Efficient Use of Orbit Spectrum Resources:
Possible Actions Within and Outside
the ITU Radio Regulations
(ITU BR Workshop - Geneva, 6 May 2009)
Jose Albuquerque
Senior Director, Spectrum Engineering
New 2006 Template - 1
ACTION ON TWO DIFFERENT AREAS
COULD PROMOTE MORE EFICIENT USE OF
ORBIT/SPECTRUM RESOURCES
• (I) Most of the information on satellite networks provided
by administrations and eventually recorded in the MIFR is
never used or, at best, only very seldom used
•
Simplification of this information would reduce work for
administrations and BR and provide a more clear picture of the use
of the orbit/spectrum resources
• (II) There is a mismatch between the MIFR records and
the frequency assignments associated with space stations
actually in orbit (“the MIFR-actual-satellite mismatch”)
•
This problem cannot be fully addressed within the ITU Radio
Regulations (RR) but changes to the RR that enhance
transparency could help in the solution of the problem
New 2006 Template - 2
(I) MOST OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A
SATELLITE NETWORK COORDINATION REQUEST IS
NEVER USED IN ACTUAL COORDINATION
•
•
Coordination between two commercial satellite networks is very often
based on a small number of parameters
•
maximum power density at the input of a transmitting earth station
antenna and associated off-axis gains (i.e. maximum off-axis e.i.r.p.
density towards the other party satellite)
•
maximum downlink e.i.r.p. density towards specific areas on the Earth
(based on the minimum antenna size entitled to protection)
A typical coordination request includes a large number of frequency
assignments and very seldom coordination discussions will go to this
level of detail
•
•
this is actually not necessary as many of these assignments may never be
implemented, at least not in all possible center frequencies contemplated
in the coordination request
As a result, the e.i.r.p. density limits mentioned above are established
for frequency ranges that are wider than individual assignments (e.g.
250 MHz or 500 MHz)
New 2006 Template - 3
IS THE DETAILED INFORMATION RECORDED IN
THE MIFR ACTUALLY USED BY THE BR?
• It may be argued that detailed frequency assignment
information is required when the BR is requested to
provide assistance in coordination or resolve
complaints of harmful interference
• Most of these matters will eventually be settled through an
understanding between the two administrations (directly or
through the involved operators)
• Even if the BR has to prepare a report to the Radio
Regulations Board (RRB) on the matter, simplified
information will still contain the required elements
New 2006 Template - 4
POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS OF
THE PROPOSED SIMPLIFICATION
• It is certainly recognized that the simplification being
proposed here implicitly assumes an environment of digital
carriers in which power spectral densities are
approximately constant
•
This may not be always true but covers almost the totality of cases
for current commercial satellites
•
Exceptions (e.g. TV/FM carriers) could be treated as such and not
dictate the overall approach
• The proposed simplifications may be more appropriate in
some specific bands (e.g. the traditional 6/4 GHz and
14/11 GHz FSS bands)
New 2006 Template - 5
PROPOSED SIMPLIFICATION
• Consistent with the contents of typical coordination
agreements, the information in a coordination request
should include for each receive satellite beam:
•
G/T patterns and service area
•
Maximum earth station uplink e.i.r.p. density for a range of off-axis
angles
•
Minimum earth station on-axis e.i.r.p. density
•
Associated frequency range
• and for each transmit satellite beam:
•
Maximum downlink e.i.r.p. density patterns
•
Range of earth station sizes and associated receive gain patterns
for which protection is required
•
Associated frequency range
New 2006 Template - 6
(II) PAPER SATELLITES: BACKGROUND
• In the early and mid 90’s there was great concern about the
large number of filings with the ITU BR that might never be
implemented (then referred as “paper satellites”)
• On one hand the concern had to do with the BR overload
associated with the processing of these filings and the
resulting “backlog”
• On the other hand the concern had to do with reservation
of capacity as reflected in considering c) of Resolution 49
(WRC-97) (“the problem of reservation of orbit and
spectrum capacity without actual use”)
