APG15-2/INP-48
/ ASIA-PACIFIC TELECOMMUNITYThe 2ndMeeting of the APT Conference Preparatory Group for WRC-15 (APG15-2) / Document:
APG15-2/INP-48
01 – 05July 2013, Bangkok,Thailand / 01 July 2013
China（People’s Republic of）
PRELIMINARY VIEWS ON WRC-15AGENDA ITEMS 7 AND 9.1.2
Agenda Item 7 –to consider possible changes, and other options, in response to Resolution86 (Rev.Marrakesh, 2002) of the Plenipotentiary Conference, an advance publication, coordination, notification and recording procedures for frequency assignments pertaining to satellite networks, in accordance with Resolution 86 (Rev.WRC07) to facilitate rational, efficient, and economical use of radio frequencies and any associated orbits, including the geostationarysatellite orbit.
1Introduction
In response to Resolution 86 (Rev. Marrakesh, 2002), WRC-15is invited by Resolution 86 (Rev.WRC-07)to consider under its agenda item 7any proposals which deal with deficiencies and improvements in the advance publication, coordination, notification and recording procedures for frequency assignments pertaining to space service, including the associated technical characteristics, and the related Appendices of the Radio Regulations (RR).
In the course of the implementation of the Resolutions as from the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis, 1998), various administrations and the Bureau of the ITU have been contributing to the improvement of the satellite network procedures, eliminating the deficiencies thereof and transforming the provisions in the Rules of Procedures into the RR.
A number of satellite network regulatory issues were discussed in the previous WP4A meetings during WRC-15 period, including the ITU publication of bringing into useinformation, the consequences for late notification under RR No. 11.49 and possible option for general overhauling of regulatory regime governingspace services. These issues will be further discussed in the later WP4A meetings and Working Party of the Special Committee on Regulatory/Procedural Matters (SC-WP).
2Preliminary views
In this contribution, this administration wishes to address two additional issues and submits them for the APG meeting consideration.
1)Application of No. 9.58
As indicated in the Rules of Procedure, provision No. 9.58refers to changes in the characteristics which have been decided during thecoordination procedure of the assignment of the satellite network. For processing of the modification,the Bureau will apply § 2 of the Rules concerning No. 9.27. When publishing the modifiedcharacteristics in a modification to the Special Section containing the original coordinationrequest, the Bureau will indicate the nature of the modification as specified in No. 9.58.
The intention of this provision is to encourage the notifying administration to inform the Bureau and other involvedadministrationsof the modification of characteristics ofits satellite network. However, even the nature of the change is such as not toincrease the interference to or ask more protectionfrom the assignments of otheradministrations, cost recovery shall be applied for the modification of satellite networks. Therefore, few administrations submitted the modification of satellite networks under No. 9.58.
In order to encourage administrations to update their satellite networks based on the progress of coordination procedure, this administrationwould like to propose the following preliminary view on this issue.
Preliminary viewon Issue 1):As preliminary view, this administration is of the opinion that if the modification of characteristics of a satellite networks under No. 9.58does not cause more harmful interference to or ask more protection from the assignments of other administrations, the submission shall be exempted from cost-recovery charges.
2)Application of No. 11.41 and No. 11.42
WRC-12 modified provision RR No. 11.41 to delete the concept of “definitive” recording and added new provisions RR Nos. 11.41B and 11.42A.
RR No. 11.41B clarifies how an assignment recorded in application of RR No. 11.41 is to be treated when all the required coordinations are successfully completed, subsequent to its recording in the MIFR. Even though an assignment is recorded in the MIFR in application of provision RR No. 11.41, if all the required coordinations are successfully completed, then the reference to application of RR No. 11.41 would be deleted in MIFR, at any time when the Bureau is so informed by the notifying administration.
Provision RR No. 11.42A, added by WRC-12 clarifies how an assignment recorded in application of RR No. 11.41 is to be treated in case of receipt of harmful interference notice during its operation. While the administration whose assignment is recorded in application of RR No. 11.41 still has the responsibility to eliminate harmful interference under RR No. 11.42, provision RR No. 11.42A clarifies that “In applying No. 11.42 with respect to satellite networks, administrations involved shall cooperate in the elimination of harmful interference and may request the assistance of the Bureau, and shall exchange relevant technical and operational information required to resolve the issue. Should any administration involved in the matter inform the Bureau that all efforts to resolve the harmful interference have failed, the Bureau shall immediately inform other involved administrations and prepare a report, together with all necessary supporting documents (including comments from the administrations involved), for the next meeting of the Board for its consideration and any required action (including the possible cancellation of the assignment recorded under No. 11.41), as appropriate. The Bureau shall thereafter implement the decision of the Board and inform the administrations concerned”.
However, there is no provision relating to a case in whichan assignment recorded in application of RR No. 11.41that has no actual harmful interference to the assignments which were the basis of the unfavorable finding, but coordination could not be successfullycompleted, even though both satellite systems have been co-existed many years.
