Federal Communications Commission FCC  10-100     
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
ATCONTACT Communications, LLC
Petition for Reconsideration
Motion For Stay
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File Nos. SAT-LOA-19971222-00222
 SAT-LOA-20040322-  
 00234/35/36/37
SAT-MOD-20060511-  
00057/58/59/60          
SAT-AMD-20031030-00317
SAT-AMD-20040719-00141
SAT-AMD-20040322-00057
SAT-AMD-20051118-00243
SAT-MOD-20070924-00130
SAT-AMD-20071215-00176
SAT-MOD-20070924-00132
SAT-AMD-20080505-00100
SAT-AMD-20080505-00096
SAT-AMD-20080505-00099  
SAT-MOD-20080813-00155 
SAT-AMD-20080930-00195
SAT-AMD-20080930-00194
 
Call Signs:  S2346, S2680, S2681, S2682,  
 S2683
 
ORDER 
Adopted:   May 27, 2010 Released:  June 3, 2010
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. By this Order, we deny ATCONTACT Communications, LLC’s (AtContact’s) Petition 
for Reconsideration of an August 21, 2009 Order by the International Bureau declaring AtContact’s Ka-
band satellite system authorization null and void.1 AtContact has not demonstrated that, since it received 
authorization in 2006, it has made significant progress in building its satellite system - let alone that it has 
  
1 AtContact Communications, LLC, Order, DA 09-1850 (Int’l Bur., released Aug. 21, 2009) (Cancellation Order). 
AtContact Communications, LLC, Petition for Reconsideration of International Bureau Order DA 09-1850 (Sept.  
21, 2009) (Petition for Reconsideration). AtContact filed both a public (redacted) Petition and an unredacted 
Petition, subject to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457 and 0.459.  The Bureau has 
referred the Petition for Reconsideration to the Commission pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(a)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
2
met the beginning physical construction milestone.  AtContact has failed to persuade us that we should 
allow it to continue to hold scarce orbital resources indefinitely, to the exclusion of others, while it 
attempts to procure financing for the portion of its licensed system that it now seeks to build.  We also 
deny AtContact’s request to be released from its bond obligation.  AtContact asks the Commission to 
“cancel its forfeiture instructions” to the surety.2 An event of default described in the unambiguous 
language of the bond has occurred and the Commission, having properly triggered the conditions upon 
which a claim may be made, submitted a proper demand for payment of the full bond amount.3  
Consequently, in accordance with the surety’s obligation to pay under the bond, which does not depend 
on the outcome of any administrative or legal proceeding between AtContact and the Commission, the 
outstanding $3 million balance on AtContact’s bond is payable to the U.S. Treasury.4 In addition, 
because we deny AtContact’s Petition for Reconsideration, we dismiss AtContact’s Motion for Stay,5
which it filed contemporaneously with its Petition for Reconsideration, as moot.
II.         BACKGROUND
2. AtContact’s Satellite Authorization.  On April 14, 2006, the International Bureau 
granted AtContact an authorization for a Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) system consisting of both 
geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) satellites and non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) satellites.6 The 
authorization provided AtContact authority to construct, launch, and operate four GSO satellites and to 
construct three NGSO satellites.7  
  
2 Petition for Reconsideration at 21-22. 
3 Cancellation Order; Letter to Safeco Insurance Company of America, from Mark Stephens, Chief Financial 
Officer (Aug. 26, 2009) (Payment Demand). 
4 See Ins. Co. of N. America v. United States, 951 F.2d 1244, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“surety’s obligation to pay does 
not wait for completion of legal contests between the principal and the creditor”).
5 AtContact Communications, LLC, Motion for Stay of International Bureau Order DA 09-1850.  AtContact filed 
both a public (redacted) and a unredacted copy of the Motion, subject to a request for confidential treatment 
pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457 and 0.459.
6 contactMEO Communications, LLC, Order and Authorization, 21 FCC Rcd 4035 (Int’l Bur. 2006) (License
Order).  AtContact was authorized to construct three NGSO FSS satellites capable of operating in the 18.8-19.3 
GHz and 28.6-29.1 GHz frequency bands on a primary basis, in the 29.5-30.0 GHz frequency band on a secondary 
basis, and in the 19.7-20.2 GHz frequency band on a non-conforming basis.  AtContact also was authorized to 
construct, launch, and operate four GSO FSS satellites in the 28.6-29.1 GHz frequency band on a secondary basis, 
and in the 18.8-19.3 GHz frequency band on a non-conforming basis. (Space stations operating in primary services 
are protected against interference from stations of secondary services.  Stations operating in a secondary service 
cannot cause harmful interference to or claim protection from harmful interference from stations of a primary 
service.  Non-conforming services may be provided only on a non-harmful interference basis to any authorized 
service and may not claim interference protection from those services. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.104(d) and 2.105(c)).  In 
June 2006, the licensee notified the Commission of its name change from contactMEO Communications, LLC to 
AtContact Communications, LLC.  Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, from James M. Talens, Counsel to 
AtContact Communications, LLC (June 5, 2006). 
7 AtContact’s authorization did not include launch and operating authority for its NGSO satellites because of 
questions regarding its disposal plans for the NGSO satellites.  The authorization was conditioned on AtContact 
filing a modification application in May 2008 detailing its end-of-life disposal plans for its NGSO satellites.  Once 
the modification application was evaluated, the Bureau would be in position to grant launch and operating authority
for the NGSO satellites.  AtContact filed for extension of time to file its plan.  While the extension request was 
pending, AtContact filed a modification application changing its end-of-life plans from controlled re-entry to use of 
a disposal orbit.  See File No. SAT-MOD-20080813-00155.  Upon review, the Satellite Division determined that it 
needed greater detail concerning the rationale for AtContact’s changing plans before it could address the revised 
plan.  The Division stated it would defer action on AtContact’s modification application and asked AtContact to file 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
3
3. As set forth in the Commission’s rules, the Bureau required AtContact to adhere to a 
milestone schedule in implementing its licensed system.  These milestones were incorporated as a 
condition of AtContact’s authorization, which also provided that failure to comply with a milestone 
would result in automatic cancellation of the authorization.8 Because AtContact’s system included both 
NGSO and GSO components, AtContact was required to comply with both the NGSO and GSO 
milestones in the Commission’s rules.9 For both its NGSO and GSO satellites, AtContact was required to 
enter into a construction contract for the satellites within one year of grant, and to complete Critical 
Design Review (CDR) within two years of grant.  In addition, AtContact was required to begin physical 
construction of the first NGSO satellite within two years, six months of grant; launch and operate the first 
NGSO satellite within three years, six months of grant; and bring all of the NGSO satellites into operation 
within six years of grant.  AtContact was also required to begin physical construction of the four GSO 
satellites within three years of grant; and launch and operate the GSO satellites within five years of grant.  
Further, AtContact was required to post with the Commission a $5 million bond within 30 days of grant.  
Section 25.165 of our rules provides the “licensee will be considered to be in default if it fails to meet any 
milestone deadline set forth in Section 25.164, and at the time of milestone deadline, the licensee has not 
provided a sufficient basis for extending the milestone.”10 The agreement11 among AtContact, the surety, 
and the United States contained specific conditions, including that the surety “tender . . . payment of the 
current outstanding maximum penal sum of the bond . . . within thirty (30) business days of . . . Notice of 
Default.”12 As we discuss below, the surety’s obligation to pay matures on an event of default. 
4. On July 6, 2007, the Bureau determined that AtContact had satisfied the first milestone 
for its NGSO and GSO satellites, by executing a satellite construction contract with Space Systems/Loral, 
Inc. (Loral).13 On September 5, 2008, the Bureau determined that AtContact had satisfied the second 
  
