******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re ) ) EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Directsat) File No.70-SAT-MP/ML-98 Corporation, EchoStar DBS Corporation)File No.71-SAT-MP/ML-98 )File No.72-SAT-MP/ML-98 Application for Authority to Make Minor) Modifications to Direct Broadcast Satellite) Authorizations, Launch, and Operational) Authority ) and ) ) Directsat Corporation, Direct Broadcasting ) File No.66-SAT-MP/ML-98 Satellite Corporation, EchoStar DBS )File No.67-SAT-MP/ML-98 Corporation, EchoStar Satellite Corporation) File No.68-SAT-MP/ML-98 ) File No.69-SAT-MP/ML-98 Request to Change Milestone Dates for ) Direct Broadcast Satellite Systems ) and ) ) Request for Special Temporary Authority ) to Test a Direct Broadcast Satellite ) File No. 92-SAT-STA-98 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: April 27, 1998 Released: April 27, 1998 I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this order we grant EchoStar Satellite Corporation (ESC), Directsat Corporation (DST) and EchoStar DBS Corporation (ESC DBS) authority to make minor modifications to their Direct Broadcast Satellite Service (DBS) satellites; ESC to launch a DBS satellite, EchoStar 4, into the 119.2ø W.L. orbital position; and EchoStar to move its satellite, EchoStar 1, from 119ø W.L. and operate it at the 148ø W.L. orbital position. We also grant EchoStar conditional authority to test its DBS satellite at the 127ø W.L. orbital location for eight weeks. We deny TEMPO Satellite Inc. (TEMPO) and Telquest Ventures, Inc.'s (Telquest) petitions to deny. Finally, we dismiss without prejudice EchoStar's request to change milestones. II. BACK GROUND 2. EchoStar and its affiliates provide direct broadcast satellite service to U.S. consumers. Specifically, ESC is licensed to operate a DBS satellite, EchoStar 1, on 11 channels at 119.2ø W.L. DST is licensed to operate a DBS satellite, EchoStar 2, on 10 channels at 118.8ø W.L. and is assigned 11 channels at 175ø W.L. ESC DBS is authorized to operate a DBS satellite on 24 channels at 148ø W.L. DBSC is licensed to operate a DBS satellite, EchoStar 3, on 11 channels at 61.5ø W.L and assigned 11 channels at 175ø W.L. EchoStar requests authorization to modify its licenses at the nominal orbital location of 119ø W.L. (119ø W.L.) in order to substitute its two 16-transponder satellites, EchoStar 1, currently at 119ø W.L. with a more powerful switchable 32/16-transponder satellite, EchoStar 4. EchoStar 4 would provide service from 119.2ø W.L. on all of ESC's 11 channels and five of DST's. 3. Granting the 148ø W.L. modification would allow EchoStar to move one of its two 16-transponder satellites, EchoStar 1, from 119ø W.L. to 148ø W.L. and operate this relocated satellite on 16 of EchoStar's 24 authorized channels at 148ø W.L. Modification authorization is necessary because the EchoStar 4 satellite, which EchoStar proposes to use at 119ø W.L., was originally authorized for 148ø W.L. and the EchoStar 1 satellite is authorized for 119ø W.L. EchoStar asserts that granting the modifications will allow it to commence service from 148ø W.L. several years ahead of its construction and operation milestones and will create extra in- orbit satellite transponder capacity. EchoStar proposes using the 32/16-transponder EchoStar 4 satellite at 119ø W.L. in conjunction with the remaining 16-transponder satellite, EchoStar 2, to provide its "backbone" programming service of approximately 130 digital audio and video channels to the Continental United States (CONUS), Alaska and Hawaii. EchoStar intends to provide "niche" service to the western U.S. and Alaska from 148ø W.L. using the relocated 16- transponder EchoStar 1 satellite. EchoStar states the modifications are not substantial and will not significantly increase the potential for interference for any authorized user of the spectrum. Telemetry, Tracking & Control (TT&C) functions for EchoStar 1 at 148ø W.L. are in the C-band. 4. EchoStar has also requested a waiver of the Commission's rules regarding provision of DBS services to Alaska and Hawaii from 148ø W.L. The DBS geographic service rules state that those acquiring DBS authorizations after January 19, 1996 must provide DBS service to Alaska and Hawaii where such service is technically feasible from the acquired orbital location. On January 25, 1996, ESC DBS won at auction 24 channels at 148ø W.L. Thus, the rules require ESC DBS to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii when EchoStar places a satellite into that orbital location. 