SFCG Report to CEOS Frequency Protection for EO Satellites

1. SFCG Report to CEOS Frequency Protection for EO Satellites Presented by Edoardo Marelli, SFCG Executive Secretary

2. Presentation contents • SFCG Activities Status • The WRC-07 results • The WRC-11 objectives • Other SFCG subjects of interest for CEOS • Cooperation between CEOS and SFCG

3. SFCG activities status • The SFCG-28 meeting took place in Quebec City (Canada) in September 2008. The meeting was attended by 63 delegates from 14 Space Agencies and 4 Observer Agencies. • SFCG analyzed the results of WRC-07 versus the SFCG Objectives • SFCG generated the first version of the “WRC-11 SFCG Objectives”. The document is provided in annex. • Other issues relevant to the CEOS activities were also discussed. • Although no SFCG representative could attend the 21st CEOS Plenary in 2007, SFCG reiterated the importance of keeping a close cooperation with CEOS. • SFCG-29 will take place in June 2009 in Moscow (Russian Federation).

4. WRC-2007

5. The WRC-07 results • Globally rather satisfactory results for the EO aspects • The following Agenda Items were of particular relevance to the EO community: • AI 1.2 (first part): Extension of the 18 GHz band allocation for geostationary Met-Sat data downlink band from 200 to 300 MHz • AI 1.2 (second part): Sharing parameters in the 10.6 GHz and 36 GHz passive bands • AI 1.3: Extension of the 9 GHz active sensors allocation. • AI 1.12: Possibility to register at ITU the satellite active and passive sensors • AI 1.20: Definition of unwanted emission limits in a number of purely passive bands

6. The WRC-07 results (cont.) • 1.2 (part 1). The extension from 200 to 300 MHz of the allocation to Meteorological satellites downlinks around 18 GHz was agreed, although the allocation in Region2 (18.0-18.3 GHz) is not the same as the one for Regions 1 and 3 (18.1-18.4 GHz). Anyhow this will allow to cover the high rate downlink requirements of future geostationary meteorological satellites (e.g Eumetsat Meteosat Third Generation). • 1.2 (part 2). Regulatory limits were agreed for protecting the passive sensors in the band 36-37 GHz, while only “recommended” limits were agreed for the band 10.6-10.68 GHz. This was part of a global compromise involving also the unwanted emission limits under AI 1.20 (see later). Considering the fierce opposition by some administrations to any limit whatsoever, this can be considered as a very positive result.

7. The WRC-07 results (cont.) • 1.3 The X-band active sensing allocationwas extended by 200 MHz to 9,3-9.8 GHz., allowing high resolution X-band SAR measurements (~1 meter). On request by Germany, a further 100 MHz of secondary allocation was added from 9.8 to 9.9 GHz. • 1.12 The ITU filing regulations were modified to allow a proper registration of the satellite active and passive RF sensors. • 1.20. Regulatory measures to limit unwanted emissions in bands used by EO RF vertical sounders (24, 31 and 50 GHz) were agreed. For the band 1.4 GHz (salinity/soil moisture measurements by radiometers) only ”recommended” values could be agreed. In both cases the agreed values are well in line with the ones proposed by the EO community. The important thing was to have the ITU accepting the concept of limitations on unwanted emissions, that was originally opposed by many administrations.

8. The WRC-11 objectives (see also annex) • WRC-11 will see us concentrating mostly on the protection of the current allocations rather than asking for new ones. • Several rather generic WRC-11 Agenda Items need monitoring, since they could affect one way or another the EO allocations. These subjects go from Short Range Devices to SW Defined Radios to new Mobile Satellite allocations in bands still TBD to a generic revision of the FS allocations from 71 to 238 GHz. • The only new allocation request will be the extension of the 7750-7850 MHz allocation to NGSO Met-Sat by 50 MHz (AI 1.24) • An important AI will also be the one revising the identification (not allocation) of passive usage from 275 GHz to 3000 GHz. (AI 1.6). Support to your agency Frequency Management Office is expected in the definition of scientific sensing needs in those high frequencies. The work in SFCG is already well advanced, with support by IGARSS. • A new Resolution on the relevance of EO applications will generate an ITU-R Report.

9. Other SFCG subjects of interest for CEOS • The SFCG Recommendation on the use of the 8025-8400 MHz band for EO data downlink is now also an ITU Recommendation. SFCG has decided to update the database on future planned use of the band. The risk of heavy interference among EO satellites using high-latitude stations in the next years is still very high.  The space agencies are strongly invited to invest in the technology necessary for a future transfer to 25.5-27 GHz • A new Recommendation on the best way to share the 25.5-27 GHz band between EO and space science missions for very high-rate downlink is under finalization. • New Short Range Devices (SRD) are proposed at various frequency bands by national authorities as if this was a purely national issue. SFCG is arguing that this has the potential to affect international services like the EO satellites and therefore shouldn’t be left to individual countries to decide in isolation. Strong lobbying is needed on this concept!!!!!

10. Commercial approach to spectrum usage A number of national spectrum management agencies have been “outsourced” to private companies. They live of the commercial licence fees and are therefore less sympathetic to “free” spectrum users like us. The economic success of the spectrum auctions is setting the trend of deciding usage priority and regulations changes on the basis of the money that can be generated from the spectrum usage. This is a problem for us. We serve public interest!

11. Providing “ammunitions” • A key argument in national and international regulatory bodies to “value” contrasting spectrum users requests is the economical and social impact of the services provided • A document explaining the chain “interferenceloss of EO data loss of services economical/social impact on the average citizen”, would be extremely useful for the SFCG members to supplement their technical case (as well as for the CEOS members in their lobbying for spectrum) • This document should give as much as possible quantitative information on the impact of EO service losses, in particular in terms of economical impact. • Can CEOS provide any input on this? • Pls. read the document provided in annex 2 and see if you can add anything.

12. How can CEOS help SFCG? • Lobbying: Pls. use the WRC-11 SFCG Objectives (in annex 1) for the lobbying activities/participation to spectrum user meetings with your national administration. In addition: awareness of the potential impact on our international services of uncoordinated national regulations on SRD. • Identifying the long-term needs: Support will be appreciated in the work on the definition of the usage of frequencies in the range 275-3000 GHz. Particular focus on the atmospheric chemistry needs. • “Providing ammunitions”: Any document/information giving quantitative data on the socio-economical relevance of EO by satellite will be extremely useful.The document in annex 2 can be taken as an example.

13. Contacts More info on SFCG at: www.sfcgonline.org Contact: Edoardo Marelli (ESA) Edoardo.Marelli@esa.int Tel: +31-71-5654305 - mobile: +31-6-52062088