(...continued from previous page)
the additional information before April 30, 2009.  See Letter to James M. Talens, Counsel for AtContact 
Communications, LLC from Robert G. Nelson, Chief, Satellite Division (Jan. 9, 2009) (Orbital Debris Letter).  
AtContact did not respond to this request but noted that it “would now appear to be moot” in light of its 
abandonment of plans to construct and launch its NGSO satellites.  See Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, from James M. Talens, Counsel for AtContact Communications, LLC (Feb. 6, 2009) (AtContact February 
Letter) at 2 n.3. See para. 8, below, for a complete discussion of the system modifications proposed in the February 
Letter.
8 License Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4053 ¶¶  48-49.  See 47 C.F.R. § 25.161(a)(1).  
9 47 C.F.R. § 25.164(a), (b). 
10 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(c).
11 See Ins. Co. of the West v. United States, 243 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
12 Federal Communications Commission Ka-band Satellite System License Payment Bond, Bond Number 6321647, 
dated May 12, 2006.   The bond provides:
3.  In the event of a Notice of Default (i.e., an order or public notice revoking Principal’s 
authorization) issued by the FCC to the Principal and the Surety regarding the performance of 
milestones specified above during the term of this bond, the Surety shall be liable only up to the 
current outstanding maximum penal sum amount after giving effect to applicable milestone 
reductions.  It is also understood and conditionally agreed that upon receipt of such Notice of 
Default, the sole remedy under this bond will be the tender of payment of the current outstanding 
maximum penal sum of the bond . . . within thirty (30) business days of such Notice of Default.  
* * *
5.  If any conflict or inconsistency exists between the Surety’s obligations or undertakings as 
described in this bond and as described in other documents, statutes or regulations, then the terms 
of this bond shall prevail.  
13 Policy Branch Information, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 11961 (2007).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
4
milestone, by completing CDR for its NGSO and GSO satellites.14 Because the Bureau found that 
AtContact had met the first two milestones, AtContact was permitted to reduce the amount of its bond by 
40 percent or $2 million, to $3 million.  
5. The next milestone in AtContact’s license required it to commence physical construction 
of its first NGSO satellite by October 15, 2008.  To satisfy this milestone, licensees must provide 
sufficient information to demonstrate to a reasonable person that they have commenced physical 
construction of the licensed spacecraft.15 In this regard, licensees typically have submitted certifications 
that various components have been integrated into the satellite under construction.  Licensees have also 
submitted photographs of satellite components that have been delivered to or made by the manufacturer, 
and are clearly identified for use with the licensed satellite.  Licensees have also provided evidence that 
they have made all milestone payments to date under the manufacturing contracts.16 The burden of proof 
for this showing rests with the licensee.17  
6. To demonstrate compliance with the beginning construction milestone, AtContact filed a 
certification from David M. Drucker, Manager of AtContact, stating that AtContact had commenced 
construction of its first NGSO satellite to the “best of my knowledge, information, and belief.” AtContact 
also included an asset sales agreement it had entered into with a third party (not its satellite manufacturer) 
on October 14, 2008 for the purchase of traveling wave tube amplifiers (TWTAs).   The first payment 
under the sales agreement was due January 15, 2009, and the first delivery of TWTAs was due around 
February 15, 2009.  
7. Ordering long-lead items needed to begin construction of the spacecraft, such as TWTAs, 
provides evidence that a licensee has met the earlier CDR milestone.18 In AtContact’s case, the CDR 
milestone occurred six months before the beginning construction milestone.  Consequently, in a letter 
dated January 9, 2009, the Satellite Division informed AtContact that its showing was insufficient to 
demonstrate compliance with the beginning construction milestone.  In the letter, the Division requested 
AtContact to “describe with specificity” the types of hardware (e.g., propulsion hardware, satellite control 
hardware, satellite bus) in production, to describe the production that had taken place to date, and to 
provide photographic evidence of the current production of hardware.19 The Division also asked 
  
14 Policy Branch Information, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 13293 (2008). 
15 Amendment of the Commission’s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 02-34, 18 FCC Rcd 10760, 10834, ¶ 193 (2003) (Space 
Station Licensing Reform Order).
16 See Policy Branch Information, Public Notice, Report No SAT-00610, 24 FCC Rcd 7703 (2009) (finding that 
Intelsat LLC commenced physical construction of its satellite based on certifications that all payments under the 
contract had been made to date and photographs of the satellite under construction); Policy Branch Information, 
Public Notice, Report No. 07-00476, 22 FCC Rcd 18392 (2007) (finding that Loral Skynet Corporation commenced 
physical construction based on photographs showing propulsion equipment integrated with the satellite structure, 
and declarations from the spacecraft manufacturer that the manufacturing contract remained in effect, that all 
payments due had been made, and that 70 percent of the flight equipment was constructed); and Policy Branch 
Information, Public Notice, Report No. SAT-07-00469, 22 FCC Rcd 16284 (2007) (finding that Star One 
commenced physical construction based on declarations from Star One SA's Director of Engineering that 80 percent 
of payments due under the contract had been made and on photographs showing the satellite payload integrated into 
the satellite bus).
17 Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 10834, ¶ 193.
18 Id. at 10833, ¶ 191.
19 Letter to James M. Talens, Counsel for AtContact Communications, LLC from Robert G. Nelson, Chief, Satellite 
Division (dated Jan. 9, 2009) (Milestone Showing Letter). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
5
AtContact to explain what payments had been made under the payment plan provided in the Loral 
construction contract – the contract that AtContact had previously submitted as certification that it had 
met its contract execution milestone. 
8. In a February 6, 2009, response to the Bureau’s letter, AtContact maintained that “the 
expenditure of millions of dollars on long-lead items such as traveling wave tube amplifiers as a first step 
in actual construction is more than sufficient” to demonstrate compliance with the beginning physical 
construction milestone.20 It also submitted four unlabeled photographs as attachments to its letter: three 
showed TWTAs in plastic cartons, and one showed several stacked cardboard boxes with old tape marks 
and worn labels that were illegible.21 In addition, AtContact: (a) stated that it did not intend to proceed 
with its NGSO satellites and two of its GSO satellites, so it “surrendered the NGSO license”22 and was 
thereby “surrendering its slots [for two of the GSO satellites] contingent on permission to continue under 
its New Plan;”23 (b) requested at least a three year extension of the remaining milestones for the two 
remaining GSO satellites;24 and (c) asked the Bureau to act expeditiously on several pending modification 
applications relating to the remaining GSO space stations.25 AtContact maintained that these revisions to 
its system were necessary due to its inability to obtain financing for its system as a result of the current 
economic climate.26 AtContact also requested the release of its bond.  AtContact’s response did not 
address the Division’s request for information regarding payments to Loral.27
9. Cancellation of AtContact’s Authorization.  The Bureau found that AtContact did not 
meet the beginning physical construction milestone in its license.  It found no evidence that AtContact 
had made any scheduled payments due to Loral under the manufacturing contract.28 Further, it found no 
evidence that AtContact had purchased the TWTAs, that the TWTAs had been delivered to Loral for 
integration into the satellites, or that the TWTAs had even been approved by Loral.29  Because AtContact 
did not satisfy this milestone, and did not request an extension of the milestone,30 the license was null and 
void by its own terms.  Consequently, the Bureau did not address AtContact’s pending modification 
requests, its request for an indefinite extension of the remaining milestones, or its request to release the 
  
