Proceedings of the Workshop - United Nations Office for Outer ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

76 EXPANDING GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICESSpectrum and orbits: First come, first servedI want to take questions of spectrum and orbitstogether, for reasons that will become apparent.It was noted at the start of this Section on RadioMatters (page 71) that, as article 44.2 of the ITUConstitution states, radio frequencies are a limitednatural resource, which should be used rationally,efficiently and economically. The geostationary orbit issimilarly characterised, its limitations being aggravatedby the fa c t that certain parts of its orbital arc are moreuseful than others because of the distribution ofpopulation round the globe. To these ends other ITUprovisions require that states and those they licenseshould avoid harmful interference (CS art. 43), andlimit frequencies and spectrum use to a minimum,applying technical advances as soon as possible (CSart. 44.1 and 2). A main purpose of the Union itself is‘to coordinate efforts to eliminate harmful interference’and improve the use of spectrum and geostationaryorbits (CS art. 1.2(b)). In this the ITU mechanisms asto the allocation of frequency bands, allotment offrequencies and registration processes are essential (CSart. 1.2(a)).The ITU mechanisms as to radio have been workedout over decades, and in principle their application tospace questions was clear. However, certain questionsmay now be raised. Correlative questions may beraised as to the geostationary orbit.AllocationsAlthough the ITU has done well in the matter of theallocation of frequencies to services, and, with theexception of the recent matter of ‘paper satellites'discussed above, the registration system has alsoperformed satisfactorily. Nonetheless, the slowdevelopment of allocations over the three and a halfdecades since the Extraordinary Administration RadioConference of 1963, has been just that - slow.Technical advances have been swift. Debates in the1995 and 1997 Administrative Radio Conferences as tofrequencies, particularly for the LEO systems and formobile phones with global roaming, clearly show thedifficulty.The problem is that the Table of Allocations ofRadio Frequencies represents various geological layers,allocations being made for the best at a particular pointin time, but being likely to remain past the point atwhich they represent the most efficient solution toproblems. An example is the different provisions madefor Broadcasting-Satellite Services in Regions 1 and 3in 1977, and Region 2 in 1983, where the laterAdministrative Radio Conference was able to takeaccount of technical progress in the intervening years.Of course, the ITU system is able to deal with only somany matters at one time. The ITU cycle has beenconsiderably swiftened, but the point remains even witha four year cycle. Again there is some drag on thereconsideration of allocations stemming frommanufacturers who have made decisions on the basis ofknown allocations to particular services. They needtime to re-coup their investment.Even acknowledging all that, however, I aminclined to wonder whether a general review ofAllocations is needed in the light of modemrequirements. Long-standing allocations should bereviewed to see whether more rational allocations wouldbetter fit present needs.Allotment questions; First come first servedv. engineeringThe ITU system of notifications and the MasterInternational Frequency Table provides a protection foran assignment of a frequency and, in appropriateinstances, for the geostationary orbital positioninvolved. A later assignment is to be coordinated withthe earlier. In short-hand terms this is known as ‘firstcome first served’. What happens, happens andtherefore development is decided ‘a posteriori’, on thebasis of state action, and not discussed and decided ‘apriori’, (i.e. in advance). In space matters, the processcontributed to the development of the ‘paper satellite’problem mentioned above. The problem with ‘firstcome first served’ in space is that the technicallyadvanced states are likely to be ‘first’, leaving lessuseful frequencies and orbital slots to later-comers.Some would therefore argue that it would be moreequitable to divide up frequencies and orbital positionsbefore they come into use, allotting to states in terms of
EXPANDING GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 77their likely requirements rather than their speed oftechnical development.Something similar does already operate terrestriallyin that there are Broadcasting Plans for several portionsof the globe. The European Broadcasting Plan, forexample, allots frequencies and signal strengths withinthe European area, and is a useful way of arrangingmatters. But space is different.In general in matters of space uses, the argument asto the ‘first come, first served’ falls on the side of firstcome first served. It is efficient that those who canmake good use of a frequency band or a geostationaryorbital position, should be allowed so to do. To‘engineer’ either the spectrum, or the geostationaryorbit, giving indefeasible rights to particular states isnot expedient. That said, it has happened - once - buteven that single instance did not entirely displace the‘first come’ concept. This was the allocation offrequencies and slots to each state for Direct Broadcastsystems by the 1985-88 WARC-ORB conference.However, until a state is ready to take up its allotment,another state may license