Preliminary views on agenda item 7
Developed at the 4th Meeting of APT Conference Preparatory Group for WRC-12
13 – 18 December 2010, Hong Kong, China
Source Document: APG2012-4/OUT-39
Agenda Item7: “to consider possible changes in response to Resolution 86 (Rev. Marrakesh, 2002) of thePlenipotentiary Conference: “Advance publication, coordination, notification and recordingprocedures for frequency assignments pertaining to satellite networks”, in accordance withResolution 86 (Rev.WRC-07)”
APT Preliminary Views:
APT Preliminary Views on General Issues:
- The consideration of possible changes to improve advance publication, coordination, notification and recording procedures for frequency assignments pertaining to satellite networks shall not be used as a mechanismto propose changes to allocations in Article 5 of the Radio Regulations;
- The significant revision and/or restructuring of Articles 9, 11, other relevant provisions and related Resolutions of the RRpertaining to satellite networks, which could result inan unexpected impact on oran unexpected inconsistency with other provisions of the RR, would not be appropriate.
4.2APT Preliminary Views on Specific Issues:
4.2.1Issue A:New RR Appendix 4 data item for non-geostationary satellite systems in bands other than those where epfd limits are specified in RR Article 22
Preliminary Views on Issue A:
APT Members support the method to add a new data item for those non-geostationary satellite systems as contained in the Section 5/7/1 of the draft CPM Report(Document CPM11-2/1).
4.2.2Issue B: Footnote 2 to Tables A, B, C and D of Annex 2 of RR Appendix 4
Preliminary Views on Issue B:
APT Members support the method B1 to modify the footnote 2 of Annex 2 of RR Appendix 4as contained in the Section 5/7/2 of the draft CPM Report(Document CPM11-2/1).
4.2.3Issue G: Review of the bands listed in Table 5-1 of RR Appendix 5 for RR Nos.9.11 and 9.19
Preliminary Views on Issue G:
APT Members endorsed the work performed by the SC on this issue as contained in the Section 5/7/7 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2).However, in order to avoid unintended consequences arising from the modification of Table 5-1 of RR Appendix 5, further studies are required.
4.2.4Issue J: Steerable beams (Annex 2 to RR Appendix 4)
Preliminary Views on Issue J:
APT Members support the method Bto modify the item B.3.b.1 of RR Appendix 4 as contained in the Section 5/7/10 of the SC Report(Document CPM11-2/2).
4.2.5Issue L: Application of RR No. 5.510
Preliminary Views on Issue L:
APT Members support the conclusion reached in SC meeting that no action/modification is required on this issuewhich is contained in the Section 5/7/12 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2).
4.2.6Issue M: Antenna gain contour covering area beyond submitted service area (Annex2 to RR Appendix 4)
Preliminary Views on Issue M:
This issue has several common elements with the above Issue J as indicated in the Section 5/7/13 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2).
APT Members are therefore invited to carry out necessary studies in this regard and submit their contributions for further considerationsin the future APG-5 meetingand ITU-R meetings.
4.2.7Issue O: Harmonizing the text of the footnotes to RR Article 5 referring to RR No.9.11A
Preliminary Views on Issue O:
APT Members agreed to the SC meeting consensus that the harmonization of the text of the footnotes to the Table of Frequency Allocations in the RR Article 5 referring to RR No. 9.11Ais not necessary and no action/modification is required in this regardas contained in the Section 5/7/15 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2).
4.2.8Issue P: Resolution 49 (Rev.WRC-07)
Preliminary Views on Issue P:
In view ofthe regulatory complexities and concerns presented at the SC meeting associated with the modifications of Resolution 49 (Rev. WRC-07), APT Members agreed to retain the Resolution 49 (Rev.WRC07)with no change. It was also agreed to carry out necessary further studies in this regardwith the view toimprove this Resolution as appropriate.
4.2.9Issue Q: Clarification of bringing into use of assignments to satellite networks
Preliminary Views on Issue Q:
In view ofthe regulatory complexities and concerns presented at the SC meeting associated with the issue of the bringing into use of a satellite network as contained in Section 5/7/17 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2), further studies are therefore required.
