Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-25
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC
Application for Authorization to Launch and
Operate DIRECTV RB-2, a Satellite in the
17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service
at the 102.825º W.L. Orbital Location
Spectrum Five LLC
Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Serve the U.S.            
Market from the 103.15° W.L. Orbital Location in 
the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File Nos. SAT-LOA-20060908-00100
SAT-AMD-20080114-00014
SAT-AMD-20080321-00077
Call Sign: S2712
File Nos. SAT-LOI-20081119-00217
SAT-AMD-20120314-00044
Call Sign: S2778
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted:  March 1, 2018 Released:  March 6, 2018
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In 2012, Spectrum Five LLC (Spectrum Five) filed an Application for Review arising from 
the International Bureau’s decision to grant DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC (DIRECTV) authority to 
construct, launch, and operate a satellite space station in the 17 and 24 GHz spectrum bands.  With this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny Spectrum Five LLC’s (Spectrum Five) Application for 
Review.
1
 
2. Specifically, we deny Spectrum Five’s requests to:  (1) reverse the order approving 
DIRECTV’s application, (2) return DIRECTV’s application as unacceptable for filing, and (3) reinstate 
Spectrum Five’s request to access the U.S. market from a Netherlands-authorized space station at the 
103.15° West Longitude (W.L.) orbital location.
2
  Spectrum Five’s claims with respect to DIRECTV’s 
application are without merit, and we affirm the Bureau’s licensing and reconsideration orders in this 
proceeding.
II. BACKGROUND
3. DIRECTV RB-2 Application.  On September 8, 2006, DIRECTV filed its application for the 
DIRECTV RB-2 space station at the 103° W.L. orbital location.  Subsequently, in 2007, the Commission 
adopted a first-come, first-served licensing framework for processing 17/24 GHz BSS applications and 
market access requests.
3
  Specifically, the framework allowed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations to operate at 
1
 Spectrum Five LLC Application for Review (filed July 2, 2012) (Spectrum Five AFR).
2
 Spectrum Five AFR at 2.
3
 Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency 
Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for 
Fixed Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for the Satellite Services 
Operating Bi-directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8842, 8847, para. 8 (2007) (17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order).  Under this framework, 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-25
2
orbital locations spaced at four-degree intervals, as set forth in Appendix F to the 17/24 GHz BSS Report 
and Order (Appendix F locations).  The Commission also allowed operators the flexibility to operate at 
orbital locations offset
4
 from Appendix F locations if the offset operations would not increase interference 
to satellites at adjacent Appendix F locations.
5
  The 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order also froze any 
17/24 GHz BSS applications that were not pending as of May 4, 2007.
6
  Finally, the Commission directed 
the Bureau to establish procedures for applicants to amend pending applications to conform to the new 
rules.
7
  Pursuant to these procedures, DIRECTV filed a conforming amendment, seeking to operate 
DIRECTV RB-2 at the 102.825° W.L. orbital location, which is offset 0.175 degrees from the 103° W.L. 
Appendix F orbital location.  On July 2, 2008, the Bureau placed DIRECTV's application on public notice 
as acceptable for filing.
8
  Spectrum Five did not comment on DIRECTV's application during the 30-day 
public notice period.
4. The Bureau lifted the freeze on new 17/24 GHz BSS applications on September 10, 2008.
9
  
On November 19, 2008, Spectrum Five filed a request to serve the U.S. market through a 17/24 GHz BSS 
Netherlands-authorized space station at the 103.15° W.L. orbital location.
10
 
 
Section 25.137(c) of the 
Commission's rules provides that parties seeking to use non-U.S.-licensed GSO-like space stations to 
serve the United States can file applications that will be processed under the Commission’s first-come, 
first-served framework, pursuant to Section 25.158 of the Commission's rules.
11
 
 In Spectrum Five's 
Market Access Request, Spectrum Five raised concerns about DIRECTV's application for the DIRECTV 
RB-2 space station.
12
  Consistent with Section 25.154 of the Commission's rules, the Bureau placed 
Spectrum Five's comments in the record for the DIRECTV RB-2 application, and provided both Spectrum 
Five and DIRECTV an opportunity to file further pleadings, which they did.
13
  As described in the 
(Continued from previous page)  
the Commission considers applications in the order in which they are filed and will grant an application if the 
applicant meets basic qualification standards set forth in Section 25.156(a), and if the proposed space station will not 
cause harmful interference to a previously licensed space station.  47 CFR §§ 25.156(a), 25.158(b)(3)(ii).
