ACP WGF WP08

Aeronautical Communications Panel (ACP) Working Group F Meeting

(Bangkok, 8 - 18 December 2009)

Agenda Item:

ITU-R Working Party 4C draft CPM text on WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7

Role of ICAO in the coordination of AMS(R)S spectrum requirements.

(Presented by Secretary)

1.             Background

1.1 The following comments are based on the attached Annex 14 to ITU-R Document 4C/338 (Chairman's report of the last 4C meeting - Working document towards draft CPM text on WRC-12 AI 1.7).

1.2 Method B described in the document (France et al.) proposes draft modifications to ITU-R Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07), directly involving ICAO in the coordination process.

1.3.         In the modified Resolution (“invites ICAO” clause), ICAO is invited to:

“i)            carry out necessary coordination, with consultation of the concerned Administrations, for the process based on which the [spectrum][communication] requirements of AMS(R)S networks are determined and submitted to the coordination meetings [and justified];”

1.4          Furthermore, the draft Resolution (“concerned Administrations” clause) also invites concerned Administrations of MSS systems taking part in the multilateral coordination meetings to:

“i) recognise the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements from ICAO;ii) ensure that AMS(R)S spectrum requirements as coordinated by ICAO are given priority access to spectrum in respect to ensuring that No. 5.357A is fulfilled;iii) make spectrum available for AMS(R)S in case that no agreement is reached at such multilateral meetings.”

2.             Discussion

2.1          Spectrum requirements vs communication requirements

2.1.1       The current draft text leaves it open whether ICAO is supposed to provide “spectrum” requirements or “communication” requirements. The difference presumably would be that spectrum requirements would be formulated in MHz per coverage/beam areas, whereas communication requirements would be formulated in terms more directly related to end user requirements, e.g. aggregate data throughput/Erlang or similar.

2.1.2       The main advantage of the first approach (spectrum) would be that aviation requirements would then be formulated in terms that would be directly applicable to the coordination meeting process, as

- 2 -

opposed to requiring further interpretation and processing before being applied to the coordination. In other words, ICAO would make a clear statement of spectrum requirements that could not be diluted or misinterpreted in the coordination process.

2.1.3       The main disadvantages of the first approach are:

a) It could be argued that ICAO lacks the expertise/authority required to convert aviation end-user requirements into AMS(R)S spectrum requirements.

i. In terms of expertise, the argument might be at least partially valid, insofar as conversion of end-user requirements into per-beam AMS(R)S spectrum requirements is likely to involve detailed knowledge of individual MSS systems architecture and constraints. Additional complexity would be due to the fact that it would be difficult for ICAO to make informed assumptions on which AMS(R)S system would be actually used by the AMS(R)S traffic. For instance, if AMS(R)S spectrum is assigned to a system which supports AMS(R)S but uses a technology different from the legacy ICAO AMSS SARPs, aviation would be unable to use it due to lack of equipage; however, from the strict point of view of AMS(R)S spectrum availability, the requirements of Res.222 would be satisfied1.

ii. In terms of authority, one could argue that ICAO, representing a user community, has the authority to express user requirements in terms that are directly relevant to the user (i.e. communication requirements as opposed to spectrum requirements) but should leave it to the provider community to determine the way in which those requirements should be met in terms, for instance, of spectrum assignments.

b) Allowing ICAO to effectively dictate spectrum requirements is likely to be strongly resisted by the MSS community. In the context of the proposed resolution, ICAO would have the last word in determining the spectrum requirements, and MSS operators would just be obliged to comply with them. As a consequence, either the resolution would be rejected, or (equivalently) the “justification” mentioned in the “invites ICAO” would be based to such demanding conditions that it would be very difficult for aviation requirements to pass the justification test.

2.1.4       Conversely, the main advantage of the second approach (communication) would be that determination of aviation requirements in terms of communication needs (as opposed to MHz/beam or similar) would be technically simpler (although far from trivial) and would be fully within the realm of ICAO’s authority and responsibilities. The main disadvantages of the second approach would be that requirements expressed in terms of communication needs would then be left to the MSS communication to be translated into spectrum requirements, with the potential risk of misinterpretation.

 3.             Practical implementation of ICAO coordination

3.1          Whether the “spectrum” or the “communication” approach is chosen, the question remains open as to how ICAO should proceed in implementing the coordination of AMS(R)S requirements within the aviation community. Possible alternative approaches would include: formal State letter process, periodic dedicated aviation coordination meetings, ACP WGF meetings, Secretariat analysis, direct consultation with AMS(R)S providers, or a combination of two or more of those.

1 This situation could emerge as a consequence of the introduction of “generic” AMS(R)S SARPs. For instance, other MSS systems (in addition to the current “legacy” AMS(R)S providers) might conceivably make a fair claim that their systems provides performance levels that meet or exceed the generic AMS(R)S SARPs, and therefore could claim entitlement to a portion of the required AMS(R)S spectrum, but this would not be of much use to aviation users, as no avionics would be available for those systems for the foreseeable future. While it would be theoretically possible to take into account the level of equipage for a given technology and use it as a sanity check on the stated AMS(R)S spectrum requirements for that technology, it is unclear to what extent the current multilateral review meetings would be willing or able to entertain this type of considerations.

- 3 -

3.2          Whatever the approach chosen, it is likely that significant effort would be involved on ICAO’s part, which should be matched by adequate budget provisions.

4.             Other elements of the proposed resolution

4.             Arrangements related to the coordination processes in this band are currently subject to confidentiality. (See for instance the “Views of some other administrations” in section 5/1.7/2 of the attached document: “In line with the normal practice in frequency coordination for all types of satellite networks, the Administrations involved in the bilateral and multilateral processes conducted for the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands MSS networks have agreed to keep the coordination agreements confidential.” ).

