October 17, 1995

Separate Statement
Commissioner Susan Ness

Re: Advanced Communications Corporation

By our actions today, the Commission upholds the requirement of due diligence in satellite construction by cancelling the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) permit of Advanced Communications Corporation (Advanced) and expresses its preliminary view that auctions should be used to reassign DBS channels and orbital positions -- a solution that is simple and, above all, fairest to all parties.

Failure to Meet Due Diligence

Today's ruling affirms the determination by the International Bureau of lack of due diligence by Advanced. This result is compelled by the evidence before us. In 1991 the Commission granted Advanced's first request for a four-year extension of time to construct a DBS system, but warned that future extension requests for DBS permits would require a showing of concrete progress. I have combed the record, seeking supporting documentation for the proposition that Advanced heeded the Commission's clear warning in 1991. Regrettably, I have found no credible evidence. Advanced never even began construction of a satellite -- much less commenced DBS operations -- during the four additional years for which the Commission had extended Advanced's initial six-year permit.

In its 1991 order, the Commission stated that "continued reliance on experimentation, technological developments and changed plans will not necessarily justify an extension of a DBS authorization." This admonition applied to all construction permits for which an extension might be sought after 1991. The message should have been especially clear to any party contemplating a request for a second extension. Nonetheless, Advanced relies upon technological developments and changed plans to justify its extension request. An applicant cannot claim it has met every milestone and deadline in a contract for satellite construction, when every meaningful milestone and deadline repeatedly is pushed into the future by contract amendment.

The facts recounted in the Memorandum Opinion and Order establish conclusively, in my mind, the lack of due diligence on the part of Advanced.

Disposition of Returned DBS Orbital Assignments and Channels

Once the factual issue of due diligence is resolved, the more difficult issue becomes the disposition of Advanced's DBS channels and orbital locations. This requires the Commission to weigh a complex array of competing considerations.

Some argued that, notwithstanding a finding of lack of due diligence, the Commission should allow Advanced to transfer its construction permit to a party of its own selection. Others argued that the channels should be publicly auctioned by the Commission to allow all interested parties the opportunity to participate. I have weighed these alternatives carefully but have not been persuaded that the public interest would be served by allowing Advanced to transfer its construction permit to Tempo DBS, Inc. (Tempo).

In particular, I have evaluated claims that allowing the transfer to Tempo will expedite the availability of an alternative supplier of DBS service, that cancelling the construction permit will disrupt business plans of a number of parties, and that recapture and auction of the channels would cause an entrepreneur who showed great vision and contributed significantly to the development of DBS to be left empty-handed. These arguments certainly have some merit. But ultimately I find that they are outweighed by the need for credible enforcement of our rules and even-handed treatment of potential DBS suppliers.

I have determined that the lack of due diligence requires us to cancel Advanced's permit. I do not believe that a licensee who has clearly failed to comply with Commission rules should be given the right to choose the party to receive its permit, particularly where the demand for the commercially valuable spectrum at issue -- twenty-seven full CONUS DBS channels -- far exceeds the supply. Tempo's progress toward construction of a satellite for its assigned DBS channels at a different orbital location is not a substitute for Advanced's failures. I believe that the better approach is to make prompt preparations to offer the opportunity to construct and operate a DBS satellite from Advanced's orbital locations to all interested parties.


Although I do not subscribe to the notion that auctions are the best solution in every circumstance, in this instance an auction may be the quickest and fairest means of distributing the channels to those who value them the most. Advanced and Tempo will be free, of course, to bid at an auction. It is my intention to move expeditiously to establish a new method for reassigning DBS channels so that all prospective bidders will have an opportunity to compete. In my judgment, no other approach comports as well with our mandate to serve the public interest.