Currently more than 50% of the assignments recorded in the MIFR are in application of the provision RR No. 11.41,the relevant remarks or indicationsrelating to assignments for which an unfavorable finding led to the relevant recording could not be removed permanently unless the coordination procedure specified in RR No. 11.32 be completed, even though harmful interference could not be observed many years.
RR No. 9.53 regulates thatthe requesting and responding administrations shall make everypossible mutual effort to overcome the difficulties, in a manner acceptable to the parties concerned.
Furthermore, Rules of Procedure No. 9.6 indicates that the coordination process is a two way process and in the application of Article 9 no administration obtains any particular priority as a resultof being the first to start either the advance publication phase (Section I of Article 9) orthe request for coordination procedure (Section II of Article 9).
In order to encourage the involved administrations to effect coordination actively, not only for the new comer, but also for administration who submitted coordination request earlier, this administrationwould like to propose the following preliminary view on this issue.
Preliminary viewon Issue 2):As preliminary view, this administration is of the opinion that the above issue may need to be addressed, and an example provision is given as follows for further discussion and elaboration.
11.41XShould the Bureau be informed by notifying administration that new assignment has been in use, together with the assignment which was the basis of unfavorable finding, for at least [three years] without any complaint of harmful interference being made, and be asked to remove the relevant remark or indication, the Bureau shall seek the clarification of the concernedadministration. If the relevantadministration has not responded back to the Bureau within 30 days, or not provided detailed interference evidence, a second letter will be sent by the Bureau. If the administration does not respond to the second letterwithin 15 days, or not provided detailed interference evidence, then the relevant remark or indication relating to this administration shall be removed.
Agenda Item 9.1.2:Studies on possible reduction of the coordination arc and technical criteria used in application of No.9.41 in respect of coordination under No.9.7
1．Background
WRC-12 reduced the coordination arc from 10 degrees to 8 degrees in C band, from 9 degrees to 7 degrees in Ku band. Considering more efficient coordinationprocess is desirable, it’s decided that two issues would be further studied in preparations for WRC-15 and in its Resolution 756 (WRC-12) resolves to invite ITU-R:
“1to carry out studies to examine the effectiveness and appropriateness of the current criterion (ΔT/T > 6%) used in the application of RR No. 9.41 and consider any other possible alternatives (including the alternatives outlined in Annexes 1 and 2 to this Resolution), as appropriate, for the bands referred to in recognizing e);
2to study whether additional reductions in the coordination arcs in RR Appendix 5 (Rev.WRC-12) are appropriate for the 6/4 GHz and 14/10/11/12 GHz frequency bands, and whether it is appropriate to reduce the coordination arc in the 30/20 GHz band,”
The Director BR is then instructed to include the results of these studies in his Report to WRC-15 as agenda item 9.1, issue 9.1.2.
Since the very beginning of this study period, a number of documents have been submitted to the WP 4A meetingwith respectto this issue.Among others, the main key elements have been summarized in the chairman’s report (WP4A/242/Annex34)of the latest WP4A meeting in May 2013 in order to help guide the future work of WP 4A on these issues, such as replacing ΔT/T with C/I, developing pfd masks for the heavily congested frequency bands, increasing the level of interference that triggers coordination, and reducing the coordination arc.
2. Consideration
The use of GSO orbit and spectrum resources is increasing andgetting more congested especially in the very popular used frequency bands, such as C and Ku bands. Difficulties have been faced to get access for new satellite networks and huge of coordination work need to be conducted.
Coordination arc methodology can provide an efficientmethod to ease coordination work by identifying limited administrations with which coordination is to be effected or agreement sought under the provisions of Article 9 of Radio Regulations. In the meanwhile, there is the case that, pursuant to No. 9.41, administrations also could request BR to include their satellite networks outside the coordination arc by giving its technical reasons for doing so. However,nowadays, more and more satellites has been launched and operated in orbit. The orbital separation between adjacent satellites generally is much smaller than the coordination trigger. It is observed that this kind of additional coordinationrequirement based on No.9.41 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the congested used frequency bands because of more severe conditions need to be met in practice when considering themuch closer orbital separationsituation.
Based on above mentioned situation, in order to lighten burden to administrations and BR during the process of the coordination, it should be an appropriate way to involve pfd hard limit into the RR for congested frequency bands. After comply with general pfd mask in both uplink and downlink respectively, coordination would not be required outside coordination arc for most popular used frequency bands.
It is should be noted that the value of the pfd mask to be identified has close relationship with the coordination arc which is under consideration to be reduced further according to WRC-15 Agenda item 9.1, Issue 9.1.2.
3. Preliminary view
Based on above observation and consideration, it is proposed by China to involve appropriate pfd mask in the coordination procedure together with the coordination arc to ease the coordination work in the congested frequency bands. The value of which should be studied further according to the coordination arc to be identified.
______
Page 1 of 4