4
 In this context, offset means that the satellite is not operating at the precise Appendix F location.  For example, 
DIRECTV proposed to operate its space station at 102.825° W.L., i.e., offset by .175 degrees from the 103.0° W.L. 
Appendix F location.  When positioned at an offset location, a satellite will be operating at a distance closer to an 
Appendix F location (and, consequently, closer to any satellite operating there). 
5
 Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency 
Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for 
Fixed Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for the Satellite Services 
Operating Bi-directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band, Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 17951, 
17960, para. 22 (2007).
6
 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8902, para. 147.
7
 Id. at 8901, para. 145.
8
 Policy Branch Information, Space Station Application Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, Report No. SAT-00535 
(July 2, 2008); Policy Branch Information, Space Station Application Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, Report No. 
SAT-00537 (IB July 11, 2008) (corrections).
9
 International Bureau Lifts Freeze on Filing 17/24 GHz BSS Applications, Public Notice, DA 08-1887 (IB 2008); 
International Bureau Reschedules Date that Freeze on Filing of 17/24 GHz BSS Applications Is Lifted, Public 
Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12140 (IB 2008). 
10
 Spectrum Five LLC Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Serve the U.S. Market from the 103.15° W.L. Orbital 
Location in the 17/24 Broadcasting Satellite Service Band, IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20081119-00217, Call Sign: 
S2778 (Spectrum Five Market Access Request).        
11
 47 CFR §§ 25.137(c), 25.158.
12
 See Spectrum Five Market Access Request.
13
 47 CFR § 25.154 (specifying requirements for filing oppositions to applications and other pleadings).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-25
3
DIRECTV RB-2 Order, the Bureau initially issued a declaratory ruling dismissing the DIRECTV 
application as defective.
14
  Several weeks later, on its own motion, the Bureau set aside the declaratory 
ruling in order to develop a more detailed record and to consider DIRECTV's application more fully.
15
    
In both proceedings, Spectrum Five argued that the Commission should dismiss or deny DIRECTV's 
application, claiming that the application was substantially incomplete, and therefore unacceptable for 
filing.  Spectrum Five also argued that DIRECTV's proposed power flux-density (PFD) exceeded the 
limits in the Commission's rules.
16
  Spectrum Five asserted that once the Bureau dismissed or denied 
DIRECTV's application, the Bureau would be in a position to grant Spectrum Five's second-in-line 
Market Access Request.
17
  The DIRECTV and Spectrum Five applications are mutually exclusive because 
the proposed satellites would be located less than one-half degree apart at their requested orbital locations 
and thus could not operate simultaneously without causing harmful interference into each other's system.  
As was the case with DIRECTV's application, Spectrum Five's proposed orbital location was offset from 
the 103° W.L. Appendix F location, but was second in line to the DIRECTV RB-2 application.
18
5. DIRECTV RB-2 Order.  The Bureau authorized DIRECTV to construct, launch and operate 
the proposed space station at the 102.825° W.L. offset orbital location at reduced power in July 2009.
19
  In 
the DIRECTV RB-2 Order, the Bureau discussed the power flux-density (PFD) limits for the 17/24 GHz 
BSS, as well as the requirement to demonstrate compliance with those limits,
20
 and found that, contrary to 
Spectrum Five's assertions, DIRECTV's application was substantially complete, and the proposed PFD 
met the limits in Section 25.208(w) of the Commission's rules.
21
  In addition, to ensure that DIRECTV's 
offset operations would not cause any additional interference to a satellite operating at the adjacent 
Appendix F location, the Bureau imposed a license condition limiting DIRECTV RB-2's operating power 
to between 0.47 dB and 0.51 dB less than full power, the precise amount depending on the location on the 
surface of the Earth of a given measurement point.
22
 
6.  On August 27, 2009, Spectrum Five filed a petition for reconsideration of the DIRECTV 
RB-2 Order.
23
  In its petition, Spectrum Five argued that the Bureau inappropriately licensed DIRECTV 
to operate an overpowered space station, that DIRECTV improperly used inputs from its link budget 
calculations in its PFD demonstration, and that the Bureau should have therefore dismissed DIRECTV's 
application as incomplete.  Spectrum Five also claimed that the grant gave DIRECTV an unfair 
14
 DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC Application for 17/24 GHz BSS Satellite at 102.825° W.L., Declaratory Ruling, 24 
FCC Rcd 423 (IB 2009).