5. In a separate filing, EchoStar requests that the milestone requirements for DBSC and DST to commence operation at 175ø W.L. be changed from November 1998 to December 2002 and from August 1999 to December 2002 respectively. In addition, EchoStar requests that the milestone requirements of ESC DBS's satellite at 148ø W.L. be changed from December 2002 to November 1998 for 16 channels. The remaining eight channels assigned to ESC DBS at 148ø W.L. would continue with the original milestone schedule. III. DIS CUSSION A. ECHOSTAR MINOR MODIFICATION REQUEST: SERVICE TO HAWAII 6. We first address whether EchoStar must provide service to Alaska and Hawaii from 148ø W.L. As noted above, it is technically feasible to serve Alaska and Hawaii from 148ø W.L. EchoStar wishes to place its new, more powerful EchoStar 4 satellite into 119ø W.L. to provide its backbone programming service to CONUS, Alaska and Hawaii. EchoStar states that it is more economical for it to transmit its backbone programming to the entire CONUS, Alaska and Hawaii from the 119ø W.L. orbital location using EchoStar 4 and provide niche programming to the western United States and Alaska from the relocated 16-transponder EchoStar 1 satellite at 148ø W.L. EchoStar contends that if its modification request is not granted, it would only be able to provide niche programming to Hawaii from 148ø W.L. and the backbone programming provided from 119ø W.L. would continue to be unavailable to Hawaii. In order to optimize its deployment of satellites and better serve the public, EchoStar has requested that the Commission waive the requirement to serve Hawaii from 148ø W.L. and allow it to fulfill its geographic service requirements for the 148ø W.L. location by using EchoStar 4 at 119.2ø W.L. 7. The State of Hawaii generally supports EchoStar's applications but raises several concerns regarding service provision from 148ø W.L. Hawaii is concerned that if we grant a waiver for 148ø W.L., EchoStar could stop service to Hawaii from 119ø W.L. sometime in the future and would not be required to provide service to Hawaii from either the 119ø W.L. or the 148ø W.L. orbital location. Hawaii suggests that, instead of waiving the rule, the Commission hold it in abeyance in order to ensure that Hawaii is served by EchoStar. Further, Hawaii suggests that the authorization continue only as long as the EchoStar 1 satellite is operating at the 148ø W.L. orbital location. 8. We share Hawaii's concerns and believe they can be addressed through a waiver with conditions. We have stressed on several occasions the importance of DBS licensees providing service to Alaska and Hawaii. In our recent notice of proposed rulemaking, for example, we emphasized that the provision of DBS service to Alaska and Hawaii will provide important multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD) competition in those markets. In order to provide service expeditiously to Alaska and Hawaii, we will waive, with conditions, EchoStar's requirements under 47 C.F.R.  100.53 to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii from 148ø W.L. This waiver will serve the public interest because it will enable subscribers in Hawaii to receive the same backbone programming as subscribers on the mainland. In addition, the state of Hawaii supports such a result, and we believe Hawaii's support provides evidence of the public interest in granting the waiver. We emphasize that this is a fact-specific waiver and does not represent a change in policy regarding provision of DBS services to Alaska and Hawaii. To the contrary, to ensure that service to Hawaii is maintained, we impose the following three conditions on the waiver: 1) any satellite replacing EchoStar's relocated 16-transponder, EchoStar 1 satellite, at 148ø W.L. will immediately be subject to our geographic service rules; 2) if EchoStar 4 stops providing service to Hawaii from 119ø W.L., the EchoStar satellite at 148ø W.L. will immediately incur  100.53 geographic service requirements; and 3) EchoStar's geographic service requirements remain intact for EchoStar and its affiliates on all other satellites. Further, we note that ESC DBS's  100.53 requirements remain in force for its 8 assigned channels remaining unused at 148ø W.L. Finally, we note that EchoStar 1 is a 16- transponder satellite and that EchoStar has not specified which of the 24 channels assigned to it at 148ø W.L. EchoStar intends on using. Consequently, EchoStar must notify the Commission within 30 days of relocating a satellite to 148ø W.L. which channels it intends on using at that location. 