1
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION
AD HOC GROUP ON COST RECOVERY
FOR SATELLITE NETWORK FILINGS
Document 2-E
7 April 2003
English only
GENEVA, 10 – 11 APRIL 2003
United Kingdom
DECISION 482 CHARGING METHOD
1.
Introduction
When the unit charging method was introduced, the Bureau attempted to align the charges produced
by the unit method with the charges produced by the page-based method. At the time, it was noted
that certain networks may experience an excessive charge but there was insufficient experience of
the application of the unit method to determine the extent. Now the unit method has been in
operation since 4 May 2002, it is possible to review the invoiced charges produced and compare
them with previous information provided by the Bureau.
2.
Application of the unit charging method
Decision 482 was originally adopted by Council-99 with a method based on the number of pages in
the publication of a satellite network filing in a special section of the WIC. The charging method
allowed for a flat fee component and an additional charge that was based on the number of pages in
excess of the predetermined number of pages considered to be covered by the flat fee component.
Charges were subdivided into nine separate charging categories. Payment of the flat fee component
and any excess charge was required within 6 months of publication of the relevant special section.
Council-01 modified Decision 482 to include charges for modifications to networks and to make the
flat fee component payable on receipt of the filing. Application of the upfront payment of the flat fee
commenced with notices received after 31st December 2001. In addition, Council-01 also modified,
for some charging categories, the flat fee charge, the number of pages covered by the flat fee and the
additional charge per excess page. Application of the revised charges commenced with satellite
network filings published on the 30th June 2001.
Council-02 further modified Decision 482, primarily to replace the page-based method with the unit
method. Replacement of the page-based method required a complete revision of the charging
schedule and at the same time, the Bureau revised charging categories 7 and 8. Application of the
revised method and charges, applied to satellite network filings received or published from the 4th
May 2002.
Understanding the application of the charges, as detailed in the provisions of Decision 482, is not
straightforward and it is considerably complicated by the existence of the backlog. The extent of the
backlog varies in the different charging categories and while Decision 482 originally had a clause
612864395
30.05.16
2
that allowed the charges to be levied according to the charging schedule in force at the time of
publication, this clause has since been modified to read the flat fee in force at the date of receipt and
the additional charge in force at publication. Overall, this does not assist in determining the flat fee
charge applicable and when it should be paid.
In BR Circular Letter CR/179, the following advice is provided:

For filings received up to and including 29 June 2001 and published on or before that date,
the schedule of charges in Annex A to Decision 482 (C99), will apply;

For filings received on or after 30 June 2001 but before 1 January 2002, the charges
specified in Annex A to Decision 482 (modified) (C2001) are payable after publication of
the notice. This will include both the flat fee and the variable fee component (if any).

For filings received on or after 1 January 2002, the flat fee component of the charges is
payable after receipt of the notice. The variable fee component (if any) will be payable after
the publication of the notice.

The flat fee component of the charges specified in Decision 482 modified (C2002) is
payable, after receipt, for any new filing received on or after 4 May 2002. The revised
variable fee component (if any) applies to publications in the BR IFIC after this date.
This advice does not take into consideration the extent of the backlog, e.g., in February 2003, the
Bureau were still processing coordination requests with an earliest date of receipt of 8th December
2000. It is assumed that for coordination requests received before 29th June 2001 and published post
4th May 2002, the flat fee component of Decision 482 (Council-99) applies and the variable
component is based on Decision 482 (rev. Council-02); both fees payable on publication but this
needs to be confirmed as well as the number of units associated with that flat fee. As noted in the
table below, the value of the flat fee and/or number of free pages changed for some charging
categories in the 2001 revision of Decision 482 and this may complicate the assessment of the
pages/units covered by the flat fee component.
Decision 482
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Flat fee
No. of pages (P)/units (U)
Additional fee
Flat fee
No. of pages (P)/units (U)
Additional fee
Flat fee
No. of pages (P)/units (U)
Additional fee
Flat fee
No. of pages (P)/units (U)
Additional fee
1999
1200
9 (P)
100
6000
25 (P)
160
17500
34 (P)
360
9600
24 (P)
300
2001
1300
9 (P)
110
5600
27 (P)
120
21000
35 (P)
410
7100
29 (P)
120
2002
1300
6 (U)
147
5600
1103 (U)
5
21000
1170 (U)
16
7100
137 (U)
62
The impact of the satellite backlog on the invoiced charges is highlighted in case it affects the
following analysis of the unit charging method.
612864395
30.05.16
3
3.
Analysis
The data used for the analysis has been taken from the embedded excel diagrams contained in
document 2002/1 from the Bureau to the July meeting of this ad-hoc Group and from the cost
recovery pages of the ITU website. Some of the diagrams from document 2002/1 are reproduced in
Annex 1 and the website listing is reproduced in Annex 2. As noted in Annex 2, the invoiced charges
are for invoices issued at publication in 2002 and 2003 up to 17th March 20031.
The following analysis re-examines the information contained in document 2002/1 (i.e. the
comparison between the page-based method and the application of the unit method to the same
group of satellite network filings) and compares them both with the actual invoiced charges
produced from the practical application of the unit method. For both cases, it is assumed that the
charges relate to the complete charge for the network (i.e. flat fee + excess charge per page/unit)
unless stated otherwise in the analysis of filings in the respective category. The analysis also
includes a comparison of the level of the overall charges.
Modifications to coordination requests relating to APIs received prior to the 7th November 1998 are
not subject to the same fees as other networks but, in this analysis, the modifications to networks
received prior to 7th November 1998 are treated in the same way as networks received after that date.
The net effect of this action is to reduce the average charge shown for all invoiced networks as
modifications to networks received prior to 7th November 1998 do not get charged a flat fee and are
subject to a reduced additional charge - only subject to charges if the additional charge is in excess
of three times the cumulative number of modified units (see decides 7, Decision 482).