15
 DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC Application for 17/24 GHz BSS Satellite at 102.825° W.L., Order, 24 FCC Rcd 1343, 
para. 3 n.2 (IB 2009) (Set Aside Order) (treating Spectrum Five's comments as an informal objection, placing them 
in the record pursuant to Section 25.154(b), and permitting the filing of further comments by DIRECTV and 
Spectrum Five, pursuant to Sections 25.154(c) and (d)).        
16
 Spectrum Five Market Access Request, Legal Narrative at 3-11.  See also ex parte filings by Spectrum Five cited 
in the DIRECTV RB-2 Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 9395, para. 5 n.13.
17
 Spectrum Five Market Access Request, Legal Narrative at 4.
18
 The DIRECTV RB-2 Order contains a detailed history of DIRECTV's application, the Spectrum Five Market 
Access Request, and each filing made by the parties.  DIRECTV RB-2 Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 9394-96, paras. 4-6.
19
 Id. at 9393.
20
 Id. at 9397-98, paras. 10-12.
21
 Id. at 9403-05, paras. 26-31.
22
 Id. at 9404-05, para. 31.
23
 Petition for Reconsideration of Spectrum Five (filed Aug. 27, 2009) (Spectrum Five Petition for Reconsideration).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-25
4
competitive advantage over other licensees by allowing it to operate at power higher than the limits in the 
Commission's rules.
24
7. DIRECTV RB-2 Reconsideration Order.  The Bureau denied Spectrum Five’s petition for 
reconsideration of the DIRECTV RB-2 Order.
25
  The Bureau disagreed with Spectrum Five’s arguments 
that the Bureau granted DIRECTV authority to launch and operate a satellite with power levels that 
exceed those permitted by the Commission's rules.  In particular, the Bureau found that Spectrum Five’s 
arguments were based on an erroneous reading of Section 25.208(w), which contains PFD limits for 
17/24 GHz BSS space stations in specified regions, and Section 25.140(b)(4)(iii), which requires 17/24 
GHz applicants proposing space stations at offset locations to demonstrate that their operations will not 
cause more interference to any current or future 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is in compliance with 
Part 25 than would be caused if the operations, instead of being offset, were located at the precise 
Appendix F orbital location.
26
  The Bureau stated that Spectrum Five incorrectly concluded that 
applicants proposing to operate at offset locations must demonstrate they meet PFD limits lower than the 
ones set out in Section 25.208(w).
27
  The Bureau further stated that Spectrum Five overlooked both 
DIRECTV's interference analysis, which demonstrates that DIRECTV RB-2 can operate compatibly with 
a space station closer than four degrees away by reducing power, and the condition in the DIRECTV RB-2 
Order imposing maximum PFD limits on DIRECTV RB-2 that are well below those in Section 
25.208(w).
28
  
8. Spectrum Five Application for Review.  On July 2, 2012, Spectrum Five filed an application 
for review (AFR) of the DIRECTV RB-2 Reconsideration Order.
29
  On July 17, 2012, DIRECTV filed an 
opposition.
30
  No other comments were filed.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Spectrum Five Application for Review
9. Spectrum Five AFR.  Spectrum Five identifies three main points on which it seeks review 
of the DIRECTV RB-2 Reconsideration Order.  First, it argues that the Bureau made erroneous 
conclusions as to material questions of fact in finding that DIRECTV’s conforming amendment 
“proposed to reduce its power to result in lower PFD” in order to comply with Section 25.140(b)(4)(iii).  
Specifically, Spectrum Five alleges that DIRECTV did not make the required technical showing nor 
explicitly propose to reduce its power, but instead assumed that extreme atmospheric losses would reduce 
the power levels on the earth’s surface to the point that the maximum PFD created there by transmissions 
from the RB-2 satellite operating at the designated offset location would not exceed the maximum PFD of 
-116.1 dBW/m
2
/MHz that DIRECTV specified in its conforming application.
31
10. Second, Spectrum Five argues that the Bureau’s imposition of a condition, based on 
Section 24.140(b)(4)(iii), that DIRECTV reduce its maximum power to a level 0.5 dB lower than that 
specified in Section 25.208(w) did not rectify the defect in DIRECTV’s application, because the Bureau, 
for purposes of determining compliance with the condition, accepted DIRECTV’s methodology for 
calculating the satellite’s PFD – a methodology that Spectrum Five asserts is erroneously based on the 
24
 Id.