• Resolution 49 (WRC-97) embraced the “administrative due
diligence” concept instead of the “financial due diligence”
also proposed to WRC-97
New 2006 Template - 7
PAPER SATELLITES: OTHER REMEDIES
• A variation of “financial due diligence” ended up being
introduced through the Plenipotentiary Resolution 88
(Minneapolis 1998) that triggered the “cost recovery fees”
for satellite filings
•
This proved to be an effective measure towards reducing the
number of “paper satellites”
• Also, RR No. 11.41, approved at WRC-95, provided more
flexibility for satellite networks to be notified and recorded
without completing all required coordinations and therefore
precluding “paper satellites” from blocking such recording
(RR No.1544 in force before WRC-95 was less flexible in
this respect)
New 2006 Template - 8
“PAPER SATELLITES” X “VIRTUAL SATELLITES”
• The term “paper satellites” was loosely used with respect to
filings that might never be brought into use and which in the
words of Resolution 49 would create “the problem of
reservation of orbit and spectrum capacity without actual
use”
• In this sense, after the 7-year regulatory period, “paper
satellites” should have become real satellites or would go
away (the corresponding satellite network would be
cancelled by the BR)
• The problem is that some of these “paper satellites” have
partially or totally become “virtual satellites”
• Although this problem is not new it has become more
critical as demand for orbit/spectrum resources increases
and as the recourse to “virtual satellites” becomes more
widespread
New 2006 Template - 9
SOME OF THE POSSIBLE
MIFR-ACTUAL-SATELLITE MISMATCHES
• The frequency assignments of a satellite network are
recorded in the MIFR (i.e. Res 49 information has been
provided and BIU has been confirmed) but
•
There has never been a satellite with the associated frequencies at
this orbital location
•
A satellite with the associated frequencies has been deployed at
this orbital location but has not been there anymore well in excess
of the period of time referred to in No.11.49
•
A satellite is operational at this orbital location but does not include
all frequency ranges recorded in the MIFR
•
A satellite is operational at this orbital location but does not include
all service areas recorded in the MIFR
New 2006 Template - 10
ONLY GOOD WILL FROM ADMINISTRATIONS
WOULD COMPLETELY ELIMINATE
MIFR-ACTUAL-SATELLITE MISMATCHES
BUT MORE TRANSPARENCY CAN HELP…
• Given that the ITU does not have enforcement power only
good will from administrations would completely eliminate
these mismatches
• However, in bilateral discussions between administrations,
or in operator-to-operator coordination, mismatches can be
challenged and more transparency can help in the
formulation of these challenges
• The Resolution 49 information is useful in this respect
•
The BR is not expected to challenge its accuracy but this can be
done in bilateral discussions
New 2006 Template - 11
TIMELY PROVISION OF DBIU COMBINED WITH
RESOLUTION 49 INFORMATION CAN BE VERY HELPFUL
• Administrations could be required to confirm the date of
bringing into use (DBIU) within 30 days of its happening,
together with the Resolution 49 information (satellite name,
manufacturer and launch vehicle), with a clear indication of
whether this is a new launch or the satellite is being drifted
from another orbital location to which it had been previously
launched
• Again, even though the BR is not expected to verify the
accuracy of this information, other interested parties have
the means to perform such verification and, so willing,
could, when appropriate, challenge such information in
bilateral discussions or with the ITU BR
New 2006 Template - 12
CHANGES TO THE ITU RADIO REGULATIONS COULD
FOCUS ON SPECIFIC FREQUENCY RANGES WHERE
COMMERCIAL OPERATORS PLAY A MAJOR ROLE
• Currently most commercial FSS space stations utilize the
non-planned 6/4 GHz and 14/11 GHz bands and therefore
any proposed changes to the RR could address these
specific frequency ranges
• Currently there are more than 250 satellites in orbit that
utilize the 6/4 GHz and/or 14/11 GHz and most of these
belong to a relatively small number of operators (e.g. the
ten operators with the largest number of satellites own
more than 170 of these satellites)
• Therefore, in the framework of trust and good will that has
to govern these matters, operators have a role to play and
may be in a unique position to contribute to a solution
New 2006 Template - 13