9. In addition to the conditions above, Hawaii urges us to require that EchoStar charge Hawaiian subscribers prices for DBS programming and equipment no higher than those charged to subscribers on the mainland. In response, EchoStar states that it does not and will not differentiate in its monthly subscription fees and that it expects hardware pricing to be similar. While EchoStar argues that it will not differentiate its prices by subscriber location, it also argues that the non-discrimination conditions urged by Hawaii would deprive EchoStar of the possible flexibility that may be necessary to run its business in that such conditions would preclude it from offering localized discounts in an attempt to compete with particular cable operators and to attract new customers switching from cable. We first note that we have not, in the past, required any DBS operator to charge uniform prices to customers located throughout the U.S. or imposed other pricing conditions on DBS licensees. We also note that in Hawaii, as elsewhere in the United States, cable is the dominant provider of multichannel video programming, and to the extent that cable prices in Hawaii are similar to cable prices within the continental U.S., we do not believe that EchoStar would have an incentive to charge higher prices in Hawaii than elsewhere, as long as it is attempting to win customers away from cable systems. At the same time, we do not believe it would necessarily be in the public interest for the FCC to prevent a DBS operator from responding to local competitive conditions even if that resulted in prices that were not identical in all areas served by the DBS operator. Thus we see no reason to impose pricing conditions with respect to service in Hawaii on EchoStar at this time. B. REQUEST TO CHANGE MILESTONES 1. Realignment of Milestones 10. EchoStar states that, after evaluating the needs of the market for DBS, it believes that the public interest would be served by a realignment of its existing milestone dates for its 148ø W.L. and 175ø W.L. assignments. We find that this request is actually a request for an extension of time to construct, launch and operate satellites for EchoStar's 175ø W.L. assignments. EchoStar's decision to place a satellite in the 148ø W.L. orbital location prior to ESC DBS's milestone date requirement is a business decision made by EchoStar that is unrelated to 175ø W.L. Any milestone requirements for DBSC, DST and ESC at 175ø W.L., are separate and distinct from those of ESC DBS at 148ø W.L. The Commission's policy with regard to the assignment of DBS channels has traditionally been to impose milestone requirements at specific orbital locations rather than to establish stringent financial qualifications to ensure development and use of valuable DBS resources. We find that, as presented by EchoStar, its request for "realignment" of the milestone dates is actually a request for an extension of time for DBSC, DST and ESC to construct, launch and operate DBS satellites at 175ø W.L. and should be filed as such. Consequently, we dismiss EchoStar's request to change its milestones dates without prejudice to EchoStar filing a request for extension of time to construct, launch and operate before the expiration of its current authorizations at 175ø W.L. 2. Western Satellite Condition 11. Telquest notes that the Commission conditioned EchoStar's nominal 119ø W.L. assignment of channels upon EchoStar's demonstration of due diligence for the contracting and construction of a satellite to be located at a western DBS orbital location. Telquest argues that EchoStar has failed to meet its due diligence requirements for its western satellite because EchoStar has asked for an extension of time. Telquest argues that EchoStar has consequently failed to meet its condition to demonstrate due diligence for its western satellite and therefore, the eleven channels assigned to EchoStar at 119ø W.L. should be canceled and reclaimed for reassignment. 12. We do not agree. At the time of EchoStar's 119ø W.L. assignment, the Continental east/west pairing rule was in effect. This rule provided that DBS channels would be assigned in east/west pairs with eastern half-CONUS service permitted from the four eastern orbital locations and western half-CONUS service permitted from the four western orbital locations. This policy was instituted to facilitate the Commission's goals of ensuring full-CONUS DBS service at a time when the Commission was unsure of a single satellite's ability to transmit full-CONUS signals. Subsequently, the east/west pairing policy was eliminated because full- CONUS coverage is technically possible from several of the eastern orbital locations. Therefore, because EchoStar is authorized and able to transmit a full-CONUS DBS signal and because the east/west pairing policy is no longer in effect, we do not find it in the public interest to terminate EchoStar's license to operate at 119ø W.L. 5. Technical Issues 13. TEMPO raises several technical issues associated with EchoStar's request for authority to modify satellites and to launch and operate EchoStar 4 at 119ø W.L. Specifically, TEMPO is concerned about: (1) the lack of technical information on the proposed modifications; (2) the insufficient cross-polarization isolation of EchoStar 4; (3) possible interference between TEMPO's and EchoStar's tracking, telemetry and control (TT&C) operations; (4) possible excess