FSMP-WGF32/WP-07
International Civil Aviation Organization
WORKING PAPER
AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP)
32nd MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP F
Cairo, Egypt February 2015
Agenda Item 6: Development of material for ITU-R meetings
REGULATORY CONCERNS of AMS(R)S ALLOCATIONS IN FSS
FREQUENCY BANDS - AGENDA ITEM 1.5
(Submitted by John Nelsen)
(Presented by Brandon Mitchell)
SUMMARY
Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) providers are concerned that the introduction of
an Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite (R) Service (AMS(R)S) allocation in the
various frequency bands allocated to the fixed satellite service would place
unreasonable constraints and disruptions on their operations. This paper, an
update to WG-F31/WP-17, focuses on regulatory concerns of having
AMS(R)S allocations in FSS frequency bands.
ACTION
ACP WG-F is invited to:

Discuss regulatory concerns of AMS(R)S allocations in FSS
frequency bands.

Provide comments on how they may or may not be resolved.
(4 pages)
FSMP-WGF32/WP-07
FSMP-WGF32/WP-07
1.
2
INTRODUCTION
1.1
WRC agenda item 1.5 seeks to address the potential use of frequency bands currently
allocated to the fixed satellite service that are not subject to the provisions of appendix 30, 30A and 30B,
for unmanned aircraft command and non-payload communication systems. Resolution 153 then calls for
the ITU-R to study:
1
to conduct, in time for WRC-15, the necessary studies leading to technical,
regulatory and operational recommendations to the Conference, enabling that Conference to
decide on the usage of FSS for the CNPC links for the operation of UAS;
2
to include, in the studies referred to in invites ITU-R 1, sharing and compatibility
studies with services already having allocations in those bands;
1.2
Recommendations 1/12 and 1/13 of the Twelfth Air Navigation Conference
(November 2012) are cited in the current ICAO WRC-15 position on agenda item 1.5: “That ICAO
… develop and implement a comprehensive aviation frequency spectrum strategy … which
includes the following objectives: … clearly state in the strategy the need for aeronautical
systems to operate in spectrum allocated to an appropriate aeronautical safety service”; and
“That ICAO support studies in the International Telecommunication Union Radio Communication
Sector (“ITU-R”) to determine what ITU regulatory actions are required to enable use of
frequency bands allocated to the fixed satellite service for remotely piloted aircraft system
command and control (“C2”) links to ensure consistency with ICAO technical and regulatory
requirements for a safety service.” While the position also states “That all frequency bands which
carry aeronautical safety communications need to be clearly identified in the Radio Regulations”, it has
been argued that such an identification does not have to take the form of an AMS(R)S allocation. This
issue has been further debated within the ITU-R including advice by legal department of the ITU and
concluding explicitly that an allocation of AMS(R)S is out of the scope of the WRC 15 agenda item 1.5.
This paper focuses on regulatory concerns presented by Aeronautical Mobile Satellite (Route) Service
(“AMS(R)S”) allocations in Fixed-Satellite Service (“FSS”) frequency bands.
1.3
Radio Regulation (RR) No. 1.59, defines a safety service as “any radiocommunication service
used permanently or temporarily for the safeguarding of human life and property.” A safety service is
also governed by RR No. 4.10 which states, “Member states recognize that the safety aspects of radio
navigation and other safety services require special measures to ensure their freedom from harmful
interference; it is necessary therefore to take this factor into account in the assignment and use of
frequencies.”
The FSS use of its allocations is governed by the provisions of Articles 9 and 11 of the RR. These specify
the requirement for advance publication, request for coordination, and notification of assignments. There
are no FSS allocations designated as Safety Services. Services provided by FSS networks are dependent
on the outcome of the coordination required between networks indicated by the Radiocommunication
Bureau (BR) in their examination of the Request for Coordination. The results of such coordination
between satellite operators and their administrations are confidential; notification of networks under
Article 11 and inclusion in the Master International Frequency Register (“MIFR”) recognizes that the
requisite coordination has been completed or deemed satisfied under No. 11.32 examination by the ITUBR. If the ITU-BR makes an unfavourable finding on examination of the notification that coordination
FSMP-WGF32/WP-07
3
has not been completed, the notifying administration may request inclusion in the MIFR under provisions
of No. 11.41. It should be noted that the 11.41 designation is at the frequency group level for those
groups that were the subject of the unfavourable finding. It is common for a satellite included in the