4.2          The confidentiality and associated lack of transparency of the current arrangements are problematic for the aviation community, as recognized in the “Views of some administrations” in section 5/1.7/2 of the attached document (“the O[perator] R[eview] M[eeting] assignments agreed under the provisions of the MoU of the MLM are not available in the public domain. This makes it very difficult for the aviation community to develop long-term plans for spectrum access in order to serve their safety communication needs.”).

4.3          It should be noted that the rationale for confidentiality is not clear. Issue of commercial nature have been invoked, but they do not seem to be relevant, considering that the information is freely available to all MLM participants, whose commercial interests are often conflicting (MLM participants may be direct competitors in the same MSS/AMS(R)S market). On the other hand, the information is not freely available to the user community. A situation where information is only available within a group of ostensibly competing providers but is not available to their customers cannot but raise issues as to the true rationale for “confidentiality”.

4.4          The proposed Resolution attempts to address the issue of lack of transparency by introducing a clause instructing the Director of the BR to publish annually the assignments made to AMS(R)S covered by No. 5.357A (see “instructs the Director of the BR” clause in the attachment).

4.5          The proposed clause seems to be a reasonable way forward, but some potential difficulties could arise:

a. Official publication of the assignments may encounter strong resistance from the MSS community, as it provides a written record of information perceived as “confidential”.

b. Publication of the information is an “after the fact” action, which merely reflects a decision taken at a closed door meeting without direct aviation participation. Thus, the actual assignment process would not be directly influenced by the proposed clause.

c. Publication by the BR entails an “administrative burden” (no matter how slight), which may be used as a reason to oppose the proposal.

4.6          An alternative (or complementary) approach would be to require that ICAO be allowed to participate as an observer to the coordination meetings. This approach should overcome the potential difficulties listed above: it would not entail a written record; would enable direct aviation participation to the meetings; and would avoid the administrative burden to the BR.

4.7          Participation by ICAO to the coordination meetings could of course raise a number of issues:

a. Participants to the coordination meetings will likely be very reluctant to allow participation by ICAO, which is an outsider to the MSS community and is perceived as a vocal, and occasionally strident, opponent of the current coordination meeting arrangements;

- 4 -

b. Even if ICAO were to be allowed to attend the meetings, it is likely that ICAO attendance would be conditional on ICAO accepting severe restrictions to its ability to actively participate in the decision making process, influence its outcome and divulge its results;

c. The effort and costs associated with participation to the coordination meetings would need to be recognized and budgeted within ICAO.

4.8          The issues listed in 4.7 need not be show stoppers. With regard to item a. above, the MSS community should be made to realize that direct involvement by ICAO in the process would, if anything, contribute to defuse ICAO’s opposition, considering that ICAO’s main reason to oppose the process is its lack of transparency. Furthermore, the MSS community should by now be aware that ICAO expectations with regard to the actual AMS(R)S spectrum requirements that are likely to emerge over the next 10 – 20 years are actually quite moderate. With regard to item b., compared with the current situation whereby ICAO is completely excluded from the coordination process, any level of participation, even involving severe restrictions, would appear to be preferable. With regard to item c., the ICAO budget issue should be addressed within the aviation community, possibly with support from AMS(R)S providers.

5.             Conclusions

5.1          The approach outlined in Method B in the current draft CPM text, while unlikely to provide a full and definitive solution to all the issues related to AMS(R)S access to the 1.5/1.6 GHz band, offers at least some hope for a way forward on a topic on which little substantial progress has occurred since WRC-97.

5.2          The “ICAO coordination” process introduced by the proposed Method B draft Resolution is a novel approach that raises a number of non trivial questions as to how the process should be structured and implemented in practice, with a view to securing acceptance from the MSS community and establishing appropriate means for the aviation community to participate in the process.

5.3          Notwithstanding open issues and questions, Method B seems the most promising of the methods presented in the current draft CPM text. Unless a preferable alternative method can be defined, efforts should focus on further developing Method B to ensure its acceptability and feasibility, along the lines discussed above.

6. Actions by the meeting

Review the paper and provide comments and advice to assist the ICAO Secretariat in the preparation for the next WP4C meeting.

Attachments:

1) Annex 14 to ITU-R Document 4C/338 (Working Party 4C Chairman’s Report – Working Document toward draft CPM text on WRC-12 Agenda Item 1.7)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- 5 -

Radiocommunication Study Groups

Subject: WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7

Source: Document 4C/TEMP/165

Reference: Documents 4C/190, 276, 298, 309, 317, 327, 329, 330

ATTACHMENT 1

Annex 14 toDocument 4C/338-E8 October 2009English only

Annex 14 to Working Party 4C Chairman’s Report

WORKING DOCUMENT TOWARD DRAFT CPM TEXT ONWRC-12 AGENDA ITEM 1.7

In applying Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) in the current coordination meeting: − How the requirements of AMS(R)S are accommodated?− How the priority referred to in RR No. 5.357A is afforded?− How the protection of AMS(R)S from unacceptable interference is ensured?− How the decision is made in that coordination meeting, e.g. on a consensual basis, on the

majority basis or else?In order to resolve some of the problems mentioned in this document, similar course of actions as contained in Resolutions 608 (WRC-03), 609 (Rev.WRC-07) and 610 (WRC-03) may need to be examined as appropriate, at the next meetings of WP 4C. This should not be interpreted to replace any method.

Questions and clarifications regarding the existing AMS(R)S systemsProvide a general background on the existing AMS(R)S systems. In particular it is needed to be explained and clarified how many systems exist that provide AMS(R)S services, what is the coverage area of each system and what is the spectrum available per system per coverage area e.g. (spectrum available for each AMS(R)S in ITU R2, ITU R1 and 3 and regional within ITU-R Regions, if any). Additionally, it is required to clarify how the overall objectives of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) are achieved between Region 2 on the one hand and Regions 1 and 3 on the other hand (e.g. how coordination among the three ITU-R Regions is conducted for AMS(R)S systems, how spectrum is efficiently shared between Region 2 and Regions 1 and 3, including AMS(R)S systems).