power flux-density from EchoStar 4 into eastern Siberia; and (5) allegations that EchoStar is operating its satellites at 119ø W.L. in unauthorized orbital locations. A. Lack of Technical Information 14. Tempo states that EchoStar has provided little technical information about its proposed modifications or analysis of its satellite's potential for causing harmful interference to other systems and other radio services sharing the frequency bands. We disagree with TEMPO's allegations. Under Commission rules, applicants must provide a sufficient technical showing to allow the Commission to make a determination of the potential for harmful interference to other systems. EchoStar has complied with this requirement. While its initial modification application did not contain sufficient technical information, EchoStar filed a) additional technical information describing the basic technical parameters of its system, and b) analyses demonstrating compliance with the coordination triggers in Annex 1 to Appendices S30 and S30A of the ITU Radio Regulations ("Appendices S30 and S30A"). We believe the combination of this technical information and analyses, previously filed information, and the Technical Annex to EchoStar's consolidated reply comments and opposition provides sufficient information for the Commission to make an informed decision, and for other permittees and licensees to determine the potential impact of the modification on their DBS systems. 15. Additionally, Tempo expresses concern over the lack of information provided by EchoStar regarding how EchoStar intends to coordinate frequency use and physical location of EchoStar 4 at 119ø W.L. While the timing of the launch, the length of time all three of EchoStar's satellites 1, 2 and 4 will remain at the 119ø W.L. nominal location, and how service will be transitioned to the new satellite are very important issues, we believe that the specific details of the transition are best determined through direct communication between the DBS licensees assigned channels at 119ø W.L. Accordingly, we will condition this license upon EchoStar notifying TEMPO of its exact plans regarding the specific details of the timing of the launch of EchoStar 4, the transition of service to EchoStar 4, and the physical location of EchoStar 4 following launch and before the final positioning of the satellite at 119.2ø W.L.. In regard to the exact orbital position of EchoStar 4, EchoStar states that in the instant application it seeks authority to launch its satellite to 119.2ø W.L. As TEMPO's satellite is authorized at 118.8ø W.L., positioning EchoStar 4 at 119.2ø W.L. will minimize the possibility of interference to TEMPO's satellite. B. Cross-Polarization Isolation 16. TEMPO also objects to EchoStar 4's downlink satellite antenna cross-polarization isolation of 24 dB. TEMPO argues that a 24 dB cross-polarization isolation deviates from the standard in Appendix S30. The Region 2 BSS Plan is based upon a satellite antenna cross- polarization isolation of 30 dB in order to maximize efficient use of the orbit-spectrum resource. EchoStar however, contends that under the ITU Radio Regulations, an Administration is not precluded from using a different cross-polarization isolation. We concur that the United States may modify the Region 2 BSS Plan to reflect the actual technical parameters of U.S. DBS systems that are implemented through the modification procedure in Appendix S30. For a system using different technical parameters than those specified for the Region 2 BSS Plan, the United States will file the information in Annex 2 to Appendix S30 with the ITU to initiate modification of the Plan. Once the modification process is completed, the technical parameters of the actual system will be included in the Region 2 Plan. 17. TEMPO argues that it should not be required to accept degradation of its service as a result of EchoStar's poor cross-polarization isolation. While we expect our licensees to use good engineering practice in designing their satellites to promote the most efficient use of the limited orbit-spectrum resource, our rules permit the implementation of systems that use different characteristics from those specified in Appendix S30, upon adequate showing that such action does not result in interference to other operational or planned systems in excess of that determined in accordance with Appendix S30. Accordingly, our licensees may use cross- polarization isolation different from that specified for the Region 2 BSS Plan if they demonstrate that such a difference does not result in interference to other operational or planned systems, including U.S. licensed systems. While it appears that EchoStar's use of 24 dB cross-polarization isolation may not be consistent with our rules, it is not clear that the resulting degradation is material since the information submitted by TEMPO and EchoStar indicates that the overall interference caused to TEMPO may not be in excess of that allowed under Appendix S30. In addition, the frequency overlap between the services of TEMPO and EchoStar is less than 10 MHz, a fraction of the ten 24 MHz channels assigned to TEMPO. 