by Gerald E. Oberst Jr.

After reading ITU documents for years, it was a pleasure to find in a recent paper the first candid assessment of how confusing the coordination rules can be. This confusion can be measured in many ways, but the result can be delay and inefficiency. For that reason, some administrations are calling for further reform in the rules and educational efforts by the ITU to explain how the rules work.

In late May, one administration submitted a paper on inconsistencies in the radio regulations on the coordination of fixed satellite space stations. Although the paper is tongue in cheek, it reveals some of the problems in the new and improved Appendix S30A plan dealing with coordination of different types of networks.

The paper argues the rules lead to dead ends. It provides a humorous assessment of articles and footnotes to the rules by interpreting them into "what they mean in clear words." Thus, the paper starts out with one particularly confusing rule and translates it as follows: "For the coordination of unplanned FSS… go to Appendix S30A, you might find something there, but we are not sure and cannot tell you where."

It gets better. The paper also "interprets" one following provision of the Appendix as "Congratulations! You have reached the place in Appendix S30A where your problem is going to be treated." But then a few lines later, that provision results in the sad interpretation: "Sorry, if you want to coordinate [this space station] please go back to Article S9….We cannot tell you exactly where in S9 but we are sure that among the twelve possible cases of coordination you will find, one will suit your needs."

The final interpretation, after looking at several other rules along the way is: "You got very close, but the application of this provision has been suspended. Consequently, you will have to await the decisions of WRC-2000 before you know what procedure can be applied."

The ITU coordination rules are well-known to be complicated and sometimes inexplicable. As one measure to aid administrations, the ITU used to produce a series of unofficial flow charts of all the different steps involved in various coordination activities. There were 28 detailed flow charts, all with many boxes. One chart included over 80 separate steps! Were these helpful? I guess not, since the ITU has not included them in the latest revised and "simplified" rules (which are anything but simple).

Perhaps reflecting this complexity, several ITU members covering a wide geographic and socioeconomic mix (Australia, India, Japan, Malaysia, Morocco and the United States) in June 1999 called upon the ITU to improve the satellite network notification process. These countries asked the ITU Council to adopt a decision that could lead to improvements. They noted that after devoting 110 professional staff-months to creating new space notification software, there are still bugs in the program. Thus, they called for completing this software and exchanging information on further changes. Moreover, they want the ITU to conduct workshops for familiarizing developing countries with the rules.

This is not the problem solely of complicated ITU rules. ITU members are also to blame. They complicate the situation by over-filing for satellite networks that they do not need and will not implement, by filling out forms incorrectly and by supplying superfluous information. The resulting Council Decision 483 thus "invites administrations" to limit the information they submit to the Radiocommunication Bureau for satellite network coordination and participate in efforts to improve the system.

Can we expect improvements? We should, since the satellite industry is now called upon to pay for these rules.

The satellite industry has the dubious honor of being the first industry sector to pay ITU "cost recovery fees" for network filings. The ITU Council at its June 14-25 1999 session approved a decision finally to apply these fees after several years of debate. Decision 482 will implement new fees for all filings made after November 1998. The new system will charge a flat fee for each country that files notifications, covering a set number of filings measured by pages. After the preset number is exceeded, countries will pay a per-page additional fee. Presumably most satellite operators already pay lots of fees to their national administrations, so this new set of fees will be an additional cost of doing business.

The decision requested by ITU members to improve the process should be funded by the fees the satellite industry now has to pay. The industry wants its money’s worth: an efficient functioning system for the next millennium.

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