Frequency coordination and the role of the responding
administration:
mere goodwill or regulatory obligation?
BR Workshop on the efficient use of the spectrum/orbit
resource
ITU Geneva, 6 May 2009
Omri Arnon & Yizhar Tal
AMOS‐Spacecom, Israel
Spacecom Confidential
The Issue
• Frequency coordination is the key process provided for in the Radio
Regulations regulatory scheme for the use of the scarce radio frequency
spectrum / orbital location resources, in the unplanned bands and orbit
• The Achilles' heel of frequency coordination:
What if the administration with which coordination is sought
responds in a way which does not enable meaningful progress
towards achieving coordination?
• RR are clear on the obligation to initiate coordination;
RR are less clear on the nature of the obligation to respond to, or to
cooperate with, parties seeking coordination
The coordination process
Ordinarily, the coordination procedure proceeds in the following manner:
• The administration requesting coordination and the administration with
which coordination is sought are required to engage in a dialogue aimed
at reaching a coordination agreement
• This dialogue is based on an exchange of information and proposals: each
administration presents its proposal(s) for coordination, and on this basis
an attempt is made to work out mutually agreed parameters and
arrangements for the operation of space networks under mutual non‐
interference
The problem
• Typically, when two satellites are in close proximity and operate co‐
frequency and co‐coverage, coordination is complex – but possible
• Severe difficulty arises if the responding administration wishes to secure
full flexibility for its own operator(s), by insisting on significantly high
transmission levels – as against low transmission levels for the requesting
administration’s operator – all across the relevant frequency band
• The discrepancy between high power levels for one operator and low
power levels for the other would practically prevent the requesting
administration’s operator from providing any services in the filed bands
and service area: it would simply not be able to operate
• Is this an acceptable mode of conducting coordination? Do the RR permit
such conduct by the responding administration? Did the RR intend to
provide absolute protection to the responding administration in such
cases?
Principles of coordination
• Frequency coordination must be based – as a matter of ITU norms – on a
serious and meaningful effort to allow relevant administrations to
reasonably share the relevant radio‐frequency spectrum.
• Temporal priority does not in itself determine or provide an absolute or
exclusive right to use relevant allocations of radio‐frequency spectrum
• The responding administration's regulatory precedence must be balanced
and reconciled with the governing principle of equitable access
• The coordination effort must aim at allowing each side to provide its
services within the filed service area under workable, mutually agreed
parameters (provided that such parameters are technically achievable)
• Equitable access means being granted a reasonable possibility to operate;
it does not necessarily mean an equal division
ITU norms
• Constitution Article 44
“Member States shall bear in mind that radio frequencies and any
associated orbits, including the geostationary‐satellite orbit, are limited
natural resources and that they must be used rationally, efficiently and
economically, in conformity with the provisions of the Radio Regulations,
so that countries or groups of countries may have equitable access to
those orbits and frequencies…”
• RR No. 9.53
“… the requesting and responding administrations shall make every
possible mutual effort to overcome the difficulties, in a manner
acceptable to the parties concerned”
ITU norms (contd.)
Rules of Procedure 9.6
• 1(b): “the intent of Nos. 9.6 (9.7 to 9.21), 9.27 and Appendix 5 is to
identify to which administrations a request for coordination is to be
addressed, and not to state an order of priorities for rights to a particular
orbital position”
• 1(c): “the coordination process is a two way process”
• 1(d): “in the application of Article 9 no administration obtains any
particular priority as a result of being the first to start either the advance
publication phase… or the request for coordination procedure”
The responding administration’s
obligation
• The role of the responding administration is not a matter of mere goodwill
but rather that of regulatory obligation – the obligation to respond in a
manner which will not preclude or undermine coordination
• If the responding administration maintains a position which in effect
reserves the entire radio‐frequency spectrum band for its own operator(s)
and excludes the requesting administration's operator(s) from the filed
band and service area – this is unacceptable and contrary to ITU norms
• Such a manner of conducting coordination undermines the very concept
of coordination, because it actually replaces mutual coordination (“a two
way process”) with an automatic, pre‐determined and unilateral priority
of one administration over the other
The Eutelsat/Spacecom case
Amos 2 & Amos 3 (AMOS)
Atlantic Bird 3 (AB3)
at 4°West
at 5°West
Operating in Ku band – overlapping beams over Central and Eastern Europe
Coordination effort undertaken for over 10 years
• Eutelsat requires utilizing the entire spectrum band (13.75 – 14.5 U/L) with
full flexibility for both current and future satellites and services, as a
strategic requirement; accordingly, it insists on maintaining high
transmission levels for AB3 and low transmission levels for AMOS – across
the entire band
• This effectively prevents the provision of any services by AMOS in the filed
service area; Spacecom contends that Eutelsat’s position undermines the
very possibility of coordination, since it excludes Spacecom from the filed
frequency bands and service area; Eutelsat replies that Spacecom can
operate in other frequency bands (planned) or in a different service area
(Middle East, rather than Europe)
The Eutelsat/Spacecom case (contd.)
• This controversy over the basic principles of coordination has brought the
coordination process to a complete impasse
• The concern is all the more severe in circumstances (such as between
Eutelsat and Spacecom) where the requesting administration’s operator
has only one active orbital location whereas the other operator enjoys the
use of many
Documents:
1. Israel’s ‘request for assistance’ letter to RRB:
Document RRB07‐2/7‐E of 16 May 2007 (44th RRB Meeting)
2. RRB Decision: 44th Meeting Decision no. 8
Document RRB07‐2/11‐E8 June 2007 (44th RRB Meeting)
3. Addendum to Israel’s request
Document RRB07‐3/1‐E of 11 July 2007 (45th RRB Meeting)
Call for BR and RRB guidance
• The BR and RRB are requested and called upon to address the matter
• The issue raised needs to be addressed as a matter of principle which
goes to the root of the coordination process; Eutelsat/Spacecom is a case
in point, but the issue is a general one, liable to affect many
administrations and satellite operators
• BR and RRB are asked to provide authoritative guidance for cases in
which this troublesome situation arises; in summary ‐
If the responding administration maintains a position which in effect
reserves the entire radio‐frequency spectrum band for its own
operator(s) and excludes the requesting administration's operator(s)
from the filed band and service area – this is unacceptable and
contrary to ITU norms that govern coordination
Thank you for your attention
Omri Arnon
omri.arnon@amos‐spacecom.com
Yizhar Tal
yizhar@adlaw.co.il