the use of the frequencies andorbital position on a ‘first come’ basis. But while the1988 decisions did guarantee the interests of the lessdevelopedcountries, after twelve years one mayquestion its wisdom. The 1988 decisions were based ontechnologies that have since been much improved. Asa result a state having a ‘right’ under the 1985-88 Planmay be blocking a more efficient use of spectrum in thenew Century. Again, since 1988 we have seen anunexpected growth in the number of states. Have notthe ‘new’ states been disadvantaged, on precisely thesame grounds as the proponents of the 1985-88 systemargued?Public Service Allotments?Putting the basic ideas of the last two sections together,there is also an argument that precisely because of theincreased demand on space services, steps should betaken to secure the requirements of certain serviceswhich fall into a ‘public service' category. It is in thegeneral world interest that bodies such as the WorldMeteorological Organisation with its Meteosat system,and INMARSAT as operating the GMDSS system aswell as maritime and air mobile services, should receivepreferential treatment in their requirements. Accountshould also be taken of the global positioning services(GPS) however they may evolve. For such servicesparticular orbital positions and frequencies aredesirable to the point of being essential. Similarly, suchentities as INTELSAT should also be given preferenceif they maintain public services (life-line services) forthose reliant on satellite services but unable to affordfull-cost prices. Already the ITU Constitution imposesduties to give priority to messages concerning the safetyof life at sea, on land or in outer space, as well as toepidemiological messages by the likes of the WorldHealth Organisation (CS art. 40). That principleshould be extended into the question of the allocation offrequencies, and of orbital positions, and also as to thecategory of messages that qualify. Indeed, somepreference in orbits and frequencies could even be acarrot to induce commercial companies to provide lifelineand similar services.In short, the pure form of ‘first come, first served’,already departed from in 1985-88 for more dubiousreasons, should be further restricted. In the generalworld interest, the requirements of certain servicesshould be recognised, fostered and protected within theITU system.Resource Utilisation FeeAs noted above, the Minneapolis PlenipotentiaryConference authorised the introduction of cost recoveryfor certain ITU products and services. That movestemmed from the question of a ‘filing fee’ for theprocessing of a notification as to a proposed spacesystem. A UK/Luxemburg paper submitted for the1997 WARC spoke in terms of a deposit of 2% of thecost of each satellite in the system times a charge forthe amount of spectrum space sought computed in unitsof 1000 MHz, the deposit to be returned when thesystem became operational.36 The paper also suggestedthat were the fee not to be returnable, it would be setsomewhat differently, relating it clearly to processingcost. Exempted from the calculation would be the first36Due Diligence Considerations’, UK/Luxemburg June 1996,submitted as part of the work of RAG96.
Page 3 and 4:
ST/SPACE/2Office for Outer Space Af
Page 5:
IntroductionThe Workshop on Space L
Page 11 and 12:
CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS OF THEWOR
Page 13:
3between public and private law and
Page 16 and 17:
6provide for the application of int
Page 18 and 19:
8obstacles that impede ratification
Page 21 and 22:
SESSION ONEExisting United Nations
Page 23 and 24:
EXISTING UNITED NATIONS TREATIES: S
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32: EXISTING UNITED NATIONS TREATIES: S
Page 39: EXPANDING GLOBAL LAUNCH SERVICESSES
Page 42 and 43: 36 EXPANDING GLOBAL LAUNCH SERVICES
Page 54 and 55: 48low earth orbit. This commercial
Page 67: EXPANDING GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SER
Page 70 and 71: 64 EXPANDING GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 96 and 97: EXPANDING GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SER
Page 100 and 101: A resource management/administratio
Page 103 and 104: SESSION FOURExpanding Global Remote
Page 105 and 106: EXPANDING GLOBAL REMOTE SENSING SER
Page 133 and 134:
EXPANDING GLOBAL REMOTE SENSING SER
Page 135:
THE ROLES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZA
Page 138 and 139:
132 THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ORGAN
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 161 and 162:
SESSION SIXExpanding Global Navigat
Page 163 and 164:
EXPANDING GLOBAL NAVIGATION SERVICE
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185:
POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORYFR
Page 188 and 189:
182 POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL REGULATO
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY F
Page 203 and 204:
SESSION EIGHTMaintaining the Space
Page 205 and 206:
MAINTAINING THE SPACE ENVIRONMENT 1
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
Page 226 and 227:
220Session 3: Wednesday. 21 July. 1
Page 229 and 230:
223Annex IITHIRD UNITED NATIONS CON
Page 231 and 232:
225No Name Address E-Mail27. Ersfel
Page 233 and 234:
227No Name Address E-Mail57. Koloso
Page 235 and 236:
229No Name Address E-Mail86. Noack,
Page 237 and 238:
231No Name Address E-Mail117. Steph
show all

Proceedings of the Workshop - United Nations Office for Outer ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?