Both Sides Make Closing Arguments in BAS Relocation Fight
Reply comments on how much TerreStar and New DBSD Satellite Services should have to pay for broadcast auxiliary service relocation found little agreement among the principals in the fight. Sprint Nextel, broadcasters and the two Mobile Satellite Service operators all filed reply comments at the FCC. With little consensus among them, the commission will have to step in and make a decision. Sprint has estimated that each of the MSS operators should have to pay $100 million for their share of BAS relocation costs.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Sprint accused the MSS operators of intransigence. “Sprint Nextel’s comments strongly supported the Commission’s efforts to affirm and clarify its BAS spectrum relocation reimbursement requirements, but the MSS operators unfortunately continue their stubborn refusal to accept their cost-sharing responsibilities,” Sprint said, summarizing the record. “The MSS parties recycle the same arguments and distortions of the record from their prior filings.” Sprint said that if the FCC adopts “clear, transparent rules” on the cost-sharing obligations of MSS operators, it will “further the Commission’s original objective in the 800 MHz [order] to ensure a fair and efficient BAS relocation process and help bring it to a successful conclusion.”
NAB and the Association for Maximum Service TV, filing jointly, said they agree with Sprint that “MSS operators … have made virtually no effort to participate in the BAS relocation, notwithstanding their independent obligation to relocate BAS incumbents.” TerreStar and DBSD want the FCC to bestow upon them primary status in uncleared BAS markets in less than six months, the broadcaster groups said: “The viewing public would suffer in the form of reduced news coverage, while TerreStar and ICO would be rewarded inappropriately for their decision to sit out the BAS relocation since obtaining their licenses eight years ago.”
TerreStar accused Sprint of refusing to acknowledge its role in delaying the BAS relocation process. The operator noted that Sprint’s projected relocation dates for more than 70 markets were after the deadline established by the commission. Sprint and the broadcasters “lay the blame” for relocation delays on the two MSS operators “based on what they characterize as a lack of effort by those companies,” even though “Sprint told TerreStar in no uncertain terms that it did not want or need TerreStar’s assistance,” TerreStar said. “Sprint, rather than the MSS licensees, should be responsible for most or all of the financial consequences of delays in BAS relocation,” TerreStar said.
DBSD, the new name for ICO, largely repeated its assertion from the initial comment round that since it filed for Chapter 11 protection the FCC should stay the order under the automatic stay provision in the Bankruptcy Code. Sprint, in a separate filing, disputed that argument: “ICO fails to acknowledge the fundamental distinction between an adjudicative proceeding to enforce established rules and regulations against a specific party, and a rulemaking proceeding to establish rules of general applicability.”