18. Considering this, we will require EchoStar to coordinate with TEMPO regarding its use of 24 dB satellite cross-polarization isolation. Until such coordination is completed, we will require that EchoStar operate on a no harmful interference basis with respect to TEMPO's channel 22 (the only channel that could experience interference from EchoStar's Echostar 4 satellite). C. TT&C Functions 19. Tempo also states that EchoStar 4's proposed TT&C operations could interfere with TEMPO's TT&C operations. TEMPO argues that the TT&C signals used by EchoStar and TEMPO could actually overlap, in light of the frequency stability specifications employed by TEMPO and EchoStar. TEMPO uses signals with center frequencies 12,201 MHz, 12,202 MHz, 12,203 MHz and 12,204 MHz, with a 450 kHz bandwidth for TT&C. EchoStar proposes to use signals with center frequencies 12,200.5 MHz, 12,202.5 MHz, 12,698.5 MHz and 17, 308 MHz, with a 300 kHz bandwidth for its TT&C operations. Use of these frequencies for TT&C operations is consistent with the Commission's policy that licensees perform TT&C in the bands in which the applicant's satellites would normally operate to provide communications services. 20. We agree that, considering frequency stability, the TT&C signals of EchoStar and TEMPO could overlap. As in other situations, we expect U.S. licensees to coordinate their use of TT&C frequencies and reach a mutually acceptable solution. In this particular case, TEMPO has already launched a satellite to the nominal orbital location of 119ø W.L., and the frequencies it uses for TT&C functions are public information. Based on this information, EchoStar could have chosen frequencies with sufficient guardbands to TEMPO s TT&C signals to avoid potential overlap. EchoStar however, indicates that it is not likely that either EchoStar or TEMPO will need to use all of their downlink telemetry frequencies simultaneously. Further, EchoStar states that it should be possible for EchoStar and TEMPO to avoid using adjacent TT&C signals simultaneously. We believe that it should be possible for EchoStar and TEMPO to avoid potential harmful interference into each other's TT&C signals in light of the relatively large diameter TT&C antennas used and based on the orbital separation between their satellites. We will require EchoStar to coordinate with TEMPO and EchoStar to transmit on center frequencies 12,200.5 MHz and 12,202.5 MHz on a no harmful interference basis to TEMPO's TT&C operations until the parties have completed coordination of TT&C operations. 21. We assume from EchoStar's application and subsequently filed information that EchoStar will use the above frequencies for transfer orbit TT&C operations. We will require EchoStar to coordinate its TT&C operations during the launch and transfer orbit phase with any potentially affected in-orbit, U.S. licensed systems and foreign licensed systems. D. Power Flux-density 22. TEMPO also states that the information submitted on EchoStar 4 fails to document compliance with power-flux density limits in Appendix S30 required to protect Region 1 fixed service systems. Our rules effectively require that licensees meet the limits specified in Annex 1 to Appendix S30. If the limits in Annex 1 to Appendix S30 are exceeded by a proposed system (i.e. proposed modification to the Plans) according to the ITU s analysis, the agreement of all affected administrations must be obtained. Our analysis shows that EchoStar 4 exceeds the coordination trigger specified in Annex 1 to Appendix S30 to protect terrestrial services in eastern Siberia. Thus, EchoStar will have to coordinate with the affected administration to obtain its agreement. EchoStar should have been aware of this problem early in the design of its satellite and should have initiated coordination with the affected administration as early as possible. Since agreement has not yet been obtained, we will condition the grant of EchoStar's application on operation on a no harmful interference basis with respect to affected administrations, until agreement can be reached. 