COMPROMISE MOVES FORWARD AT WRC ON GPS AND GALILEO SPECTRUM
The World Radio Conference (WRC) in Geneva reached a hard-fought compromise proposal Wed. on how to coordinate nongeosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) radionavigation systems, an issue that emerged as one of the thorniest of the conference. The agreement appeared to bridge what otherwise would have been an impasse between European administrations, which sought a regulatory-heavy coordination process, and the U.S., which backed coordinating radionavigation satellite systems (RNSS) through an informal consultation process. At our deadline Wed., the proposal, which has implications for Europe’s planned Galileo system and U.S. GPS operations, still awaited final approval in plenary before the WRC ends Fri. Despite the 11th-hour agreement, several sources said the outcome still was far from certain.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The proposal, brought to the WRC plenary by an ad hoc group that had been holding intense negotiations on the issue, would apply the more regulatory-oriented coordination provisions of Article 9 of the ITU Radio Regulations to applicable RNSS systems after Jan. 1, 2005. Several sources said that without such a grace period, the concern of the U.S. and other nations had been that Article 9 regulatory requirements would allow Galileo priority access to some frequency options in the RNSS bands. Article 9 historically has been used to coordinate geostationary satellites, with more recent applications to rules for coordinating non-GEO to GEO satellites. Coordination for non-GEO RNSS systems such as GPS and Russia’s Glonass has been done through an informal consultation process.
“The U.S. position has always been to allow systems to work out arrangements among themselves for coordinating,” one source said. Another source said the issue had been that an Article 9 approach could create questions for U.S. plans for GPS modernization efforts if Galileo were first in the coordination pipeline and therefore wouldn’t have to coordinate first. How Article 9 should be interpreted in that context reportedly also was part of debate, with Europeans arguing it would provide them with priority access and the U.S. disputing that contention, a source said. In general, the U.S. has highlighted the importance of the modernization of the system to GPS 3, with separate signals for civil and military use, as a priority. Accuracy improvements are planned, in part by adding a 3rd signal, L5, that would be higher in power and wider in bandwidth.
Committee 5 Chmn. Alan Jamieson of New Zealand told the plenary earlier in the week that that item was among a handful of difficult ones that hadn’t been dealt with at all by his group. As a result, the issue has been the subject of what one source called “extremely sensitive” negotiations, but wasn’t set to reach a plenary session until the tail end of the conference. U.S. Asst. Secy. of Defense for Networks & Information Integration John Stenbit told reporters last week that was one of the more difficult items still to be resolved (CD June 27 p5). Before the start of the conference, the European Commission, which has observer status at the WRC, said in a report that it wanted to avoid “regulatory discrimination” against Galileo (CD April 17 p6). Galileo is a 2nd-generation radionavigation system planned by the European Union as a counterpart to GPS and Glonass. The WRC 2000 conference, with plans for Galileo in mind, allocated spectrum beside that already in use by GPS and Glonass to satellite radionavigation services. To protect services such as radionavigation aids for civil aviation, some operational characteristics of RNSS in 2 of the downlink bands in the 2000 debate were subject to confirmation at the WRC 2003.
An informal group met early Wed. to reconcile the European and U.S. proposals, a European source said. Besides the Article 9 coordination issues, the draft agreement included a proposed single entry limit per RNSS space station and milestones. Meeting participants included representatives of the U.S., Brazil and Canada, representing the Inter-American Telecom Commission; France and Germany, representing the Conference of European Postal & Telecommunications (CEPT) Administrations; and Cameroon and Kenya, representing Africa. Others included Australia, India, Iraq, New Zealand and Russia.
The proposals reconciled by the ad hoc group were an original CEPT blueprint that backed single entry limits per RNSS space station and coordination among all RNSS systems, including those received before the WRC 2003. The European source said a CEPT compromise proposed during the conference advocated single entry limits and applied that coordination to RNSS systems for which complete coordination/notification information had been received after July 5. The source said the original U.S. proposal supported neither coordination nor single entry limits. The U.S. had favored a compromise for coordination for RNSS systems after Jan. 1, 2007, and essentially a single entry limit per RNSS space station. That would have applied milestones to the coordination process. The ultimate compromise drafted Wed. represented a middle path.
The proposal submitted to the conference outlined criteria for applying those provisions that included a satellite manufacturing or procurement agreement and a satellite launch agreement. The criteria stipulated that an RNSS system or network operator should have “clear evidence of a binding agreement for the manufacture or procurement of its satellites” and “clear evidence of a binding agreement to launch its satellites.” It said: “The manufacturing or procurement agreement should identify the contract milestones leading to the completion of manufacture or procurement of satellites required for the service providers and the launch agreement should identify the launch date, launch site and launch service provider.”