- 1 -

4C/362-E

Radiocommunication Study Groups /
Received:27 February 2010
Subject:WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7
Source:Annex 14 to Document 4C/338 / Document 4C/362-E
2 March 2010
English only
International Civil Aviation Organization
potential Role of ICAO in the coordination of AMS(R)S spectrum requirementsunder Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07)

1Introduction

1.1One of the proposed Methods in the current draft CPM text for WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 (Method B) calls for the involvement of ICAO in the coordination of AMS(R)S spectrum requirements in the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands.

1.2 The present document is intended to propose a practical way forward for the implementation of Method B.

1.3The document contains some background on WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 (Section 2); a summary description of Method B (Section 3); a discussion of some of the related issues (Sections 4 and 5); and a proposal for a role of the ICAO in the implementation of the Method (Section 6). Conclusions are provided in Section 7.

2Background

2.1Frequency coordination in the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands for the GSO/MSS networks is conducted under Article 9 of the Radio Regulations. Two multilateral coordination fora (one for ITU Regions1 and 3 and one for ITU Region 2) have been established by the notifying Administrations of MSS networks, to facilitate coordination and spectrum sharing between these networks. Theoverall coordination process conducted in these fora will be referred to in the following as the “MLM/ORM” (multi-lateral meeting/operator review meeting) process.

2.2Although RR No. 5.357A and Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) stipulate priority access to spectrum and protection for AMS(R)S communications in 1.5/1.6 GHz bands, current practice in the MLM/ORM process has been reported as not satisfying the spectrum requirements ofat least one AMS(R)S operator. Furthermore, as the two multilateral coordination fora operate independently, frequency assignments obtained in the two fora may be incompatible for some satellite systems.

2.3Taking into account some of these issues, WRC-07 adopted WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7, in order to ensure long-term spectrum availability and access to spectrum necessary to meet requirements for the AMS(R)S in the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands.

2.4It also requested ITU-R to conduct appropriate technical, operational and regulatory studies to ensure long-term spectrum availability for the AMS(R)S in accordance with Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07). The study of WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 is being conducted by ITU-R WP 4C.

3WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 - Method B

3.1The following comments are based on Annex 14 to Document 4C/338 (Report on the fourth meeting of Working Party 4C), entitled “Working document towards draft CPM text on WRC-12 AI 1.7”.

3.2Method B described in the working document referenced proposes draft modifications to Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) that require ICAO to support the coordination process in the 1.5/1.6GHz bands.

3.3 The proposed draft modification to the Resolution (“invites ICAO” clause) invites ICAO to:

“i)carry out necessary coordination, with consultation of the concerned Administrations, for the process based on which the [spectrum][communication] requirements of AMS(R)S networks are determined and submitted to the coordination meetings [and justified];”

3.4Furthermore, the proposed draft Resolution (“concerned Administrations” clause) also invites concerned Administrations of MSS systems taking part in the multilateral coordination meetings to:

“i)recognise the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements from ICAO;

ii)ensure that AMS(R)S spectrum requirements as coordinated by ICAO are given priority access to spectrum in respect to ensuring that No. 5.357A is fulfilled;

iii)make spectrum available for AMS(R)S in case that no agreement is reached at such multilateral meetings.”

4 Spectrum requirements vs communication requirements in Method B

4.1 The current draft CPM text (see Section 3.3 above) does not specify whether ICAO is supposed to provide:

(1) first approach: “spectrum” requirements; or

(2) second approach:“communication” requirements.

4.2The difference between these two approaches is that spectrum requirements (first approach) would be expressed in MHz per coverage/beam areas, whereas communication requirements (second approach) would be expressed in terms more directly related to end user requirements, e.g.aggregate data throughput in Mbit/s, voice channels in Erlangs/Mbit/s or similar.

4.3 Comparing the two approaches, the first approach(i.e. estimation of spectrum requirements by ICAO)has the clear advantage that aviation requirements would be formulated in terms that are directly applicable to the coordination meeting process, and would not be not subject to dilution or misinterpretation in the MLM/ORM process.

4.4Implementation of the first approach is likely to require detailed knowledge of individual AMS(R)S systems architecture and constraints, in order to convert end-user requirements (formulated by ICAO, as the representative of the user community) to per-beam AMS(R)S spectrum requirements. Such alevel of knowledge is available to ICAO thanks to the participation of AMS(R)S and MSS operators and experts in the relevant ICAO expert body, the Aeronautical Communications Panel (ACP).

