- 1 -

Radiocommunication Study Groups /
Received:2010
Subject:WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7
Source: / Document 4C/xxx-E
2010
English only
International Civil Aviation Organization
coordination of AMS(R)S spectrum requirementsunder Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07)

1Introduction

1.1One of the proposed Methods in the current draft CPM text for WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 (Method B) calls for the involvement of ICAO in the coordination of AMS(R)S spectrum requirements in the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands.

1.2 The present document is intended to propose a practical way forward for the implementation of Method B.

1.3The document contains some background on WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 (Section 2); a discussion of some of the related issues (Sections 3); and a proposal for the implementation of the Method (Section 4). Conclusions are provided in Section 5.

2Background

2.1Frequency coordination in the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands for the GSO/MSS networks is conducted under Article 9 of the Radio Regulations. Two multilateral coordination fora (one for ITU Regions1 and 3 and one for ITU Region 2) have been established by the notifying Administrations of MSS networks, to facilitate coordination and spectrum sharing between these networks. Theoverall coordination process conducted in these fora will be referred to in the following as the “MLM/ORM” (multi-lateral meeting/operator review meeting) process.

2.2Although RR No. 5.357A and Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) stipulate priority access to spectrum and protection for AMS(R)S communications in 1.5/1.6 GHz bands, current practice in the MLM/ORM process has been reported as not satisfying the spectrum requirements ofat least one AMS(R)S operator. Furthermore, as the two multilateral coordination fora operate independently, frequency assignments obtained in the two fora may be incompatible for some satellite systems.

2.3Taking into account some of these issues, WRC-07 adopted WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7, in order to ensure long-term spectrum availability and access to spectrum necessary to meet requirements for the AMS(R)S in the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands.

2.4It also requested ITU-R to conduct appropriate technical, operational and regulatory studies to ensure long-term spectrum availability for the AMS(R)S in accordance with Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07). The study of WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 is being conducted by ITU-R WP 4C.

3Other elements of the proposed modification of Resolution 222 under Method B of the Draft CPM text

3.1 The current arrangements related to the coordination processes in the 1.5/1.6 GHz MSS band are subject to confidentiality under the current MoU agreement. The confidentiality, even if it is a common practice in frequency coordination satellite meetings, and the associated lack of transparency of these arrangements are problematic for the specific usage in aviation community and also it is not clear why AMS(R)S spectrum requirements requested by an AMS(R)S operator may objected and not accommodated by the ORM participants..

3.2This is reflected in the “Views of some administrations” in Section 5/1.7/2 of Annex 14 to Document 4C/338 (“the ORM assignments agreed under the provisions of the MoU of the MLM are not available in the public domain. This makes it very difficult for the aviation community to develop long-term plans for spectrum access in order to serve their safety communication needs”).

3.3 Issues of commercial confidentiality have been invoked by the MSS community to justify the lack of transparency with regard to the assignments agreed in the MLM/ORM process and with regards to why spectrum requirements are objected and not satisfied.. However, this justification does not seem valid, as the information on the agreed assignments is freely available to all operators involved in the MLM/ORM process, whose commercial interests are often conflicting (ORM participants may be direct competitors in the same MSS/AMS(R)S market).

3.4 There is a major source of concern by the user community on the fact that the satellite operators are not obliged to provide information, on the AMS(R)S assignments made at the ORM meeting, to the user community.

3.5Thereforeunder Method B of the Draft CPM text the proposed modification of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) attempts to address the issue of lack of transparency regarding AMS(R)S assignments by having an instruction to the Director of the BR to publish annually the AMS(R)S assignments covered by RR No. 5.357A.

3.6For the user community (e.g. airlines, ANSP, ICAO) as well as satellite operators participating in ORM, the lack of transparency to the reasons for the decisions made at the ORM on AMS(R)S assignments is also a source of concern.

3.7Thereforeunder Method B of the Draft CPM text the proposed modification of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) attempts to address the issue of lack of transparency regardingdecisions made at the ORM on AMS(R)S assignments by requesting ORM, only when AMS(R)S is not accommodated, to send to ITU BR a summary of the decisions regarding only AMS(R)S assignments and the reasons of those decisions and asking the Director of the BR to publish this summary.

3.8The proposed modifications to Res. 222 seems to be a reasonable way forward described in the following section.