- 6 -

AGENDA ITEM 1.7(WP 4C/WP 5C, (WP 4B), (WP 7B), (WP 7C), (WP 7D))

1.7 to consider the results of ITU-R studies in accordance with Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) in order to ensure long-term spectrum availability and access to spectrum necessary to meet requirements for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service, and to take appropriate action on this subject, while retaining unchanged the generic allocation to the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz;Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07): Use of the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz by the mobile-satellite service, and studies to ensure long-term spectrum availability for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service

5/1.7/1 Executive summary[Text of the executive summary, not more that half a page]

5/1.7/2 BackgroundThe International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standardized the use of the 1.6/1.5 GHz band in 1995 as an essential element of aeronautical mobile satellite systems to enable safety communications, and spectrum demand will increase for the next generation of aeronautical satellite communication systems. ICAO has also standardized the use of 1.6 GHz band by NGSO satellite systems to provide alternative satellite communication capability for provision of aeronautical mobile-satellite systems, including communication safety messages.At WRC-97, the sub-bands 1 545-1 555 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz (Earth-to-space), were made generic mobile-satellite service (MSS) allocations with the provision RR No. 5.357A, to prioritize and protect AMS(R)S. These bands had previously been exclusively allocated to the aeronautical mobile-satellite service (AMS(R)S) for communications relating to the safety and regularity of flights (messages with priority 1 to 6 as per Article 44 of the Radio Regulations). For the sub-bands 1 555-1 559 MHz and 1 656.5-1 660.5 MHz, see also RR No. 5.362A. The use of these bands for provision of aeronautical mobile-satellite services [had been small, but] is anticipated to increase with projected growth in aviation traffic and evolution of aeronautical services.WRC-2000 adopted Resolution 222 (WRC-2000) resolving that, administrations shall ensure that the spectrum needed for AMS(R)S communications within priority categories 1 to 6 of RR Article 44 is accommodated. This could be achieved in advance through the coordination process, and when necessary and where feasible, through prioritization and real-time pre-emptive access. However, studies included in Report ITU-R M.2073 has concluded that prioritization and inter-system pre-emption between different mobile-satellite systems is not practical and, without a significant advance in technology, is unlikely to be feasible for technical, operational and economical reasons. WRC-07 revised Resolution 222 to remove the request for studies into the “inter system real-time pre-emption” issue, but added other areas of study instead.Resolution 222 also (resolves 3) requires that “administrations shall ensure that MSS operators carrying non-safety-related traffic yield capacity, as and when necessary, to accommodate the spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S communications within priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44” and to the GMDSS.

- 7 -

In coordinating MSS systems, in addition to the procedure of RR Article 9, the administrations having MSS systems in the above bands have agreed to a multilateral process by which assignments across the bands 1 525-1 559/1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz are coordinated and reviewed annually so as to ensure fair and efficient use of the radio spectrum. This multilateral process recognises the Radio Regulatory provisions and the communications needs of GMDSS and AMS(R)S and the resulting spectrum needed to accommodate their requirements.[It is noted that additional 2 x 7 MHz for the MSS was allocated at WRC-03, this allocation does not appear to properly respond to the needs of safety communications for AMS(R)S communications since it is unable to use for the seamless worldwide operations due to the regional limitations and difficult sharing conditions in those bands]. {Editor’s note: to be placed elsewhere, perhaps}[Views of some administrations:One AMS(R)S operator has encountered difficulty several times in the ORM process for access to spectrum since 2003 since their spectrum requirements are treated on an equal basis with the other MSS operators. In particular, despite of the priority given by RR No. 5.357A their spectrum requirements were only satisfied for no more than 70% of their needs in the framework of one MLM group (Regions 1 and 3). When then considering the additional constraints coming from the other operators in Region 2 the overall resulting assignments for the AMS(R )S network were less than 50%. This is because the spectrum assigned in one MLM group (Regions 1 and 3) is not reusable with the other MLM group (Region 2).In the past, at the ORM (Regions 1 and 3) there has not been a consensual agreement on the request of new assignments which resulted in no new assignments being made to any of the operators. Hence, as it is important for AMS(R)S safety communications needs to be accommodated in the long-term with stable access to spectrum, the disagreements in the ORM framework which may result in freeze of assigned spectrum between operators can cause undue operational constraints to the AMS(R)S network.Moreover, the ORM assignments agreed under the provisions of the MoU of the MLM are not available in the public domain. This makes it very difficult for the aviation community to develop long-term plans for spectrum access in order to serve their safety communication needs. The process is not sufficiently transparent to all parties. Consequently, there is a need to add some openness and transparency in the process.Te current mechanism does not address in which unacceptable interference is caused to AMS(R)S.Due to the above reasons, the view of some Administrations is that the provisions of RR No. 5.357A and Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) have not been put into practice within the current framework of the multilateral frequency coordination meetings and in order to resolve such matter, Agenda item 1.7 was adopted by WRC-07.][Views of some other administrations:The multilateral coordination process is conducted under Article 9 of the Radio Regulations and was established by the notifying Administrations of MSS networks to facilitate the coordination of these networks. In line with the normal practice in frequency coordination for all types of satellite networks, the Administrations involved in the bilateral and multilateral processes conducted for the 1.5/1.6 GHz bands MSS networks have agreed to keep the coordination agreements confidential. The current coordination process includes a validation process of requested spectrum assignments. In this process, AMS(R)S spectrum requirements should be clearly identified in accordance with RR Article 44 categories 1 to 6. To date, the coordination process has satisfied the spectrum requirements of the AMS(R)S operators. No dissatisfaction with the coordination outcome for an AMS(R)S operator has been raised to the level of the notifying Administrations resulting in an administration invoking the priority provision of RR No 5.357A.