4.5For these reasons, the first approach (spectrum requirements) is considered preferable by ICAO.

5Other elements of the proposed Method B resolution

5.1 The current arrangements related to the coordination processes in this band are subject to confidentiality. The confidentiality and the associated lack of transparency of these arrangements are problematic for the aviation community.

5.2This is reflected in the “Views of some administrations” in Section 5/1.7/2 of Annex 14 to Document 4C/338 (“the ORM assignments agreed under the provisions of the MoU of the MLM are not available in the public domain. This makes it very difficult for the aviation community to develop long-term plans for spectrum access in order to serve their safety communication needs”).

5.3 Issues of commercial confidentiality have been invoked by the MSS community to justify the lack of transparency with regard to the assignments agreed in the MLM/ORM process. However, this justification does not seem valid, as the information on the agreed assignments is freely available to all operators involved in the MLM/ORM process, whose commercial interests are often conflicting (ORM participants may be direct competitors in the same MSS/AMS(R)S market).

5.4 For the user community, the fact that service providers (ORM participants) can share information on the assignments, whilst the user community is not allowed to access the information, raises issues as to the actual rationale for the confidentiality, and is a major source of concern.

5.5Thereforethe proposed modification of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07)(Method B) attempts to address the issue of lack of transparency by proposing a clause instructing the Director of the BR to publish annually the assignments made to AMS(R)S covered by RR No. 5.357A (see“instructs the Director of the BR” clause in the Annex 14 to Document 4C/338).

5.6The proposed clause seems to be a reasonable way forward, but some potential difficulties could arise:

a.official publication of the AMS(R)S assignments may be opposed by the MSS community, as it provides a written record of information perceived as “confidential” in the MSS community;

b.publication of the information is an “after the fact” action, which merely reflects a decision taken at a closed door meeting without direct aviation participation. Thus, the actual assignment process would not be directly influenced by the proposed clause.

5.7In the following section, an approach to overcome these potential difficulties is proposed.

6Proposal for the role of ICAOin the implementation of Method B

6.1 ICAO coordination meetings

6.1.1ICAO coordination meetings between administrations, aviation experts and AMS(R)S operators should be held yearly, to deal with the following items:

-air traffic volume:

  • discuss and agree previous year air traffic volume at global and regional level;
  • discuss and agree expected increase in air traffic volume at global and regional level;

-type of aeronautical communication services:

  • discuss and agree the categories of AMS(R)S communication needs, e.g. on the basis of COCR V2[1];

-information volumeat global and/or regional and/or sub-regional airspace:

  • discuss and agree communications needs, in terms of information volume for the following year at global/regional level;

-information volume per satellite network in coverage:

  • introduce the satellite system coverage areas;
  • discuss and agree a division of communications needs between the different satellite systems;

-spectrum needs per satellite network in coverage:

  • discuss and agree how each operator calculates its spectrum needs to carry the agreed communications needs;
  • near-term (1 to 5 years) spectrum requirements for the AMS(R)S networks.

6.1.2Each ICAO coordination meeting should generate a final meeting report to document the steps described above. The report could be distributed by the ICAO Secretariat to the ITU BR, to be forwarded to the two ORM meetings (one for Region 2 and one for Region 1/3), or alternatively directly to the two ORM meetings, with copy to the BR.

6.1.3 Features of this approach would include the following:

-ICAO would oversee the process of estimation of information volume, so as to ensure its consistency with real traffic of previous/current year and with validate estimates of traffic growth for the next year;

-ICAO would also oversee the process whereby air traffic is converted into “information volume requirements” and split appropriately among AMS(R)S operators;

-only AMS(R)S systems proposed by the AMS(R)S operators which comply with relevant ICAO Standards would be accepted;

-new AMS(R)S entrants would have to attend this ICAO meeting in order to have their initial spectrum requirements established;

-a centralized coordination process to accurately derive overall AMS(R)S communication needs would ensure that spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S are derived in a spectrum efficient manner, notably by avoiding double-counting.

6.1.4This approach would require the development of tools which would compute yearly information volume per airspace and convert information volume into spectrum requirements per AMS(R)S system (taking into account the fact that different satellite networks can serve the same airspace).

6.1.5 Such tools should be based on procedures to estimate the information volume (based on air traffic communication volume), developed by ICAO expert groups (e.g. ACP), and on an ITU-R Recommendation developed and agreed jointly between WP4C and WP5B, for the estimation of the spectrum needs taking into account of characteristics of satellite system concerned (starting from the information volume).