4.2.10Issue R: Status of frequency assignments initially recorded under RR No. 11.41 in case all required coordinations are completed after the assignments are recorded in the MIFR
Preliminary Views on Issue R:
APT Members support the method to modify RR No.11.41A as contained in the Section 5/7/18 of the SC Report(Document CPM11-2/2).
4.2.11Issue S: Harmonization of the text of the future proposed footnotes to RR Article 5
Preliminary Views on Issue S:
APT Members support the conclusion reached in SC meeting that there is no need to harmonize or align the text of the current footnotes of RR Article 5as contained in the Section 5/7/19 of the SC Report(Document CPM11-2/2).It was also agreed that in future effort needs to be made in order that the regulatory text is harmonized to the extent practicable.
5. Other Views:
The Preliminary Views could not be agreedduring the discussions in the APG-4 meetingfor the following listed issues. APT Members are therefore invited to carry out necessary studies and submit their contributions for further considerationsin next APG-5 meeting including those of ITU-R.
5.1Issue C: Application of the coordination arc trigger and of RR No. 9.41 in the GSO/GSO FSS coordination under RR No. 9.7 in the frequency bands 6/4 GHz and 14/10/11/12 GHz
Discussions on Issue C:
There are five proposed methods C1 to C5 in Section 5/7/3 of the draft CPM Report(Document CPM11-2/1) in order to satisfy the issue C.
During the discussions in APG-4, one view could consider a reduction of the coordination arc where sufficient representative cases are contained within the reduced arc. On this basis, Methods C1, C4, C5, or some combination of these could be considered, but Methods C2 and C3 are not supported at this stage.
Another view supports the reduction of the coordination arc, and the application of pfd values outside the coordination arc to protect satellite networks in the uplink and downlink, which also eliminates the use of RR No. 9.41 by administrations. These APT Members could also support having uplink and downlink pfd masks inside the coordination arc, for which if met by the new network, coordination is not required. Hence, the principles in Methods C1, C2 and C3 were agreed by these APT Members taking into account that careful consideration is required in determining the reduced coordination arcs and appropriate pfd values and pfd masks.
The concern of the applicability of the reduction of the current coordination arcwas also raised in the following aspects:
A:Constraints by the satellite networks which are at closer orbital separations;
B:Protection of satellite networks with prior status;
C:Constraints on satellite networks currently in operation and/or to be filed with ITU.
No change of the current coordination arc concept was also proposed in the APG-4 meeting.
5.2Issue D: Comments under RR Nos. 9.51 and 9.52 as applied to coordination under RR No. 9.7
Discussions on Issue D:
There are two proposed methods A and Bas contained in the Section 5/7/4 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2) in order to satisfy the issue D.
During the discussions in APG-4, one view expressed to support Method A with the reasons described under this Methodin the SC Report, while another view expressed to support Method B with Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 to be decided finally with further considerations.
5.3Issue F: Clarification of the application of RR No. 11.49
Discussions on Issue F:
Concerning the clarification of the point at which an assignment which has ceased to be in operation is to be declared as suspended in order to avoid suspensions lasting longer than the intended 24 months, there is one proposed method as contained in the Section 5/7/6 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2).
During the discussions in APG-4, one view expressed to supportthis method, while another view proposed to retain the current provisions of RR No. 11.49 with no change in order for the relevant satellite operator and/or the notifying administration to have more time to explore the satellite network operating conditions.
5.4Issue H: Addition in RR Appendix 4 of data elements about occurrence of transmissions of a non-geostationary satellite network
Discussions on Issue H:
Two alternatives 1 and 2for the modification of the RR Appendix 4 are provided in the Section 5/7/8 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2) in order to satisfy the issue H.
During the discussions in APG-4, there was agreement that anadditional data element(s) about the occurrence of transmissions of a non-geostationary satellite network could provide useful information in assessing the potential for interference. However, further consideration is needed to decide a preference for one of the two alternative modifications to Appendix 4.