20 AtContact February Letter at 2.
21 Id. Attachment.
22 Id. at 2 and n.3.
23 Id. at 5 n.7.
24 Id. at 5.
25 Id. at 2 n. 2.
26 Id. at 3.  
27 On May 1, 2009, Intelsat North America LLC (Intelsat) filed a letter stating that granting such a broad waiver of 
the bond and milestone requirements could undermine the purpose of these obligations.  Intelsat contended that 
AtContact failed to provide specific factual information to support a waiver, and disagreed with AtContact’s claim 
that current economic conditions justify a waiver. Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, from Kalpak S. 
Gude, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Intelsat North America LLC (May 1, 2009) (Intelsat Letter).   In 
response, AtContact maintained that Intelsat’s submission should be rejected because Intelsat had no standing in this 
matter.  AtContact also stated that it previously provided “explanation, precedent, and justification” to the 
Commission to support its request.  Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, from James M. Talens, Counsel 
for AtContact Communications, LLC (May 8, 2009), at 2.  
28 Cancellation Order at ¶ 13.
29 Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.
30 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(c); see also License Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4053, ¶ 49.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
6
bond.  Rather, the Bureau dismissed these requests as moot.31 It also stated that the $3 million bond was 
due to the U.S. Treasury.32
10. On August 26, 2009, the Commission’s Office of Managing Director (OMD) sent a letter 
to AtContact’s bond surety, Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco), notifying it of the Notice of 
Default (Cancellation Order).33 The Payment Demand included instructions for remitting the outstanding 
balance of the bond - $3 million - to the U.S. Treasury.  Safeco responded to the Payment Demand on 
September 3, 2009, stating that it had not heard from AtContact directly but was aware that AtContact 
was evaluating its options.  Safeco requests the Commission to withdraw its claim or stay any demand for 
payment until AtContact exhausts its remedies.34  
11. Petition for Reconsideration.   On September 21, 2009, AtContact filed a Petition for 
Reconsideration of the Bureau’s Cancellation Order.  AtContact asserts that it met the beginning 
construction milestone for its first NGSO satellite and provides additional evidence to support this 
assertion.  AtContact also maintains that when licensing its system in 2006, the Bureau treated the “two 
system authorizations (NGSO and GSO) as separate.”35 As a result, AtContact argues that any issues 
regarding its NGSO milestone compliance should not affect its GSO satellite authorizations.  Further, 
AtContact asserts that the Bureau improperly established a new – and higher – standard for determining 
whether a licensee has met the beginning construction milestone, which it applied for the first time in its 
review of AtContact’s showing.36 In addition, AtContact states that the public interest requires 
reconsideration of the Cancellation Order – noting its commitment to provide broadband via satellite to 
rural and underserved areas, and its applications for stimulus funding under the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009.37 Finally, AtContact states that the Bureau should, at a minimum, reconsider 
its notice to the surety that the bond is due.  AtContact states that the Cancellation Order did not reach the 
issue of AtContact’s request for a waiver of the bond and urges the Bureau to consider this request at this 
time.38  
12. Motion for Stay. On September 21, 2009, AtContact also filed a Motion of Stay of the 
Cancellation Order and of OMD’s Payment Demand.  AtContact states it has satisfied the four criteria 
necessary for issuance of a Stay.  AtContact maintains it will likely prevail on the merits – based on the 
assertions presented in its Petition for Reconsideration.  AtContact also states that enforcement of the 
Cancellation Order and the Payment Demand threaten both its current service – providing Internet 
service through leased capacity on another satellite – and its plans to proceed with projects for which it 
has requested federal stimulus funding.  In addition, AtContact claims grant of the Stay will not harm any 
other parties.   AtContact concludes that granting the Stay would serve the public interest because its 
current customers rely on AtContact’s service as their only source of broadband service and AtContact 
will not be able to move forward with proposed enhancements to this service if the Stay is denied. 
  
31 Cancellation Order at ¶ 15.
32 Id.
33 Payment Demand.
34 Letter to Mark Stevens, FCC, from Bruce S. Echigoshima, Liberty Mutual (Sept. 3, 2009). 
35 Petition for Reconsideration at 2.
36 Id. at 7.
37 Id. at 16-17. 
38 Id. at 21.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
7
III.       DISCUSSION
A. Petition for Reconsideration
13. We first address AtContact’s Petition for Reconsideration.  Under the Commission’s 
rules, a petition for reconsideration must “state with particularity the respects in which petitioner believes 
the action taken by the Commission or the designated authority should be changed.”39 In addition, new 
facts may be presented only if the facts relate to events that occurred or circumstances that changed since 
the last opportunity to present such matters; the facts were not known to the petitioner, and could not 
reasonably have been learned prior to such opportunity; or the public interest requires consideration of the 
facts.40  
14. AtContact has not demonstrated that the Bureau’s finding that AtContact had not met the 
beginning construction milestone was in error.  Indeed, the additional “evidence” presented by AtContact 
in its Petition provides further support for the Bureau’s finding.  In addition, AtContact has not 
demonstrated that, despite its failure to meet the milestone, the license should be reinstated or the bond 
released.  Therefore, we deny the Petition. 
1.     Milestone Compliance
15. For more than two decades, the Commission has required licensees to adhere to milestone 
schedules.  Milestones are intended to ensure that licensees provide service to the public in a timely 
manner and do not hold scarce orbital and spectrum resources to the exclusion of others.41  In the 2003
Space Station Licensing Reform Order, the Commission revised its licensing process for space station 
applications.42 As part of the new framework, the Commission adopted a package of safeguards designed 
to discourage speculative applications.  The safeguards also help ensure that licensees remain committed 
and able to proceed with timely implementation of licensed space stations, which generally cost several 
hundred million dollars each to launch and operate.
16. As a result, all satellite authorizations include: (1) a requirement that licensees post a $3 
to $5 million bond with the Commission within 30 days of license grant; and (2) a requirement to 
construct and launch the satellite(s) consistent with the milestone schedule specified in Section 25.164 of 
the Commission’s rules.43 The milestones track the three-to-five year period needed to construct and 
launch a satellite.  The burden of proof for milestone compliance is on the licensee.44 The amount of the 
bond may be reduced as milestones are met.45 The licensee is considered to be in default if it fails to meet 
any milestone, and at the time of the milestone deadline, the licensee has not provided a sufficient basis 
for extending the milestone.46 In those situations, the license becomes null and void and the outstanding 
  
39 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(d).
40 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(c).
41 Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 10827, ¶ 173.  
42 Id. at 10764, ¶ 1.
43 The required bond is $3 million for a geostationary-orbit (GSO) satellite and $5 million for a constellation of non-
geostationary-orbit (NGSO) satellites.  Because AtContact’s GSO space stations were to operate in the same 
frequency bands as its NGSO space stations, Commission rules require AtContact to post only one $5 million bond.  
See 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(a)(3).
44 Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 10833-34, ¶ 191-93.
45 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(d).
46 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
8
balance of the bond is paid to the U.S. Treasury.47 AtContact’s license incorporated the Section 25.164 
milestone schedule as a condition and provided, consistent with Section 25.161(a) of the Commission’s 
rules, that “[f]ailure to comply with a milestone … will result in automatic cancellation of [AtContact’s] 
authorization.”48
a. New Evidence
17. In its Petition, AtContact submits what it claims to be new evidence to demonstrate that it 
met the beginning construction milestone.  We find it is in the public interest to consider the new 
evidence.  
18. Cancelled checks.  AtContact provides copies of a number of cancelled checks in an 
attachment to its Petition.49 Only one check is payable to Loral.  This check is for an amount significantly 
less than the payment due to Loral at the time of contract execution, according to the payment schedule in 
the Loral construction contract.50 Further, the beginning construction milestone occurred 18 months after 
contract execution.  At this point in the construction process, many more payments were overdue to Loral 
under the terms of the contract.  In short, AtContact has still not provided evidence that it fully made any
scheduled payments to Loral pursuant to the manufacturing contract. 
19. AtContact provides a copy of another check that it asserts provides “evidence of the first 
payment made under the TWTA sales agreement.”51 Even assuming that the check represents the first 
TWTA payment, the check does not demonstrate AtContact met the beginning construction milestone.  
AtContact provides no evidence of additional payments under the TWTA agreement.  It instead 
acknowledges that further payments to the contractor have been delayed.52 AtContact also acknowledges 
that the TWTAs are still in the third-party contractor’s possession.53 Thus, it is clear that the TWTAs 
were not delivered to Loral for integration into the licensed NGSO spacecraft by the October 2008 
beginning construction milestone, nor have they been delivered to date.54 In any case, the record shows 
that this check does not represent the first installment required under the sales agreement.  Rather, it is a 
  
