Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 ICAO WG-F Mexico City 26-30 April 2010.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 ICAO WG-F Mexico City 26-30 April 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 ICAO WG-F Mexico City 26-30 April 2010

2 Issue WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 requires the consideration of studies in accordance with Resolution 222 to ensure long-term spectrum availability and access to spectrum to meet requirements for AMS(R)S Inmarsat’s view is that existing RR provisions are sufficient to meet the requirements no changes are needed to the RR to strengthen or enforce AMS(R)S spectrum priority at L-band

3 AMS(R)S Operators and Coordination Process Inmarsat provides AMS(R)S globally MTSAT provides AMS(R)S over Japan and surrounding area A few others are considering new systems, including ESA and Navisat The bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz are shared with several other MSS systems Frequency coordination is conducted in accordance with Article 9 of the RR. To facilitate coordination, the notifying administrations of MSS operators have established two MoUs, one for Regions 1 & 3, another for Region 2. Under these MoUs, the operators conduct coordination at Operator Review Meetings (ORM)

4 The Radio Regulations Guarantee AMS(R)S Spectrum Access No. 5.357A gives priority for AMS(R)S in 1545-1555 MHz and 1646.5-1656.5 MHz Resolution 222 reinforces the priority These RR provisions are taken into account in frequency coordination between Administrations Notifying Administrations have an obligation to adhere to the RR and ensure proper functioning of MoU/ORM

5 Coordination Works in Practice There is no evidence that AMS(R)S traffic demand has not been met during the 12 years that the generic MSS allocations have been in place ORM has accommodated a new AMS(R)S system in the past No Administration so far has invoked the priority provisions of No. 5.357A or Resolution 222 Future AMS(R)S requirements are modest (up to about 3 MHz according to WP4C studies) and will grow gradually over many years – therefore no difficulty is envisaged in accommodating these requirements The ORM process is spectrum efficient Allows essential peer review of spectrum requirements It is essential to maintain the flexibility and efficiency of the current process This goes hand in hand with retaining unchanged the generic allocations, as required by the agenda item Concerns raised are answered in the following slides

6 Operator Review Meetings are the Most Effective Means of Agreeing on Spectrum Requirements Frequency coordination is a difficult process, but most do lead to coordination agreements, including the ORM Creating a new forum would not change the dynamics or make it easier to reach agreement, since the same operators and possibly other parties would participate While the ORM is focussed on technical details, a new forum could complicate the process, e.g. make it less objective and more “political”, especially if additional parties not directly involved in L-band MSS are involved ICAO inputs can be obtained without creating another forum

7 The ORM Process provides a means for administrations and AMS(R)S operators to develop long-term plans for spectrum access The coordination process must necessarily involve significant confidentiality because of the sensitivity of the technical data exchanged, but there are mechanisms available for interested parties to participate in the process The Notifying Administrations have access to ORM information New Administrations and their operators can join the process as required Any other administration could approach the AMS(R)S service provider or national user directly to seek information on whether AMS(R)S demand has been met AMS(R)S operators can share information about their spectrum assignments and use with other parties as desired If requirements were not met, there would be complaints from users and service providers to operators/administrations/ITU-BR/ICAO citing specific problems – but none so far

8 Even Where Unanimous Agreement is not reached at an ORM, the Process Still Works As mentioned above, coordination meetings are difficult and at times they do not result in unanimous agreement The current MoUs do not require the spectrum assignments to be frozen in the absence of unanimous agreement An agreement was always reached within the ORM, allowing for: Clarity of spectrum access rights New assignments to be made Any resulting effects to be limited to one or two operators Satisfaction of the AMS(R)S requirements There are provisions in the MoU to address the situation where the ORM fails to agree on adequate assignments for any operator So far, all difficulties have been resolved within the ORM process, and these provisions have not been invoked

9 Having two ORM groupings does not prevent AMS(R)S spectrum access The current arrangements for frequency coordination with two MoU groups (and two ORMs) in Regions 1 & 3 and Region 2 are more efficient at achieving harmonised spectrum assignment than the usual bilateral coordination process Coordination and consultation between the regions do take place, for instance as bilateral meetings between administrations. Even if there is a need to increase these activities, this would not require any change to the Radio Regulations, as current provisions allow for necessary coordination.

10 Conclusion The ORM process has allowed AMS(R)S systems to work successfully for many years, and has accommodated a new AMS(R)S system The coordination process is open to new entrants Information from ICAO can be fed into the process No changes are needed to the Radio Regulations to meet the objectives of WRC-12 agenda item 1.7

Download ppt "WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 ICAO WG-F Mexico City 26-30 April 2010."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google