- 8 -

Disagreement on the spectrum assignments for one MSS operator does not prevent required spectrum assignments from being made to an AMS(R)S operator.]Taking into account the number of aircraft (more than 2 000 globally equipped) already equipped with standardized AMS(R)S technology, the life cycle of the AMS(R)S systems spread over [several decades] and the technical and operational advantages of using the bands identified in RR No. 5.357A, the preference of ICAO is for the AMS(R)S spectrum needs under this Agenda item to be accommodated in those bands. Resolution 222 invites the ITU-R to study other appropriate methods to ensure long-term and stable spectrum availability and priority access for AMS(R)S in these bands, and to provide appropriate regulatory and operational provisions.Only if the long-term requirements of the AMS(R)S cannot be met “within the existing allocations with respect to RR No. 5.357A while retaining unchanged the generic allocation for the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, and without placing undue constraints on the existing systems operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations” (invites ii) should “existing MSS allocations or possible, new allocations only for satisfying the requirements of the AMS(R)S for communications with priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44” (invites iv) be studied.[Also, depending on decisions taken by WRC-12, consequential action may be required to ensure that the provisions contained in Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) that clarify the protection of AMS(R)S in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz are retained.]

5/1.7/3 Summary of technical and operational studies and relevant ITU-R Recommendations

3.1 Long term AMS(R)S spectrum requirementsResolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) invites the ITU-R to study, as a matter of urgency, and among other things, the existing and future spectrum requirements of the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service. For that purpose, spectrum requirements have been estimated using certain methodologies. The results, contained in the draft new Report ITU-R M.[AMS(R)S SPECTRUM ESTIMATE], are derived from the aviation needs and existing and future satellite systems characteristics.

3.1.1 Aviation needs

Flight movementsInformation on flight movements is required to evaluate the number of aircraft located within a given airspace at any given time. The information can be based on the actual air traffic statistics, and/or on forecasts of future air traffic over a given airspace. Such statistics and trends are normally compiled by the relevant aviation authorities, e.g. by ICAO, IATA for worldwide data and by

- 9 -

Eurocontrol for the European region (e.g. Eurocontrol compiles long-term statistics of flight movements for 20 years ahead). A copy of the Eurocontrol long-term forecast (2008-2030) is provided in the following link http://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor/gallery/content/public/forecasts/Doc302%20LTF08%20Report%20Vol1%20v1.0.pdf.

Communication needs of a single aircraftThe AMS(R)S communication needs of a single aircraft will in general depend on several factors, such as the airspace, operational concept, air traffic services provided for each different aircraft flight phase and position.The identification and quantitative characterization of these communication needs is a complex matter. The ICAO Aeronautical Communication Panel (ACP) has recommended as guidance for the assessment of future communication requirements the “Communications Operating Concept and Requirements for the Future Radio System” (COCR, currently in Version 2), developed by Eurocontrol and FAA. The COCR describes in detail the aviation communication services required by single aircraft in each airspace domain and flight phase, and is a suitable basis for the purpose of the assessment of the needs of multiple aircraft. A copy of this document can be found at the following link http://www.eurocontrol.int/communications/gallery/content/public/documents/COCR%20V2.0.pdf.The COCR does not however define some important elements of the system design, for example whether the communication requirements are carried by satellite or terrestrial means. Factors such as the determination of the communication requirements by satellite, whether point-to-multipoint transmission mode is used and the satellite system design will impact the spectrum requirements.

Communication needs of multiple aircraftsThe cumulative communication needs over a given airspace and a given time frame can be obtained by combining the information on flight movements in that area and time frame with the information on the communication needs of a single aircraft. Two procedures were agreed by ICAO for assessing spectrum needs using a combination of the above information. One based on a simulated statistical approach which derives aviation requirements and then adapts these to satellite technologies and the second a deterministic approach based on a Peak Instantaneous Aircraft Count (PIAC) also adapted to satellite technologies. The difference between these two procedures occurs at the level of derivation of aviation requirements inputs, i.e. one considers a flight by flight and time iterated simulation and the other relies on estimation of the maximum number of aircraft over a given airspace and the average communication information volume per aircraft.The statistical simulated model works at a lower level of detail and should ensure that the specified message priority and latency of safety communication messages are taken into consideration.

3.1.2 Satellite system characteristics and methodologyIn order to derive the spectrum requirements from the aviation needs, a set of satellite characteristics are needed for the calculation. Some of these are the beam configuration (number and size of beams), the service area configuration per beam, the capacity per carrier, the data delay, the carrier separation, the band efficiency, the access scheme, the protocol inefficiencies, modulation, the satellite/terrestrial split of avionics traffic and so on.

- 10 -

The methodology to estimate the spectrum requirement over an airspace is in four general steps as follows:1) Gather the information on aircraft statistics and communication needs for the chosen area

and calculate from all aircraft the maximum communication needs in bits/second. 2) From 1) calculate for the chosen area the spectrum requirements for a satellite beam, taking

into account the satellite characteristics (one beam may not cover the complete area).3) Calculate the total spectrum requirement for the satellite system taking account of all beams

over the chosen area.4) Calculate the global spectrum requirements using frequency re-use between the different

satellite networks.