The flat fee in the page-based method was determined over the preceding three-year period, in such a
way that 35 per cent of the publications had a number of pages equivalent to, or fewer than, the
number covered by the flat fee. This concept has been lost in the change to the unit method and it has
not been possible to reintroduce it in this analysis so, in order to introduce a scale of proportionality
to the data, to assist the process of comparison, the number of networks exceeding 3 times the flat
fee is noted. Also recorded is the number of networks exceeding the 50 th percentile based on the
maximum charge arising from the Bureau’s example calculations of the unit or page based methods.
As some of the data has been extracted from embedded excel diagrams and in some cases is an
approximate value (indicated by ~) comparisons are based on significant differences between the
methodologies.
3.1
Category 1
Since December 2001, the backlog in advance publications has not been greater than 10 weeks and
so, unlike the invoices for coordination requests, it is assumed that all of the invoices in Annex 2
under this category have separately paid an upfront fee and that the charge shown relates solely to
the excess charge invoiced at publication. On the basis of this assumption, for the purpose of
comparison with the data derived from the diagrams in Annex 1, the invoiced charges shown in
Annex 2 should all be increased by the amount of the flat fee (1,300CHF). This increase would result
in all of the invoices for the satellite network filings falling within the range between 1 and 3 times
the flat fee as well as the average charge rising to 2,400CHF.
____________________
1
Downloaded from website 28th March 2003.
612864395
30.05.16
4
Category 1
Page
method
Page method
% of total
Unit
Example
calculations
Unit
(examples)
% of total
Unit
Invoiced
Charges
Unit
(invoices)
% of total
Total in sample
61
61
30
Flat fee (CHF)
1200
1300
1300
No. ≤ flat fee
(CHF)
37 ≤ 1300
61%
38≤ 1300
62%
26≤ 1300
86%
No. ≥ 3 times flat
fee (CHF)
3 ≥ 3900
5%
2 ≥ 3900
3%
nil ≥ 3900
0
No. ≥ 50
percentile (CHF)
3 ≥ 4540
5%
2 ≥ 4540
3%
nil ≥ 4540
0
Max fee (CHF)
5920
9180
2182
The only difference between the invoiced charges and the set of example calculations in Annex 1,
would appear to be that the average charge of 2,400CHF, for the invoices in Annex 2 seems to be
slightly higher than the data provided in Annex 1. However, networks in Category 1 that do not
generate an excess charge are unlikely to appear on the invoice listing and this may distort the
overall result.
3.2
Category 2
The number of invoices in this category is approximately half the number of networks included in
the Bureau’s comparison of methods and so should be reasonably representative of the application of
the new unit method. Note: that this invoice listing contains modifications relating to APIs originally
submitted prior to the 7th November 1998. Taking these modified networks into consideration and
their reduced charges, it is therefore surprising that the average value of 18,524CHF for all invoices
is actually in excess of three times the value of the flat fee (16,800CHF).
Category 2
Page
method
Page method
% of total
Unit
Example
calculations
Unit
(examples)
% of total
Unit
Invoiced
Charges
Unit
(invoices)
% of total
Total in sample
398
398
186
Flat fee (CHF)
6000
5600
5600
No. ≤ flat fee
(CHF)
~165 ≤ 5600
42%
~ 250 ≤ 5600
63%
72 ≤ 5600
39%
No. ≥ 3 times
flat fee (CHF)
51 ≥ 16800
13%
~ 55 ≥ 16800
14%
57 ≥ 16800
31%
No. ≥ 50
percentile (CHF)
6 ≥ 51120
2%
~ 12 ≥ 51120
3%
5 ≥ 51120
3%
Max fee (CHF)
62120
102241
148105
Comparison of the distribution of charges, shows some variation exists between the page and unit
methods, when applied to the same networks, with nearly a 20% difference in the number of
networks at the flat fee level. There are also some significant individual variations: for point 384, the
612864395
30.05.16
5
fee for the page-based method is 37,160CHF and 102,241CHF for the unit method; conversely, for
point 398, the fee for the page-based method is 62,120CHF and 5,600CHF for the unit method.
Examination of the invoiced charges indicates the figures do not seem to be matching the examples
provided of the unit method. The number of invoiced networks at the flat fee level is nearer to the
page-based method whereas, for networks in excess of three times the value of the flat fee
(16,800CHF) the percentage of invoiced networks is approximately double the number for either set
of example calculations in Annex 1. In addition, there are two networks achieving invoiced charges
1.5 times the maximum previously indicated in the example calculations of the unit method and
nearly 2.5 times the maximum for the page based method.
3.3
Category 3
The number of invoices in this category is only 25% of the number of networks included in the
Bureau’s comparison of methods and so comparison becomes more difficult. Note: that this invoice
listing also contains modifications relating to APIs originally submitted prior to the 7th November
1998. The average value of approx 57,038 CHF for all invoices is very close to three times the value
of the flat fee (63,000CHF).
Category 3
Page
method
Page method
% of total
Unit
Example
calculations
Unit
(examples)
% of total
Unit
Invoiced
Charges
Unit
(invoices)
% of total
Total in sample
169
169
40
Flat fee (CHF)
17500
21000
21000
No. ≤ flat fee
(CHF)
~ 71 ≤ 21000
42%
~ 62 ≤ 21000
37%
16 ≤ 21000
40%
No. ≥ 3 times
flat fee (CHF)
32 ≥ 63000
19%
15 ≥ 63000
9%
12 ≥ 63000
30%
0
6 ≥ 257561
4%
nil ≥ 257561
0
No. ≥ 50
nil ≥ 257561
percentile (CHF)
Max fee (CHF)
241990
515122
226344
Comparison of the distribution of charges, shows some variation exists between the page and unit
methods in the examples in Annex 1, with nearly a 10% difference in the number of networks at the
three times the flat fee level. Again there are some significant variations for individual networks: for
point 137, the fee for the page-based method is 62,820CHF and 315,085CHF for the unit method;
conversely, for point 162, the fee for the page-based method is 105,460CHF and 21,000CHF for the
unit method. It is also noted that the value of 241,990CHF for the page-based method is achieved for
only one network and that the next highest page based charge is just 43% of this maximum at
106,280CHF – where 19 networks are covered by a variation of less than 1000CHF (105,460 to
106,280CHF).