47 47 C.F.R. § 25.165; Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 10824-25, ¶ 166-67; and License 
Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4054, ¶ 53.
48 License Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4053, ¶ 49; 47 C.F.R. § 25.161(a).
49 Petition for Reconsideration, Attachment 1 (confidential treatment requested).  
50 Regardless of whether the construction contract remains in effect, AtContact has presented no evidence that any 
progress in implementation has been made pursuant to the contract.
51 Petition for Reconsideration at 15. 
52 Id., Exhibit A, at 3.  AtContact claims that the payments were delayed “largely due to regulatory uncertainties.”  
Id.  It is not clear what regulatory uncertainties existed in October 2008, when AtContact was required to meet the 
beginning construction milestone, or in the period through August 2009, when AtContact’s license was cancelled.  
To the extent that AtContact may argue that its pending system modification requests, which it filed beginning in 
September 2007, created any “regulatory uncertainties,” these were uncertainties of AtContact’s own making.  The 
Commission has held that a licensee’s business decision to file a modification application does not justify a 
milestone extension.  See, e.g., Loral Spacecom Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 12045, 
12050, ¶ 14 (Int’l Bur. 2005); NetSat 28 Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 17722, 17726,   
¶ 10 (Int’l Bur. 2004); PanAmSat Licensee Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18720, 18723,
¶ 10 (Int’l Bur. 2000). 
53 Petition for Reconsideration at 15, Exhibit A, at 2, and Exhibit B (confidential treatment requested).
54 While we need not revisit whether AtContact met its April 2008 CDR milestone, this check, together with the lack 
of evidence concerning payments to Loral, calls into question AtContact’s compliance with this milestone.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
9
deposit that could be credited toward the first installment and represents only one-seventh of the amount 
due in the first payment.55
20. The payees of the remaining checks supplied in the Petition are largely illegible, but it is 
apparent that the checks were not written to Loral or to the third-party TWTA contractor.  AtContact fails 
to explain how these checks relate to the construction of the satellite.  Further, the total amount of all the 
checks represents only a small fraction of the payments that should have been made 18 months into the 
construction contract, with several checks written for amounts less than $100.  Thus, the cancelled checks 
supplied by AtContact do not demonstrate that AtContact met its beginning construction milestone.  
21. Declaration from Third Party Contractor.   AtContact provides a declaration from an 
employee of the TWTA contractor attesting to the “truth and accurate representations” of the photographs 
of the TWTAs.56 The declaration states that the TWTAs are located in the third party’s facilities.  It also 
states that the components “remain available to AtContact.”57 This does not demonstrate that AtContact 
has met the beginning construction milestone.  It indicates that the TWTAs are still in the third party’s 
possession, and have not been delivered to the manufacturer for integration into the satellite.  As noted, 
ordering long-lead items such as TWTAs provides evidence that a licensee may have met the earlier CDR 
milestone.  It does not provide evidence that a licensee has met the beginning construction milestone.
22. Declaration from Space Systems/Loral.  In an effort to dispel any uncertainty that the 
TWTAs are linked to the manufacturing contract with Loral, AtContact submits a declaration from 
Loral’s Senior Vice President for Program Management and System Engineering.58 According to 
AtContact, the declaration shows Loral is aware of the asset sales agreement, has tested the TWTAs and 
reached a favorable conclusion on their suitability for NGSO satellites, and is prepared to credit 
AtContact for the value of the TWTAs.59 The declaration itself, however, does not support this 
characterization.60 Nothing in the declaration indicates that Loral has committed to using the TWTAs in 
the satellites under construction.  Indeed, in an affidavit attached as an exhibit to the application, 
AtContact acknowledges Loral has concluded only that the TWTAs “may be suitable for use in the … 
downlink band range” in which the NGSO satellites were to operate.61  
23. AtContact states that its proposed use of the TWTAs should be a “matter for applause, 
not castigation.”62 In determining that AtContact has failed to meet the beginning construction milestone, 
we are not passing judgment on AtContact’s proposed “creative recycling” of TWTAs initially built for 
another company – TWTAs that AtContact states “might have gone to the scrap heap if AtContact had 
not agreed to salvage them.”63 Our determination is based solely on the fact that neither the declaration 
from Loral, nor the declaration from the TWTA contractor, nor the single check to the TWTA contractor 
  
55 Petition for Reconsideration, Attachment 4 at 2 (confidential treatment requested).
56 Petition for Reconsideration at 15. 
57 Id. 
58 Id. at 14. 
59 Id. at 4. 
60 Id. Exhibit D (confidential treatment requested). 
61 Id., Exhibit A at 2 (emphasis added). 
62 Id. at 3, and Exhibit D (confidential treatment requested).  
63 Id. at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
10
in any way indicate that the TWTAs have been delivered to Loral for integration into the satellite 
AtContact certified was under construction.64
b. Other Arguments
24. Standard. AtContact states that the Bureau improperly set a new, higher standard to 
ascertain whether a licensee has met the commencement of physical construction milestone.  As noted, to 
satisfy the beginning construction milestone, licensees must provide sufficient information to demonstrate 
to a reasonable person that they have commenced physical construction of the licensed spacecraft.65
AtContact maintains that, rather than applying the reasonable person standard to its case, the Bureau 
applied a standard that requires a licensee to have paid 25-50% of the total manufacturing contract to 
meet the milestone.66 AtContact asserts that being “a quarter of the way there is not the same as starting” 
and that the new requirement is not consistent with common sense.67 AtContact also states that it had no 
notice of the new requirement, and that applying the new requirement to AtContact was “improperly 
retroactive.”68
25. The Bureau did not apply a new or higher standard in determining whether AtContact had 
satisfied its milestone requirement.  AtContact seems to argue that licensees can meet the beginning 
physical construction milestone by starting any system implementation.   This is not the case.  The 
beginning construction milestone is the third milestone in each satellite licensee, and occurs at least two 
and one-half years after license grant.69 Before this milestone, licensees are required to meet two other 
milestones – executing a binding contract and completing CDR for the licensed satellite(s).70 Both of 
these milestones require the expenditure of funds and significant design work.  For example, the 
Commission has stated that evidence of compliance with the CDR milestone may include evidence of a 
large payment of money required by most construction contracts at the time of CDR, and evidence that 
the licensee has ordered all long-lead items needed to begin physical construction of the spacecraft.71  
Thus, contrary to AtContact’s contention, licensees should be well past the “starting” stage by the 
beginning physical construction milestone.  Indeed, licensees, like AtContact, that have not made 
significant progress at this point in the implementation schedule will have difficulty meeting the launch 
and operation milestone that occurs, in the case of NGSO satellites such as AtContact’s, only one year 
later.  
26. In evaluating AtContact’s compliance with the beginning physical construction milestone 
in the Cancellation Order, the Bureau discussed the type of information sufficient to demonstrate to a 
reasonable person that the beginning construction milestone was met, and cited several examples of 
adequate showings.72 The Bureau then stated … “based on our experience in reviewing milestone 
compliance, at this point in the construction process licensees have generally paid 25-50 percent of the 
  
64 Id. at 3, and Exhibit D (confidential treatment requested).  
65 Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 10834, ¶ 193.
66 Petition for Reconsideration at 8. 
67 Id. at 2, 8.
68 Id. at 10.
69 47 C.F.R. § 25.164.
70 Id. 
71 Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 10833, ¶ 191.
72 Cancellation Order at ¶ 9. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
11
total price in the manufacturing contract due to the cost of procuring parts.”73 AtContact’s manufacturing 
contract with Loral shows a payment schedule typical in this respect.  The Bureau did not create a new 
standard.  It did not conclude AtContact failed to meet the milestone based solely on its expenditures 
under the contract.  Instead, the Bureau based its decision on AtContact’s failure to submit any evidence 
documenting that parts had been delivered to the manufacturer for incorporation into the satellite. 
AtContact’s failure to provide evidence of payments to Loral commensurate with this stage of 
construction merely provided further support for the Bureau’s finding that AtContact had not 
demonstrated it had met the beginning construction milestone.  
27. Prior milestone determinations. AtContact contends the Bureau’s decision that 
AtContact did not meet the beginning construction milestone is inconsistent with its treatment of another 
licensee – DigitalGlobe.  Specifically, AtContact argues that the Bureau found DigitalGlobe had met its 
commencement of construction milestone based on a declaration from a company officer that the 
company had begun to procure long-lead equipment.  AtContact further states that there was no evidence 
that DigitalGlobe paid 25 percent of its system price.  AtContact claims that because it submitted the asset 
sales agreement and photographs of the TWTAs, it was better situated than Digital Globe and should have 
been treated similarly.74
28. As most satellite licensees do when providing documentation to support milestone 
compliance, DigitalGlobe submitted both a public and confidential filing.  The declaration from the 
DigitalGlobe company officer cited by AtContact was redacted from the public version.  The information 
in the redacted declaration demonstrated that several long-lead items had been delivered to the 
manufacturer and integrated into the satellite.75 Based on this, the Bureau concluded DigitalGlobe had 
met the beginning construction milestone.  In contrast, AtContact has not provided evidence that any
components were delivered to Loral for integration into the satellites purportedly under construction.
29. Thus, we affirm the Bureau’s finding that AtContact failed to commence physical 
construction of its first NGSO satellite.  AtContact has had several opportunities to supply documentation 
that it had met the milestone -- in its initial milestone showing in October 2008, in response to the 
Bureau’s January 2009 letter, and in its Petition for Reconsideration of the Cancellation Order.  Despite 
these opportunities, AtContact has not produced any documentation that it has met the milestone or, 
indeed, that it has made any significant progress in building the satellite system that it was authorized to 
build in 2006. 
2. Other Arguments for Reinstating the License
30. AtContact argues in its Petition that even if it did not meet the beginning physical 
construction milestone, reconsideration of the Cancellation Order is warranted for other reasons.  We 
discuss these below.
31. The milestone is relevant only to the NGSO constellation. AtContact states that the 
Cancellation Order is based on a failure to meet a milestone for its first NGSO satellite, and does not 
recognize the Bureau’s decision to “consider the NGSO and GSO portions of the [AtContact] applications 
separately.”76 AtContact notes that, although it had requested the Bureau to treat its system as an NGSO 
  