25
 DIRECTV RB-2 Reconsideration Order, 27 FCC Rcd 5932.
26
 Id. at 5937, para. 14.
27
 Id.
28
 Id.
29
 Spectrum Five AFR.
30
 DIRECTV Opposition to Application for Review (filed July 17, 2012) (DIRECTV Opposition).
31
 Spectrum Five AFR at 7-11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-25
5
aforementioned assumptions about the effects of atmospheric losses.
32
  Thus, Spectrum Five argues, the 
Bureau made erroneous conclusions as to these material questions of fact and consequently granted to 
DIRECTV the authority to operate a satellite that fails to comply with the Commission’s technical rules.
33
11. Third, Spectrum Five argues that the Bureau should have dismissed DIRECTV’s 
application as originally filed for violating the Commission’s first-come, first-served procedural 
requirement that an applicant provide all information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 
Commission’s rules at the time the application is filed.
34
  Further, Spectrum Five argues that even if the 
condition that the Bureau subsequently imposed is assumed to have remedied the technical defects of 
DIRECTV’s application as originally filed, the application should not have been given priority over later-
filed, mutually exclusive applications.  In essence, Spectrum Five’s position is that the Bureau’s 
correction of the application’s technical defects failed to remedy DIRECTV’s fatal procedural error of 
submitting an application that was not substantially complete at the time of filing, and the Bureau’s 
decision to ignore this error gave DIRECTV an unfair procedural advantage over the other applicants.
35
  
Thus, Spectrum Five concludes that the Commission’s failure to reverse the Bureau’s grant of 
DIRECTV’s application would undermine the policies of the Commission’s first-come, first-served 
procedures.
36
12. DIRECTV Opposition.  DIRECTV argues that the Bureau correctly concluded that 
DIRECTV’s application was substantially complete and complied with the Commission’s rules in every 
respect, that Spectrum Five’s dispute with a single parameter, atmospheric loss, in one aspect of that 
application does not warrant dismissal, and that the approach advocated by Spectrum Five would 
improperly conflate the standard for accepting an application with an evaluation on the merits.
37
  
DIRECTV disputes Spectrum Five’s contention that because the Bureau did not address the alleged 
methodological error in DIRECTV’s PFD calculation, it “has effectively authorized DIRECTV to operate 
a full-power satellite at an offset location, in direct violation of the Commission’s rules” giving 
DIRECTV an “unfair advantage” over all other 17/24 GHz BSS operators by allowing it to use a satellite 
with “excess transmit power” that could also result in harmful interference to adjacent systems.
38
  
DIRECTV argues that Spectrum Five’s assertions are erroneous because the license condition imposed by 
the Bureau restricts DIRECTV RB-2’s operational power to levels below the PFD maximums specified in 
Section 25.208(w) in order to ensure that the satellite’s transmissions would have no more potential for 
causing interference to an adjacent satellite than the transmissions of a satellite operating without the 
offset, as required by Section 25.140(b)(4)(iii), and the Bureau carefully specified a methodology for 
calculating PFD to determine compliance with that condition.
39
  Furthermore, DIRECTV asserts that 
Spectrum Five fails to cite the portion of the DIRECTV RB-2 license condition requiring DIRECTV RB-
32
 Id. at 11-12.
33
 Id.
34
 Id. at 12-14.
35
 Id. at 13-14.
36
 Id. at 14.
37
 DIRECTV Opposition at 7-8.  DIRECTV outlines the rationale behind the substantial completeness requirement:  
(1) to discourage speculation and ensure that licensees are ready and willing to proceed with their construction 
plans, which DIRECTV argues it has demonstrated by its participation in the development of the 17/24 GHz BSS 
service; and (2) to allow for public comment on the merits and provide the Commission with sufficient information 
to make a decision on the merits, which DIRECTV did by stating that its PFD showing included a 1.1 dB reduction 
based on atmospheric effects, which precipitated Spectrum Five’s late-filed comments.  DIRECTV also states that 
Spectrum Five used atmospheric loss as a factor in its own application.  Id. at 15, n.50.
38
 Id. at 13.
39
 Id. at 13-15.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-25
6
2 to “meet the reduced PFD limits under all atmospheric conditions,” which ensures that DIRECTV RB-
2’s operations will be limited to the same interference potential as any other 17/24 GHz system located at 
a non-offset, Appendix F orbital location and operated within the higher PFD levels specified in Section 
25.208(w).