4Proposal for the implementation of Method B of the Draft CPM text

The proposal is based on a modification of Resolution 222 which will describe the procedure in 7 steps. These steps are defined as follow:

Step 1: Aviation Communications needs: these are developed by ICAO (e.g. traffic information, …), possibly also with the aide of the AMS(R)S satellite operators and provided as input to the consultation meeting in Step 2 below.

-The derivation of these communication needs may also require the development of a methodology by the aviation community so that these can then be used appropriately in Step 2 below.

-The output will not be mandatory to step 2.

Step 2 : Worldwide consultation Meeting under ITU umbrella.

-completely transparent to all ITU members

-Inputs based on Step 1;

-Other inputs from members of the consultation meeting (e.g. recognized AMS(R)S satellite system characteristics);

-Only inputs respecting ORM procedures will be take into account in the calculation of the spectrum requirements.

-Develops outputs documents of the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements per satellite system respecting the milestones defined in the modified Res. 222, calculated by an agreed methodology (short term < = [2] years) developed by the ITU-R. This should translate aviation communications needs into spectrum requirements.

-Possibility to develop under non mandatory basis, recommended spectrum assignment plan to propose to the ORM in Step 4.

-Publish results of the meeting by ITU BR

Step 3 : The outputs of step 2 as published, become inputs to the different ORM fora. The AMS(R)S spectrum requirements per satellite system, agreed by consultation meeting, will be mandatory to the ORM.

Step 4 : ORM

-Consider, as appropriate, the recommended spectrum assignments plan developed in step 2.

-Shall accommodate the complete mandatory spectrum requirements of each AMS(R)S operator as identified in step 2 :

  • by making frequency assignments to the AMS(R)S operators prior to those of other operators;
  • by ensuring that the AMS(R)S assignments are compatible with AMS(R)S assignments in the other ORM region;
  • that any MSS assignment shall be compatible (shall not cause interference) to any AMS(R)S assignment of other region;

-Shall accept the participation of AMS(R)S operators whose assignments are impacted by the two regions;

Step 5 : Report

-The outputs of the ORM, i.e. (1) the total spectrum requirements of each AMS(R)S operator defined in step 2 have been fulfilled and (2) the corresponding AMS(R)S assignments, have to be sent to the ITU BR, the other ORM and all the notifying administrations of MSS systems in both ORM/MLM fora.

Step 6: If all the mandatory AMS(R)S spectrum requirements in step 2 are not fulfilled by the ORM in step 5, then the ITU RR are not respected, and the ORM shall have a new meeting, with the operator’s notifying administrations, within [3 months] to satisfy the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements defined in step 2.

Step 7 : If after [3 months] from the end of step 4, the mandatory AMS(R)S spectrum requirements are not satisfied then appropriate notification of this status to the ITU BR and ICAO shall be made by the notifying Administrations of the AMS(R)S operators whom shall seek aide from the ITU BR and ICAO to resolve this issue.

Figure explaining the proposed process:

5Conclusions

5.1The process introduced in Section 4 of this document is intended to support Method B of the current draft CPM text.

5.2The approach outlined in Method B in the current draft CPM text is welcomed by ICAO as a novel approach that offers at least some hope for a way forward on a topic on which little substantial progress has occurred since WRC-97.

ANNEX

Definitions:

- Aviation Communication Needs: these are specific details on useful data, for example in terms of information volume per given airspace appropriately defined, that could be used for conversion to spectrum requirements for each satellite operator. This will require additional studies to develop an agreed set of data format for these requirements which are useful for the conversion to spectrum requirements.

- Spectrum Requirements or Spectrum Needs: these are the total and specific amount of spectrum needed by each satellite system to provide and serve the aviation communication needs with a given safety performance and quality of service. This will require additional studies to develop an agreed method for converting the Aviation Communication Needs to spectrum requirements for each satellite system.

- Accommodate Spectrum: The total amount of spectrum that has been assigned to an MSS operator, for the provision of a given service, as agreed by a given ORM meeting.

- Spectrum or Frequency Assignments: These are the actual frequencies given to a satellite operator used to provide a particular service.

- ORM: Operators Review Meeting, which is a multilateral frequency coordination meeting between MSS operators and operating under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) developed by Administrations forming part of the Multi-Lateral Meeting (MLM) Process. There exist two organized ORM, one for Region 2 and one for Region 1 and 3.

______

07/10/2018