73 Id.
74 Petition for Reconsideration at 12-13.
75 DigitalGlobe, Inc., IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20040728-00151, Request for Determination of Compliance with 
Satellite Implementation Milestones (Oct. 2, 2006), at Attachment 3 (confidential treatment requested).
76 Petition for Reconsideration at 4, citing License Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4040, ¶ 12.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
12
system in its initial applications, the Bureau stated in the License Order that it would not do so.77  
AtContact notes that the Bureau imposed separate milestone schedules to the NGSO and GSO satellites, 
assigned individual call signs for each of the GSO satellites, and required AtContact to pay separate 
application fees for each of the GSO satellites.78 AtContact concludes that, therefore, compliance with 
the beginning construction milestone for the first NGSO satellite pertains to the NGSO authorization 
only.  AtContact further states that the authorization for its GSO component remains viable and that the 
Commission should consider the modification requests and bond waiver related to the GSO component.  
32. In the License Order, the Bureau treated the NGSO and GSO components separately for 
processing purposes only.  The Bureau noted that the operations of GSO and NGSO satellites are 
inherently different and that the Commission’s rules contain separate technical requirements and licensing 
frameworks for each type of satellite.79 Consequently, the Bureau stated that it would not treat 
AtContact’s proposed system as an “NGSO system,” as AtContact had requested, and that it would 
consider each component separately.  Further, the Bureau generally assigns individual call signs to each 
GSO satellite because each application must be considered individually based on each GSO satellite’s 
unique technical characteristics and proposed orbital location.  Individual call signs also allow the Bureau 
to track the individual satellites as a system is implemented, and, as often occurs, changes are made to 
individual satellites.80 In addition, the Commission’s rules require application fees “per satellite” for 
GSO satellites.81 Finally, the Commission’s rules contain separate milestone schedules for NGSO and 
GSO satellites.82
33. None of these factors indicates that the License Order contained two separate 
authorizations.  To the contrary, in granting AtContact’s applications, the Bureau stated that it was 
granting AtContact “authority for a satellite system consisting of three [NGSO] and four [GSO] 
satellites.”83 Further, in setting out the milestone schedules for both the NGSO and GSO components, the 
Bureau stated that “[f]ailure to comply with a milestone…will result in automatic cancellation of 
[AtContact’s] authorization with no further action on the Commission’s part.”84 Indeed, AtContact paid 
one bond for one hybrid system consisting of GSO and NGSO components, rather than a bond for each 
individual GSO satellite and a bond for the NGSO constellation.85 Separate bond payments for each of 
AtContact’s four GSO satellites and its NGSO system would have totaled $17 million, rather than the $5 
million AtContact submitted.  The Bureau’s treatment of AtContact’s system is consistent with its 
  
77 License Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4040, ¶ 12.
78 Petition for Reconsideration at 4. 
79 License Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4040, ¶ 12. See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.157, 25.158, and 25.164(a) and (b).
80 As noted, AtContact had filed several modification applications relating to individual GSO satellites.
81 The Commission is statutorily required to assess and collect application fees in accordance with the Schedule of 
Fees prescribed by Congress. 47 U.S.C. § 158; and 47 C.F.R. § 1.1107.
82 47 C.F.R. § 25.164.
83 License Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4035, ¶ 1 (emphasis added).
84 License Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4053, ¶ 49 (emphasis added).  See also ¶ 68 (“[AtContact’s] authorization shall be 
null and void” for failure to meet a milestone).  AtContact acknowledges that the License Order states that the 
“authorization” would become null and void for failure to meet a milestone.  AtContact then asks “[b]ut which 
authorization was intended to apply to which milestone dates and to which call sign?” and states that the answer 
makes sense only “if the milestone schedules and associated bifurcated authorizations are viewed as separate.” 
Petition at 5.  To the contrary, the plain language of the License Order indicates that there was only one 
authorization and that this authorization would become null and void if a milestone was missed.   
85 License Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4054, ¶ 57.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
13
treatment of other NGSO/GSO systems.86 Therefore, by its own terms, AtContact’s failure to meet the 
beginning physical construction milestone rendered the authorization for AtContact’s entire authorized 
system null and void.
34. Section 25.159(d).  AtContact maintains that Section 25.159(d) of the Commission’s 
rules allows a licensee “three strikes” at missing a milestone before a license is revoked.87 AtContact 
contends that even if it missed one milestone, this constitutes only “one strike.”  Section 25.159(d) in no 
way suggests this.88 Section 25.159(d) pertains to applicants who have an established pattern of missing 
milestones.89 Specifically, the rule provides that if a licensee misses three milestones within a three-year 
period, there is a presumption that the licensee obtained one or more of those licenses for speculative 
purposes.90 Until the licensee rebuts the presumption, it is precluded from filing an additional application 
in certain circumstances.  Section 25.159(d) has nothing to do with a license becoming null and void by 
its own terms when a licensee has missed a milestone.
35. Broadband Considerations. Based on Congress’ and the Commission’s recently 
articulated goals to expand broadband services, AtContact argues that cancelling its satellite authorization 
is contrary to the public interest.91 AtContact states that it intends to provide satellite broadband services 
to Alaska, Hawaii, and other underserved or unserved areas of the United States.  AtContact states that in 
furtherance of this goal, it applied for stimulus funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act of 2009, and maintains that the Bureau must take this into account in evaluating AtContact’s 
petition.92 AtContact further states that the Bureau must consider AtContact’s current customers – for 
which it provides Internet service via leased satellite capacity.  According to AtContact, cancelling its 
authorization eliminates its customers’ hopes for enhanced broadband services.93 Finally, AtContact 
asserts that reinstating its license will not undermine the Commission’s milestone policy.94
36. We recognize that promoting broadband services to rural areas is an important policy 
goal.  Nevertheless, we cannot reinstate AtContact’s license based on its pending applications for federal 
funds.95 There is no assurance that these applications will be approved.  We note that other satellite 
providers have also applied for stimulus funding.96 Further, even assuming AtContact’s applications are 
  