40  
DIRECTV concludes that the Bureau correctly found the application substantially complete 
and processed it in accordance with the Commission’s first-come, first-serve procedures.
41
13. Discussion. We disagree with Spectrum Five’s assertions and find that the Bureau ruled 
correctly in this case.  First, we are not persuaded that the Bureau made erroneous conclusions as to 
material questions of fact in finding that DIRECTV proposed to “reduce its power” to ensure that the PFD 
levels resulting from the operation of its offset satellite would not exceed the maximum allowed by the 
rules.  The bottom line issue is whether DIRECTV’s proposed operations of RB-2—when the satellite is 
transmitting at its proposed maximum Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP)—will cause PFD 
levels in excess of those allowed by the rules, based on accepted methodologies for calculating such 
levels.  The only component of DIRECTV’s calculation that Spectrum Five contests is the subtraction for 
atmospheric attenuation; Spectrum Five alleges that DIRECTV assumed that extreme atmospheric losses 
would reduce power levels on the earth’s surface, and that “when properly calculated,” RB-2’s operations 
“will not, in fact, produce the maximum PFD of -116.1 dBW/m
2
/MHz” stated in DIRECTV’s 
application.
42
  While Spectrum Five rightly points out that compliance with the PFD limits cannot be 
shown by relying on the maximum degree of atmospheric attenuation that can ameliorate interference, the 
Bureau correctly observed that “the Commission intended that the 17/24 GHz BSS PFD demonstrations 
include some degree of atmospheric loss.”
43
  As the Bureau indicated in the DIRECTV RB-2 Order, 
DIRECTV made an acceptable decision to take such loss into account by premising operations on “clear 
sky” conditions for its calculations of the 17/24 GHz BSS system’s compliance with the baseline Section 
25.208(w) PFD limits, and such calculations yielded a reasonable prediction that, “for all conditions,” the 
system would not cause PFD levels to exceed those limits.
44
  To account for the operation of its proposed 
40
 Id. at 14.  DIRECTV also indicates that its modification of authority for RB-2 included a reduction in maximum 
EIRP of 5 dB – offsetting by many times the 0.44 dB advantage that Spectrum Five believes DIRECTV would 
otherwise enjoy – and that, in this case, the adjacent satellite location potentially affected by DIRECTV’s offset 
operations is also licensed to DIRECTV, so any “harmful interference” would be borne by DIRECTV alone.  
DIRECTV goes on to compare another set of adjacent 17/24 GHz systems – one proposed by Pegasus Development 
and one proposed by Spectrum Five – which have, respectively, a 3dB and 2dB PFD advantage over the other in 
different areas within their systems’ footprints.  Accordingly, DIRECTV argues, if this power differential is 
insufficient to raise concerns about the adjacent operations of Spectrum Five and Pegasus, then Spectrum Five’s 
concern over a much lower 0.44 dB differential should regarded as “patently frivolous.” Id. at 16-17.
41
 Id. at 11.
42
 Spectrum Five AFR at 8-9.
43
 DIRECTV RB-2 Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 9400, para. 17. Moreover, as the Bureau observed in the DIRECTV RB-2 
Order, Spectrum Five has not been consistent in its arguments regarding whether atmospheric attenuation may be 
considered, and has appeared to concede that consideration of at least some atmospheric effects is permissible.  See 
id. 
44
 Id.  As the Bureau pointed out, at the time DIRECTV filed its application for RB-2, Section 25.208(w) did not 
mandate the use of a “free-space” propagation model for calculating PFD levels that meet interference concerns.  Id.  
A “free-space” model assumes no atmospheric attenuation, while a “clear sky” model assumes atmospheric 
attenuation that depends inter alia on the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere, which may vary according to 
location and time. The free-space model would thus require the space station to transmit less power in order to meet 
the same PFD limits.  See id. (“Free-space conditions are those in which electromagnetic waves do not encounter 
any attenuation due to atmospheric effects.”); Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcast 
Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz Frequency Band et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 7426, 
7450, para. 49 n. 126 (2006) (“The clear-sky value is taken to be the condition when the intrinsic atmospheric 
attenuation due to gasses and water vapor are applicable, without additional attenuation due to tropospheric 
precipitation, such as rain or snow.  See Recommendation ITU-R P.676-1”).  We note that in 2013 the Commission 
amended Section 25.208(w) to include a note stating that “[t]hese limits pertain to the power flux-density that would 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-25
7
system under clear skies conditions, as the rules at the time permitted, DIRECTV thus applied an 
atmospheric attenuation factor of 0.74 dB, thereby determining that the PFD levels that the system would 
generate would not exceed -116.1 dBW/m
2
/MHz.
