by Gerry Oberst

The original glowing predictions for Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) are tempered by reality, but pushing and shoving continues regarding future MSS spectrum requirements. European spectrum managers met in the splendor of Saint Petersburg, Russia, in mid September this year to continue the battle over future allocations.

No story about satellites is complete without acronyms. The spectrum managers from the European Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) Project Team 1 (PT1) deal with what the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) calls International Mobile Telephony-2000 (IMT-2000) and the rest of the world calls 3G. In response to a request by the European Commission (EC), PT1 is focusing on frequency arrangements for the band 2,500-2,690 MHz (the 2.6 GHz expansion band). The Advanced Satellite Mobile Systems Task Force (ASMS-TF) represented MSS and other satellite operators at the PT1 meeting.

These acronyms have had a long time to grow, as there is more than a decade of argument regarding frequencies for IMT-2000 service. Initial frequency bands were identified as early as the ITU’s 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference. By 2000, the ITU identified certain frequencies, including the 2.6 GHz expansion band. This saga continued at the ITU’s radio conference in 2003, which called for yet more study before the next such conference in 2007 on spectrum requirements and potential frequency ranges suitable for IMT- 2000 (which will need an updated name, certainly by 2007).

On the European side, in 2001 the EC requested European spectrum managers to develop and adopt measures necessary to ensure availability of harmonized frequency bands within the additional spectrum bands identified by WRC-2000. This instigated a big fight between terrestrial and satellite interests in the 2.6 GHz band, and whether the terrestrial operators should get the entire piece of spectrum.

The bands 2,500-2,520 MHz and 2,670-2,690 MHz are allocated on a co-primary basis to MSS and other services in accordance with the Radio Regulations. So it is this 2 x 20 MHz sliver of spectrum that is at issue: should satellite networks in Europe have access to that spectrum or should it instead be dedicated solely to terrestrial 3G services?

This issue was partially finessed throughout 2001 and 2002. The ECC conclusion in response to the EC’s 2001 question was that it was "too early" to specify between satellite and terrestrial. Of course, the issue did not go away. In August 2003, the EC made a new request for ECC action, putting the controversy squarely on the table by stating "it is necessary to investigate and decide on detailed spectrum usage parameters as well as whether or not and to which extent the satellite component of IMT-2000 could use parts of this additional spectrum." This question must be decided by the end of 2004, and the Saint Petersburg meeting shows it will not be easy.

The ASMS-TF is made up of numerous entities engaged in the satellite mobile industry. It quite naturally submitted a forecast of MSS traffic and spectrum requirements up to 2010 that demonstrates a need for MSS to have access to the 2 x 20 MHz of 2.6 GHz spectrum.

The ASMS-TF paper outlined the commercial services that commenced since 1998 and noted some new MSS satellite systems known to be under construction. Regardless of construction plans, it is unlikely, in the view of ASMS-TF, that any new system will be introduced before 2007.

Nevertheless, forecasts still show a "significant opportunity" for satellite services to provide 3G fill-in and multicast broadcasting. New satellite personal communication networks reduced terminal size and price, thus opening the markets. New services are developing and satellite mobile services should continue to grow, even though the growth rate may slow unless new market segments open.

The bottom line in the paper was that MSS will need 2 x 151.2 MHz of spectrum by 2010, in excess of the 2 x 121.5 MHz it has allocated now, which supports the requirement to use the portion of MHz in the 2.6 GHz expansion band.

This argument was apparently not received well in Saint Petersburg. In particular, German regulators continued to dismiss the satellite argument. They said from the beginning that the entire band should be used for terrestrial service. The terrestrial operators supplied their own brand of statistics and forecasts as well.

Even the minutes of the meeting note diplomatically that "an intensive discussion" took place regarding the ASMS-TF data, which was "questioned." Regulators noted that some of the ASMS-TF data is based on general MSS service and not 3G itself. To avoid deciding the matter, however, the spectrum managers in Saint Petersburg decided to defer review of the MSS statistics until the next meeting in January 2004.

This is to say that the satellite perspective has survived for yet another day, but the battle lines are clearly sketched out.

Gerry Oberst is a partner in the Brussels office of the Hogan & Hartson law firm. His email address is [email protected] .