86 See Globalstar, L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1249 (Int’l Bur. 2003), aff’d 19 FCC Rcd 
11548 (2004) (licensee’s entering into a construction contract for one GSO satellite not sufficient to meet 
construction contract milestone for its NGSO/GSO 2 GHz system and license cancelled). 
87 Petition for Reconsideration at 7.
88 47 C.F.R. § 25.159(d). 
89 Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 10836, ¶ 200.
90 See, e.g., Letter to Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel for EchoStar Corporation, from Robert Nelson, Chief Satellite 
Division, DA 09-1149 (May 27, 2009). 
91 Petition for Reconsideration at 16.
92 Id. 
93 Id. at 19. 
94 Id. at 21. 
95 See Constellation Communications Holdings, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 18822, 18829, 
¶ 16 (2003) (milestone compliance is not excused because of poor market conditions); Netsat 28 Company, L.L.C., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 17722, 17727, ¶ 14 (Int’l Bur. 2004) (efforts to raise financing in an 
unfavorable business climate does not justify an extension or waiver of a milestone).
96 See, e.g., Communications Daily, Oct. 2, 2009, at 12 (WildBlue and ViaSat have applied separately for federal 
money to expand the reach of broadband to rural areas).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
14
approved, and assuming that the Bureau had issued separate authorizations for AtContact’s GSO and 
NGSO satellites, there is no assurance that AtContact will be in a position to construct and launch two 
GSO satellites.  The possibility of AtContact ultimately building and launching the satellites does not 
outweigh the Commission’s stated public interest goal of ensuring that licensees build their satellite 
systems in a timely manner and that valuable orbit spectrum is not held by licensees unable to proceed 
with their plans to the exclusion of other potential providers.  The Bureau has found that new entrants and 
the innovative services they promise are of little value if the proposed services are not predictably and 
promptly offered.97 In fact, because AtContact requested at least a 36 month extension of the remaining 
milestones for the two GSO satellites it states it intends to build, its proposed services would not be 
available before 2014, at the earliest.98  
37. We reject AtContact’s claim that allowing it to retain the authorization for two GSO 
satellites while it attempts to obtain stimulus funding would not undermine the Commission’s milestone 
policy.  The milestone policy is designed both to ensure that the satellite licensee is committed to 
completing its system in a timely fashion and to prevent licensees from holding scarce orbital and 
spectrum resources to the exclusion of others.  AtContact maintains that because its GSO satellites are 
only authorized to operate on a secondary/non-interference basis in spectrum designated for primary 
NGSO operations, it is not precluding other NGSO operators from operating in the bands.99 We 
acknowledge that allowing AtContact to continue to hold two GSO authorizations on a secondary/non-
interference basis may not affect future NGSO systems.   However, it will impact our ability to authorize
other GSO systems in these frequency bands.  Two GSO satellites providing service to the same coverage 
areas in the same frequency bands cannot operate at the same orbital location without causing 
unacceptable interference into the other system’s operations. Consequently, we cannot authorize two GSO 
operators to operate at the same orbital location – even if those operations are authorized on a 
secondary/non-interference basis to primary NGSO systems. 100 Thus, allowing AtContact to hold a 
license would preclude us from authorizing another GSO satellite at an orbital location assigned to 
AtContact.101
38. Further, AtContact requests at least a three year extension of the remaining milestones for 
the two GSO satellite authorizations it has not surrendered.  Reinstating AtContact’s authorization for 
these two satellites, together with granting its milestone extension request, would allow it to hold space 
  
97 See, e.g., NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C., 19 FCC Rcd at 17728, ¶ 16 (milestone not waived because a proposed 
service is more beneficial than services that might be provided by another satellite operator); Astrovision  
International, Inc., Order, 22 FCC Rcd 2379, 2383, ¶ 14 (Int’l Bur. 2007) (permitting Astrovision to delay 
implementation of its system based on the uniqueness of its system would allow it to encumber spectrum to the 
exclusion of other applicants seeking to implement their own unique systems). 
98 AtContact February Letter at 5 and 8. 
99 Petition for Reconsideration at 21. 
100 We note that EchoStar Satellite Corporation has filed a petition for rulemaking to upgrade the status of GSO 
satellites in these bands to co-primary. EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Petition for Rulemaking to Redesignate the 
Non-Geostationary Fixed-Satellite Service Bands to Allow Geostationary Fixed-Satellite Service Operations on a 
Co-Primary basis, RM 10767. 
101As AtContact acknowledges, at the time it filed its application, there was already one other GSO satellite 
authorized to provide service on a secondary/non-interference basis in the Ka-band NGSO-primary frequency bands.
See ViaSat, Inc., Application File No. SAT-AMD-20080623-00131 (grant stamp authorization dated August 18, 
2009 allowing U.S. service from a satellite authorized by the Isle of Man at the 115.1° W.L. orbital location).  See 
also ViaSat Inc., Application File No. SAT-MOD-20091127-00129 (grant stamp authorization dated April 20, 2010, 
to construct, launch, and operate a GSO Ka-band satellite that will operate on a secondary/non-interference basis at 
the 77.3° W.L. orbital location).   See para. 54 below, for a discussion regarding the unique characteristics of each 
orbital location.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
15
station licenses for at least three additional years, with no assurance that it will ever be able to implement 
its plans.  Despite AtContact’s arguments to the contrary, this would undermine the Commission’s 
milestone policy.     
3. Request for Bond Release
39. AtContact states that, regardless of whether we reinstate the license, the Commission 
should “give serious consideration to [its] previously filed request for a waiver of its bond requirements” 
and release it from its bond obligations.102 AtContact argues that the underlying purpose of the bond 
requirement would not be served by compelling payment in light of the difficulties in raising financing 
during the “unprecedented national economic crisis,”103 its investment of “substantial sums into its 
proposed satellite operations, including the purchase of the bond in question,”104 its “bona fide intent to 
provide a full-fledged satellite service to the public,”105 and the negative impact cancellation would have 
on its “current broadband operations.”106 AtContact also states that a release in this case is consistent with 
Commission precedent, citing Rainbow DBS Company, LLC. 107  
40. We reject AtContact’s request to be released from its bond.  In requesting a release of the 
bond, AtContact is asking the Commission to waive the bond requirement set forth in Section 25.165.108  
As discussed below, waiver of the bond would be fundamentally inconsistent with the underlying purpose 
of the bond requirement, and would disserve the public interest.  Indeed, another satellite licensee, Intelsat 
North America LLC, filed a response to AtContact’s February 9, 2009, letter stating that granting such a 
broad waiver of the bond and milestone requirements could undermine the purpose of these obligations.109  
Further, under the plain and unambiguous terms of the suretyship agreement among Safeco, AtContact, 
and the United States, Safeco was obligated to tender the amount due within 30 business days of the 
Notice of Default.  AtContact’s request for a waiver does not alter that requirement.  
41.  We are authorized to grant a waiver under Section 1.3 of the Commission’s rules if the 
petitioner demonstrates good cause for such action.110 Good cause, in turn, may be found and a waiver 
granted “where particular facts would make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest.”111 To 
  
102 Petition for Reconsideration at 22.  
103 Id. at 22.
104 Id. at 24. 
105 Id.
106 Id.
107 Petition for Reconsideration at 22, citing Rainbow DBS Company, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 
FCC Rcd 4272 (2007) (Rainbow).
108 47 C.F.R. § 25.165.  Granting a waiver would either release a licensee from any payment obligation under the 
bond or require the return of any bond monies paid.
109 Intelsat Letter.
110 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.  See also ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited v. FCC, 428 F.3d 264 (2005); 
Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1990); WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 
(D.C. Cir. 1969).
111 Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166; ICO Global Communications, 428 F.3d at 269 (quoting Northeast 
Cellular); see also WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157-59.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
16
make this public interest determination, the waiver cannot undermine the purposes of the rule, and there 
must be a stronger public interest benefit in granting the waiver than in applying the rule.112
42. The bond requirement was adopted as part of a comprehensive satellite licensing 
reform.113 The bond is intended to discourage speculative applicants from applying for satellite licenses.  
In the Bond Order, the Commission stated:
To the extent petitioners are asserting that satellite entrepreneurs should be free to apply for and 
obtain satellite licenses and later abandon their licenses because of economic changes in the 
marketplace, we believe that such practices are inconsistent with the public interest.  We realize 
that licensees may file applications with the Commission fully intending to construct their 
satellites, and then face changes in economic conditions that lead them to alter their business 
plans.  Nonetheless, such changes in a licensee’s plans and the resulting delays in construction 
and provision of service would preclude some other interested company from constructing a 
satellite in a more timely fashion.  Therefore, we conclude that we must maintain the bond 
requirement, to create incentives for companies to consider their business risks before applying 
for a license.  Furthermore, regardless of its intent, the actions of a licensee who obtains a license 
and surrenders it later have the same effect as the actions of a licensee who warehouses scarce 
orbit and spectrum resources.  The bond requirement was designed to prevent such valuable 
resources from lying fallow when another party might be able to put those resources into use.114  
43. AtContact has not shown good cause for granting a waiver.  On October 14, 2008 - one 
day before it had to meet its construction commencement milestone for its NGSO satellite - AtContact 
submitted a filing to the International Bureau in which it claimed the company had commenced 
construction of its first NGSO satellite.  Then, on February 6, 2009, after the Bureau had requested more 
proof of construction of this NGSO satellite, AtContact informed the Bureau it no longer wanted the 
NGSO satellite licenses.  AtContact’s decision to relinquish its NGSO licenses rather than providing 
proof of compliance with the construction milestone casts considerable doubt on the credibility of its 
earlier October 2008 statement that it had commenced construction of an NGSO satellite.  These 
circumstances put AtContact in a poor posture to request a waiver from the bond forfeiture requirement, 
which is intended to ensure that licensees are fully committed to the construction of satellite facilities. 
44. In addition, AtContact’s argument that it has already invested substantial sums into its 
licensed satellite system is unsupported by the record.  As noted, each GSO satellite and each NGSO 
constellation generally cost at least several hundred million dollars to construct and launch.  The 
documented payments for AtContact’s licensed three NGSO/four GSO system are significantly less than 
the relatively small portion of total payments that were required prior to the earlier CDR milestone.  
Further, the purchase of a bond in connection with licensing does not demonstrate investment of any 
funds towards satellite construction.  In fact, accepting payment of the bond as a factor favoring waiver 
would undermine the bond requirement. 
  