45
  Since this determination not only satisfied 
DIRECTV’s obligation to demonstrate that it met the applicable Section 25.208(w) PFD limit of -115 
dBW/m
2
/MHz but also the additional showing required under Section 25.140(b)(4)(iii) for offset satellites 
like RB-2,
46
 the Bureau correctly ruled that DIRECTV’s application satisfied the interference 
requirements of these rules.
47
14. Second, we reject Spectrum Five’s assertion that the grant of the DIRECTV application 
should be overturned because the Bureau based it on erroneous conclusions about the efficacy of the 
license condition to ensure compliance with the rules’ interference requirements.  Spectrum Five’s 
assertion rests on the faulty premises that DIRECTV’s demonstration of compliance with these 
requirements was defective, and that DIRECTV inaccurately calculated its proposed system’s PFD levels 
because it took into account the ameliorative effects of atmospheric attenuation under clear skies 
conditions.  For the reasons discussed above, however, DIRECTV’s inclusion of an atmospheric 
attenuation factor based on clear skies conditions did not invalidate its interference demonstration.  
Similarly, the Bureau’s use of that factor as part of the methodology that will be used for applying the 
license condition was valid and therefore did not undermine the efficacy of that condition.
48
  This is not a 
(Continued from previous page)  
be obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions.” 47 CFR § 25.208 Note to Paragraph (w).  In 
amending the rule in this manner, the Commission sought to eliminate any uncertainty that could result from the 
differences between the two models.  See Comprehensive Review of Licensing and Operating Rules for Satellite 
Services, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 12403, 12456-57 para. 176 (2013).  Thus, from the time the Note to 
Paragraph (w) became effective, the rules have required that the power flux density limits applicable to DIRECTV’s 
operations at 102.825° W.L. be calculated pursuant to the free-space propagation model.  This development, 
however, does not negate the propriety of the Bureau’s decision to accept DIRECTV’s use of a clear-sky 
propagation methodology at the time of the initial authorization grant, prior to the rule change requiring use of the 
free-space model.  Nor does this rule change suggest that the Bureau, in granting the initial authorization prior to the 
change, made any analytical mistakes in evaluating the accuracy of DIRECTV’s calculations under the clear-sky 
model.
45
 Although DIRECTV’s initially filed interference demonstration employed an atmospheric attenuation factor of 
1.1 dB for calculating the maximum PFD level that the system would create under clear skies conditions, DIRECTV 
later acknowledged that the 1.1 dB figure was derived by incorrectly taking into account the presence of clouds.  
DIRECTV corrected this error in its December 8, 2008 letter, which informed the Commission that with the 
omission of clouds, the revised atmospheric attenuation factor would be 0.74 dB, yielding a predicted PFD 
maximum level for RB-2 of -115.67 dBW/m
2
/MHz.  See  Letter from William M. Wiltshire, Counsel for DIRECTV 
Enterprises, LLC to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 3 (December 8, 2008) (December 8 Letter) (referencing 
IBFS files associated with Call Sign 2712).  The Bureau correctly accepted the December 8 Letter as a timely-filed 
part of the record in this proceeding.  Cf., Boeing Co., Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 22645, 22649-50 
(IB/OET 2001) (granting authority based, in part, on technical submissions to the record filed after the close of the 
applicable public comment period).
46
 As explained in the DIRECTV RB-2 Order, in order to ensure that the interference potential of DIRECTV’s offset 
satellite system would not be any greater than a non-offset 17/24 GHz system (as required by Section 
25.140(b)(4)(iii)), the Bureau compared antenna gains between offset (102.825° W.L.) and adjacent (99° W.L.) 
satellites vs. antenna gains between non-offset (103° W.L.) and adjacent (99° W.L.) satellites.  Based on that 
comparison, the Bureau determined that, for RB-2, the maximum PFD levels would have to be 0.47 dB to 0.51 dB 
less than those specified in Section 25.208(w), to mirror the interference potential reflected by the antenna 
calculations for a non-offset satellite.  See DIRECTV RB-2 Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 9404-05, para. 31.
47
 Since the license grant and in keeping with the rules currently in effect, DIRECTV has modified its authorization 
to reduce the maximum power levels by 5 dB, which is an order of magnitude more than the 0.5 dB at issue in this 
proceeding.  DIRECTV Opposition at 13. 