3.1.3 AMS(R)S requirementsIt is noted that the estimation of AMS(R)S spectrum can be performed separately for the satellite forward link and for the satellite return link. The two components are in general different because of the different communication needs and protocols in both links.The spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S vary depending on the area being considered, assumptions for the overall system design (e.g. how much traffic is carried by terrestrial means, and how much by satellite means), and the characteristics of the AMS(R)S system.[Editor’s note: the table which is in Annex 2, summarizing the estimated spectrum requirements studies needs to be captured here.][The European airspace can be seen as a worst case in regards of the number of planes, and related communication requirements in 2025. For this area, the spectrum requirements for the year 2025 are estimated in the forward link at between [2.9] MHz and [3.3] MHz and not more than [1.3] MHz in the return link. The larger number is based on an assumption and use of a satellite system with six spot beams over the European airspace region, the smaller number of an alternative satellite system design with 26 spot beams over the European airspace region. Enhanced analysis based on other assumptions, would lead to smaller spectrum requirements of between [0.4 and 0.7 MHz] in particular, that more traffic is carried by the terrestrial link, that there is the use of point-to-multipoint transmission mode and enhanced terminal performance.When we consider a global Earth airspace the spectrum requirement is going to be slightly more, driven by the European requirements. European studies have shown that the global spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S in year 2025 will not exceed 5 MHz in the forward link and 2 MHz in the return link.]

3.2 Other considerations[Furthermore, NGSO systems in a part of the 1 610-1 626.5 MHz band may deploy AMS(R)S services (subject to RR No. 9.21) which could also be used to satisfy the overall demand for the use of AMS(R)S spectrum. The estimated spectrum requirement for AMS(R)S resulting from the ITU-R studies did not take into account the potential AMS(R)S traffic carried by NGSO systemsFrom this perspective the current estimation for the RR No. 5.357A bands may [slightly] over estimate the spectrum estimation.][The estimated spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S resulting from some of the ITU-R studies did not take into account that most of the AMS(R)S traffic is currently carried out by terrestrial systems. This leads to the resultant spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S being over estimated)]

Regarding UAS spectrum requirements Under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7, the studies have assumed that unmanned aircraft operating in Unmanned Air Systems (UASs) will fly and appear as normal aircraft. The AMS(R)S communication estimate in WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 studies have included all communications

- 11 -

from air traffic control centres to air vehicles, including those related to UASs. This assumption was identified as necessary for the separation of study of spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S between the Working Parties responsible for WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 and Agenda item 1.3.[The Working Parties also identified that the study of spectrum requirements under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3 include the separate two way link from the individual UAS to its remote pilot which may be part of the AMS(R)S. Therefore, studies under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3 may determine that some of these specific UAS spectrum requirements fall within AMS(R)S priority categories 1 to 6 of RR Article 44 for this part of the communication link. If these specific two way UAS remote pilot and UAS link requirements were to be used within the bands given in RR No. 5.357A, after WRC-12 then the spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.7 would have been under estimated and the AMS(R)S inclusive total may exceed the available 2 x 10 MHz. If WRC-12 agrees that this possibility exists, then UAS requirements should be considered outside of the provisions of RR No. 5.357A and Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07). {Editor’s note: further explanation of post WRC RRs may have to be moved into other considerations paragraph.}]The future spectrum requirements for command and control, Air Traffic Control (ATC) data relay and sense and avoid communication needs of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are discussed under WRC-12 Agenda item 1.3.

3.3 List of relevant ITU-R Recommendations and ReportRelevant ITU-R Recommendations:[Editor’s note: only the Recommendations than have been used in the studies are needed]Relevant ITU-R Reports: M.2073 − Feasibility and practicality of prioritization and real-time pre-emptive access between different networks of mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz.M.[AMS(R)S SPECTRUM ESTIMATE] − AMS(R)S communication requirements forecasts and estimated future spectrum requirements.

5/1.7/4 Analysis of the results of studiesThe results of studies under this Agenda item show that long term AMS(R)S spectrum requirements [will be less than 2 x 10 MHz and would fit into the frequency bands defined by provision RR No. 5.357A. In that case, Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) invites the ITU-R to ensure adequate access to spectrum to accommodate the AMS(R)S requirements in those bands.]The bands 1 545-1 555 MHz and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz are currently also used for other MSS operations by several MSS operators. RR No 5.357A requires that those operators yield capacity to meet the requirements of AMS(R)S systems. However, the impact on existing MSS operations would be dependant on the spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S. The existing provision RR No. 5.357A together with the resolves of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) imposes explicit priority for aeronautical communications. This includes a requirement that AMS(R)S communication needs have priority access to spectrum. Therefore, assuming that the total AMS(R)S spectrum needs of all MSS operators (1 545-1 555 MHz and 1 646.5-1 656.5MHz) are less than 2 x 10 MHz, MSS operators should ensure they yield spectrum to new validated AMS(R)S [spectrum requirements covering messages of categories 1 to 6 of RR Article 44 in coordination meetings having a workable mechanism] (i.e. new or existing MSS operators that support AMS(R)S communications). This will ensure AMS(R)S safety communications are met. The current regulations require that the priority afforded to AMS(R)S is taken into account in the coordination process. This allows for the requirements of AMS(R)S within priority categories 1 to 6 of RR Article 44 to be reviewed and assessed by the [notifying administrations of the MSS and AMS(R)S operators.]

- 12 -

[Some administrations are of the view that in the event of MSS assignments having to be removed to satisfy [5.357A/A.I 1.7] in meeting the long term requirements of AMS(R)S to provide for AMS(R)S communications needs/assignments, more MSS users would be required to use the remaining reduced spectrum which may increase the levels of congestion and therefore may reduce the quality of existing service to existing customers or even cease provisions of some services.][Editor’s note: candidate to be moved elsewhere, copied in other section, to be improved by additional contributions to the next meetings]

5/1.7/5 Methods to satisfy the agenda item[Some administrations are of the view that any methods suggesting reservation of spectrum within the 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz bands for AMS(R)S future forecast needs would result in inefficient use of spectrum and would be inconsistent with the mandate of this agenda item as decided and agreed to during the WRC-07 Conference].