MIFR under 11.41 to have frequency groups that received favourable findings under examination by the
ITU-BR and therefore do not have 11.41 status for that group. If a frequency assignment is recorded in
the MIFR under RR 11.41, such an assignment is still required to protect frequency assignments of other
networks with which coordination has been successfully completed and entitled to protection from other
frequency assignments with which coordination has been successfully completed.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 ACP-WG-F30/WP-13 noted that FSS providers who would wish to provide the CNPC service for
UAS are concerned that the introduction of an AMS(R)S allocation in the various frequency bands
allocated to the FSS would place unreasonable constraints and disruptions on their operations.
A
Resolution was proposed to be developed that places the relevant limitations on the use of an allocation to
the AMS(R)S in order to ensure that any such allocation does not pre-empt or gain priority over FSS1.
2.2 The proposal in ACP-WG-F30/WP-13 of AMS(R)S allocations in FSS frequency bands without the
ability to pre-empt or gain priority has no benefit serving only as a label while setting forth a model to
dilute the value of AMS(R)S allocations in other frequency bands. As a result, for purposes of this
paper, it is assumed that an AMS(R)S allocation in FSS frequency bands would have the ability to preempt or gain priority over FSS consistent with the definition of safety service.
2.3
Within the regulatory framework of Articles 9 and 11 of the RR and consistent with provisions of
coordination agreements associated with a particular network, FSS operators provide contracted services
to users. Those coordination agreements are critical to the provision of the contracted services provided
by the FSS. They establish the operational framework allowing FSS providers to enter into contracts that
specify the expected level of performance to be provided including guarantee of the ability to operate to
those performance levels. Specification of a new AMS(R)S allocation in an existing FSS frequency band
could have a severe commercial impact of the provision of FSS services presently being provided, as new
AMS(R)S assignments would have priority over FSS assignments, nullifying previously established
contracted FSS service provisions. It could expose an operator to potential breach of contract by
exposing a customer to degradation or pre-emption of the FSS. Such breach could have severe financial
impact on the FSS operator.
2.4
At the present, all FSS operators follow the same rules for protection of their FSS assignments
using the same ITU-R Recommendations and Regulations in coordination discussions.
If a new
AMS(R)S allocation is established in existing FSS frequency bands, the provision of AMS(R)S service
would not be protected by the existing coordination agreements which are subject to the regulatory
framework of Articles 9 and 11 of the RR. The provider of the AMS(R)S service would therefore need
1
At WG-F/31, the representative of the ITU-BR was asked to seek clarification from the ITU that if RR provisions, e.g. a
footnote, were added to allow UAS to communicate with space stations operating in FSS, would that UAS be considered
operating on a non-interference/non-protection basis as not conforming with the RR Article 1 definition? Subsequent
clarification was received form the ITU that if a WRC approves a provision, e.g. a footnote, allowing UA earth stations to
communicate with FSS stations under some sharing conditions and this provision provides the status of earth stations on board
UA equal to others services in the allocated band, then such UAS would not be considered as operating on a noninterference/non-protection basis. The response from the ITU was provided by ICAO to WP5B for its consideration during its
October 2014 session and was agreed by consensus to be included in its Report on UAS (see Annex 18 of the WP5B Chairman’s
Report).
FSMP-WGF32/WP-07
4
to assert preference over FSS due to the safety service status of AMS(R)S. Further, new networks could
demand preference over an already existing coordinated and notified network by indicating that the new
network would be offering a safety service (AMS(R)S).
2.5 In summary, the introduction of a new AMS(R)S allocation in existing FSS frequency bands could
create a difficult and chaotic situation for FSS providers. It would be disruptive creating uncertainty with
customers accustomed to the long term stability of the FSS operating environment. It is not uncommon
for customer satellite service contracts to span 5-10 years. For video applications contracts often extend
to satellite end-of-life (typically, 15+ years). This could lead to loss of an FSS customer to an alternative
technology to satellite, e.g. fiber.
3.
ACTION BY THE MEETING
The ACP WG-F is invited to:

Discuss the regulatory concerns of adding new AMS(R)S allocations in existing FSS
frequency bands.

Provide comments on how those concerns may or may not be resolved.