Examination of the invoiced charges indicates minimal difference at the flat fee level but, again, the
percentage of networks with invoices in excess of three times the value of the flat fee (63,000CHF)
is 20% more than the example calculations for the unit method in Annex 1. None of the invoiced
charges exceed the maximum value of 515,122 CHF in the example calculations in Annex 1.
Further, the percentage of invoiced networks above 200,000 CHF is similar to percentage of
612864395
30.05.16
6
networks from the example calculations of the unit method (5% and 4% respectively) but
considering the higher number of networks in excess of three times the flat fee, it does raise
questions on the distribution of charges within the category.
3.4
Category 4
There are only invoices for five satellite networks in this category and so a realistic comparison with
other data is difficult. Comparison of the example calculations in Annex 1 again shows some
significant variations: for point 18, the fee for the page based method is 13,700CHF and 49,923CHF
for the unit method; conversely, for point 25, the fee for the page based method is 85,100CHF and
33,488CHF for the unit method.
Category 4
Page
method
Page method
% of total
Unit
Example
calculations
Unit
(examples)
% of total
Unit
Invoiced
Charges
Unit
(invoices)
% of total
Total in sample
25
25
5
Flat fee (CHF)
9600
7100
7100
No. ≤ flat fee
(CHF)
8 ≤ 7100
32%
15 ≤ 7100
60%
2 ≤ 7100
40%
No. ≥ 3 x flat fee
(CHF)
4 ≥ 21300
16%
7 ≥ 21300
28%
3 ≥ 21300
60%
No. ≥ 50
percentile (CHF)
1 ≥ 42550
4%
1 ≥ 42550
4%
1 ≥ 42550
20%
Max fee (CHF)
85100
49923
280024
Despite the limited sample size, examination of the invoiced charges highlights some significant
variations between the invoices in this category and the example calculations for the unit method in
Annex 1. First, the average value of the invoices is more than nine times the flat fee charge, although
this value is distorted by significant charge for a single network. Second, the maximum invoiced
charge exceeds the maximum value indicated in the example calculations on the page-based method
by more than 3 times and exceeds the previous maximum value indicated in the example calculations
on the unit method by more than 5 times.
4.
Comparison of charges
In RRB document RRB2001/289(Rev1) the Bureau indicated that the examination of some networks
takes approximately 10 hours. The RRB document did not indicate what other work was associated
with the processing of these networks, like the varying level of difficulty associated with individual
networks, the number of staff that may be involved in processing an individual network nor their
individual costs. Hence, it is difficult to make a direct comparison between the time spent on
processing individual satellite network filings and their costs or invoiced charges. Nevertheless, it is
possible to estimate the overall time taken to process satellite networks for comparison with the
invoiced charges produced by the unit method.
In the year to the end of February 2003, the Bureau processed 908 coordination requests. Assuming
a 40 hour week and a 43 week year (based on holidays and training requirements) and assuming
612864395
30.05.16
7
some 8 staff are involved in processing the coordination requests then, based on the Bureau’s figure
of 908 networks, this equates to an approximate average time of 15 hours per network. Noting, the
exact time taken for processing a network will vary depending on the complexity of that network.
However, the majority of networks are unlikely to vary by more than a factor of 4 times from this
average, on the grounds that if significant numbers took less than 4 hours many more networks
would be processed and conversely, if significant numbers took more than 60 hours it would be
impossible to process the numbers the Bureau are achieving. Hence, it is assumed that the overall
average, across all categories, for the lower and upper bounds on the processing time is 4 and 60
hours respectively, giving an overall time ratio of 15:1.
4.1
Comparison of charges within categories
Applying the above figures to the charges produced by the unit method produces some interesting
observations. In Category 2, if the charge of 5,600CHF equates to 4 hours this produces an
equivalent charging rate per hour of 1,400CHF and means that it would take more than a 100 hours
to process the filing with the highest invoiced charge. It would also mean that three other invoiced
networks as well as a significant number of the examples in Annex 1 would take more than 60 hours
to process, suggesting the variation in charges produced by the method is too large. A point that
seems to be confirmed by the ratio of the flat fee to the maximum invoiced charge in category 2,
which exceeds 26:1.
In the case of Category 3, the maximum charge of 515,122CHF identified in one of the example
calculations is some 24 times larger than the flat fee. However, for Categories 2 & 3, the ratio of flat
fee to the maximum charge identified to-date is still less than Category 4, where the variation
between the flat fee and the maximum invoiced charge to-date of 280,024CHF is some 40:1. On this
basis in Category 4, assuming the equivalent flat fee of 1400CHF, it would take approximately 5
hours to process a network under the flat fee and some 200 hours to process the network with the
maximum invoiced charge.
When the unit method was introduced, examples like those shown in Annex 1 were used to indicate
the maximum values produced by the new method. While it was acknowledged that the new method
had a somewhat higher volatility, it was assumed networks would not trigger invoice charges much
greater than the maximum indicated for each category and the Bureau indicated that only a very
small percentage of networks would be subject to these excessively high fees. The Bureau also
acknowledged that these high fees do not necessarily represent the level of work on a network.
Hence, it is a serious cause for concern that, in a very short timeframe, the invoices issued for
Category 2 and 4 networks have contained charges significantly in excess of the maxima previously
indicated in the example calculations used to gain approval of the method. Further, based on the
invoiced charges that are being received, it would appear the maximum limit for the charges
produced by the unit method may not have been determined in any charging category.
