This year, as expected, the conference was dominated by issues relating
to the rapidly-expanding numbers of satellite communications services.
However, the sheer scale of their presence at the WRC was stunning.
Representatives of the satellite communications industry were present on
many national delegations, as external lobbyists, and operating
demonstrations and events. In addition, the companies were giving out
free suitcases, tote bags, pens, free meals etc., and putting on
receptions and events. One evening event, put on by Motorola/Iridium,
cost $2.5 Million. The total amount spent by the satellite companies at
the conference has been estimated as more than $2 Billion. This effort
well illustrates the scale of the satellite communications industry, its
expected rate of growth, and the investments involved.
The companies were there with three objectives:
| (a) | to obtain frequency allocations for their services; | |
| (b) | to get regulations changed to accept additional modulation methods in existing bands and where bands were reallocated as "shared" with satellite services; | |
| (c) | to loosen the controls on spurious and out-of-band emissions by satellite transmitters, especially with respect to frequency bands allocated to radio astronomy. |
The global approach adopted by the multinational
communications companies contrasted strongly with that of the national
delegations, which were a balance of national and international
interests. Moreover, the satellite companies had a layered strategy,
with layers of fallback proposals being put forward by countries and
group of countries which had been very heavily lobbied.
The main battle was with respect to Recommendation 66 and Appendix S3,
which state maximum levels for spurious transmitter signals radiated in
radio astronomy bands. The current levels are believed too restrictive
by some major satellite companies and proposals were made to reduce this
burden on satellite communications systems. From the point of view of
radio astronomy, the pressure was for increasing the protection.
In the past radio observatories were protected by two factors: the interference controls set by the
ITU, and geographic location. We build
radio observatories at remote sites or those well shielded by hills.
Satellite interference bypasses the geographic protection, and sources
of interference may move through the main lobe of the radio telescope
antenna patterns, so the regulation of spurious and unwanted emissions
becomes more important than ever.
Unfortunately, the main proposal for changing Recommendation 66 came
from Canada. This was not due to any anti-radio astronomy bias in
Ottawa. It came about because of a heavy presence by satellite
communications people and the absence of input by radio astronomers.
Essentially, this proposal suggested that the level of protection to be
afforded radio astronomers should be that deemed practicable by the
satellite communications services. The backup was a proposal by a
consortium of American countries, including Canada, which was almost
identical, except it mentioned "other services" instead of satellite
services. The best option for radio astronomers was the revision for
Recommendation 66 proposed by the USA. In a non-stop 8.5-hour meeting,
thanks to strong opposition by The Netherlands, India, Australia and the
UK, and active participation by IUCAF (Inter-Union Committee for the
Allocation of Frequencies for radio astronomy and space research), after
some "rather active and far-reaching" discussion, it was decided to
produce an updated Recommendation 66, based upon the USA proposal.
The key features of this new Recommendation 66 are:
| (i) | that it applies to all forms of interference, not just to spurious emissions; |
| (ii) | that the protection for individual radio astronomy band, bands be assessed as required on the basis of the types of observations and the nature of the interference problems; |
| (iii) | for a report to be produced and submitted at the next WRC stating new interference limits, more stringent as required. |
The new satellite services and increased uses of downlinks in bands previously enjoying low activity provide increased interference threats to adjacent radio astronomy bands, such as the 406.1-410MHz, 1400-1427MHz, 1610.6-1613.8MHz and 42.5-43.5GHz bands. It proved possible to get statements made in the regulations underlining the need to minimize interference with radio astronomy.
Considering the pressures by the satellite community, we did remarkably
well at this WRC in protecting radio astronomy. However, although we
worked hard, part of the credit is due to the satellite community
itself. They pushed so hard they alienated themselves from large
sections of the radio community, such as the broadcasters, who are
seeking to protect their bands, the Europeans, who already have a well-
integrated communications infrastructure, and don't really need the
satellites, and are also trying to protect their communications bands,
and parts of the Third World, who are concerned that by the time they
need additional frequency allocations, there won't be anything left.
The conclusion we must draw from sitation we now see in radio spectrum management is that we cannot any longer ignore the problem of protecting our radio astronomy bands. This time we were very lucky. As I write this, the satellite community and others are planning for WRC-99. We must be doing that too. Moreover, through CASCA within Canada, and through our contacts around the world, we must too be preparing for the struggles ahead.
Within Canada, Industry Canada is sympathetic to the needs of radio astronomy, but it is up to us to present a strong voice at the meetings at which Canada's national proposals are put together. This means that we must work together. If we cannot present a strong, united voice, willing to make compromises where possible, and clear, informed arguments when it's not, radio astronomy will be in serious trouble.
Resources / Ressources:
