WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7

1. WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 ICAO WG-F Mexico City 26-30 April 2010

2. Issue • WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7 requires the consideration of studies in accordance with Resolution 222 to ensure long-term spectrum availability and access to spectrum to meet requirements for AMS(R)S • Inmarsat’s view is that • existing RR provisions are sufficient to meet the requirements • no changes are needed to the RR to strengthen or enforce AMS(R)S spectrum priority at L-band

3. AMS(R)S Operators and Coordination Process • Inmarsat provides AMS(R)S globally • MTSAT provides AMS(R)S over Japan and surrounding area • A few others are considering new systems, including ESA and Navisat • The bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz are shared with several other MSS systems • Frequency coordination is conducted in accordance with Article 9 of the RR. To facilitate coordination, the notifying administrations of MSS operators have established two MoUs, one for Regions 1 & 3, another for Region 2. Under these MoUs, the operators conduct coordination at Operator Review Meetings (ORM)

4. The Radio Regulations Guarantee AMS(R)S Spectrum Access • No. 5.357A gives priority for AMS(R)S in 1545-1555 MHz and 1646.5-1656.5 MHz • Resolution 222 reinforces the priority • These RR provisions are taken into account in frequency coordination between Administrations • Notifying Administrations have an obligation to adhere to the RR and ensure proper functioning of MoU/ORM

5. Coordination Works in Practice • There is no evidence that AMS(R)S traffic demand has not been met during the 12 years that the generic MSS allocations have been in place • ORM has accommodated a new AMS(R)S system in the past • No Administration so far has invoked the priority provisions of No. 5.357A or Resolution 222 • Future AMS(R)S requirements are modest (up to about 3 MHz according to WP4C studies) and will grow gradually over many years – thereforeno difficulty is envisaged in accommodating these requirements • The ORM process is spectrum efficient • Allows essential peer review of spectrum requirements • It is essential to maintain the flexibility and efficiency of the current process • This goes hand in hand with retaining unchanged the generic allocations, as required by the agenda item • Concerns raised are answered in the following slides

6. Operator Review Meetings are the Most Effective Means of Agreeing on Spectrum Requirements • Frequency coordination is a difficult process, but most do lead to coordination agreements, including the ORM • Creating a new forum would not change the dynamics or make it easier to reach agreement, since the same operators and possibly other parties would participate • While the ORM is focussed on technical details, a new forum could complicate the process, e.g. make it less objective and more “political”, especially if additional parties not directly involved in L-band MSS are involved • ICAO inputs can be obtained without creating another forum

7. The ORM Process provides a means for administrations and AMS(R)S operators to develop long-term plans for spectrum access • The coordination process must necessarily involve significant confidentiality because of the sensitivity of the technical data exchanged, but there are mechanisms available for interested parties to participate in the process • The Notifying Administrations have access to ORM information • New Administrations and their operators can join the process as required • Any other administration could approach the AMS(R)S service provideror national user directly to seek information on whether AMS(R)S demand has been met • AMS(R)S operators can share information about their spectrum assignments and use with other parties as desired • If requirements were not met, there would be complaints from users and service providers to operators/administrations/ITU-BR/ICAO citing specific problems – but none so far

8. Even Where Unanimous Agreement is not reached at an ORM, the Process Still Works • As mentioned above, coordination meetings are difficult and at times they do not result in unanimous agreement • The current MoUs do not require the spectrum assignments to be frozen in the absence of unanimous agreement • An agreement was always reached within the ORM, allowing for: • Clarity of spectrum access rights • New assignments to be made • Any resulting effects to be limited to one or two operators • Satisfaction of the AMS(R)S requirements • There are provisions in the MoU to address the situation where the ORM fails to agree on adequate assignments for any operator • So far, all difficulties have been resolved within the ORM process, and these provisions have not been invoked

9. Having two ORM groupings does not prevent AMS(R)S spectrum access • The current arrangements for frequency coordination with two MoU groups (andtwo ORMs) in Regions 1 & 3 and Region 2 are more efficient at achieving harmonised spectrum assignment than the usual bilateral coordination process • Coordination and consultation between the regions do take place, for instance as bilateral meetings between administrations. Even if there is a need to increase these activities, this would not require any change to the Radio Regulations, as current provisions allow for necessary coordination.

10. Conclusion • The ORM process has allowed AMS(R)S systems to work successfully for many years, and has accommodated a new AMS(R)S system • The coordination process is open to new entrants • Information from ICAO can be fed into the process • No changes are needed to the Radio Regulations to meet the objectives of WRC-12 agenda item 1.7