48
 Notably, the grant imposed the condition that RB-2 must “meet the reduced PFD limits under all atmospheric 
conditions.”  DIRECTV RB-2 Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 9404-06, para. 34; see also IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-25
8
case, as Spectrum Five implies, where the Bureau imposes a license condition to rehabilitate an 
application that has an otherwise disqualifying defect.  Rather, the condition was imposed as a reasonable 
way to ensure that DIRECTV complies with the PFD limits imposed by the rules.  
15. Third, the Bureau appropriately accepted DIRECTV’s application as “substantially 
complete,” given that DIRECTV provided the information required by the Commission’s rules, including 
a PFD calculation showing compliance with applicable limits.  As the Bureau discussed in the DIRECTV 
RB-2 Order, the requirement that applications be “substantially complete” is meant to ensure that a full 
and complete application was filed both to allow for meaningful public comment and to provide 
Commission staff with sufficient information to make a decision on the application’s merits.
49
  We agree 
with the Bureau that Spectrum Five improperly conflates the standard for accepting an application as 
substantially complete with the separate standard for the evaluation of an application on its merits.  
According to Spectrum Five, the problem with the DIRECTV application as originally filed was that the 
interference showing required by Section 25.140(b)(4)(iii) relied on an erroneous assumption about the 
ameliorative effects of the atmosphere on station-to-station interference.  As a general matter, however, 
the evaluation of the sufficiency of an application’s required showings (such as the interference showing 
at issue here) is part of the broader evaluation of the application on its merits – a process in which the 
applicant and the agency can work through and correct potential problems that may be revealed upon a 
careful examination of a particular showing that the application may require.  In contrast, the initial 
review of an application for substantial completeness – which is done when the application is first 
submitted for filing in order to determine whether it can be accepted for filing under first-come-first-
served procedures (not whether it will be granted) – is a more cursory review designed to weed out those 
applications that are deficient on their face and which fail to include sufficient basic information to enable 
an independent analysis by Commission staff.  DIRECTV’s application passed this initial review, and, 
accordingly, the Bureau properly accepted it for filing notwithstanding any 25.140(b)(4)(iii) issues that 
may have arisen upon closer evaluation of the application during the Bureau’s later, more substantive 
review stage.  
16. The Bureau’s treatment of the DIRECTV application was consistent with the way the 
agency has conducted this two-stage evaluative process in other cases.  For example, in Intelsat North 
America, LLC, Order and Authorization, 24 FCC Rcd 7058 (Sat. Div., IB 2009) (Intelsat Order), the 
Bureau accepted an Intelsat 17/24 BSS space station application for filing and subsequently granted it 
(with an appropriate condition) even though the post-filing evaluation by staff revealed that a change was 
needed in the applicant’s methodology for calculating its power levels.  More specifically, after accepting 
the application for filing, the Bureau, in its subsequent evaluation of the application on the merits, found 
that the required PFD reduction should have been based on topocentric, rather than geocentric, angular 
separations.
50
  Because Intelsat had provided, in its application as originally filed, the required technical 
information in sufficient detail to enable Commission staff, when evaluating the application on its merits, 
to perform an independent PFD analysis, the application was deemed to have been substantially complete 
when filed.
51
  The fact that the Bureau then determined, at the merits-based stage of its consideration of 
the application, that Intelsat’s methodology for calculating the limiting power levels for the space station 
was problematic did not invalidate the initial assessment that the application was acceptable for filing.  
Rather, the subsequently discovered problem was resolved in an appropriate manner by conditioning the 
grant of Intelsat’s license on a reduction in PFD corresponding to the result of the methodology developed 
(Continued from previous page)  
20140612-00066 (granted May 14, 2015) (modifying the RB-2 license but retaining the reduced PFD limit 
condition).
49
 DIRECTV RB-2 Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 9403-04, para. 23. 
50
 Intelsat Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 7062, para. 11.
51
 Id. at 7062, para. 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-25
9
by the Commission.
52
  
17. Spectrum Five attempts to distinguish the Intelsat Order on the ground that the condition 
the Bureau imposed on Intelsat’s license was only intended to ensure that its operations complied with the 
limits for offset operations imposed by Commission rules, whereas here the Bureau adopted a condition 
wrongly intended to cure defects in DIRECTV’s proposal.
