The World Radiocommunication Conference scheduled for Jan. 23 – Feb. 17, 2012 in Geneva, Switzerland (WRC-12) could improve the international system for registering satellites and avoiding fictitious satellites that clog up the ITU database. WRC-12 agenda item 7 calls for the meeting to examine possible changes to the rules on ITU filings, including the recording procedures for satellite frequency assignments.

The Conference Preparatory Meeting report (CPM), approved in mid-February, contains extended discussion of agenda item 7. Of course, everything is extended in the CPM report. The document is 688 pages long and almost impossible to make heads or tails of unless you are involved deeply in the issues.

Chapter 5 of the CPM report deals with satellite issues. The chapter focuses on 25 discrete issues under agenda item 7, of which several concern ITU rules on what it means to bring into use a satellite, suspending the use of satellite assignments and due diligence in launching and operating satellites — issues that closely affect the reliability of the ITU database.

Issue 5/7/4B focuses on clarifying the ITU rules on bringing satellite assignments into use before their assignment lapses. These rules give operators a defined period within which to bring a new satellite into “regular operation.” The CPM in an understated manner recognizes that there is ambiguity associated with what “regular operation” means. Some assignments in the ITU Master Registry do not, in the ITU’s view, appear to be in regular operation, resulting in the phenomena of “virtual satellites.” Different countries have different views on what it takes to satisfy these rules and efforts to clarify them have been unsuccessful for more than a decade of radio conferences.

The CPM report proposes two methods in the latest effort to tweak these rules. Method A would state explicitly that the rules are satisfied if a satellite capable of using the frequency assignment is deployed at the orbital slot. The advantage of this rule is that it would provide a bright line rule. The disadvantage is that this bright line is not much of a line, as no minimal operation period would be required and transmitting only satellite station-keeping signals would satisfy the rule. Method B would define a minimum period of operation. Such an approach would likely improve the current procedures but undoubtedly lead to more appeals from countries that have problems meeting a rigid standard. Moreover, specifying the minimal period will be no easy task — the proposed rule contains in brackets a minimal period between 30 to 90 days.

Issue 5/7/4C relates to the suspension rules that apply to many communication satellites. Administrations are supposed to notify the ITU when a satellite operator needs to interrupt transmissions, normally related to in-orbit failure or relocation of a satellite. The maximum period for suspension is two years — after that period the satellite registration lapses. The CPM report, however, says that the rule needs to be clarified and there are many assignments that have effectively been suspended for longer than the two-year limit.

One detail to be clarified is when the suspension actually starts. Again, the CPM report proposes two methods. Method A simply says that an administration must notify the ITU of a suspension no later than six months from when it occurred. Method B would add more detail by stating that when an entire satellite is not operational for a period between 30 to 90 days, then the administration must notify the ITU.

Issue 5/7/4D deals with the due diligence information that administrations file to show their satellites are up and operating. Current rules were adopted under Resolution 49, developed at a radio conference in 1997. The CPM report examines yet again two options. Method A is “no change,” on the assumption that existing provisions work satisfactorily. Method B would expand the due diligence data that must be submitted and to require timely updates.

Some participants in the CPM say that all these rules are interconnected and must be considered in combination. There also is the countervailing view that the result of the changes could be to unduly increase the complexity of the rules. Yet another consideration expressed in the CPM report is that requiring more evidence from administrations could create “an atmosphere of distrust” by contrast to the current system that allegedly is based on “goodwill, mutual respect, collaboration and cooperation.”

Will all this goodwill extend to clarifying the rules at WRC12?

Gerry Oberst is a partner in the Hogan Lovells Brussels office.