OBUCHOWSKI: DIVERGENT REGULATORY VIEWS EMERGED AT WRC

On the decision to allocate 455 MHz for radio local area networks at 5 GHz, a compromise had been reached to allow outdoor use in certain bands while encouraging countries to examine steps so that most operations would be indoors. One point of dispute had been whether both indoor and outdoor use should be allowed in the 5250-5350 MHz sub-band. The U.S. argued that radiolocation and earth exploration satellite services still could be protected if outdoor use were allowed, while European govts. sought proscriptions on outdoor use. The U.S. was comfortable with an approach in which protections against interference were embedded in the chips of a system, Obuchowski said. “That is really a difference of instinct,” she said. A factor that aided the U.S. position was the FCC’s adopting a 5 GHz proposal in May, which sent a signal that U.S. chip manufacturers would “be marketing in this enormous U.S. market,” she said. That would have made it hard for Europe to go in a different direction, she said. There probably would have been hand- wringing between “the regulators who want to see the perfect regulatory solution versus the European manufacturers who are saying: ‘Look, we're already stuck manufacturing for the U.S. market to this standard.'”

Asked whether that encouragement for indoor use would affect harmonized equipment manufacturing, Obuchowski said: “Even though we didn’t obtain 100% economies of scale, we probably opened up a broader market and ultimately, I suspect, a lot more countries will follow that 355 MHz being to some extent used outdoors.” Permitting outdoor use is important to the wireless local area network sector, which is “scrappier and smaller” than typical Wi-Fi developers, she said. “The extra 100 MHz was not just a symbolic move, it was a breakthrough for that range of service. It was a statement that that was a coming service,” she said. Even on the U.S. delegation, it wasn’t always easy to drum up support for outdoor use in that band, but the FCC stressed its importance, particularly for wireless ISPs, she said. “Some of the private sector folks weren’t totally committed to the outdoor use. Looking at power levels and all, they weren’t in 100 percent agreement on how hard we needed to fight over this, although they certainly were fighting very well,” Obuchowski said. The decision leaves it up to each administration to decide on outdoor use in that band, she said.

Another major sticking point involved coordination of nongeosynchronous earth orbit satellites. “That specific issue kind of blew up in the 3rd week,” Obuchowski said. Europeans had sought formal Article 9 coordination of systems such as GPS and Galileo. The U.S. had backed coordinating non-GEO radionavigation satellite service systems through an informal consultation process. The compromise put off formal Article 9 coordination until Jan. 1, 2005, giving the U.S. a grace period for informal consultations on GPS upgrade plans. Europeans also sought to apply Article 9 coordination retroactively, which would have given Galileo precedence in the regulatory pipeline. Europeans “wanted this retroactive applicability because they had a theory where they thought they could get GPS behind Galileo in line,” she said: “I also believe that Europeans in general were more comfortable with the idea of formal coordination, sitting in a conference room and slogging it out, whereas the U.S. is not as attuned to that.”

The “tip point” of the conference appeared to be a debate in its closing days on a proposal by the Arab states that would have limited the length of frequency assignments of satellites. The proposal, opposed by the U.S. and others, never made it to a vote, but it sparked debate about the spectrum needs of developed and developing countries. The Arabs argued that limiting the length of license of frequency assignments to space stations using the GEO orbit and other orbits would promote rational and efficient spectrum use. “After that debate happened, the conference sort of reached its emotional tip point and it was very smooth sailing for U.S. interests after that,” Obuchowski said. She said factors that kept the proposal from moving forward included: (1) The extent to which the countries that spoke, including developing countries, “really did have a better story to tell than the ones that were seeking term limits, particularly in this risky environment.” (2) Satellites companies did their homework and developing countries that had an interest in satellite operations, including Brazil, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, spoke up.

One longer term WRC policy issue with which federal policymakers have grappled in the past, including a 2002 General Accounting Office report, is whether the U.S. process allows enough lead time for preparations before a conference starts. The U.S. ambassadorship for the WRC runs for 6 months. Obuchowski said she wouldn’t favor a term that ran the full 4 years between conferences. “My mission was really clear-cut, which was to implement policy rather than to make policy,” she said. “If somebody such as myself is sitting around for 4 years, the temptation would be to get into every little rulemaking. I just don’t know how it would work in the U.S. system.”

“Would it be nice to have somewhat longer lead times? Yes,” Obuchowski said. “Would it be nice to be involved at the State Department at the point at which the budget is being set so that I could have advocated within the department for the conference? Yes. So there are some specific issues I think that might be fine-tuned. In general, this system works.”