5.5Issue I: Application of RR Nos.11.41 and11.42 (provisional/definitive recording of frequency assignments)
Input Documents: APG2012-4/INP-15, 25, 34, 36, 41, 55, 71, 81, 85
Discussions on Issue I:
There are six A to Fproposed methods as contained in the Section 5/7/9 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2) in order to satisfy the issue I.
During the discussions in APG-4, no consensus could be reached on the expected method to satisfy the agenda item on this issue. It was agreed to retain all these six methods for further considerations.
5.6Issue K: List of satellite networks with which coordination needs to be effected (application of RR No. 9.36)
Discussions on Issue K:
There are three proposed methods A, B and Cas contained in the Section 5/7/11 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2) in order to satisfy the issue K.
One view expressed that despite having an information status only, the list has served its purpose well in facilitating the coordination procedure and has not caused any significant difficulty to administrations. In addition, changing the nature of the list of satellite networks published under RR No.9.36.2 from informal to formal with a view to finalizing the list be coordinated would cause extraburden to the satellite operators and their administrations because of the identification of ahuge number of affected satellite networks within the period of four months under RR No. 9.36.2 following the receipt of the BR IFIC.The burden to the Bureau would also be increased accordingly.In view of these considerations, it is not necessary to change the status of the published list of networks under No. 9.36.2 from information status to mandatory status.
The other view expressed that it would be desirable to identify a definitive list of administrations and satellite networks of required coordination as early as possible in the coordination process. In this case, further studies are required to improve the method for defining a final satellite network list.
5.7Issue N: Advance publication of information (API) of a satellite network or system not subject to coordination procedure under Section II of RR Article 9
Discussions on Issue N:
There are two proposed methods A and Bas contained in the Section 5/7/14 of the SC Report (Document CPM11-2/2) in order to satisfy the issue N.
APT Members discussed one proposal on the modification of Method B in order for this Methodto reflect the increase of potential interference under modified RR No. 9.2. However,it was finally agreed to retain these two methods with no change for further considerations.
5.8Application of Nos. 23.13, 23.13A, 23.13B and 23.13C of RR Article 23
Discussions on this issue:
During the discussions in APG-4, two views were expressed in this regard.
View 1:
Some Members suggested to modify RR No. 23.13Bas contained belowin order to resolve the inconsistency between RR Nos. 23.13B and 23.13.
View 2:
Some other Membersdid not agree to open up RR No. 23.13 and its sub-provisions again, given the extensive discussions on the topic at WRC-95, WRC-97 and WRC2000. WRC-2000 reached a difficult compromise between concerned administrations by adding sub-provisions RRNos. 23.13A through 23.13C that explain how it is applied. These administrationsare also of the view that it is not technically possible to modify the physical coverage area of a satellite after satellite is ordered and it is also difficult to exclude one country while covering its neighbours.
MOD
23.13BIf, within the four-month period following the publication of the Special Section for a broadcasting-satellite service (except sound broadcasting) network submitted for coordination under Article9 or Appendix 30, an administration informs the Bureau that all technical means have not been used to reduce the radiation over its territory, the Bureau shall draw the attention of the responsible administration to the comments received. The Bureau shall request the two administrations to make every effort possible in order to resolve the issue. Either administration may request the Bureau to study the matter and submit its report to the administrations concerned. Ifno agreement can be reached, then the Bureau shall inform the responsible administration of the satellite network to delete the territory of the objecting administration from the coverage area of the satellite network in question by modifying the antenna pattern and its corresponding gain contour in order to remove/suppress the radiation over the territory of other administrations which have disagreed to the inclusion of their territories in the coverage area of the subject satellite network and inform the Bureau and the objecting administration(s) of the results of its action.(WRC2012)
6. Issues for Consideration at APG2012-5 Meeting:
APT Members are invitedto consider the issues under agenda item 7 further especially those where no agreement on APT preliminary views were reacheddescribed in Section 5. APT Members are also encouraged to submit their contributions for further considerationsin future APG-5 meeting including those of ITU-R.
APT also expressed its position on the following issues.
