It is argued that we are on the threshold of a new multibillion dollar industry that can enhance economic development, dramatically improve disaster assessment and relief operations, improve rural health care and solve many safety and security concerns of the transportation industry. Further delays in resolving conflicts between vested interests will be extremely costly to users, providers and equipment manufacturers. Conference participants are urged to move quickly and decisively towards solving outstanding problems

Freibaum, Jerry

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

bJ8 8 - 25690
INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC MOBILE SATELLITE
REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS: A COMPARISON OF
OUTCOMES AND DISCUSSION OF IMPLICATIONS
JERRY FREIBAUM, Telecommunications Consultant
(formerly NASA)
Bethesda, MD 20817
United States
ABSTRACT
We are at the threshold of advancing one
of the most important developments in
Communications -- a satellite service offering
land, aeronautical and maritime mobile
communications. This milestone has been
reached as a result of 25 years of studies,
experiments and technology development and more
than ten years of public proceedings.
Worldwide primary allocations are in hand, a
single U.S. consortium has been formed and
licensing appears imminent. However, several
serious barriers still remain.
The 1987 World Administrative Radio
Conference (WARC) on Mobile Communications fell
short of meeting U.S. Mobile Satellite Service
allocation needs. The International
allocations are different than the proposed
domestic allocations creating potential
coordination problems. Challenges to the FCC's
proposed Rulemaking and anticipated licensing
may continue to delay the culmination
of this process.
INTRODUCTION
How will differences between international and domestic
allocations be reconciled and what protection can U.S. systems
expect from foreign systems operating in accordance with the
international tables?
Where do we go from here with respect to licensing,
competition, tariffs, network control and transborder operations?
What is the nature and impact of domestic opposition to FCC
proposals?
What are the implications of a planned WARC in 1992 which
would address many of the issues left unresolved in the 1987
WARC?
71(a)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19880016306 2020-03-20T06:39:07+00:00Z
A similar change was proposed for the portion of the band
currently allocated to the Maritime Mobile Satellite Service
(1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz) with appropriate priority
provisions for marine safety.
Specific frequency proposals and support for a Land Mobile
Satellite Service were also presented by Canada, Japan,
Australia, India, Mexico, European Space Agency (ESA) and
INMARSAT.
The U.S. also made it clear that a minimum of 10 MHz up and
10 MHz down was needed by LMSS to ensure economic viability. The
outcome of the WARC fell short of these needs and consequently
the U.S. and Canada took reservations on the WARC's LMSS
provisions.
The specific WARC spectrum allocations for the LMSS
worldwide are:
- Primary, exclusive 4 MHz down (1555-1559) and 3.5 MHz
up (1656.5-1660.0 MHz) in currently allocated AMSS(R)
band.
- Co-equal primary .5 MHz up (1660.0-1660.5 MHz) shared
with radio astronomy.
- Co-equal primary 3 MHz down (1530-1533 MHz) and 3 MHz
up (1631.5-1634.5 MHz) shared with Maritime Mobile
Satellite Service (MMSS).
- Secondary ii MHz down (1533-1544 MHz) and 16 MHz up
(1626.5-1631.5 and 1634.5-1645.5 MHz) in current MMSS
band and limited to non-speech low bit rate data.
- Public correspondence by satellite (aircraft to
ground mobile telephone) is also authorized in the
1545-1555 MHz and 1646.5-1656.5 MHz bands with some
constraints.
- In the bands 1555-1559 and 1656.5-1660.5 MHz,
Administrations may also authorize aircraft earth
stations and ship earth stations to communicate with
space stations in the Land Mobile Satellite Service.
Efforts were made by Canada and the United States to
introduce a country footnote for LMSS for 6 MHz on a secondary
basis adjacent to the newly proposed 4 MHz LMSS primary
allocation. The 6 MHz would be used within national boundaries.
However, this was defeated in the Plenary session.
Considering that very few of the almost 100 countries
attending supported the U.S. proposals at the beginning of the
conference the amount of spectrum allocated to LMSS on a
worldwide primary basis should be looked upon as a tremendous
achievement. The door appeared to be left open for additional
allocations in a proposed 1992 WARC. At that time those opposed
to the U.S. proposals such as ICAO, Inmarsat, European CEPT
countries and ARINC, will be in better positions to deal
competitively with the MSS and the environment should be more
conducive to cooperation.
71(b)
These and other questions are the subject of this and other
papers to be presented and discussed at this Mobile Satellite
Conference.
We are dealing with the painful, costly, and time consuming
process of change. The combination of vested interests,
politics, regulation, fear of change and spectrum managers
represent a formidable barrier to change. To illustrate:
cellular mobile took 13 years to break through this barrier;
Direct Broadcast Satellite, 15 years; Aeronautical Mobile
Satellite, 20 years; Aircraft collision avoidance systems, 30
years; automatic altitude reporting, 25 years; and, the subject
of this conference, Mobile Satellite Service, 12 years.
The barriers to change are not always readily apparent. For
example, in preparation for the 1977 WARCon Broadcast
Satellites, position papers written by NASA and the Department of
Commerce/ITS to facilitate the implementation of small ground
terminals were blocked within the FCC. An FCC document stated
that it was not in the U.S. interest to facilitate the
proliferation of small ground terminals. A direct confrontation
