WRC-12 to Consider Tightening Regulatory Provision for Suspending Satellite Use

Radiocommunication Bureau action and Radio Regulations Board consideration on the regulatory status of the Zohreh-2 satellite network were revisited during a March RRB meeting. Varying claims of harmful interference, problems with coordination and conflicting information have been leveled for networks operated by Eutelsat and Arabsat near 26 degrees east (CD Dec 27/10 p5).

The RRB in December reversed a BR decision to cancel all the Zohreh-2 network entries in the master register. The RRB in March reiterated all the elements of its December decision and emphasized that the decision was a whole, and that all elements of the decision needed to be taken into account, Rancy said. If the RRB decision is challenged by one of the parties, the final arbiter is a World Radiocommunication Conference, he said. The WRC may then try to obtain a similar global agreement, he said.

The past and current situation under RRB consideration is “a really complicated matter,” Rancy said. A solution needs to be found so two satellites worth several hundred million dollars can coexist, he said. It’s difficult to say which has priority because priorities between the networks are “kind of interleaved,” Rancy said. The RRB believes the best solution to resolve this case is to get bilateral agreement between two intergovernmental organizations, Arabsat and Eutelsat, the two operators involved, he said. France is the notifying administration for Eutelsat. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the notifying administrations for Arabsat. The RRB has asked the director to get the broad agreement, he said.

The difficulties relate to “a large extent” to the interpretation of a regulatory provision, Rancy said. The provision, RR No. 11.49, allows a satellite network to be suspended for up to two years without loss of rights, he said. For instance, a two year suspension following an in-orbit failure would provide for the launch of a spare satellite, he said.

The problem with the provision is that it says a notifying administration “shall, as soon as possible,” inform the bureau, Rancy said. Suspension of the Zohreh-2 assignments was said to have been done seven years ago, and they were said to have been put back into service five years ago, he said. The difficulty is supporting the claims five, six or seven years after the fact, Rancy said, because the provision says the notification should be made as soon as possible.

One question is what satellites were used to bring the Zohreh-2 assignments into use. There is a lot of background material and there have been a lot of discussions, Rancy said. However, that’s about the past, he said. Investments have been made and are deployed today, he said.

The spirit of the RRB and the WRC is to find a decision for the future, Rancy said. The provision was discussed by the RRB and during the February WRC-12 preparatory meeting, he said. One of the main themes in the spirit of the Radio Regulations is that assignments must be brought into service to retain the rights of use, Rancy said.

The WRC will review and possibly change the provision, Rancy said. There’s a lack of clarity on the application of the 24-month suspension period allowed under the provision, which has led to many assignments not being in operation for periods in excess of the intended period, the WRC-12 preparatory report said. Use of the provision has been increasing recently, it said. Some of the assignments were not in operation for some time prior to being suspended, resulting in the assignments not being in operation for a period in excess of 24 months, it said.

"The point at which an assignment should be declared suspended is not clear,” the report said. “The point at which an assignment should be declared suspended should be clarified,” it said. The report includes a proposal to clarify the point at which an assignment that has ceased to be in operation is to be declared as suspended.

Two approaches, developed in ITU-R groups, have been included in the report. One suggests the notifying administration notify the BR no later than six months from the date on which the use of space station’s recorded assignment was suspended.

The second approach suggests either a satellite not in operation with its notified orbital parameters after a certain number of days in a notification period shall have its associated frequency assignments cancelled, the report said, or the administration shall inform the BR within about one month before the end of the period. The text on the length of the notification period was not agreed upon in the report. It includes a range of 30 to 90 days.

When a satellite slot is brought back into service after being suspended, the BR asks which satellite was used to bring it back in service, Rancy said. The network is suppressed if no answer is received, he said. It’s quite important to have a provision that tells under which specific condition the network can be suspended, he said, and monitor when it is brought back into use.

If the provision says the suspension has to be notified within three months of the suspension, then it’s possible to make measurements to verify the claims, Rancy said. It’s also possible to measure when it’s brought back into service, he said.

The BR director, at the request of the RRB, will meet with officials from the three administrations to get agreement among the parties, Rancy said. Although tough talks are focused on one position, other positions are part of the discussions, he said. The U.S. submitted information on the PAS-5 space station to the March meeting. The June RRB meeting might again consider the issue on the basis of the results of the May meeting between affected parties, he said. The administrations and other parties met once last year, he said. Each was hoping that the RRB would decide in their favor, he said. The RRB said the parties should talk to try to find a solution, he said.