# Presentation: 270274

## GPS-Galileo Negotiations:Commercial Issues at Stake

**Briefing to ISAC-1****April 25, 2002**

**RALPH BRAIBANTI**
**Office of Space & ****Advanced Technology****Department of State**

**JASON Y. KIM**
**Office of Space Commercialization****Department of Commerce**

**DAMON WELLS**
**Office of International Communications & ****Information Policy****Department of State**

## Early Consultations with Europe

**U.S. initially pursued cooperation based on EGNOS interoperability and European use of GPS**
**May 1998: U.S. offered draft agreement**
**As European interest in an independent system grew, U.S. suggested that they field a subconstellation that would be fully interoperable with GPS**
**November 1998: U.S. outlined basic principles for cooperation**
**January 1999: Europe announced Galileo project**

## Official U.S. Position on Galileo

**Modernized GPS service will be sufficient to meet user needs worldwide**
**If Galileo does proceed, the U.S. could see benefits if it is designed to be truly interoperable with GPS**
**U.S. is waiting to see what path Galileo takes -- many open questions remain unanswered**
**Basic U.S. position has not changed since first articulated in 1999**

## U.S. Principles for Cooperation

**Seamless interoperability with GPS**
**No direct user fees for safety critical services**
**Open market access (non-discrimination)**
**Equal access to signal specifications**
**Equal access to user markets (free trade)**
**Market driven competition**
**Free choice for end users**
**Spectrum protection**
**Protection of national security interests**

## U.S. Approach Toward Cooperation

**Phased approach to reflect growing complexity of GPS-Galileo interaction over time**
**Phase 1: Framework agreement outlining overarching principles for cooperation during Galileo development**
**Phase 2: Establishment of working groups**
**Phase 3: Follow-on agreement addressing longer-term issues and operational interactions once Galileo goes online**
**Current U.S. stance: must have framework agreement in place before technical discussions**

## U.S. Goals for Cooperation

**Protect interests and investments of GPS user base**
**No degradation of GPS service**
**No user fees**
**Freedom of choice for end users**
**Lower costs through free market competition**
**Interoperability and backwards compatibility**
**No constraint on future GPS evolution**
**Protect national security interests**
**DoD/NATO denial capabilities**
**No overlay of M-Code**
**Control technology transfer and proliferation**
**Move any discussion of military Galileo to NATO**
**Ensure level playing field for commerce**
**Maximize benefits of combined GPS-Galileo service**

## Status of Negotiations

**U.S.-E.C. talks have proceeded in fits and starts**
**Meanwhile, U.S. has engaged in extensive outreach with E.C. member states (bilateral, multilateral)**
**October 2000: U.S. submitted new agreement text**
**September 2000: Briefing to industry**
**May 2001: E.C. submitted counterproposal**
**October 2001: Latest round of talks**
**First substantive presentation of currently proposed Galileo spectrum plan**
**U.S. responded with high-level letters and demarche**
**March 2002: Galileo funding approved**
**Next U.S.-E.C. meeting: June 2002**

## Key Provisions of U.S. Proposed Agreement

**Embodies GPS policy and principles for cooperation**
**Interoperability, spectrum protection, open signal structures, free signals, market competition, security issues**
**Recognizes efforts of other fora: ICAO, IMO, ITU**
**Encourages cooperation on a single, unencrypted safety-of-life service**
**Ensures free trade in satnav goods and services**
**Ensures open access to specifications**
**Requires consultations before introducing any new standard/regulation concerning satellite navigation**
**Prohibits overlay of military GPS bands**
**Lays foundation for future cooperation**

## Unanswered Questions about Galileo

**How viable is the business case?**
**Will European governments help generate revenue streams through regulations and standards that effectively mandate use of Galileo?**
**Will Galileo signals interfere with GPS?**
**Will the information needed for receiver production be made equally available to all manufacturers?**
**Will Galileo take on a strategic military role?**
**How will Europe prevent hostile misuse of Galileo?**

## Additional Questions

**Will the encrypted levels of service be truly interoperable with the free, safety-of-life services?**
**As EGNOS becomes integrated into Galileo, will it continue to provide GPS data vital to aviation?**
**How will Europe protect the sensitive encryption technology used?**

## Issues Under Consideration: Interoperability

**Galileo spectrum plan proposes overlay of L1, L5**
**Potential benefits to pursuing similar frequencies for GPS and Galileo:**
**Simplified receiver design (use same antenna, circuitry), leading to lower costs for producers and consumers**
**Possible backwards compatibility for some GPS hardware?**
**Simplified denial scenario for DoD/NATO**
**Potential drawbacks:**
**Some degradation of service for GPS-only users**
**May be problematic for spaceborne users that see many satellites at once (e.g., International Space Station)**
**Any proposed overlay of M-Code is totally unacceptable**
**U.S. has been studying options for many months**

## Issues Under Consideration: Access to Galileo Specifications

**Galileo intends to offer two types of services -- open access and controlled access (via encryption)**
**U.S. is asking Europe to openly publish all documentation for access to Galileo open service, just as is done for GPS Standard Positioning Service**
**U.S. also wants Europe to provide equal access to the specifications for controlled access services**
**Encryption algorithms should be openly published**
**Crypto key regime should not exclude non-Europeans**
**Any licensing arrangements and fees should not discriminate against non-European firms**

## Issues Under Consideration: Access to Markets

**U.S. is essentially seeking national treatment and MFN-like obligations from Europe in the satellite navigation area**
**No tariffs, no other discriminatory barriers to trade**
**Agreement explicitly seeks to go beyond current WTO provisions and obligations, which in many respects do not seem to apply in this area**
**U.S. is especially concerned that Europe may impose standards or regulations that effectively mandate use of Galileo within Europe**
**Any new standards should be technology neutral, allowing freedom of choice among users**
**Agreement must be binding not only to the E.C. but all member states and instrumentalities (e.g., Eurocontrol)**
**Text specifies that GPS shall automatically meet any European standard for satellite navigation services**

## Point of Contact for U.S. Industry

**   ****Jason Y. Kim****Senior Policy Analyst****Office of Space Commercialization****U.S. Department of Commerce****jkim@ta.doc.gov****(202) 482-5827**