4.2
Comparison of charges between categories
While it is known the treatment of a filing under one charging category may be different from the
treatment under another charging category, the extent of that difference in treatment is not clear.
When the charging categories were first introduced Council had to take into consideration that a
charging methodology based on a number of pages could not give an accurate picture of the extent of
work involved. Charging categories were introduced as a mechanism for applying the costs incurred
to groups of individual networks and this also provided a convenient method for explaining the
differences in charges. Nevertheless, even with the charging categories, the Bureau has indicated, in
their submission to move to the unit methodology that, “calculating charges, based on the number of
pages, does not clearly reflect the relative size and scope of the filing from one network to another,
612864395
30.05.16
8
and is not a good measure of the actual volume of information concerning the network that may have
been subject to examination in the treatment of a notice.” Now with a new charging method based on
the size and complexity of a network, applying a single time ratio to all charging categories may be
useful to test the average figure of 15 hours for processing a network, based on the 908 networks
processed in a year, against the variation in fee levels between charging categories.
The flat fee charge for Category 2 is 5,600CHF, for Category 4 it is 7,100CHF and for Category 3 it
is 21,000CHF but it would seem unlikely that there is a three or four to one time ratio between
processing a Category 3 filing compared to processing a filing in either of the other categories. If
there were such a difference in the time ratio between categories for processing networks it would
indicate, at the assumed hourly rate of 1,400 CHF, that the largest Category 3 filing (from the
examples) would take 367 hours continuous work to process. In addition, the ratio of charges
between the Category 2 flat rate and the largest Category 3 filing is more than 90:1. Conversely, if
the Category 3 flat fee were taken as the basis for the assumed hourly rate (5,250CHF) the smallest
Category 2 filing would take approximately 1.0 hours and an API (not subject to Section II of Article
9) barely 15 minutes. Such variations in processing time seem scarcely credible, given the number of
networks processed each year, and similar variations in the hourly charging rate would be
unjustifiable, even if it were one tenth of that value.
Using a method for charging based on the size and complexity of a filing gives an approximation of
the level of work involved in the processing and its implementation may have had a side effect of
breaking down the distinction between charging categories based on the same definition of a “unit”.
Note: each charging category has an embedded identification via the definition of the “unit” for the
relevant provision e.g. for Appendix 30B it is the product of the number of bands and beams.
Hence, a number of the charging categories may no longer be relevant and perhaps it would be more
appropriate to compare the size of and charges for networks not between individual categories but
between networks covered by the same definition of a “unit”
If the unit method is to continue to be used, the variation in charges within individual categories
raises the question whether all the existing categories should be retained. Further, the considerable
variation between invoiced charges suggests that the flat fee should be increased with a consequent
reduction in the excess charge and a review of the value of the products used to determine the costs
e.g. does operating in two separate services double the examination effort and therefore the cost or is
it a variable ratio based on the assignments affected, how are networks that require processing under
more than one provision treated?
5.
Conclusion
When the Bureau introduced the unit method, they noted that the page-based method was not a good
measure of the size or scope of a filing nor the work required to process a filing. The Bureau’s
attempts to align the charges between the two methods may therefore have been counterproductive,
by incorporating some of the inaccuracies of the page-based method in the new unit based method.
For the same reasons, while it is possible to criticise the unit method it is not possible to compare it
with the page-based method and claim the latter is more accurate.
If accuracy is really required, then the only way that the charges invoiced can be accurately linked to
the level of work involved in processing a satellite network is to move to recording the time taken to
process each network. To ensure that all direct and indirect costs are accurately captured time
recording should be implemented for all staff involved in cost recovery activities. This solution
could be linked to a mechanism, like the unit method, for providing estimates of the potential costs
and could avoid many of the difficulties associated with the current process. Properly implemented,
time recording would also be an extremely simple solution.
612864395
30.05.16
9
The invoices issued by the Bureau using the new unit method indicate there is a severe problem with
its application and doubts on whether the practical application of the unit method is performing in
accordance with the example calculations previously provided by the Bureau. The invoiced charges
for two categories have exceeded the previously indicated maximum charges. The average value of
the charges invoiced is either above or very close to the three times the flat fee – a value used to
indicate if networks exempt from cost recovery charges should be subject to an additional charge –
and this indicates the entire charging mechanism is severely distorted particularly, as the Bureau
claimed at the January meeting the three times limit when applied to the unit method was far too
high for initiating the additional charge. In addition, the invoiced charges produced by the unit
method seem to be significantly in excess of the level of work performed and the spread of charges
suggests they are being disproportionately applied to some networks. Noting that the presence of
modifications to networks with API’s submitted before 7th November 1998 will tend to reduce the
spread in the range of charges, reinforces the need to question whether the range of charges is fair
and equitable.
Increasing the flat fee component and revising the application of the methodology, so that it more
closely corresponds to the possible range of time taken in the processing of satellite notices could
resolve part of the problem. A further option could be to remove several of the individual charging
categories, as it is not clear what they represent when the methodology works on the basis of the size
of a filing and this additional factor may further distort the results. Finally, until the method can be
proven to perform reasonably there should be an upper limit to the charges produced, with a reduced
charging rate applying above three times the flat fee limit.
