Christopher Baugh, president of research and consulting firm NSR, sees WiMax as more of an opportunity for satellite players than a threat to the industry. "Satellite-WiMax ‘inter-working’ will produce a variety of distinct opportunities, highly dependant on the frequency band in use and regional competitive considerations," NSR said in its latest study, "WiMax — Opportunity or Threat for Satellite Communications?" The study, released in July, sees "opportunities range from C-band and Ku-band satellite backhaul in developing regions and remote areas to DBS-WiMax triple-play retail bundles in mature satellite TV markets to lower [capital expenditure] and installation cost per broadband user in rural areas via tighter satellite-WiMax integration at the VSAT to a satellite derivative of mobile WiMax potentially applied to hybrid satellite-wireless handsets utilizing the valuable ancillary terrestrial component spectrum." Baugh provides an analyst’s view of the C-Band issue and its impact for satellite players.

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?

Baugh: C-band is to satellite what fixed line telephony is to telcos. Even if it is 40 years old, we still use it everyday and are not about to throw it out, or in the case of landline, cut it just because we have a cell phone. WiMax offers both threats and opportunities to the satellite industry, and it is incumbent that telcos, cellular companies, wireless [Internet service providers] and satellite players jointly seek solutions to interference issues. 
 

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

Baugh: Citizens in Latin America, Africa, and Asia would have a hard time connecting to the World Wide Web, completing cellular phone calls via backhaul links abroad or to other countries, or talking on the fixed line phone via trunking lines to their families overseas. This is, of course, the worst case scenario and unlikely for all C-band spectrum users.

Via Satellite: How serious are the potential interference issues involving the different technologies?

Baugh: Everybody should check [to make sure] they don’t interfere with the other. … That’s the core of the [International Telecommunication Union] mission after all. Take the Galileo versus GPS spat, which did not seem resolvable in 1998 for two similar technologies. It is now resolved and completely separated thanks to new [radio frequency] technologies that make it possible now to verify non-interference, but it was not ten years ago. It should be the same for different technologies.
 

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

Baugh: There is still no clear indication on this issue. However, it is not just a market issue, and I don’t see WiMax operators making the case around the world for ubiquitous C-band deployments. Furthermore, I believe the jury is still out as to which wireless transport mode will be the winner in next-generation networks.