201684  No 


 The  State  Committee  for  Telecommunications  of  the  Russian  Federation*  (S)  0.201684 
 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  the  Somali  Democratic 
 Republic  (S) 
 0.050000  No 


 South  Africa  TELKOM  SA  Limited  (S)  1.161013  Yes 
 Spain  Telefnica  de  Espaa,  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  (Public)  (S)  0.050000  Yes 
 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 
 Republic 
 Government  of  the  Syrian  Arab  Republic  0.140168  No 


 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  Socit  des  Tlcommunications  du  Togo  (TOGO  TELECOM)  (S)  0.087445  Yes 
 Trinidad  & 
 Tobago 
 Telecommunications  Services  of  Trinidad  and  Tobago  Limited  (TSTT)  (S)  0.067591  Yes 
68
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 6 
 Country  Signatory  (S)  /  Investing  Entity  (IE)  Investment 
 Share  (%) 
 WTO 
 Member 
 Tunisia  Ministre  des  Transport  et  des  Communications  (S)  0.050000  Yes 
 Turkey  Trk  Telekomnikasyon  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 
 Emirates 
 Ministry  of  Communications  of  the  Government  of  the  United  Arab  Emirates 
 (S) 
 1.091369  Yes 


 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  Intl  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  Administracin  Naional  de  Telecomuniaciones  (S)  0.052693  Yes 
 Uzbekistan  Posts  and  Telecommunications  Agency  of  Uzbekistan  (S)  0.050000  No 
 Vatican  City  State  Government  of  the  Vatican  City  State  (S)  0.060009  No 
 Venezuela  Venezuelan  Telephone  Company  (Compaia  Annima  Nacional  Telfonos 
 de  Venezuela)  (S) 
 1.427508  Yes 


 Viet  Nam  Vietnam  Posts  and  Telecommunications  Corporation  (S)  0.315446  No 
 Yemen  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Yemen  (S)  0.086106  No 
 Yugoslavia  Community  of  the  Yugoslav  Posts,  Telegraphs  and  Telephones  0.060009  No 
 Zambia  Zambia  Telecommunications  Company  Limited  (S)  0.083584  Yes 
 Zimbabwe  Government  of  Zimbabwe  (S)  0.050000  Yes 


 *  denotes  new  names  for  Signatories  or  investing  entities  for  which  formal  diplomatic  notifications  have 
69
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 7 
 not  yet  been  completed. 
70
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 APPENDIX  C 
 Part  25  Waivers  Granted  to  the  Particular  Satellites 
 Satellites/ 
 Location 
 140(  b)(  2)  202(  a)(  1)  202(  g)  210(  a)(  1)  & 
 210(  a)(  3) 
 210(  c)  210(  i)  211(  a)  210(  j)(  1)  210(  g)(  1) 


 OPERATING 
 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 
 901/  62E  X  XXXX 
 902/  60E  X  XXXX 
 903/  335.5E  X  XXXX 
 904/  325.5E  X  XXXX 
 905/  332.5E  X  XXXX 
 906/  342E  X  XXXX 
 907/  328.5E  X  XXXX 
 NI-  Alpha  1/  310E  X  XXXX 
 NI-  Alpha  2/  359E  X  XXXX 
 NI-  Beta/  85E  X  X  X 
 MODS 
 601/  85E  X  XXXXX 
 602/  178E  X  XXXXX 
 602/  157E  X  XXXXX 
 603/  62E  X  XXXXX 
 604/  33E  X  XXXXX 
 604/  62E  X  XXXXX 
 605/  340E  X  XXXXX 
 702/  176E  X  XXXX 
 704/  33E  X  XXXX 
 705/  178E  X  XXXX 
 707/  66E  X  XXXX 
 709/  157E  X  XXXX 
 801/  330.5E  X  XXXX 
 X  denotes  a  granted  waiver  *  805  receives  a  waiver  for  210(  a)(  3)  but  not  210(  a)(  1). 
71
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF 
 CHAIRMAN  WILLIAM  E.  KENNARD 


 The  approval  of  Intelsat  LLCs  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.  Todays  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  INTELSATs  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. 
72
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  00-  287 
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF 
 COMMISSIONER  HAROLD  FURCHTGOTT-  ROTH 
 APPROVING  IN  PART,  DISSENTING  IN  PART 


 I  generally  support  todays  decision  that  paves  the  way  for  Intelsats  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  Commissions  practice  of  regulating  licensees  (or  in  this  case  a 
 potential  licensee)  on  a  company-  specific  basis.  1  Todays  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.  2  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  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). 


 2  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). 
73