5.1 Method A – No Change to the regulatory provisions of the Radio Regulations[Coordination between mobile-satellite service (MSS) networks is required in accordance with the procedure of RR Article 9, No. 5.357A.]Until now there has been no case that any existing AMS(R)S system, which fulfils all the requirements of the multilateral coordination process, was not given the minimum required spectrum;The AMS(R)S spectrum requirements have been estimated [as less than 2 x 10 MHz]. The existing Radio Regulation provision RR No. 5.357A and the resolves of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) provide sufficient priority for current and future AMS(R)S requirements. Under these provisions, notifying administrations of the AMS(R)S systems should identify required spectrum for AMS(R)S communications within priority categories 1 to 6 of RR Article 44 in order that validated ASM(R)S requirements are provided through the coordination process.

Advantages– based on recent studies the spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S up to the year 2025 can be

accommodated in the frequencies bands according to RR No. 5.357A;– the generic allocation to the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and

1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz remains unchanged, [ensuring the flexible and efficient use of them];– [no undue constraints are placed on the existing systems operating in the bands

1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz;]– the coordination process in these bands between operators at regular annual multilateral

coordination meetings, based on the capacity-planning approach, proves [some] effectiveness over the last 10 years for accommodating AMS(R)S spectrum requirements;

– [There are no amendments to the RR Article 9 provisions for satellite coordination.] – [no dissatisfaction with the coordination outcome for an AMS(R)S network has been raised

to the level of the notifying Administrations resulting in an administration invoking the priority provision of RR No 5.357A. Some administrations are of the view that the existing regulatory procedures are adequate to ensure that the spectrum requirements of AMS(R)S systems can be satisfied.]

Disadvantages– [since no additional procedures will be included in the Radio Regulations, the problems that

have led to the adoption of A.I. 1.7 will not be solved.]– [Meeting the AMS(R)S needs in these bands means existing (non AMS(R)S) MSS

operations in the bands 1 545-1 555 MHz and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz may have to yield

- 13 -

spectrum causing a reduction in the quality of service for some users] [Editor’s note: more contributions are needed to explain it.]

5.2 Method B – New ITU-R Resolution, or a modified ITU-R Resolution 222 which implements additional procedures for the provision of RR No. 5.357A

The spectrum requirement has been estimated for 2025 and would be of a maximum of X MHz in the space-to-Earth and Y MHz in the Earth-to-space. It should be noted that this requirement will [progressively] grow from now to 2025 up to those X MHz, [which will allow MSS operators to adapt to the situation and possibly move a part of their traffic to other frequency bands.] This Resolution should aim at implementing additional procedures to ensure priority access to AMS(R)S spectrum under provision RR No. 5.357A. [The rest of the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz would remain under the current Radio Regulatory provisions.] [Editor’s note: to be modified at the next meeting] One option is that the Resolution may require notifying administrations of both MSS and AMS(R)S networks involved in the coordination process to assign spectrum to AMS(R)S networks prior to other MSS network separately, while accepting MSS usage within this spectrum under the provisions of RR No. 5.357A. [Editor’s note: other options may also be considered.]The Resolution should include provisions to provide the real AMS(R)S spectrum use and the estimate of the future AMS(R)S spectrum requirements [Editor’s note: need to define a time period for the estimation]. [Methods to validate this information shall also be developed.] The future estimation should take into account the real use of the AMS(R)S spectrum. The Resolution should also include provisions to review the impact of the growth of the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements on the other MSS systems. [Methods/Provisions if estimation of the spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S results in undue constraints to other MSS systems] [Editor’s note: the period during which spectrum is assigned to AMS(R)S will be subject to further studies.]Consequentially, editorial modifications to RR No. 5.357A may be needed.

Advantages– [this method is an efficient use of the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz

by AMS(R)S;] [Editor’s note: more explanation regarding this advantage is necessary as its intent is not clear.]

– priority access to AMS(R)S communications is ensured, and generic MSS networks are able to share with AMS(R)S networks.

– [this method would not result in placing undue constraints to the existing systems.] [Editor’s note: to be assessed to the next meeting]

– [this method would result in efficient use of spectrum] [Editor’s note: to be assessed to the next meeting]

Disadvantages– [additional worldwide administrative meetings need to be held.] – [implementation of priority access for AMS(R)S in the 1.5/1.6 GHz band would result in

placing undue constraints to the existing systems.] [Editor’s note: to be assessed to the next meeting]

– [this method would result in inefficient use of spectrum] [Editor’s note: to be assessed to the next meeting]

- 14 -

5.3 Method C – New allocations only for satisfying the requirements of AMS(R)S for communications with priority categories 1 to 6 in RR Article 44[WP 4C Chairman’s note: this Method was renumbered C following the suppression of previous Method C.][Editor’s note: this Method is relevant only as per invites iv) of Resolution 222.] [To ensure the long-term spectrum availability (up to the year 2025) and access to the spectrum necessary to meet the requirements for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service for communications with priority categories 1 to 6 in RR Article 44 while– retaining unchanged the generic allocation to the mobile-satellite service in the bands

1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz;– without placing undue constraints on the existing systems operating in the bands

1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz in accordance with the Radio Regulations;– without the necessity of periodically coordinating access to the spectrum needed to

accommodate AMS(R)S requirements at the MLM/ORM meetings;new allocations other than 1.5/1.6 GHz bands solely for satisfying the requirements of AMS(R)S for communications with priority categories 1 to 6 in RR Article 44 may be required.

Advantages– undue constraints are not imposed on existing MSS systems operating in the bands

1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz in accordance with the Radio Regulations;– no need for AMS(R)S operators to periodically coordinate access to the spectrum needed to

accommodate AMS(R)S requirements within the MSS requirements at the MLM/ORM meetings;

– AMS(R)S spectrum requirements can be satisfied for a long-term period.[Editor’s note: to be assessed to the next meeting]

Disadvantages– Undue constraints are imposed on existing AMS(R)S systems operating in the bands

1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz in accordance with the Radio Regulations. Other administrations are of the view that AMS(R)S will be able to continue operating in this band.