612864395
30.05.16
- 10 -
ANNEX 1
Comparison of the Page and Unit Charging Methods
(Diagrams Reproduced From The Radiocommunication Bureau’s Document 2002/1)
Category 1
10000
9000
8000
7000
Charge
6000
charges based on pages
5000
charges based on units
4000
3000
2000
1000
Networks
612864395
30.05.16
61
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
0
- 11 -
Category 2
120000
100000
Charge
80000
charges based on pages
charges based on units
60000
40000
20000
Networks
612864395
30.05.16
391
378
365
352
339
326
313
300
287
274
261
248
235
222
209
196
183
170
157
144
131
118
105
92
79
66
53
40
27
14
1
0
- 12 -
Category 3
600000
500000
Charge
400000
charges based on pages
charges based on units
300000
200000
100000
Networks
612864395
30.05.16
169
163
157
151
145
139
133
127
121
115
109
103
97
91
85
79
73
67
61
55
49
43
37
31
25
19
13
7
1
0
- 13 -
Category 4
90000
80000
70000
Charge
60000
50000
charges based on pages
charges based on units
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Networks
612864395
30.05.16
21
22
23
24
25
- 14 -
ANNEX 2
Invoices issued under the “unit” method upon publication of the filings
(Downloaded from the ITU-R website last updated 17 March 2003)
Adm
USA
USA
USA
RUS
G
USA
J
F
F
F
USA
G
RUS
CAN
CAN
USA
F
F
F
USA
RUS
RUS
USA
CZE
ARS
ARS
I
USA
CAN
CAN
Total
Org
ESA
ESA
ESA
30
612864395
Satellite name
SWIFT
SORCE
SORCE
GLONASS-M
TOPSAT
GRAVITY PROBE-B
WEOS
SMART-1
MSATNAV-2
MSATNAV-3
NPP
DMC1
GLOSNASS-M
RADARSAT-2A
RADARSAT-2B
SIRTF
CRYOSAT
GOCE
MSATNAV-4
USCORIOLIS
METEOR-3M
RESURS-O1
SORCE
MIMOSA
SAUDISAT-1C
SAUDISAT-2
DAVID
NAVSTAR GPS-IIRF
RADARSAT-2C
RADARSAT-2D
Average Charge
Category
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Invoice
Amount
200
220
294
294
330
440
441
588
588
588
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1594
2182
2182
2182
1097.43
Invoice No
100220097/2002
100220030/2003
100220205/2002
100220253/2002
100220031/2003
100220171/2002
100220407/2002
100220200/2002
100220380/2002
100220381/2002
100220170/2002
100220195/2002
100220196/2002
100220233/2002
100220234/2002
100220261/2002
100220305/2002
100220378/2002
100220382/2002
100220022/2003
100220081/2003
100220082/2003
100220080/2003
100220141/2003
100220140/2003
100220139/2003
100220194/2002
100220332/2002
100220325/2002
100220326/2002
CHF
Invoice Date
06.06.2002
28.01.2003
22.08.2002
18.09.2002
28.01.2003
07.08.2002
09.12.2002
22.08.2002
28.11.2002
28.11.2002
07.08.2002
15.08.2002
15.08.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
18.09.2002
28.10.2002
28.11.2002
28.11.2002
17.01.2003
19.02.2003
19.02.2003
19.02.2003
12.03.2003
12.03.2003
12.03.2003
15.08.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
Invoice Due
Date
06.12.2002
28.07.2003
22.02.2003
18.03.2003
28.07.2003
07.02.2003
09.06.2003
22.02.2003
28.05.2003
28.05.2003
07.02.2003
15.02.2003
15.02.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
18.03.2003
28.04.2003
28.05.2003
28.05.2003
17.07.2003
19.08.2003
19.08.2003
19.08.2003
12.09.2003
12.09.2003
12.09.2003
15.02.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
30.05.16
- 15 -
Adm
F
F
F
F
F
B
B
B
B
B
F
F
USA
AUS
AUS
AUS
F
VEN
F
G
G
CAN
BRU
CAN
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
VEN
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
VEN
J
VEN
EGY
EGY
EGY
F
HOL
HOL
D
D
Org
Satellite name
VIDEOSAT-6-KA
TELECOM-3A
TELECOM-3B
TELECOM-3C
TELECOM-3D
B-SAT P
SBTS B1
SBTS B2
SBTS B4
B-SAT E
VIDEOSAT-6
VIDEOSAT-5
USASAT-35X
DEF-R-SAT-1A
DEF-R-SAT-2A
DEF-R-SAT-3A
F-SATDAB-2
SIMON BOLIVAR 2A
F-SATDAB-1
DJCF-1A
DJCF-2A
LARKSAT-EU1
LARKSAT-IOR2
LARKSAT-NA2
INTELSAT KA 137.7E
INTELSAT KA 157E
INTELSAT KA 229E
INTELSAT KA 243.1E
INTELSAT KA 307E
INTELSAT KA 33E
INTELSAT KA 359E
INTELSAT KA 66E
ASA SIMON BOLIVAR 2A
VIDEOSAT-5
VIDEOSAT-5-KA
VIDEOSAT-6
VIDEOSAT-6-KA
VIDEOSAT-7
VIDEOSAT-7-KA
VIDEOSAT-8-KU-C
ASA SIMON BOLIVAR 2
BS-3N
ASA SIMON BOLIVAR 4
EGYPTSAT-1
EGYPTSAT-2
EGYPTSAT-3
F-SAT-B1-E-5W
NSS-8
NSS-9
EUROPE*STAR-2G-1
EUROPE*STAR-2G-2
612864395
Category
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Invoice
Amount
160
475
475
475
475
1265
1265
1265
1265
1280
3360
3360
4815
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
Invoice No
100220160/2002
100220201/2002
100220202/2002
100220203/2002
100220204/2002
100220236/2002
100220258/2002
100220259/2002
100220260/2002
100220199/2002
100220131/2002
100220161/2002
100220312/2002
100220217/2002
100220218/2002
100220219/2002
100220220/2002
100220235/2002
100220240/2002