112 See, e.g., WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157 (stating that even though the overall objectives of a general rule have 
been adjudged to be in the public interest, it is possible that application of the rule to a specific case may not serve 
the public interest if an applicant’s proposal does not undermine the public interest policy served by the rule);  
Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166 (stating that in granting a waiver, an agency must explain why deviation from 
the general rule better serves the public interest than would strict adherence to the rule).                                                         
113 Amendment  of the Commission’s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Order on Reconsideration 
and Fifth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 12637, ¶ 1 (2004) (Bond Order). 
114 Id. at 12652, ¶ 37.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
17
45. AtContact relies on expenditures in connection with its separate provision of broadband 
service using leased capacity on operating satellites, and its participation in other ventures, as support for 
the waiver.115 The bond requirement, however, does not distinguish between incumbent service providers 
and new entrants.  We see no policy justification for granting more favorable treatment to persons with 
prior entrepreneurial experience in the satellite industry.  In fact, concerns with speculation are also 
present in the case of individuals who have interests in other satellite ventures.  Operators with other 
satellite interests may have a strategic interest in foreclosing use of key spectrum resources by applying 
for and holding licenses to the exclusion of potential competitors.  AtContact’s expenditures with respect 
to other facilities - not covered by the bond - do not prevent its GSO orbital locations from lying fallow 
when another party might be able to put those resources into use.  Therefore, granting AtContact a waiver 
based upon its other ventures would undermine the purpose of the bond.
46. At Contact also claims that its pending applications for federal funding demonstrate that 
it is not speculating or warehousing spectrum.116 This argument is unpersuasive.  More than three years 
after grant of its authorization and after a point where substantial expenditures should already have 
occurred, AtContact has applied for but has not been awarded federal funds that, by its own account, are 
critical if construction of a much scaled-back satellite system is to proceed.  Regardless of whether 
AtContact intended to speculate or warehouse, its lack of progress and the contingent nature of its 
possible future financing represent precisely the type of situation the bond requirement is intended to 
address.  As the Commission indicated in adopting the bond requirement, the actions of a licensee who 
obtains a license and surrenders it later, regardless of its intent, have the same effect as the actions of a 
licensee who intentionally warehouses spectrum.117 We therefore decline to consider AtContact’s filing 
of an application for federal funds as evidence weighing in favor of waiving the bond.  
47. AtContact contends that a waiver is justified under the principles of the Rainbow case.  In 
Rainbow, the Commission waived the bond requirement and released Rainbow’s bond obligations.  
Rainbow held licenses for five Ka-Band satellites.  In applying for these licenses, Rainbow indicated that 
it planned to use the satellites in conjunction with its existing direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service 
operations and a related high definition programming service.  After obtaining bonds and signing binding 
construction contracts for all five Ka-band satellites, Rainbow surrendered all five licenses and asked for 
a release from its bond obligations.  In surrendering the licenses, Rainbow stated that because it had 
decided to discontinue its other services, it no longer needed its Ka-band satellite authorizations.  The 
Commission analyzed Rainbow’s request in light of what it described as the three goals of the bond 
requirement—ensuring the licensee’s financial ability to establish the licensed service, ensuring its good 
faith intent to provide the service, and discouraging the warehousing or speculative pursuit of scarce 
spectrum.  
48. The Commission noted that Rainbow and its affiliated companies invested approximately 
$1 billion over a six-year period to launch a state-of-the-art DBS satellite, develop consumer equipment, 
construct uplink facilities, and create and acquire innovative, high definition programming.118 The 
Commission concluded that it was “clear that using the bond requirement to weed out an entity with 
Rainbow’s financial resources would not serve the purposes of the rule with respect to financial 
qualifications.”119 The Commission also noted that, in addition to the $1 billion, Rainbow invested more 
than $13 million directly to develop and construct the five Ka-band satellites, including $12 million paid 
  
115 Petition for Reconsideration at 19-20, 24.
116 Id. at 24.
117 Bond Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12652, ¶ 37. 
118 Rainbow, 22 FCC Rcd at 4275, ¶ 9.
119 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
18
under the construction contract for the satellites.120 The Commission concluded that this was sufficient to 
support a conclusion “that Rainbow’s ultimate inability to proceed with its system was not caused by 
insufficient good faith efforts to succeed, but rather because of a lack of subscribers to sustain the 
enterprise over the long term.”121 Finally, the Commission concluded that because there were other Ka-
Band orbital locations available for other parties, there was no concern with warehousing.122
49. We cannot conclude that Rainbow supports granting AtContact’s request for a waiver.  
True, AtContact invokes generally the same type of evidence as was presented in the Rainbow case.  Like 
Rainbow, AtContact cites its participation in other related satellite ventures, its expenditures in 
connection with the licensed system, and an allegation that it is not precluding other potential satellite 
providers in these frequency bands.  AtContact’s asserted expenditures for its licensed and related satellite 
ventures, though, are only a small fraction of the large amount Rainbow expended, which was critical to 
approval of that waiver application. 
50. This case, moreover, gives us an opportunity to revisit the waiver framework articulated 
and applied in Rainbow, as the satellite market has further matured and we are faced with many similar 
bond waiver requests that invoke the Rainbow decision.123 Indeed, given this growing number of bond 
waiver requests and the danger that the Rainbow approach may provide licensees with a means for 
circumventing the purpose and goals of the bond requirement established in the Space Station Licensing 
Reform Order, we are examining more closely whether the premises of this approach are fully consistent 
with the bases of our action in the Reform Order.  As discussed below, we have determined that they are 
not.
51. Rainbow was premised on a conclusion that the purpose of the bond was to ensure the 
licensee’s financial ability to establish the licensed service.124  Rainbow’s reasoning, however, has created 
a tension with the Commission’s rationale for eliminating the financial qualification requirement and 
replacing it with a bond requirement in the Space Station Licensing Reform Order.   Prior to adopting 
licensing reform, the Commission required an applicant to demonstrate that it had sufficient funds to 
cover the construction, launch, and first year operating costs of the proposed satellite.  In the Space 
Station Licensing Reform Order, the Commission determined that a licensee’s financial ability did not 
accurately reflect whether a licensee would proceed with construction and launch of its space station; 
experience had shown that many financially qualified licensees had chosen not to go forward with system 
implementation.125 In adopting the bond requirement, the Commission found that requiring a surety 
company to assess the risk that a licensee would default on a bond would provide a more accurate, 
  
