by Gerald E. Oberst Jr.

Earlier this year, the satellite industry in Europe submitted extensive comments to the European Commission on spectrum resources. These comments, by the Regulatory Working Group (RWG) of the Satellite Action Plan, brought together most of the satellite operators serving European markets. Among its most important messages, the group stated that satellite interests are not always taken adequately into account in the policy mix, and a greater effort needs to be made towards implementing the rules already on the books for satellite regulation.

The RWG submitted these comments in response to a consultative paper from the European Commission, the Green Paper on Radio Spectrum Policy (see Via Satellite, February 1999 on the "European Spectrum Review"). The Green Paper represents a major push by the commission to examine regulatory models for spectrum allocation in Europe. The commission sponsored three hearings in Brussels to obtain views on the many subjects raised in the Green Paper and ultimately received about 120 sets of comments.

The RWG introduced its comments by noting the important differences between satellite and terrestrial networks in their use of spectrum resources, such as the unique ability of satellite networks to provide global or regional coverage. These factors give satellite facilities an inherently pan-European dimension, since many satellite footprints cover most of Europe and beyond. As a result, satellite services help European nations to fulfill many important EU policies by helping Europe build links between different regions and allowing European countries to participate in new technological developments.

The RWG’s other key proposals include:

• Involvement of the satellite industry in preparations for world radiocommunication conferences at the International Telecommunication Union, with the European Commission playing an effective role by providing the necessary political backing; and
• Assistance to the satellite industry in seeking spectrum allocations in other regions, based on allocations and determinations made within the European Conference on Post and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), as a part of trade negotiations.

RWG members also suggested that a greater amount of information should be available on spectrum allocation tables and the actual use of assignments. They noted that although some regulatory tools for getting this information exist, these resources need to be expanded and improved.

On the question of priorities for harmonizing spectrum use, the RWG stated that harmonized radio spectrum allocations are essential for pan-European services such as those provided via satellite, due to their global or regional nature. Specific EU measures are required most urgently when dealing with services that cross national boundaries, since these services by definition have a "community dimension." Unlike terrestrial infrastructure, which can be "rolled out" in a phased manner, satellite networks must have assured access to spectrum for the entire network to be viable.

There has been a great deal of debate in Europe about how to allocate harmonized bands, and whether fixed terrestrial services should normally share such bands with satellite services. The RWG suggested that in certain circumstances, specific spectrum should be allocated only to satellite services. Allocating specific spectrum, particularly in higher bands, enables those services to meet consumer demand. Such an approach will be critical to the introduction of new broadband satellite services, according to the RWG. The traditional sharing approach does not work with ubiquitous or high-density services in higher bands, especially in urban areas where interference exclusion zones caused by the extensive deployment of existing terrestrial services could preclude the deployment of satellite terminals. It is no secret that this situation worsens as terrestrial deployment continues.

With respect to spectrum licensing, the RWG argued for more open information and simplified procedures. It strongly supported the simplified licensing procedures for multiple satellite terminals and argued that coordination requirements for advanced satellite services must be minimized. On licensing fees, one RWG member said, "[the] regulator’s purpose is not to make money. Europe should stay away from spectrum pricing, auctions and other non-economically sound taxes." This position on auctions is a generally shared opinion; a quick review of the 120 comments submitted to the commission showed that more than one-third opposed auction procedures.

Will the RWG comments have any impact? There is a natural resistance among many European countries to harmonize spectrum requirements and allocations, especially from Brussels. Decisions on spectrum use have always been primarily a national matter, and any moves toward harmonization will be slow and cautious. The satellite industry has everything to gain to achieve such an end, however, and the industry comments from the RWG indicate the importance of these issues.

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