100220251/2002
100220252/2002
100220307/2002
100220306/2002
100220308/2002
100220317/2002
100220318/2002
100220319/2002
100220320/2002
100220321/2002
100220322/2002
100220323/2002
100220324/2002
100220328/2002
100220350/2002
100220351/2002
100220352/2002
100220353/2002
100220354/2002
100220355/2002
100220356/2002
100220361/2002
100220390/2002
100220391/2002
100220412/2002
100220413/2002
100220414/2002
100220420/2002
100220027/2003
100220028/2003
100220083/2003
100220084/2003
Invoice Date
30.07.2002
22.08.2002
22.08.2002
22.08.2002
22.08.2002
03.09.2002
18.09.2002
18.09.2002
18.09.2002
21.08.2002
10.07.2002
30.07.2002
28.10.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
03.09.2002
18.09.2002
18.09.2002
28.10.2002
28.10.2002
28.10.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
18.11.2002
18.11.2002
18.11.2002
18.11.2002
18.11.2002
18.11.2002
18.11.2002
21.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
09.12.2002
09.12.2002
09.12.2002
10.12.2002
28.01.2003
28.01.2003
19.02.2003
19.02.2003
Invoice Due
Date
30.01.2003
22.02.2003
22.02.2003
22.02.2003
22.02.2003
03.03.2003
18.03.2003
18.03.2003
18.03.2003
21.02.2003
10.01.2003
30.01.2003
28.04.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
03.03.2003
18.03.2003
18.03.2003
28.04.2003
28.04.2003
28.04.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
18.05.2003
18.05.2003
18.05.2003
18.05.2003
18.05.2003
18.05.2003
18.05.2003
21.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
09.06.2003
09.06.2003
09.06.2003
10.06.2003
28.07.2003
28.07.2003
19.08.2003
19.08.2003
30.05.16
- 16 -
Adm
D
F
F
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
HOL
SEY
E
USA
F
B
USA
USA
CAN
USA
F
F
F
F
F
PHL
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Org
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
612864395
Satellite name
EUROPE*STAR-2G-3
F-SAT3
RADIOSAT-5B
RADIOSAT-6B
RADIOSAT-7B
HISPASAT36WKA
HISPASAT39WKA
HISPASAT48.5WKA
HISPASAT51.5WKA
HISPASAT54.5WKA
SYRACUSE-31A
SYRACUSE-31B
SYRACUSE-31C
SYRACUSE-31D
SYRACUSE-31E
SYRACUSE-31F
SYRACUSE-31G
SYRACUSE-31H
SYRACUSE-31I
NSS-19
SEYSAT-4A
HISPASAT-2DKU
USASAT-35L
EUTELSAT-B1-29E
B-SAT-1A
INTELSAT9 174E
INTELSAT9 33E
ANIK E-D
INTELSAT6 178E
VIDEOSAT-8-KU-C
VIDEOSAT-7-KA
VIDEOSAT-5-KA
VIDEOSAT-6-KA
VIDEOSAT-7
AGILA-A5
EUTELSAT 3-33E
EUTELSAT 3-36E
EUTELSAT 3-44E
EUTELSAT 3-48E
EUTELSAT 3-70.5E
EUTELSAT 3-76E
EUTELSAT 3-80.5E
EUTELSAT 3-83.5E
EUTELSAT 3-88.5E
EUTELSAT 3-25.5E
EUTELSAT 3-10E
EUTELSAT 3-12.5W
EUTELSAT 3-13E
EUTELSAT 3-14.8W
EUTELSAT 3-16E
EUTELSAT 3-4E
EUTELSAT 3-7E
Category
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Invoice
Amount
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5600
5855
5965
6085
6435
6635
6635
7205
10695
12000
12160
12320
12480
12480
12955
13865
13865
13865
13865
13865
13865
13865
13865
13865
13865
13885
13885
13885
13885
13885
13885
13885
Invoice No
100220085/2003
100220095/2003
100220092/2003
100220093/2003
100220094/2003
100220096/2003
100220098/2003
100220100/2003
100220102/2003
100220104/2003
100220107/2003
100220108/2003
100220109/2003
100220110/2003
100220111/2003
100220112/2003
100220113/2003
100220114/2003
100220115/2003
100220134/2003
100220135/2003
100220142/2003
100220087/2003
100220238/2002
100220452/2002
100220468/2002
100220467/2002
100220448/2002
100220359/2002
100220169/2002
100220168/2002
100220164/2002
100220166/2002
100220167/2002
100220137/2003
100220428/2002
100220437/2002
100220429/2002
100220438/2002
100220430/2002
100220439/2002
100220431/2002
100220432/2002
100220433/2002
100220460/2002
100220425/2002
100220434/2002
100220426/2002
100220435/2002
100220427/2002
100220423/2002
100220424/2002
Invoice Date
19.02.2003
20.02.2003
20.02.2003
20.02.2003
20.02.2003
24.02.2003
24.02.2003
24.02.2003
24.02.2003
24.02.2003
25.02.2003
25.02.2003
25.02.2003
25.02.2003
25.02.2003
25.02.2003
25.02.2003
25.02.2003
25.02.2003
07.03.2003
07.03.2003
12.03.2003
20.02.2003
03.09.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
21.11.2002
01.08.2002
01.08.2002
01.08.2002
01.08.2002
01.08.2002
12.03.2003
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
13.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
Invoice Due
Date
19.08.2003
20.08.2003
20.08.2003
20.08.2003
20.08.2003
24.08.2003
24.08.2003
24.08.2003
24.08.2003
24.08.2003
25.08.2003
25.08.2003
25.08.2003
25.08.2003
25.08.2003
25.08.2003
25.08.2003
25.08.2003
25.08.2003
07.09.2003
07.09.2003
12.09.2003
20.08.2003
03.03.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