– Regulatory certainty by AMS(R)S will be lost.– AMS(R)S technology in L-band will be lost.– No possibility for AMS(R)S operators to periodically coordinate access to the spectrum

needed to accommodate AMS(R)S requirements within the MSS requirements at the MLM/ORM meetings.

[Editor’s note: to be assessed to the next meeting]]

5.4 Method D – New ITU-R Resolution, or a modified ITU-R Resolution 222 which implements additional procedures to improve coordination among AMS(R)S systems

[WP 4C Chairman’s note: this Method was renumbered D following the suppression of previous Method C.][Editor’s note: this Method needs to be clarified by future contributions and may be part of Method B.]

- 15 -

5/1.7/6 Regulatory and procedural considerations

6.1 Method A– WRC-12 should decide that there should be No Change to the regulatory provisions in

Article 5 of the Radio Regulations and the resolves of Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07). – WRC-12 should modify Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) to remove the reference to the

invites ITU-R in the resolves part of the resolution and WRC-12 should delete all remaining clauses of the invites ITU-R.

6.2 Method B– Modify Resolution 222 (Rev. WRC-07) as per attachment.– Retain provision of RR No. 5.357A with consequential amendments, as appropriate. [Editor’s note: text has not been discussed and will be modified accordingly to the modification of Resolution 222.] [It is proposed that:– the current provision RR No. 5.357A should generally be retained as it is with small

amendments;– WRC-12 should modify Resolution 222 (Rev.WRC-07) as per attachment;

[– remove reported difficulties and deficiencies that memberships encountered in implementation of Resolution 222 (WRC-07) – Invites ICAO to the process of determining yearly spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S

and approve these spectrum requirements.– Instruct Administration of AMS(R)S systems to also oversee the process of estimating

spectrum requirements for AMS(R)S systems.– Instruct Administrations of MSS systems taking part in the MLM/ORM process, to

give priority access to AMS(R)S spectrum requirements as approved by ICAO. In case of ORM does not achieve any agreement, then the Administrations taking part in the ORM/MLM shall make spectrum available to the AMS(R)S requirements as approved by ICAO.

A draft revision of ITU-R Resolution 222 in that sense is proposed in Annex 1.]

Annex 1MOD

- 16 -

RESOLUTION 222 (Rev.WRC-1207)

Ensuring long-term spectrum access for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz

Use of the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz by the mobile-satellite service, and studies to ensure long-term spectrum availability for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R)

service

The World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 201207),

consideringa) that prior to WRC-97, the bands 1 530-1 544 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 626.5-1 645.5 MHz (Earth-to-space) were allocated to the maritime mobile-satellite service and the bands 1 545-1 555 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz (Earth-to-space) were allocated on an exclusive basis to the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service (AMS(R)S) in most countries;b) that WRC-97 allocated the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz (Earth-to-space) to the mobile-satellite service (MSS) to facilitate the assignment of spectrum to multiple MSS systems in a flexible and efficient manner;c) that WRC-97 adopted No. 5.353A giving priority to accommodating spectrum requirements for and protecting from unacceptable interference distress, urgency and safety communications of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) in the bands 1 530-1 544 MHz and 1 626.5-1 645.5 MHz and No. 5.357A giving priority to accommodating spectrum requirements for and protecting from unacceptable interference the AMS(R)S providing transmission of messages with priority categories 1 to 6 in Article 44 in the bands 1 545-1 555 MHz and 1 646.5-1 656.5 MHz;d) that AMS(R)S is an essential element of ICAO CNS/ATM to provide safety and regularity of flight in the civil air transportation,

further consideringa) that coordination between satellite networks is required on a bilateral basis in accordance with the Radio Regulations, and, in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz (Earth-to-space), coordination is partially assisted by regional multilateral meetings;b) that, in these bands, geostationary satellite system operators currently use a capacity-planning approach at multilateral coordination meetings, with the guidance and support of their administrations, to periodically coordinate access to the spectrum needed to accommodate their requirements;

- 17 -

c) that spectrum requirements for MSS networks, including the GMDSS and AMS(R)S, are currently accommodated through the capacity-planning approach and that, in the bands to which Nos. 5.353A or 5.357A apply, this approach, and other methods may assist in accommodating the expected increase of spectrum requirements for GMDSS and AMS(R)S;d) that Report ITU-R M.2073 has concluded that prioritization and inter-system pre-emption between different mobile-satellite systems is not practical and, without a significant advance in technology, is unlikely to be feasible for technical, operational and economical reasons. It summarized that prioritization and intersystem real-time pre-emption would not necessarily increase the efficiency of spectrum use compared to the current situation, but it would certainly complicate substantially the coordination process and network structure;e) that there is existing and increasing demand for spectrum for AMS(R)S and non-AMS(R)S by several mobile satellite systems in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, and that the application of this Resolution may impact the provision of services by non-AMS(R)S systems in the mobile satellite service;f) that future requirements for AMS(R)S and GMDSS spectrum may require additional allocations,

recognizinga) that absolute priority to all telecommunications concerning safety of life at sea, on land, in air or in outer space is given by No. 191 of the ITU Constitution;b) that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has adopted Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) addressing satellite communications with aircraft in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation;c) that all air traffic communications as defined in Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation fall within priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44;d) that Table 15-2 of Appendix 15 identifies the bands 1 530-1 544 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1 626.5-1 645.5 MHz (Earth-to-space) for distress and safety purposes in the maritime mobile-satellite service as well as for routine non-safety purposes,

resolves1 that, in frequency coordination of MSS in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, administrations shall ensure that the spectrum needed for distress, urgency and safety communications of GMDSS, as elaborated in Articles 32 and 33, in the bands where No. 5.353A applies is accommodated;2 that, prior to the frequency coordination of MSS in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, administrations shall ensure that the spectrum needed and for AMS(R)S communications within priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44 in the bands where No. 5.357A applies is accommodated with priority over any other service as stipulated in No. 5.357A;32 that administrations shall ensure the use of the latest technical advances, in order to achieve the most flexible, efficient and practical use of the generic allocations;43 that administrations shall ensure that MSS operators carrying non-safety-related traffic yield capacity, as and when necessary (in particular at the coordination meetings), to accommodate the spectrum requirements for distress, urgency and safety communication of GMDSS communications, as elaborated in Articles 32 and 33, and for AMS(R)S communications within