6.2 ORM meetings

6.2.1ORM meetings are attended by all MSS operators who have satellite systems in the 1.5/1.6GHz bands and comply with certain milestones under the Memorandum of Understanding entered by the respective Administrations. These milestones are not discussed in this document.

6.2.2AMS(R)S operators who have participated to the ICAO meeting above, when attending the ORM meeting would use the ICAO report to justify their spectrum requirements for the following year.

6.2.3New AMS(R)S entrants would first need to attend the ICAO meeting in order to have their initial spectrum requirements taken into account in the ORM process. Additionally they would still need to comply with the milestones necessary to enter the MLM/ORM process.

6.2.4The ORM would then agree how to provide spectrum assignments for each AMS(R)S network to meet the spectrum requirements defined by the ICAO meeting. In this process, priority to the AMS(R)S networks would be given on the basis of RR No. 5.357A.

6.2.5It is understood that AMS(R)S operators could separately propose to the ORM potential frequency assignments for their systems (noting that these assignments would need to be located within the bands identified in RR No. 5.357A).

6.2.6Once the spectrum has been assigned, the ORM would then issue a public report/statement about the fulfilment (or lack thereof) of spectrum assignments to the AMS(R)S operators. The report would be copied to the ICAO Secretariat and the ITU BR.

6.2.7As there are two ORM meetings, one for Region 2 and one for Region 1/3, there is a need to coordinate AMS(R)S assignments in these two regional ORM meetings. The AMS(R)S operators attending both ORM meetings would have to comply with the above procedure and attend both ORM meetings so that there is efficient use of the spectrum and also that the spectrum assigned to the AMS(R)S operators does not suffer sharing/interference problems between the two regions.

6.2.8 Features of this approach would include the following:

-aviation spectrum requirements at the ORM would be supplied from a single source, i.e.ICAO (or ITU BR), instead of multiple sources. This would ensure that double counting of AMS(R)S is avoided and thereby decrease the burden in the ORM;

-new AMS(R)S entrants would need to be recognised by the ICAO coordination process (see above ) as well as entering the ORM. This would decrease the burden on the ORM to verify that the system offers AMS(R)S services;

-current problems related to the coordination of AMS(R)S assignments and compatibility with the two regional ORM meetings would be at least partly addressed.

6.3 After the ORM

6.3.1Following an ORM, if any AMS(R)S operator is not satisfied by the ORM outcome, this should be duly noted in the ORM meeting report (which is sent to the ICAO and ITU BR). The AMS(R)S operator would then consult their Administration to take further actions.

6.3.2Such action could be conducted on a bilateral/multilateral basis with Administrations concerned (of the MLM/ORM). If necessary, help could be requested from the ITU BR and/or ICAO.

6.3.3Features of this approach would include the following:

-assignments to the AMS(R)S would be made public, and thus visible to all Administrations, ICAO and the ITU BR (currently this is not the case since the assignments and results of the ORM meeting are kept confidential to Administrations);

-AMS(R)S operators that feel that their spectrum requirements have not been satisfied would then take up the matter with their own Administrations for further actions, making reference to the outcome of the ORM as stated in the ORM public report on AMS(R)S.

6.4 Assessment of the proposed approach in connection with WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 requirements

6.4.1The approach described above would be an effective solution of the issues identified in Agenda item 1.7:

-ICAO would be involved in the process of determining and justifying estimated communication needs and spectrum requirements globally and individually for each AMS(R)S satellite operator;

-ICAO would verify whether new systems are capable of providing AMS(R)S applications, through the process of determining whether a specific system architecture is in accordance with the AMS(R)S SARPs;

-the priority of AMS(R)S spectrum requirements would be established through the enforcement of RR No. 5.357A in the multilateral coordination meeting, so that the longterm and stable access to the spectrum by the AMS(R)S would be accomplished;

-the ICAO meeting results would be distributed to the two ORM meetings, so that interRegion availability and compatibility of AMS(R)S spectrum assignments could be accomplished;

-a centralized coordination process to accurately derive overall AMS(R)S communication needs would be in place to ensure that spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S are derived in a spectrum efficient manner.

7Conclusions

7.1The process introduced in Section 6 of this document is intended to support Method B of the current draft CPM text.

7.2The approach outlined in Method B in the current draft CPM text is welcomed by ICAO as a novel approach that offers at least some hope for a way forward on a topic on which little substantial progress has occurred since WRC-97.

______

M:\BRSGD\TEXT2010\SG04\WP4C\300\362e.doc01/12/2018

[1]