21.05.2003
01.02.2003
01.02.2003
01.02.2003
01.02.2003
01.02.2003
12.09.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
13.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
30.05.16
- 17 -
Adm
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
URG
URG
URG
URG
URG
URG
URG
URG
F
PNG
USA
USA
G
G
J
J
USA
USA
RUS
RUS
RUS
RUS
RUS
RUS
RUS
RUS
Org
Satellite name
VIDEOSAT-5
VIDEOSAT-5-KA
VIDEOSAT-6
VIDEOSAT-6-KA
VIDEOSAT-7
VIDEOSAT-7-KA
VIDEOSAT-8-KU-C
NSS-10
NSS-11
NSS-12
NSS-14
NSS-6
NSS-7
NSS-17
NSS-8
VIDEOSAT-5
VIDEOSAT-6
HISPASAT36WKU
HISPASAT39WKU
HISPASAT48.5WKU
HISPASAT51.5WKU
HISPASAT54.5WKU
NSS-15
NSS-16
NSS-18
NSS-19
URUSAT-1
URUSAT-2
URUSAT-3
URUSAT-4
URUSAT-5
URUSAT-6
URUSAT-7
URUSAT-8
EUT EUTELSAT-KA-29E
PACSTAR-L4
INTELSAT9 176E
INTELSAT9 178E
GIBSAT A1
GIBSAT A2
JCSAT-1R
JCSAT-2R
INTELSAT8 176E
INTELSAT8 178E
EXPRESS-10B
EXPRESS-11B
EXPRESS-13B
EXPRESS-2B
EXPRESS-3B
EXPRESS-4B
EXPRESS-5B
EXPRESS-6B
612864395
Category
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Invoice
Amount
14540
14540
14540
14540
14540
14540
14540
14885
14885
14885
14885
14885
14885
14885
15130
15680
15840
16105
16105
16105
16105
16105
16110
16110
16110
17580
18660
18660
18660
18660
19760
19760
19760
19760
21000
23925
27750
27750
29165
29165
29225
29225
30230
30230
30465
30465
30465
30465
30465
30465
30465
30465
Invoice No
100220241/2002
100220242/2002
100220243/2002
100220244/2002
100220246/2002
100220245/2002
100220247/2002
100220226/2002
100220227/2002
100220228/2002
100220229/2002
100220230/2002
100220360/2002
100220449/2002
100220231/2002
100220163/2002
100220165/2002
100220097/2003
100220099/2003
100220101/2003
100220103/2003
100220105/2003
100220383/2002
100220384/2002
100220450/2002
100220451/2002
100220459/2002
100220443/2002
100220461/2002
100220462/2002
100220463/2002
100220464/2002
100220465/2002
100220466/2002
100220239/2002
100220327/2002
100220457/2002
100220458/2002
100220387/2002
100220388/2002
100220025/2003
100220026/2003
100220385/2002
100220386/2002
100220336/2002
100220337/2002
100220338/2002
100220339/2002
100220340/2002
100220341/2002
100220342/2002
100220343/2002
Invoice Date
06.09.2002
06.09.2002
06.09.2002
06.09.2002
06.09.2002
06.09.2002
06.09.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
21.11.2002
13.12.2002
02.09.2002
01.08.2002
01.08.2002
24.02.2003
24.02.2003
24.02.2003
24.02.2003
24.02.2003
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
03.09.2002
04.11.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
28.01.2003
28.01.2003
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
06.11.2002
06.11.2002
06.11.2002
06.11.2002
06.11.2002
06.11.2002
06.11.2002
06.11.2002
Invoice Due
Date
06.03.2003
06.03.2003
06.03.2003
06.03.2003
06.03.2003
06.03.2003
06.03.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
21.05.2003
13.06.2003
02.03.2003
01.02.2003
01.02.2003
24.08.2003
24.08.2003
24.08.2003
24.08.2003
24.08.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
03.03.2003
04.05.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
28.07.2003
28.07.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
06.05.2003
06.05.2003
06.05.2003
06.05.2003
06.05.2003
06.05.2003
06.05.2003
06.05.2003
30.05.16
- 18 -
Adm
RUS
RUS
RUS
USA
USA
F
D
D
D
F
F
USA
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
USA
USA
G
G
G
G
G
Total
Org
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
186
612864395
Satellite name
Category
EXPRESS-7B
2
EXPRESS-8B
2
EXPRESS-9B
2
INTELSAT10 310E
2
INTELSAT10 359E
2
EUTELSAT 3-29E
2
EUROPE*STAR-2G-1
2
EUROPE*STAR-2G-2
2
EUROPE*STAR-2G-3
2
EUTELSAT 3-73.5E
2
EUTELSAT 3-86E
2
INTELSAT KFOS 85E
2
EUTELSAT-C-36E
2
EUTELSAT-C-44E
2
EUTELSAT-C-48E
2
EUTELSAT-C-70.5E
2
EUTELSAT-C-73.5E
2
EUTELSAT-C-76E
2
EUTELSAT-C-80.5E
2
EUTELSAT-C-83.5E
2
EUTELSAT-C-86E
2
EUTELSAT-C-88.5E
2
F-SAT-KU-E-5W
2
EUTELSAT 3-64W
2
INTELSAT7 176E
2
INTELSAT7 178E
2
GIBSAT-3
2
GIBSAT-4
2
GIBSAT-5
2
GIBSAT-7
2
GIBSAT-8
2
Average Charge
Invoice
Amount
30465
30465
30465
31230
31580
32265
34850
34850
34850
35605
35605
44680
47065
47065
47065
47065
47065
47065
47065
47065
47065
47065
47165
47245
50720
50720
95265
95265
95265
148105
148105
18524.87
Invoice No
100220344/2002
100220345/2002
100220346/2002
100220086/2003
100220088/2003
100220237/2002
100220379/2002
100220376/2002
100220377/2002
100220392/2002
100220393/2002
100220358/2002
100220394/2002
100220395/2002
100220396/2002
100220397/2002
100220398/2002
100220399/2002
100220400/2002
100220401/2002