- 18 -

priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44; this could be achieved in advance through the frequency coordination process in resolves 1 and 2, and, when necessary, through other means if such means are identified as a result of studies in invites ITU-R ,;[Editor’s note: there is a need to address the difference between AMS(R)S and GMDSS.]5 in case that unacceptable interference is caused to AMS(R)S, in application of this Resolution, the unacceptable interference shall be immediately eliminated upon the seek of advice,

instructs the Secretary Generalto bring this Resolution to the attention of ICAO, instructs the Director of the Radiocommunication Bureauto publish annually the assignments made to AMS(R)S covered by No. 5.357A, identifying portion of such spectrum devoted to ASM(R)S and to general MSS respectively,

invites ICAO toi) carry out necessary coordination, with consultation of the concerned Administrations, for the process based on which the [spectrum][communication] requirements of AMS(R)S networks are determined and submitted to the coordination meetings [and justified];

instructs concerned Administrations of MSS systems taking part in the multilateral coordination meetings to [Editor’s note: this should be a resolve]

i) recognise the AMS(R)S spectrum requirements from ICAO;ii) ensure that AMS(R)S spectrum requirements as coordinated by ICAO are given priority access to spectrum in respect to ensuring that No. 5.357A is fulfilled;iii) make spectrum available for AMS(R)S in case that no agreement is reached at such multilateral meetings.

invites ITU-Rto conduct, in time for consideration by WRC-11, the appropriate technical, operational and regulatory studies to ensure long-term spectrum availability for the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service (AMS(R)S) including:(i) to study, as a matter of urgency, the existing and future spectrum requirements of the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service;(ii) to assess whether the long-term requirements of the AMS(R)S can be met within the existing allocations with respect to No. 5.357A while retaining unchanged the generic allocation for the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz, and without placing undue constraints on the existing systems operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations;(iii) to complete studies to determine the feasibility and practicality of technical or regulatory means, other than the coordination process referred to in resolves 1 or the means considered in Report ITU-R M.2073, in order to ensure adequate access to spectrum to accommodate the AMS(R)S requirements as referenced in resolves 3 above, while taking into account the latest technical advances in order to maximize spectral efficiency;

- 19 -

(iv) if the assessment identified in invites ITU-R (i) and (ii) indicates that these requirements cannot be met, to study existing MSS allocations or possible, new allocations only for satisfying the requirements of the aeronautical mobile satellite (R) service for communications with priority categories 1 to 6 of Article 44, for global and seamless operation of civil aviation taking into account the need to avoid undue constraints on existing systems and other services,

invites WRC-11 to consider the results of the above ITU-R studies and to take appropriate action on this subject, while retaining unchanged the generic allocation to the mobile-satellite service in the bands 1 525-1 559 MHz and 1 626.5-1 660.5 MHz,

invites the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), administrations and other organizations concerned to participate in the studies identified in invites ITU-R above.

Annex 2Summary of results of AMS(R)S spectrum requirements studies for A.I. 1.7

Doc.

N° *

Target year

Airspace Messages

Domains

Satellite type

Satellite architectur

e

Methodology Comments Spectrum requirement

s

215 2025 Middle East and Africa

ATS, AOC

NAVISAT planned satellite

100% satcom 3118 kHz 1730 kHz

239 2025 North Atlantic Oceanic

ADS-A, CPDLC

Oceanic region

Inmarsat-3 PIAC 100% satcom 1080 kHz

279 2025 Brazilian ATS, AOC

ENR, ORP

Inmarsat-like

One single beam

PIAC(670 aircrafts)

100% satcom 648 kHz

715 kHz

318 2025 Asia Pacific

ATS, AOC

ENR, ORP, TMA

Special One global beam

PIAC (5845 aircrafts)

50% satcomShared by 3 satellite networks

2231 kHz

Asia Pacific/Worldwide

I-4 like 250 beams in 7 clusters

2428 kHz

326 2025 European ATS, AOC

ENR, ORP, TMA

Inmarsat-4 Multiple beams

Simulation 100% satcom 2400 kHz

PIAC 100% satcom 2900 kHz

Assumption 1: multicast weather information

700 kHz

Assumption 2: 1 + 20% TMA by satcom

500 kHz

Assumption 3: 2 + 70% aircrafts equipped

400 kHz

334 2025 European ATS, AOC

ENR, ORP, TMA

ESA planned satellite

6 beams Simulation No frequency reuse

4000 kHz 1600 kHz

Frequency reuse

3300 kHz 1300 kHz

Weather multicast and no frequency reuse

2500 kHz

Weather multicast and frequency reuse

2100 kHz

333 2025 Worldwide

ATS, AOC

ENR, ORP,TMA

ESA planned system

9 beams Simulation Frequency reuseWeather unicast

4800 kHz

Frequency reuseWeather multicast

3000 kHz

18 beams Frequency reuseWeather unicast

4200 kHz

Frequency reuseWeather multicast

2600 kHz

* Document number refers to the contribution received by WP 4CADS-A Addressed Automatic Dependent SurveillanceCPDLC Controller to Pilot Data Link CommunicationsATS Air Traffic ServicesAOC Aeronautical operational controlENR En RouteORP Oceanic Remote and PolarTMA Terminal Manoeuvring AreaPIAC Peak Instantaneous Aircraft Count