53
  According to Spectrum Five, while the 
Bureau made only minor adjustments to Intelsat’s methodology to correct its PFD values by 0.01 dB 
(approximately 0.05%), absent the Bureau’s intervention DIRECTV’s methodology for PFD calculation 
“would substantially exceed applicable limits by approximately 11% and cause objectionable interference 
to adjacent satellites.”
54
  As explained above, however, the Bureau accepted DIRECTV’s own correction 
of its application as originally filed, where DIRECTV in its December 8 Letter, much as the Bureau did in 
the Intelsat Order, made a minor adjustment in its methodology for calculating the PFD level – by 
eliminating clouds as a consideration, thereby reducing the atmospheric attenuation factor used for such 
calculations from 1.1. dB to 0.74 dB – resulting in an adjustment of the predicted maximum PFD level 
from -116.1 dBW/m
2
/MHz to -115.67 dBW/m
2
/MHz.  Thus, both of the PFD levels proffered by 
DIRECTV fell within the maximum PFD level permitted under the rules (i.e., the -115 dBW/m2/MHz 
maximum specified in Section 208(w)(1), reduced by the 0.47 dB to 0.51 dB that the Bureau deemed 
necessary under Section 25.140(b)(4)(iii) to account for RB-2’s offset location).  And as we also explain 
above, the Bureau did not impose the license condition to correct an application that specified a predicted 
PFD level that exceeded the maximum allowed by the rules, but rather to ensure that DIRECTV’s system, 
once deployed, would operate as predicted (whether predicted by the representations in the application as 
originally filed or by those in the December 8 Letter) by limiting PFD levels to levels below the 
maximum permitted under the rules.
18. In sum, we find that DIRECTV included sufficient information in its application for 
Commission staff to have found it substantially complete and ripe for consideration on its merits.  As 
discussed above, although changes were made to the application as originally filed as a result of 
DIRECTV’s December 8 Letter that reduced the atmospheric attenuation factor from 1.1 dB to 0.74 dB, 
the Bureau correctly treated the application as substantially complete.  The post-filing changes to 
DIRECTV’s application did not alter the fundamentals of the proposed operations and these changes were 
based on information that was already contained in the application.  Because DIRECTV supplied 
sufficient information to meet the substantial completeness requirement, the Bureau was able to complete 
its analysis of DIRECTV’s application on its merits.
IV.  CONCLUSION
19. Pursuant to the first-come, first-served licensing framework, the Commission places 
applications for new satellites at new orbital locations and market access requests for non-U.S.-licensed 
satellites at new orbital locations in a processing “queue” and considers them in the order in which they 
are filed.  If the proposed satellite will not cause harmful interference to a licensed satellite and all other 
applicable rules are met, the Commission will grant the application.  For the reasons stated above, and as 
outlined in the DIRECTV RB-2 Reconsideration Order,
55
 the Bureau properly granted DIRECTV's first-
in-line application for a 17/24 GHz BSS space station at the nominal 103° W.L. orbital location.  With the 
grant of this application, the Bureau was precluded from granting Spectrum Five’s later-filed petition to 
access the U.S. market from a Netherlands-authorized space station at the 103.15° W.L. orbital location 
because that proposed space station could not provide service to the United States without causing 
interference to the operation of the previously licensed DIRECTV RB-2 space station, which is less than 
52
 Id. at 7062, para. 11.
53
 See Spectrum Five AFR at 14 n.35.
54
 Id.
55
 DIRECTV RB-2 Reconsideration Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 5936-37.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-25
10
half a degree away.
56
  Rather than undermining the first-come, first served procedures, as Spectrum Five 
asserts, the Bureau’s decision properly followed those procedures and granted DIRECTV’s RB-2 
application.  Accordingly, we affirm the Bureau’s denial of Spectrum Five’s market access petition, deny 
Spectrum Five’s request to reinstate said petition, and deny Spectrum Five's Application for Review of 
the DIRECTV RB-2 Reconsideration Order issued by the International Bureau that denied Spectrum 
Five’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Order granting DIRECTV Enterprises LLC authority to 
construct, launch, and operate a 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service space station at the 102.825° 
W.L. orbital location.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5), and Section 1.115 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 
1.115, the Application for Review of the DIRECTV RB-2 Reconsideration Order filed by Spectrum Five 
LLC on July 2, 2012, IS DENIED. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
56
 The DIRECTV RB-2 space station was launched on May 27, 2015, and began providing commercial service on 
August 25, 2015.  See Letter from Jennifer D. Hindin, Counsel for DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Aug. 25, 2015).