100220402/2002
100220403/2002
100220421/2002
100220436/2002
100220444/2002
100220445/2002
100220143/2003
100220144/2003
100220145/2003
100220146/2003
100220147/2003
Invoice Date
06.11.2002
06.11.2002
06.11.2002
20.02.2003
20.02.2003
03.09.2002
28.11.2002
28.11.2002
28.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
21.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
29.11.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
14.03.2003
14.03.2003
14.03.2003
14.03.2003
14.03.2003
Invoice Due
Date
06.05.2003
06.05.2003
06.05.2003
20.08.2003
20.08.2003
03.03.2003
28.05.2003
28.05.2003
28.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
21.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
29.05.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
14.09.2003
14.09.2003
14.09.2003
14.09.2003
14.09.2003
30.05.16
- 19 -
Adm
G
BLR
BLR
BLR
BLR
BLR
ARS
ARS
ARS
CAN
CAN
F
CAN
CAN
F
INS
HOL
HOL
HNG
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
G
INS
HOL
HOL
HOL
HOL
VTN
RUS
RUS
RUS
F
B
B
Total
Org
ESA
40
612864395
Satellite name
Category
INMARSAT GSO-2A
3
INTERSPUTNIK-16W-M
3
INTERSPUTNIK-3W-M
3
INTERSPUTNIK-6W-M
3
INTERSPUTNIK-83W-M
3
INTERSPUTNIK-97W-M
3
STRATSAT-1
3
STRATSAT-2
3
STRATSAT-3
3
CANSAT KA-4
3
CANSAT KA-5X
3
F-SAT-KA-E-5W
3
CANSAT KA-1X
3
CANSAT KA-2X
3
MSG-SAR
3
GARUDA-124.5E
3
NSS-KA11
3
NSS-KA10
3
HUN-STAR-1A
3
NSS-KA1
3
NSS-KA2
3
NSS-KA4
3
NSS-KA6
3
NSS-KA3
3
NSS-KA5
3
NSS-KA7
3
NSS-KA8
3
INMARSAT-3 POR WEST
3
GARUDA-52E
3
NSS-27
3
NSS-21
3
NSS-22
3
NSS-23
3
VINASAT-1C
3
KUPON-1S
3
KUPON-4S
3
KUPON-5S
3
F-SAT4
3
B-SAT-3F
3
B-SAT-3G
3
Average Charge
Invoice
Amount
4680
21000
21000
21000
21000
21000
21000
21000
21000
21000
21000
21000
21000
21000
21000
30312
30312
30312
46456
46984
46984
46984
46984
46984
46984
46984
46984
48960
67944
83096
88024
88024
88024
89128
99048
99048
99048
167176
226344
226344
57053.8
Invoice No
100220162/2002
100220221/2002
100220222/2002
100220223/2002
100220224/2002
100220225/2002
100220329/2002
100220330/2002
100220331/2002
100220357/2002
100220389/2002
100220422/2002
100220446/2002
100220447/2002
100220455/2002
100220091/2003
100220090/2003
100220136/2003
100220456/2002
100220254/2002
100220255/2002
100220256/2002
100220257/2002
100220408/2002
100220409/2002
100220410/2002
100220411/2002
100220133/2002
100220281/2002
100220089/2003
100220016/2003
100220017/2003
100220018/2003
100220023/2003
100220000/2003
100220001/2003
100220002/2003
100220138/2003
100220453/2002
100220454/2002
Invoice Date
01.08.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
02.09.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
04.11.2002
21.11.2002
29.11.2002
10.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
20.02.2003
20.02.2003
07.03.2003
13.12.2002
18.09.2002
18.09.2002
18.09.2002
18.09.2002
09.12.2002
09.12.2002
09.12.2002
09.12.2002
10.07.2002
07.10.2002
20.02.2003
17.01.2003
17.01.2003
17.01.2003
17.01.2003
09.01.2003
09.01.2003
09.01.2003
12.03.2003
13.12.2002
13.12.2002
Invoice Due
Date
01.02.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
02.03.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
04.05.2003
21.05.2003
29.05.2003
10.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
20.08.2003
20.08.2003
07.09.2003
13.06.2003
18.03.2003
18.03.2003
18.03.2003
18.03.2003
09.06.2003
09.06.2003
09.06.2003
09.06.2003
10.01.2003
07.04.2003
20.08.2003
17.07.2003
17.07.2003
17.07.2003
17.07.2003
09.07.2003
09.07.2003
09.07.2003
12.09.2003
13.06.2003
13.06.2003
30.05.16
- 20 -
Adm
USA
LUX
USA
USA
USA
Total
Invoice
Amount
7100
7100
23158
30908
280024
69658
Org
Satellite name
Category
USAKU-M2
4
GLOBAL RADIO
4
USAKU-M3
4
USAKU-L2
4
USAKU-H2
4
Average Charge
Adm
USA
Org
Satellite name
MIGHTYSAT-2
Invoice
Category Amount
Invoice No
6
4900
100220415/2002
Adm
Org
EUT
EUT
EUT
EUT
Satellite name
EUTELSAT EXB-7E
EUTELSAT EXB-12.5W
EUTELSAT EXB-36E
EUTELSAT EXB-40E
Category
9
9
9
9
F
F
F
F
5
612864395
Invoice
Amount
10755
10755
10755
10755
Invoice No
100220310/2002
100220416/2002
100220311/2002
100220309/2002
100220348/2002
Invoice No
100220206/2002
100220417/2002
100220418/2002
100220419/2002
Invoice Date
28.10.2002
10.12.2002
28.10.2002
28.10.2002
08.11.2002
Invoice Due
Date
28.04.2003
10.06.2003
28.04.2003
28.04.2003
08.05.2003
Invoice Due
Invoice Date
Date
09.12.2002 09.06.2003
Invoice Date
23.08.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
10.12.2002
Invoice Due
Date
23.02.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
10.06.2003
30.05.16