1. www.gvf.org The $20 Billion Question: Can Satellite and Terrestrial Wireless Co-Exist in C-band? David Hartshorn Secretary General GVF

2. www.gvf.org About the GVF Non-Profit Association of Global Satcom Industry 180+ Member Organizations in 80+ Nations Reports of Major Terrestrial Wireless Interference in C-band From: –Hong Kong –Australia –Fiji –Indonesia –Bolivia –Caribbean –China –Russia –Africa

3. www.gvf.org Why Is SatCom Important in C-band?

4. www.gvf.org Spectrum : –ITU table of allocations allows FSS only in selected bands –Bandwidth requirements for traditional FSS applications need to be met in the selected band Industry Supply, User Demand: –Many satellites available –Well established, increasingly inexpensive technology –Widely used for a multitude of satellite services like: TV broadcast to cable networks TV broadcast to individual receivers VSAT networks Internet providers Point-to-multipoint links Satellite News Gathering MSS feeder links Why Is Satcom Operating in C-band?

5. www.gvf.org Newcomers in C-band downlinks Band commonly used by FSS satellites Additional band (FSS, feederlinks for MSS, …) Future mobile phone networks (IMT Advanced, 4G, ….) Broadband Wireless Access (BWA), WiMax, FWA, …. Is being considered by ITU Is currently being introduced country by country worldwide BWA or IMT in ANY part of satcom C-band downlink will have an impact on FSS reception in ALL of the band 3.43.53.63.73.83.9 4.0 4.14.2 Std. C Etx. C

6. www.gvf.org Impact on FSS Reception In-band interference Interference from unwanted emissions (outside the signal bandwidth) Overdrive of LNB’s  Exclusion zones around earth stations are required if these terrestrial wireless services are to operate in the band

7. www.gvf.org Exclusion Zones: A Viable Solution? Example of calculated exclusion zone around an earth station to counter interference from a single IMT base station in each cell (From French study to ITU Working Party 8F (Document WP 8F/868))

8. www.gvf.org USE OF 3625 – 4200 MHz BY THE FSS IN BRAZIL Brazilian Contribution at June CITEL Meeting (OEA/Ser.L/XVII.4.2 CCP.II-RADIO/doc. 974/06):  No Better Band to Address Rain Attenuation  Exclusion Zones Unworkable in Nations with High-Density Satcom Deployment  Developing Countries Can’t Afford Equipment Changeout Conclusion: 3625-4200 & 4500 – 4800 MHz Should Not Be Considered for IMT

9. www.gvf.org A Few Questions… Is Spectrum Sharing a Workable Solution for BWA/IMT & Satcom? If So, How, Where and When? If Not, Then What? Alternative Frequency Bands for BWA/IMT? –S-Band (e.g. 2.29 – 2.4835)? –7 GHz Band? –Spectrum Refarming? –FSS Uplink Bands (frequencies > 6.425 GHz less used)? Next Steps?