Issue 1Examination of frequency assignments to an inter-satellite link of a geostationary space station communicating with a non-geostationary space station
Input Documents: APG2012-4/INP-71
Background of issue 1:
The Board noted the specific nature of inter-satellite links where one end of the link is on a GSO space station and the other on a non-GSO space station. Under RR Article 9 (No.9.7) there is a requirement to effect coordination for frequency assignments of GSO networks, but there is no similar requirement for assignments of non-GSO networks. It is thus unclear whether coordination under Section II of RR Article 9 applies:
a)to both ends of the inter-satellite link, i.e. to the GSO as well as to the non-GSO station of the link, thus rendering the entire link coordinated (as is the case in all other forms of coordination); or
b)only to the GSO station of the inter-satellite link, leaving the other end uncoordinated; or
c)to none of the stations of the inter-satellite link, leaving the entire inter-satellite link uncoordinated (as is the case when coordination does not apply, e.g. non-GSO networks).
In view of the above, the Board decided that, until WRC clarifies this matter, assignments in inter-satellite links between GSO and non-GSO space stations shall be treated as follows (see §6 of the Rule of Procedure on RR No.11.32):
a)The general description of the inter-satellite link shall be sent to the Bureau for advance publication in accordance with Sub-Section IA of RR Article 9.
b)Provisionally, these assignments shall not beconsidered as beingsubject to the coordination procedure under Section II of RR Article 9.
WRC-07 confirmed the Rule of Procedure adopted by the Board on this issue, but also invited administrations to make the necessary studies to transfer the essence of this Rule of procedure to the RR.The SC-WP identified two methods to satisfy the issue for further consideration at its next meeting.
APT position on the issue 1:
In the absence of valid criteria and established procedure it would be inappropriate to transfer the essence of the Rules of Procedure into the RR provisions. Additionally, the applications of the above-mentioned Rules of Procedure have not caused difficulties for the Bureau and administrations.
Therefore, APT would express itssupport not to transfer the Rules of Procedure into the RR when this issue is raised in the meetings of CPM11-2 and WRC-12 in the absence of valid criteria and established procedure.
Issue2limited and qualified extensions of the regulatory time-limit for bringing into use Appendix 30B assignments due to launch failures and to satellite assignments due to launch delays beyond the control of the satellite operator and notifying Administration
Input Documents: APG2012-4/INP-14
Background of issue 2:
One input document was received in the meeting APG-4 addressing the issue of the regulatory time-limit. It is expressed in the document that there are only limited provisions to address the real and growing concerns that can impact the ability of an Administration to bring into use (BiU) its satellite network within the specified regulatory timeframe because of circumstances outside of its control such as launch failure and launch delays.
Currently, there are formal procedures to extend the regulatory time-limit for BIU of the planned BSS networks subject to Appendices 30/30A of the Radio Regulations due to launch failures. Proposals to align the Appendix 30B procedures with these procedures would allow the same extension, a maximum of three years, to the regulatory deadline of the bringing-into-use assignments in the case of launch failure of planned FSS networks. This would provide equivalenttreatment of the planned BSS (AP30/30A) and planned FSS (AP30B) bands. These proposals were considered.
For technical and economic reasons, many satellite launches in both planned and unplanned bands, occur toward the end of the bringing-into-use periods afforded by the Radio Regulations. Also the trend for the use of dual-payload launch vehicles to reduce the cost of a satellite network, especially important to enable equitable access for developing countries to space, continues to grow. These situations raise the potential for a Notifying Administration – despite having had its satellite ready for a timely launch – is forced to miss its bringing-into-use regulatory time-limit because of delays associated with an unaffiliated, co-passenger payload. Regulatory proposals to address the case of a delayed launch due to issues related to a co-passenger payload on the same launch vehicle were also considered.
However, it should be considered how to verify objectively the launch failure or the delay due to co-passenger arrangement as mentioned above in regulatory basis.
APT position on issue 2:
APTMembersagreedthat the Input Document as listed above should be carried forward and be further considered at the APG2012-5 meeting.
______
Page 1 of 8