of that policy by NASA's Administrator, Robert Frosch and others
resulted in modifying the policy.
Policies and regulations to accommodate a Mobile Satellite
Service also had to be changed. This process was initiated by
NASA in 1975 as part of U.S. preparations for the 1979 WARC.
NASA proposed allocations in the 800 MHz or 1500/1600 MHz (L)
bands.
An 800 MHz proposal ultimately was included in U.S.
positions after 8 public Notices of Inquiry. Allocations, almost
worldwide, for domestic LMSS in the 800 MHz band were approved in
the 1979 WARC. Subsequent inaction on the part of the FCC and
other barriers were put in place causing NASA to petition the FCC
for a Rulemaking on frequency allocations for a Mobile Satellite
Service in the 800 MHz and 1500/1600 MHz bands.
REMAINING PROBLEMS
Allocations
For purposes of clarity and time we will go right to the "L"
band allocation issue, bypassing the 800 MHz controversy
Figure I compares prior "L" band allocations with the FCC's
proposed Rulemaking, the U.S. position at the WAaC and the
outcome of the WARC.
The U.S. proposed that the 14 MHz up' and 14 MHz down,
originally allocated to the Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service
(1545-1559 MHz) and (1646.5-1660.5 MHz) be reallocated to a
generic Mobile Satellite Service (Aeronautical, Land and
Maritime), with priority and pre-emptive access provisions for
aviation safety.
71(c)
Coordination & Interoperability
The cross hatched segments in Figure 2 conceptually
illustrate potential coordination problem areas resulting from
overlapping service areas and differences in international and
domestic allocations.
Coordination and technical, operational and institutional
interoperability agreements between systems will be difficult, at
best, to resolve. However, they must and can be solved with
cooperation on the part of all parties.
In reality much of the U.S. and Canada lie within potential
areas of conflict since the patterns of Inmarsat and the Soviet
Union's Volna overlay these countries. Coordination with the
Soviet Union should not be too difficult since they are not
competing for U.S. markets. Volna also uses very little
spectrum.
Let's also presume that conflicts with Inmarsat can be
worked out in the spirit of cooperation and self interest. The
question of protection to U.S. entities is then raised with
respect to other service providers that may enter the market 3-5
years later operating in accordance with the new international
tables in the same service areas.
What protection, if any, would the U.S. "Reservation"
provide in this case?
Here is where the importance of the proposed 1992 conference
becomes quite evident.
U.S. Domestic Proceedings
The American Mobile Satellite Consortium (AMSC) has applied
for 14 MHz (1545-1559 and 1646.5-1660.5 MHz) and 3 orbital
positions. The legality of allocating spectrum for Land Mobile
Satellite Service in L band has been challenged by ARINC in
recent filings.
Another question is the extent of flexibility and protection
available to the AMSC and the FCC as a result of the
"Reservation" taken by the U.S. at the 1987 WARC.
Some contend that the "Reservation" may offer psychological
comfort but no protection. Others argue that the Reservation may
allow some flexibility and, somewhat, questionable protection
consistent with existing treaties and in particular with certain
provisions of the 1982 Nairobi Convention.
The question of who provides public correspondence {air to
ground mobile telephone) is also the subject of debate within t_e
current proceedings.
Perhaps, additional information on the status of these
proceedings can be provided by the FCC.
71(d)
Standards
Extensive joint effort by the Land, Aeronautical and
Maritime interests is needed.
Feeder Links
To be addressed in the 1988 Space WARC.
Summary
We are on the threshold of implementing a new multibillion
dollar industry which can enhance economic development,
dramatically improve disaster assessment and relief operations,
improve rural health care and solve many safety and security
concerns of the transportation industry (Air, Land and Marine).
Further delays in resolving conflicts between the vested
interests will be extremely costly to users, providers and
equipment manufacturers.
I urge you all to move quickly and decisively.
Let's use the 1992 conference to document and legalize what
we must and can do now, namely:
CONCILIATE
COOPERATE
COORDINATE.
1626.5 MHz
1530 MHz 1559 MHz
J iJ
mR M0_SATSER<_SS)liAE_OMOBSATSER<_SS<R))
! if
1660 MHz
1545-1549.5 MHz
Ji iMMSS AMSS (R) AMSS (R)
r _$ MO B SAT SER (MSS)
1646.5-1651 MHz
MSS
I
Pre-Exist ing
, Allocation
!
Proposed
Rulemaking
i
US WARC
Position
!
tI ilMMSS MMSS MMSSimss l LMSS im_ (land mob) AMSS (R)
Fig. 1 Comparison of "L" Band Proposals
i
LMSS
.|
WARC
Outcome
71(e)
International Service Area
Domestic Service Area
Problem Areas
- Coordination
- Interoperability
- Competition
- Interference
Fig. 2. Overlapping Service Areas
REFERENCES
NASA. 11/24/82 Petition for Rulemaking to Establish a Mobile
Satellite Service and to Allocate Frequencies (Filed with
the FCC November 29, 1982)
The Federal Communications Commission 7/24/86. General Docket
#84-1234, a Report and Order allocating spectrum to the
Mobile Satellite Service
ITU. Geneva, 1987 Final Acts of the World Administrative Radio
Conference for the Mobile Services (MOB-87)
USA. MOB 9/18/87 Document 156-E Mobile-Satellite Service
Implementation and Institutional Considerations (WARC 87
Information Paper)
USA. MOB 9/7/87 Document 79-E Economic and Operational
Advantages to Users And Providers of Satellite Systems in
the Mobile-Satellite (WARC 87 Information Paper)
American Mobile Satellite Consortium. 2/1/88 (Joint Amendment
Filed with the FCC)
71(f)


International and domestic mobile satellite regulatory proceedings: A comparison of outcomes and discussion of implications

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server