23. EchoStar also proposes to move EchoStar 1 to 148ø W.L. EchoStar s analysis of the potential interference to other services indicates that the operation of EchoStar 1 at 148ø W.L. will not exceed the coordination triggers in Annex 1 to Appendix S30. However, we are concerned about the coordination of EchoStar 1 s C-band TT&C frequencies at this new orbital location. EchoStar 1 is not performing TT&C functions within its service bands and there are in-orbit C-band satellite systems operating or proposing to operate in the vicinity of 148ø W.L. As our trilateral agreement with Canada and Mexico does not extend to 148ø W.L., we have no specific international obligation other than normal international coordination with these countries regarding our use of this part of the orbital arc. We see no reason not to allow EchoStar to coordinate these frequencies at 148ø W.L. as required under the ITU s Radio Regulations. We again will require that these TT&C operations will not cause harmful interference to other services or satellite systems operating in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations. In addition, we remind EchoStar that 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. 24. In addition, during movement of EchoStar 1 from 119ø W.L. to 148ø W.L., we will require EchoStar to coordinate its C-band TT&C operations with all potentially affected satellite systems, including U.S.-licensed systems and foreign-licensed systems. E. Orbit Locations 25. Finally, TEMPO alleges that EchoStar is operating its two existing satellites at the nominal 119ø W.L. orbital position outside of EchoStar's authorized locations thus increasing the potential for interference and satellite collision. TEMPO's allegations raise several serious concerns. We intend to investigate this matter carefully to determine if any Commission rules have been violated and what action should be taken. However, because this issue is sufficiently distinct from those involved in the instant application, we will address the matter of orbital locations in a separate proceeding. C. LAUNCH AUTHORITY REQUEST 26. EchoStar has requested authority to launch EchoStar 4 to the 119.2ø W.L. orbital location. Based upon the discussions above, we find that EchoStar has satisfied its technical submissions requirement and is ready to begin service using its new switchable 32/16- transponder satellite from 119.2ø W.L. provided EchoStar meets the conditions discussed above. Therefore, we grant EchoStar authority to launch to 119.2ø W.L. and begin operations from that location on channels 1-21 inclusive assigned to ESC and DST. D. SPECIAL TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR TESTING 27. On March 17, 1998, EchoStar filed an application for special temporary authority to test its EchoStar 4 DBS satellite at 128ø W.L., 127ø W.L. or 110ø W.L. for eight weeks. EchoStar states that its preferred location for temporary testing is at the 127ø W.L. or 128ø W.L. locations. Channels at the 127ø W.L. location are assigned to Mexico under the Region 2 BSS Plan. EchoStar asserts that the Mexican administration has no plans to deploy a satellite to that location within the relevant time frame. EchoStar States that the requested special temporary authority is essential for it to perform all tests required by its insurers on all 32 transponders and that testing from this location will extend the satellite's useful life by three to four months. 28. Both the Commission and EchoStar have had discussions with the Mexican administration on this matter. We are currently having discussions with Mexico regarding EchoStar's proposed testing, and expect that these discussions will be completed prior to launch. We will grant EchoStar's authority to test at 127ø W .L., subject to the outcome of these discussions with Mexico. We will require that EchoStar's testing at 127ø W .L. not cause harmful interference to or receive protection from systems operating in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations. E. OPERATIONAL AUTHORITY 29. EchoStar has requested authority to relocate one of its 16-transponder satellites from its current location at 119ø W.L to 148ø W.L. and begin operation on 16 of ESC DBS's 24 assigned channels. As discussed and conditioned above, we find it in the public interest to grant EchoStar authority to begin operations on 16 of its assigned 24 channels at the 148ø W.L. orbit location. We again note that all milestones for the remaining 8 channels not used by the relocated satellite must be met. IV.CONCLU SION 30. We find it in the public interest to grant, with conditions, EchoStar's request to make minor modifications to their DBS authorizations, grant authority to launch a EchoStar 4 to 119ø W.L., relocate EchoStar 1 to 148ø W.L., and to begin operations from 148ø W.L. because it will facilitate DBS service to Alaska and Hawaii. We also grant EchoStar authority to test EchoStar 4 at 127ø W.L. for a period of eight weeks after which it will be moved to 119.2ø W.L We dismiss EchoStar's request to change milestones without prejudice and deny TEMPO and Telquest's petitions to deny. V. ORDER ING CLAUSES 31. Accordingly, pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.261 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.261, IT IS ORDERED that EchoStar's requests