Asia Broadcast Satellite (ABS) is a  new operator looking to build a successful business in Asia. The company was founded in September 2006 when it acquired Lockheed Martin Intersputnik renamed the LMI-1 satellite ABS-1. Tom Choi, the CEO of ABS, talks to Via Satellite about how the C-band issue could impact the operator.

Via Satellite: What is your take on the demands for C-band spectrum resources and the competing arguments of telecoms and satellite players? Can the two sides reach a compromise?

Choi: C-band capacity is in the most demand in Africa, Central Asia and the Asia Pacific. There isn’t enough C-band capacity at the moment to satisfy demand for telecommunications operators as well as cable television distribution companies. The signal strength of WiMax base stations will overwhelm the relatively weak signals from satellites so there can be no feasible way to share the spectrum. We have however tested that it would be able for the WiMax operators to use the C-band uplink frequencies from 5.85 to 6.71 gigahertz without impact on satellite communications.
 

Via Satellite: One of the arguments of satellite players that is being overshadowed is the importance of C-band in developing countries for providing basic communications. What would be the ramifications for these territories if this C-band capacity was assigned to terrestrial mobile players rather than satellite?

Choi: C-band capacity is the choice of GSM mobile operators in the developing countries of Africa and Asia. The economic benefits of using C-band VSAT systems to backhaul cellular communications versus using fiber optic cable is unquestionable. If WiMax was to be licensed in these countries in C-band, not only will it jam cable television broadcasting, it will also bring down mobile communications. In countries of Africa and Southeast Asia, the number of mobile subscribers outstrip that of fixed landline users. The financial impact of taking down mobile communications would be catastrophic.
 

Via Satellite: How likely is it that satellite players are going to lose some of this C-band capacity?

Choi: C-band capacity is being used by satellite operators around the world for now over 40 years. It’s an integral part of global broadcasting and communications. WiMax for mobile communications have much better capacity available in S-band, L-band or even in UHF band where there are better link performances. C-band from 3 to 4 gigahertz is simply not good for in-door or mobile coverage when compared with the spectrum available in the 800-to-2-gigahertz range.

If point-to-point communications is considered for Wimax, 5 to 6 gigahertz should be the choice as there is plenty of capacity available there and no resistance from the satellite/GSM/broadcasting community. It’s highly unlikely that in countries of Southeast Asia, where C-band is an integral part of communications, that WiMax will win out over satellites. However in markets such as North America and Europe, where Ku-band is the norm of satellite communications, there might be a chance for WiMax operators to gain ground. We certainly hope this does not happen.
 

Via Satellite: How does the C-Band issue impact Asia Broadcast Satellite? 

Choi: ABS has 28 C-band transponders, which represents over 60 percent of our total capacity. We are deeply concerned about the use of WiMax in the C-band spectrum. ABS, like any other satellite operator in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific region, would be severely impacted if all of the C-band capacity would not be usable for our customers. This is the reason why we are active through our participation in the APSCC, CASBAA and GVF lobbying governments and regulators with other satellite operators to argue against the licensing of WiMax in the C-band downlink spectrum.
 

Via Satellite: If satellite players were to lose C-band spectrum, what would be the consequences for the  industry and for developing countries who are more reliant on satellite to provide various applications?

Choi: This is not a simple matter of the satellite industry versus the wireless industry. The loss of C-band for satellite communications would impact a much bigger set of industries including the GSM [and] cellular operators, telecommunications companies that use satellites for backhaul communications or fiber back-up services and most importantly cable television broadcasters who require reliable means of delivering their signals to cable television systems without being impacted by rain fade. The total cost to the global economy would be in untold billions. It would affect almost everyone in the region where C-band is vital to television broadcasting and mobile communications. These ‘costs’ outweigh any potential gain provided by WiMax operators who, especially for mobile services, do not offer any advantage over WCDMA/3G for mobile voice or data.
 

Via Satellite: What is going to happen over the rest of the year, and is the satellite industry’s position stronger now than it has been throughout the last few months?

Choi: Debate with the local regulators is taking place on an on-going basis. We expect that more and more countries and regulators will work to protect C-band capacity for satellite use
 

Via Satellite: What are the key points in the satellite argument? Do you think satellite players should keep the entire C-Band spectrum?

Choi: The uplink frequencies of the C-band can be shared with the WiMax operators. The WiMax industry should focus their [research and development] in the 5-to-7-gigahertz band.
 

Via Satellite: What will be the outcome of this situation?

Choi: We expect most of the regulators in Asia would have opted to keep WiMax out of the 3.4-to-4.2-gigahertz C-band downlink frequencies.