120 Id. at 4275, ¶ 10.
121 Id.
122 Id. at 4276, ¶ 11.
123 Currently, the Bureau  has six requests for waivers of the bond requirement in addition to AtContact’s:  EchoStar 
Satellite Operating Corporation, Withdrawal of Authorization at 117° W.L. and Request for Waiver, Call Sign 
S2490, (December 8, 2006); EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation, Surrender of Authorizations at 109° W.L. 
and 121° W.L. and request for waivers of the bond for each authorization, Call Signs S2607 and S2609  (October 1, 
2007); EchoStar Corporation, Withdrawal of Authorization and Request for Waiver, for 97° W.L. orbital location, 
Call Sign S2499 (March 9, 2009 ); EchoStar Corporation, Withdrawal of Authorization and Request for Waiver for 
113° W.L., Call Sign S2636 (Sept. 2, 2009); MSV International, LLC, Surrender of Authorization and Request for 
Withdrawal and Release of Performance Bond, Call Sign S2487 (June 12, 2006).  Several of these requests, to 
varying degrees, rely upon the Rainbow decision to support their requests for waivers.
124 Rainbow, 22 FCC Rcd at 4274, ¶ 6.
125 Space Station Licensing Reform Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 10824, ¶ 164.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
19
market-driven determination of a licensee’s ability and willingness to proceed than would a regulatory 
determination.126  
52. Rainbow also stated that expenditures made in connection with a related enterprise, even 
though not directly targeted for construction of the licensed facilities for which the bond was obtained, 
demonstrate an applicant’s “financial abilities.”127 As a matter of policy, though, the consideration of 
expenditures in related ventures may unduly favor established satellite entrepreneurs – who are likely to 
be able to provide such evidence - over new entrants.  We have come to believe that the intent of the 
bond requirement is best met by focusing only on the financial arrangements and expenditures made in 
connection with the facilities for which the bond was acquired. 
53. We have further come to conclude that Rainbow’s reliance on the applicant’s “good faith 
efforts to succeed” and the lack of evidence that the license was procured “merely for the sake of 
speculation” will tend to undermine the bond requirement, which was designed to obviate subjective 
assessments of the licensee’s motives. 128 By limiting reliance on subjective judgments and providing 
concrete incentives for construction like the bond requirement, we not only reduce the risks of error 
associated with such judgments, but we avoid creating counterproductive incentives that could motivate 
the licensee to build a record of good intentions at the expense of concrete actions that will favor timely 
construction and avoid negative repercussions like bond revocation. As the Commission indicated in 
adopting the requirement, an applicant who obtains a license but is not able to proceed disserves the 
public interest in the same way as a licensee who obtains a license for speculative or warehousing 
purposes.129 Further, protracted adjudication of issues related to motives – as opposed to the 
accomplishment of objective milestones toward constructing the system – has the potential for delaying 
release of spectrum for other potential uses.  
54. In giving weight to the existence of “feasible [spectrum] alternatives” as a factor for 
determining whether a bond should be released, Rainbow treated orbital locations as fungible.  Each, 
however, has unique characteristics.  Applicants apply for locations that have optimal characteristics for 
the intended purpose.130 Award of a license denies the opportunity for other companies to exploit these 
characteristics.  Our recent experience has shown that when licenses are cancelled and orbital locations 
are made available for reassignment, other parties often quickly apply for those locations – even when 
other orbital locations in that frequency band are available.131 Further, requiring the Commission to 
determine whether there are “feasible alternatives” involves the Commission in evaluating applicants’ 
business plans and may require the substitution of the Commission’s judgment for that of the applicant.  
55.  The safeguards against speculation adopted in the Space Station Licensing Reform 
Order, including milestone and bond requirements, are designed to discourage speculative applications 
  
126 Id. at 10825, ¶ 167.
127 Rainbow, 22 FCC Rcd at 4275, ¶ 9.
128 Id. at 4275, ¶ 10.
129 Bond Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 12652, ¶ 37.
130 For example, AtContact had applied for orbital relocations for two of its GSO satellites.
131 For example, ViaSat, Inc. filed for authority to use Ka-band frequencies at 77° W.L. shortly after the 
Commission announced Rainbow’s authorization at this location was null and void.  ViaSat, Inc., SAT-LOA-
20070314-00051.  In addition, EchoStar Corporation and PanAmSat Corporation both filed applications to use Ka-
band frequencies at the 85° W.L. orbital location within minutes of the orbital location becoming available for 
assignment. EchoStar Corporation, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20080523-00112, and PanAmSat Licensee Corp., 
IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20080523-00113).  In contrast, the 71° W.L. and 73° W.L. orbital locations, among 
others, remain available for assignment to Ka-band satellites.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
20
and ensure that scarce orbital spectrum resources are held only by those willing and able to proceed with 
their plans. For the reasons explained above, and given our additional experience with the passage of 
time, we now believe that the waiver framework employed in the Rainbow decision cannot be generally 
employed without compromising the integrity of these reforms. Allowing entities to file applications, 
with the knowledge that they may well be able to obtain a waiver of the bond if they are unable to 
proceed with implementation, could eviscerate the Commission’s safeguards against speculation and 
warehousing.  Accordingly, we conclude that the approach that will most effectively further the goals of 
the bond requirement in the satellite implementation context is one based directly on the standard 
enunciated in WAIT Radio, as explained herein.132 To the extent that the Rainbow decision suggests 
otherwise, it is hereby overruled.  
56. Finally, we note that the Rainbow case could not in any event, provide AtContact with 
any equitable basis for arguing that it should be released from its bond obligation. The facts of this case 
demonstrate that AtContact could not have (and did not) rely upon Rainbow to its detriment. AtContact 
received the satellite authorizations at issue here in 2006, before the Commission’s 2007 decision in 
Rainbow. Therefore, AtContact cannot claim that it acquired the authorizations based upon a reasonable 
expectation that it could later fail to meet a construction milestone without penalty of a bond forfeiture. 
AtContact did not rely upon Rainbow when, in October 2008, it claimed it had commenced construction 
of its first NGSO satellite. In its February 2009 letter, At Contact, for the first time, informed the 
Commission it would forego all three of its NGSO satellites and two of its GSO satellites and also asked 
for waiver of its bond obligation.  However, it did not indicate that it had relied on Rainbow in making 
any of its license construction decisions, including its decision not to proceed with its system as licensed. 
Therefore, any argument that AtContact relied on Rainbow in deciding not to meet the milestones would 
not be supported by the record.
B.  Motion for Stay
57. In its Motion for Stay, AtContact asks the Bureau to stay the Cancellation Order and the 
related action by the Commission directing the surety to remit the funds due under the bond to the U.S. 
Treasury until resolution of its Petition for Reconsideration.  In this case, however, Safeco’s obligation 
under the bond to pay to the U.S. Treasury the amount of bond became fixed upon receipt of the Notice of 
Default.133 The clear and unambiguous language of the agreement does not give way to AtContact’s 
request for a stay.134 Therefore, Safeco’s obligation in this instance is not deferred by the filing and 
completion of legal contests, whether in the form of an administrative petition for reconsideration or a 
lawsuit filed.  The United States need not seek recourse in another forum (either in this proceeding or in 
court) to demand and obtain from Safeco payment of the obligation that matured on the date it was 
notified.  Indeed, to ensure that the government is properly compensated, prejudgment interest may 
accrue from that date until the amount is paid.135 The United States, through the Commission’s effort, 
seeks no more than what is due under the terms of the agreement.  We need not amplify in this Order the 
proper and complete demand for payment presented under the terms of the bond.  Because we have 
addressed the merits of AtContact’s Petition, the Motion for Stay is now moot. 
  
132  WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157-59.
133 See United States v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 236 U.S. 512, 524 (1915).  
134 See Ins. Co. of N. America v. United States, 951 F.2d 1244, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The surety’s obligation to 
pay does not wait for completion of legal contests between the principal and the creditor.  . . . The Government also 
bargained for someone to pay the bond amount, when due, without the need for recourse to the courts.”).
135 See United States v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 236 U.S. at 530; Ins. Co. of N. America v. United States, 
951  F.2d at 1246 (“if a surety delays payment beyond proper notification of liability, interest accrues on the debt”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-100 
21
IV.    ORDERING CLAUSES
58. For the forgoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that ATCONTACT Communications, LLC 
Petition for Reconsideration of International Bureau Order DA 09-1850 is DENIED.  
59. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that ATCONTACT Communications, LLC’s Motion for 
Stay of International Bureau Order DA 09-1850 is DISMISSED.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary