Daily Archives: February 5, 2017

Satoshi Nakamoto – Wikipedia

Posted: February 5, 2017 at 6:09 am

Satoshi Nakamoto is the name used by the unknown person or persons who designed bitcoin and created its original reference implementation, Bitcoin Core.[1] As a part of the implementation, they also devised the first blockchain database. In the process they were the first to solve the double spending problem for digital currency. They were active in the development of bitcoin up until December 2010.

Nakamoto has claimed to be a man living in Japan, born around 1975. However, speculation about the true identity of Nakamoto has mostly focused on a number of cryptography and computer science experts of non-Japanese descent, living in the United States and Europe. One person, Australian programmer Craig Steven Wright, has claimed to be Nakamoto, though he has not yet offered proof of this.

As of 2 February 2017, Nakamoto owns roughly one million bitcoins,[2] with a value estimated at over US$1billion.

In October 2008, Nakamoto published a paper[3][4] on The Cryptography Mailing list at metzdowd.com[5] describing the bitcoin digital currency. It was titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. In January 2009, Nakamoto released the first bitcoin software that launched the network and the first units of the bitcoin cryptocurrency, called bitcoins.[6][7] Satoshi Nakamoto released the bitcoin software on Sourceforge on 9 January 2009. Version 0.1 was compiled using Microsoft Visual Studio.

They claim that work on the writing of the code began in 2007.[8] The inventor of bitcoin knew that due to its nature the core design would have to be able to support a broad range of transaction types. The implemented solution enabled specialised codes and data fields from the start through the use of a predicative script.[9]

Nakamoto created a website with the domain name bitcoin.org and continued to collaborate with other developers on the bitcoin software until mid-2010. Around this time, he handed over control of the source code repository and network alert key to Gavin Andresen,[10] transferred several related domains to various prominent members of the bitcoin community, and stopped his involvement in the project. Until shortly before his absence and handover Nakamoto made all modifications to the source code themselves.

The inventor left a text message in the first mined block which reads ‘The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks’. The text refers to a headline in the Financial Times published on 3 January 2009. It is a strong indication that the first block was mined no earlier than this date.[11] The genesis block has a timestamp of 18:15:05 GMT on January 3 2009. This block is unlike all other blocks in that it doesn’t have previous block to reference.[11] This required the use of custom code to mine it. Timestamps for subsequent blocks indicate that Nakamoto did not try to mine all the early blocks solely for themselves in an effort to benefit from a ponzi scheme.[11]

As the sole, predominate early miner the inventor was awarded bitcoin at genesis and for 10 days afterwards.[12] Except for test transactions these remain unspent since mid January 2009.[12] The public bitcoin transaction log shows that Nakamoto’s known addresses contain roughly one million bitcoins.[2] As of 10 December 2016[update], this is the equivalent of around US$895 million.[13]

Nakamoto did not disclose any personal information when discussing technical matters.[14] They provided some commentary on banking and fractional reserve lending. On his P2P Foundation profile as of 2012, Nakamoto claimed to be a 37-year-old male who lived in Japan,[15] but some speculated he was unlikely to be Japanese due to his use of perfect English and his bitcoin software not being documented or labelled in Japanese.[14]

Occasional British English spelling and terminology (such as the phrase “bloody hard”) in both source code comments and forum postings led to speculation that Nakamoto, or at least one individual in the consortium claiming to be him, was of Commonwealth origin.[3][14][16]

Stefan Thomas, a Swiss coder and active community member, graphed the time stamps for each of Nakamoto’s bitcoin forum posts (more than 500); the resulting chart showed a steep decline to almost no posts between the hours of 5 a.m. and 11 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time. Because this pattern held true even on Saturdays and Sundays, it suggested that Nakamoto was asleep at this time.[14] If Nakamoto is a single individual with conventional sleeping habits, it suggests he resided in a region using the UTC05:00 or UTC06:00 time offset. This includes the parts of North America that fall within the Eastern Time Zone and Central Time Zone, as well as parts of Central America, the Caribbean and South America.

Gavin Andresen has said of Nakamoto’s code “He was a brilliant coder, but it was quirky”.[17]

There is still doubt about the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.

In December 2013, a blogger named Skye Grey linked Nick Szabo to the bitcoin whitepaper using a stylometric analysis.[18][19][20] Szabo is a decentralized currency enthusiast and published a paper on “bit gold”, which is considered a precursor to bitcoin.[19][20] He is known to have been interested in using pseudonyms in the 1990s.[21] In a May 2011 article, Szabo stated about the bitcoin creator: “Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal Finney were the only people I know of who liked the idea (or in Dai’s case his related idea) enough to pursue it to any significant extent until Nakamoto (assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai).”[22]

Detailed research by financial author Dominic Frisby provides much circumstantial evidence but, as he admits, no proof that Satoshi is Szabo.[23] Speaking on RT’s The Keiser Report, he said “I’ve concluded there is only one person in the whole world that has the sheer breadth but also the specificity of knowledge and it is this chap…”.[24] But Szabo has denied being Satoshi. In a July 2014 email to Frisby, he said: ‘Thanks for letting me know. I’m afraid you got it wrong doxing me as Satoshi, but I’m used to it’.[25] Nathaniel Popper wrote in the New York Times that “the most convincing evidence pointed to a reclusive American man of Hungarian descent named Nick Szabo.”[26]

In a high-profile March 6, 2014, article in the magazine Newsweek,[27] journalist Leah McGrath Goodman identified Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto, a Japanese American man living in California, whose birth name is Satoshi Nakamoto,[27][28][29] as the Nakamoto in question. Besides his name, Goodman pointed to a number of facts that circumstantially suggested he was the bitcoin inventor.[27] Trained as a physicist, Nakamoto worked as a systems engineer on classified defense projects and computer engineer for technology and financial information services companies. Nakamoto was laid off twice in the early 1990s and turned libertarian, according to his daughter, and encouraged her to start her own business and “not be under the government’s thumb.” In the article’s seemingly biggest piece of evidence, Goodman wrote that when she asked him about bitcoin during a brief in-person interview, Nakamoto seemed to confirm his identity as the bitcoin founder by stating: “I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it. It’s been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection.”[27] (This quote was later confirmed by deputies at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who were present at the time.)[30]

The article’s publication led to a flurry of media interest, including reporters camping out near Dorian Nakamoto’s house and briefly chasing him by car when he drove to an interview.[31] However, during the subsequent full-length interview, Dorian Nakamoto denied all connection to bitcoin, saying he had never heard of the currency before, and that he had misinterpreted Goodman’s question as being about his previous work for military contractors, much of which was classified.[32] Later that day, the pseudonymous Nakamoto’s P2P Foundation account posted its first message in five years, stating: “I am not Dorian Nakamoto.”[33][34]

Hal Finney (May 4, 1956 August 28, 2014) was a pre-bitcoin cryptographic pioneer and the first person (other than Satoshi himself) to use the software, file bug reports, and make improvements.[35] He also lived a few blocks from Dorian Nakamoto’s family home, according to Forbes journalist Andy Greenberg.[36] Greenberg asked the writing analysis consultancy Juola & Associates to compare a sample of Finney’s writing to Satoshi Nakamoto’s, and they found that it was the closest resemblance they had yet come across (including the candidates suggested by Newsweek, Fast Company, The New Yorker, Ted Nelson and Skye Grey).[36] Greenberg theorized that Finney may have been a ghostwriter on behalf of Nakamoto, or that he simply used his neighbor Dorian’s identity as a “drop” or “patsy whose personal information is used to hide online exploits”. However, after meeting Finney, seeing the emails between him and Satoshi, his bitcoin wallet’s history including the very first bitcoin transaction (from Satoshi to him, which he forgot to pay back) and hearing his denial, Greenberg concluded Finney was telling the truth. Juola & Associates also found that Satoshi’s emails to Finney more closely resemble Satoshi’s other writings than Finney’s do. Finney’s fellow extropian and sometimes co-blogger Robin Hanson assigned a subjective probability of “at least” 15% that “Hal was more involved than hes said”, before further evidence suggested that was not the case.[37]

On 8 December 2015, Wired wrote that Craig Steven Wright, an Australian former academic, “either invented bitcoin or is a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us to believe he did”.[38] Craig Wright took down his Twitter account and neither he nor his ex-wife responded to press inquiries. The same day, Gizmodo published a story with evidence obtained by a hacker who supposedly broke into Wright’s email accounts, claiming that Satoshi Nakamoto was a joint pseudonym for Craig Steven Wright and computer forensics analyst David Kleiman, who died in 2013.[39] A number of prominent bitcoin promoters remained unconvinced by the reports.[40] Subsequent reports also raised the possibility that the evidence provided was an elaborate hoax,[41][42] which Wired acknowledged “cast doubt” on their suggestion that Wright was Nakamoto.[43]

On 9 December, only hours after Wired claimed Wright was Nakamoto, Wright’s home in Gordon, New South Wales was raided by at least ten police officers. His business premises in Ryde, New South Wales were also searched by police. The Australian Federal Police stated they conducted searches to assist the Australian Taxation Office and that “This matter is unrelated to recent media reporting regarding the digital currency bitcoin.”[44] According to a document released by Gizmodo alleged to be a transcript of a meeting between Wright and the ATO, he had been involved in a taxation dispute with them for several years.[39]

On 2 May 2016, Craig Wright posted on his blog publicly claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. In articles released on the same day, journalists from the BBC and The Economist stated that they saw Wright signing a message using the private key associated with the first bitcoin transaction.[45][46] Wright’s claim was supported by Jon Matonis (former director of the Bitcoin Foundation) and bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen, both of whom met Wright and witnessed a similar signing demonstration.[47]

However, bitcoin developer Peter Todd said that Wright’s blog post, which appeared to contain cryptographic proof, actually contained nothing of the sort.[48] The Bitcoin Core project released a statement on Twitter saying “There is currently no publicly available cryptographic proof that anyone in particular is Bitcoin’s creator.”[49][50] Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik agreed that evidence publicly provided by Wright does not prove anything, and security researcher Dan Kaminsky concluded Wright’s claim was “intentional scammery”.[51][52]

On May 4, Wright made another post on his blog promising to publish “a series of pieces that will lay the foundations for this extraordinary claim”.[53][54] But the following day, he deleted all his blog posts and replaced them with a notice entitled “I’m Sorry”, which read in part:

I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot.[55][56]

In June 2016, the London Review of Books published a 35,000 word article by Andrew O’Hagan about the events, based on discussions with Wright and many of the other people involved.[57][58] It also reveals that the Canadian company nTrust was behind Wright’s claim made in May 2016.

In a 2011 article in The New Yorker, Joshua Davis claimed to have narrowed down the identity of Nakamoto to a number of possible individuals, including the Finnish economic sociologist Dr. Vili Lehdonvirta and Irish student Michael Clear, then a graduate student in cryptography at Trinity College Dublin.[59] Clear strongly denied he was Nakamoto,[60] as did Lehdonvirta.[61] In October 2011, writing for Fast Company, investigative journalist Adam Penenberg cited circumstantial evidence suggesting Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry could be Nakamoto.[62] They jointly filed a patent application that contained the phrase “computationally impractical to reverse” in 2008, which was also used in the bitcoin white paper by Nakamoto.[63] The domain name bitcoin.org was registered three days after the patent was filed. All three men denied being Nakamoto when contacted by Penenberg.[62]

In May 2013, Ted Nelson speculated that Nakamoto is really Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.[64] Later, an article was published in The Age newspaper that claimed that Mochizuki denied these speculations, but without attributing a source for the denial.[65] A 2013 article,[66] in Vice listed Gavin Andresen, Jed McCaleb, or a government agency as possible candidates to be Nakamoto. Dustin D. Trammell, a Texas-based security researcher, was suggested as Nakamoto, but he publicly denied it.[67] In 2013, two Israeli mathematicians, Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir, published a paper claiming a link between Nakamoto and Ross William Ulbricht. The two based their suspicion on an analysis of the network of bitcoin transactions,[68] but later retracted their claim.[69]

Some considered Nakamoto might be a team of people; Dan Kaminsky, a security researcher who read the bitcoin code,[70] said that Nakamoto could either be a “team of people” or a “genius”;[16] Laszlo Hanyecz, a former bitcoin core developer who had emailed Nakamoto, had the feeling the code was too well designed for one person.[14]

See more here:

Satoshi Nakamoto – Wikipedia

Posted in Extropian | Comments Off on Satoshi Nakamoto – Wikipedia

UI Automation Overview – msdn.microsoft.com

Posted: at 5:55 am

This documentation is archived and is not being maintained.

.NET Framework (current version)

Microsoft UI Automation is the new accessibility framework for Microsoft Windows, available on all operating systems that support Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF).

UI Automation provides programmatic access to most user interface (UI) elements on the desktop, enabling assistive technology products such as screen readers to provide information about the UI to end users and to manipulate the UI by means other than standard input. UI Automation also allows automated test scripts to interact with the UI.

UI Automation does not enable communication between processes started by different users through the Run as command.

UI Automation client applications can be written with the assurance that they will work on multiple frameworks. The UI Automation core masks any differences in the frameworks that underlie various pieces of UI. For example, the Content property of a WPF button, the Caption property of a Win32 button, and the ALT property of an HTML image are all mapped to a single property, Name, in the UI Automation view.

UI Automation provides full functionality in Windows Vista, Microsoft Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003.

UI Automation providers offer some support for Microsoft Active Accessibility client applications, through a built-in bridging service.

UI Automation has four main components, as shown in the following table.



Provider API(UIAutomationProvider.dll and UIAutomationTypes.dll)

A set of interface definitions that are implemented by UI Automation providers, objects that provide information about UI elements and respond to programmatic input.

Client API (UIAutomationClient.dll and UIAutomationTypes.dll)

A set of types for managed code that enables UI Automation client applications to obtain information about the UI and to send input to controls.


The underlying code (sometimes called the UI Automation core) that handles communication between providers and clients.


A set of UI Automation providers for standard legacy controls. (WPF controls have native support for UI Automation.) This support is automatically available to client applications.

From the software developer’s perspective, there are two ways of using UI Automation: to create support for custom controls (using the provider API), and creating applications that use the UI Automation core to communicate with UI elements (using the client API). Depending on your focus, you should refer to different parts of the documentation. You can learn more about the concepts and gain practical how-to knowledge in the following sections.

The following table lists UI Automation namespaces, the DLLs that contain them, and the audience that uses them.

UI Automation exposes every piece of the UI to client applications as an AutomationElement. Elements are contained in a tree structure, with the desktop as the root element. Clients can filter the raw view of the tree as a control view or a content view.Applications can also create custom views.

AutomationElement objects expose common properties of the UI elements they represent. One of these properties is the control type, which defines its basic appearance and functionality as a single recognizable entity: for example, a button or check box.

In addition, elements expose control patterns that provide properties specific to their control types. Control patterns also expose methods that enable clients to get further information about the element and to provide input.

There is not a one-to-one correspondence between control types and control patterns. A control pattern may be supported by multiple control types, and a control may support multiple control patterns, each of which exposes different aspects of its behavior. For example, a combo box has at least two control patterns: one that represents its ability to expand and collapse, and another that represents the selection mechanism. For specifics, see UI Automation Control Types.

UI Automation also provides information to client applications through events. Unlike WinEvents, UI Automation events are not based on a broadcast mechanism. UI Automation clients register for specific event notifications and can request that specific UI Automation properties and control pattern information be passed into their event handlers. In addition, aUI Automation event contains a reference to the element that raised it.Providers can improve performance by raising events selectively, depending on whether any clients are listening.


UI Automation Overview – msdn.microsoft.com

Posted in Automation | Comments Off on UI Automation Overview – msdn.microsoft.com

First Amendment Defense Act Looms Over Sessions’ Confirmation …

Posted: at 5:46 am

Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. questions Attorney General-designate, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2017, during the committee’s confirmation hearing for Sessions. Alex Brandon / AP

Now, Sessions’ support of FADA is being called into question. In his list of

Sessions balked at the idea that FADA is “deceptively named,” telling Franken: “The purpose of the legislation was to prohibit the federal government from taking discriminatory actions against any person based on their belief or action in accordance with a religious or moral conviction.” Other supporters of the bill have similarly stressed the concept of federal government “discrimination,” rather than addressing the bill’s protection of those who engage in discrimination.

Franken wasn’t happy with Sessions’ answers to his questions about the bill.

“Contrary to Senator Sessions’ response, federal law does not allow the government to discriminate against someone on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief,” Franken told NBC News. “The First Amendment Defense Act would legalize discrimination, pure and simple.”

Sen. Mike Lee’s spokesperson, Conn Carroll, told NBC News that FADA “explicitly does not preempt state law, so it does not enable discrimination anywhere.” That was a direct response to questioning about how FADA would apply in the 20-plus U.S. states that currently have laws protecting LGBTQ residents from discrimination. Would FADA only apply in half of the country?

The ACLU’s Ian Thompson, a Legislation Representative specializing in LGBTQ policy, told NBC News the bill’s text actually states the oppositeand would evenly apply nationwide.

“The notion that national law can only apply to some states boggles the mind. If FADA passed it would apply in every state,” Thompson said. “At the very beginning of FADA, you will see that it clearly states ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law.’ That’s essentially saying that it overrides any other law.”

Besides, Thompson said, FADA it so sweeping in its reach that it would impact LGBTQ people everywhere, even if state laws did offer protection.

“If you went down to the Social Security office with your partner,” Thompson said, “an employee would be empowered to say ‘I can’t help you because of my religion or morals regarding same-sex couples.’ It would allow a federal contractor in NYC to discriminate despite the Obama executive order. It would allow commercial landlords to reject a same-sex couple or an unmarried couple.”

Regardless of state-level or even local anti-discrimination ordinances, experts say FADA would apply to any entity that receives federal funding. Franken told NBC News that it would “sanction sweeping discrimination.”

“A homeless shelter could turn away a married same-sex couple seeking a safe place to sleep,” Franken explained. “A commercial landlord could refuse to rent to a single mom or a pregnant single woman, because the business doesn’t believe in sex outside of marriage.This is a dangerous bill.”

Ambiguous, confusing language “notwithstanding any other provision of law” and the use of the term “discrimination” is part of what makes the true intent of the First Amendment Defense Act so difficult to untangle. Interpretation of FADA’s scope varies wildly, too, between its supporters and its opposition. That could be due to the changing drafts of the bill, which first appeared to allow religious and moral-based discrimination universally, and was later changed to exclude federal contractors, publicly traded companies and hospitals.

But even the version of the bill that excludes hospitals from the right to turn away LGBTQ patients or patients having sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage would allow an individual employee to opt out, according to Sen. Lee’s spokesperson.

“Pro-life doctors work at hospitals that provide abortion services all the time, but those hospitals don’t force doctors to perform abortions,” said Carroll, who told NBC News the newest draft would likely resemble the

The version of FADA that will be reintroduced to Congress this term has yet to be seen, and despite Carroll’s assertion that FADA will probably exclude hospitals, the only version that was ever actually introduced to Congress did not mention exclusions at all leaving all businesses and institutions free to claim a moral objection to serving LGBTQ people or unmarried couples.

All versions of FADA so far entrust the Attorney General to press charges against any “independent establishment” that violates the law. That means that if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the federal agency tasked with enforcing civil rights protections in the workplace were to try and do its job, for example, Sessions could take the agency to court.

“It says to federal agencies like the EEOC that they can’t step in and protect these people,” Thompson said.

The legal scope of FADA isn’t the only criticism it has faced. Clergy of all stripes, including Baptists, have spoken out against the law. In 2016, a group of clergy in Georgia held a press conference where they said FADA would allow adoption agencies to put bias ahead of children’s best interests.

“I find it unacceptable at every level as a pastor, as a citizen, as a Baptist and as a father,” said Trey Lyon, a pastor at Atlanta’s Park Avenue Baptist Church, according to

Progressive Christians have been fighting similar laws, with one

Follow NBC Out on

Read the original:
First Amendment Defense Act Looms Over Sessions’ Confirmation …

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment Defense Act Looms Over Sessions’ Confirmation …

Permitted Space Station List – fcc.gov

Posted: at 5:44 am


1. NSS-703 is not authorized to provide any Direct-to-Home (DTH) service, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service, or Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS) to, from, or within the United States.

2. Communications between ALSAT-designated earth stations and the NSS-703 space station shall be in compliance with all existing and future space station coordination agreements reached between Gibraltar and other Administrations.

3. SES Gibraltars request for a waiver of 47 C.F.R 25.202(g) is GRANTED, as conditioned. Section 25.202(g) requires that telemetry, tracking, and telecommand functions for U.S. domestic satellites shall be conducted at either or both edges of the allocated bands. Frequencies, polarization, and coding shall be selected to minimize interference into other satellite networks and within their own satellite system. SES Gibraltar proposes to place its telemetry, tracking, and telecommand (TT&C) functions near the center of the conventional C-band at the 47.05 W.L. orbital location, which is within the orbital arc that provides coverage to the United States. The NSS-703 space station was placed into operation in 1994 in order to provide service outside of the U.S., and the TT&C frequencies upon which it relies cannot be altered. We grant a limited waiver of Section 25.202(g) subject to the following conditions:

4. SES Gibraltars request for a waiver of Section 25.210(a)(1) of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. 25.210(a)(1) is GRANTED, as conditioned. Section 25.210(a)(1) requires that C-band operations use orthogonal linear polarization. The NSS-703 satellite uses circular polarization. This waiver is based upon the findings that: 1) the space station is in-orbit and the polarization cannot be changed; and 2) there is a minimal potential for harmful interference from operations at this location with circular polarization. As a condition of this waiver, SES Gibraltar must accommodate future space station networks that are compliant with Section 25.210(a)(1). Further, SES Gibraltar must operate NSS-703 pursuant to any coordination agreements for this location.

5. SES Gibraltars request for a waiver of Section 25.210(a)(3) of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. 25.210(a)(3) is GRANTED, as conditioned. Section 25.210(a)(3) requires FSS space stations to be capable of switching polarization sense on ground command. The Commission requires polarity switching capability for two reasons: 1) to provide U.S. licensed space stations with the flexibility to operate at different orbital locations; and 2) to mitigate potential interference between adjacent fixed space station systems transmitting analog television signals. See Telesat Canada, Petition for Declaratory Ruling for Inclusion of ANIK F3 on the Permitted Space Station List, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 588 (Int Bur., Sat. Div. 2007). This waiver is based upon a finding that the ability to switch polarization is not currently necessary to protect other space stations at adjacent orbital locations from harmful interference. As a condition of this waiver, NSS-703s operations must accommodate future space station networks that are compliant with Section 25.210(a)(3). Further, SES Gibraltar must operate NSS-703 pursuant to any coordination agreements for this location.

6. SES Gibraltars request for a waiver of Section 25.210(i) of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. 25.210(i) is GRANTED, as conditioned. Section 25.210(i) requires FSS space station antennas to provide cross-polarization isolation such that the ratio of the on-axis co-polar gain to the crosspolar gain of the antenna in the assigned frequency band is at least 30 dB within its primary coverage area. The performance of the NSS-703 space station is 35 dB for the C-band global beam and 27 dB for all other C-band beams. For its Ku-band spot beams, the worst-case cross polarization isolation is in the 17-20 dB range. We agree that a waiver will not produce a significant increase in interference, except to SES Gibraltar itself. As a condition of this waiver, we will not permit SES Gibraltar to transmit analog video signals in the C-band frequencies into the United States unless it has coordinated such operations with adjacent satellites. Further, SES Gibraltar shall not claim more protection from interference from other licensed radiocommunication systems operating in accordance with Section 25.210(i) of the Commissions rules than it could claim if it met the cross-polarization requirements set forth in the rule.

