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