for authority to make minor modifications, launch and operate DBS satellites, Application File Nos. 70-SAT-MP/ML-98, 71- SAT-MP/ML-98, 72-SAT-MP/ML-98 are GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS that: (1) until the Region 2 BSS Plan and its associated Feeder Link Plan are modified to include the technical parameters of EchoStar 4 and modified EchoStar 1 and their associated feeder links, these satellite systems will not cause harmful interference to or receive protection from other BSS or feeder link assignments or other services or satellite systems operating in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations, in particular with respect to Section 5(c) of Annex 1 to Appendix S30; (2) EchoStar will provide the Commission with any additional information and analyses, as required, to effect coordination of its frequency assignments with other Administrations; (3) until EchoStar completes coordination of its satellite cross-polarization isolation with the operation of TEMPO, it will not cause harmful interference to or receive protection from TEMPO's Channel 22; (4) EchoStar will coordinate as necessary with other U.S. licensees. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: (1) EchoStar shall coordinate all on-station TT&C operations with all potentially affected in-orbit U.S. licensees and foreign-licensed satellite systems and; (2) until the completion of coordination with TEMPO regarding use of TT&C signals with center frequencies of 12,200.5 MHz and 12,202.5 MHz TT&C signals, operation on these frequencies will be on a non-harmful interference basis to TEMPO's TT&C operations; (3) until the advance publication, coordination and/or notification of TT&C frequencies in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations is complete, these TT&C operations will not cause harmful interference to or receive protection from other services or satellite systems operating in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations. 33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EchoStar will coordinate all transfer-orbit TT&C operations, including operations for movement of EchoStar 1 from 119ø W.L. to 148ø W.L., with all potentially affected in-orbit U.S. licensees and foreign-licensed satellite systems. 34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT EchoStar shall notify TEMPO regarding the specific details of the timing of the launch of EchoStar 4, the transition of service to EchoStar 4, and the physical location of EchoStar 4 following launch and before the final positioning of the satellite at 119.2ø W.L. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT any satellite replacing EchoStar 1 at 148ø W.L. will immediately be subject to 47 C.F.R. 100.53 (b) obligations; (2) if EchoStar stops providing service to Hawaii from 119ø W.L., any EchoStar satellite at 148ø W.L. will immediately incur 47 C.F.R. 100.53(b) obligations; (3) for all other satellites subject to 100.53, EchoStar's requirements remain. 36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT EchoStar is GRANTED AUTHORITY to launch a direct broadcast satellite, EchoStar 4, to the 119.2ø W.L. orbital location. 37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT EchoStar is GRANTED AUTHORITY to operate a direct broadcast satellite on 16 of the 24 channels authorized to Echostar DBS at the 148ø W.L. orbit location SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT (1) EchoStar's milestone obligations for the provision of DBS service on the unused channels assigned to EchoStar at 148ø W.L. remain unchanged as originally authorized; and (2) EchoStar inform the Commission of which channels it will operate at 148ø W.L. within 30 days of relocating EchoStar 1 to 148ø W.L. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT EchoStar is GRANTED SPECIAL TEMPORARY AUTHORITY to test its EchoStar 4 DBS satellite at the 127ø W.L. orbit location for a period of eight weeks SUBJECT TO THE outcome of the discussions with the Mexican Administration and SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT testing of EchoStar 4 at this location not cause harmful interference to, nor will it receive protection from, systems operating in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations. 39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EchoStar's Request to Change Milestones, File Nos. 66-SAT-MP/ML-98, 67-SAT-MP/ML-98, 68-SAT-MP/ML-98, 69-SAT-MP/ML-98 is dismissed without prejudice. 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TEMPO Satellite, Inc.'s Motion to File Supplement is GRANTED. 41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TEMPO Satellite, Inc. and Telquest Ventures, Inc.'s petitions to deny ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Thomas S. Tycz Chief, Satellite and Radiocommunication Division International Bureau