7. SES Gibraltars request for a waiver of 25.210(j) of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. 25.210(j) is GRANTED, as conditioned. Section 25.210(j) requires geostationary space stations to be maintained within 0.05 of their assigned orbital locations in the East/West direction unless specifically authorized by the Commission to operate with a different longitudinal tolerance. SES Gibraltar requests a waiver to permit NSS-703 to operate with an East/West station-keeping volume of 0.10 as specified in a letter to the Commission from the Radiocommunications Agency Netherlands. SES Gibraltar states that this extended station-keeping volume does not overlap with the station keeping volume of any known operational satellites, nor is SES Gibraltar aware of any proposed satellite to be launched or placed into orbit at the nominal 47 W.L. orbital location in the near term. We grant SES Gibraltars request to operate NSS-703 with 0.10 East/West longitudinal tolerance, as long as no other space station is located within the station-keeping volume of NSS-703. Should such a spacecraft be launched or relocated into the station-keeping volume of NSS-703, but would not overlap a 0.05 East/West station keeping volume, SES Gibraltar will be required to maintain 0.05 East/West station-keeping, or coordinate its operations with that of the other space station.

8. SES Gibraltars request for a waiver of Section 25.211(a) of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. 25.211(a) is GRANTED, as conditioned. Section 25.211(a) provides that downlink analog video transmissions in the C-band shall be transmitted only on a center frequency of 3700+20N MHz, where N=1 to 24, with corresponding uplink frequencies 2225 MHz higher. This waiver grant is based upon SES Gibraltars statement that it does not intend to transmit analog video signals in the C-band frequencies, unless such operations are coordinated with adjacent satellites. Further, as a condition of this waiver, SES Gibraltar must accommodate future space station networks serving the United States that are compliant with Section 25.211(a). In addition, SES Gibraltar must operate NSS-703 pursuant to any coordination agreements for this location.

9. SES Gibraltars request for a waiver of Section 25.114(c)(4)(iii) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. 25.114(c)(4)(iii), is GRANTED. Section 25.114(c)(4)(iii) requires applicants to identify which antenna beams are connected or switchable to each transponder and tracking, telemetry, and control (TT&C) function. SES Gibraltar has submitted the combined receiver and transmitter filter response characteristics (Section 5.5 and Exhibit D in the Technical Appendix). It also states that the disaggregated filter response characteristics are not available and maintains that the aggregate characteristics it submitted provide sufficient information for an assessment of the interference potential of the satellite. We find that information provided in Section 5.5 and Exhibit D of the Technical Appendix fulfills the requirements of Section 25.114(c)(4)(iii).

10. SES Gibraltars request for a waiver of Section 25.114(c)(10) of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R. 25.114(c)(10) is GRANTED, as conditioned. Section 25.114(c)(10) requires applicants to submit information regarding the physical characteristics of the space station, including estimated operational lifetime and reliability of the space station. SES Gibraltar states that it does not have the original reliability estimates because the satellite was transferred to New Skies prior to Intelsats privatization in 2000. We grant the waiver based on SES Gibraltars statements that the NSS-703 space station, launched in 1994, has exceeded all reliability projections as it has survived past its design end-of-life. SES Gibraltar further states that the satellite is in good working condition and expected to survive until its estimated end of life in August 2014.

11. This grant of market access is based on SES Gibraltars representation that it will dispose of the NSS-703 spacecraft at end of life to a minimum altitude of 150 kilometers (perigee) above the geostationary arc, that it has reserved 19.3 kilograms of fuel for this purpose, and that fuel gauging uncertainty has been and will be taken into account in these calculations, using the methods set forth in SES Gibraltars application.

12. This grant of market access is limited to SES Gibraltars use of the NSS-703 space station (Call Sign 2818) at the 47.05 W.L. orbital location and does not convey to SES Gibraltar first-in-line status under the Commissions first-come, first-served processing framework. If SES Gibraltar seeks to operate another space station at this location using the frequencies authorized in this grant, such an application, together with any applications filed by other companies seeking similar authority, would be subject to the first-come, first-served processing framework for geostationary-satellite orbit space stations.

13. This grant of market access will terminate in the event that the NSS-703 space station is relocated from the 47.05 W.L. orbital location or ceases to operate. In either case, NSS-703 will be removed from the Permitted List. If SES Gibraltar wishes to provide service to the U.S. using another space station, it must file a new application to have that space station placed on the Permitted List.

14. SES Gibraltar is afforded 30 days from the date of release of this action to decline the authorization as conditioned. Failure to respond within this period will constitute formal acceptance of the authorization as conditioned.

Go here to see the original:
Permitted Space Station List – fcc.gov

Posted in Space Station | Comments Off on Permitted Space Station List – fcc.gov