The 1992 World Administrative Radio

Conference: Issues for U.S. International

Spectrum Policy

November 1991

OTA-BP-TCT-76

NTIS order #PB92-157601
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The 1992 World Administrative Radio

Conference :Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy-Background Paper, OTA-BP-TCT76 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1991).

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC X)402-932X

ISBN 0-16 -035964-3
Foreword

The radio frequency spectrum, like the ocean, the air, and space, is a common natural

resource shared by the nations of the world. It is owned by no individual or government, and

its use and development is not limited to or controlled by any one country or group of

countries. Rather, ensuring the wise and equitable use of this vital international resource is the

collective responsibility of the world community.

The radio frequency spectrum has been an integral part of domestic and international

communications for more than 80 years. Radio waves make possible a wide range of

communication and entertainment services, including AM and FM radio broadcasting,

satellite and microwave communications, television-even baby monitors and remote

garage-door openers. Today, a host of new technologies and services, such as digital audio

broadcasting, high-definition television, and personal communications services, are vying

with existing radio-based applications for a slice of the valuable, but crowded, radio spectrum. The World Administrative Radio Conference meeting in Spain in February 1992

(WARC-92) will attempt to reassign radio frequencies in order to take advantage of these new

applications, while still accommodating the needs of existing users. The impacts of this will

be felt throughout the U.S. economy and around the world. The standards and conditions set

at WARC-92 will guide the development of radio-based systems and services well into the

next century.

U.S. preparations for WARC-92 took place in a much different international context—

political, economic, and social—than past WARCs. The geopolitical map of the world is

changing rapidly with the dissolution of the Eastern bloc and the Soviet Union and the rise of

Japan and the European Community as potent economic powers. The International

Telecommunication Union, the body that coordinates the use and development of the radio

frequency resource worldwide, is embarked on a far-reaching restructuring of its functions and

processes. These changes will force the United States to adapt its international radiocommunication policy in order to retain its competitive position and traditional leadership in spectrum

policymaking. However, the present fragmented domestic structure for radiocommunication

policymaking may impede the development of a broad long-term vision for future radio-based

technologies and services.

Because of these concerns, OTA has prepared this background paper for the House

Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation. OTA acknowledges the contributions of the workshop participants, who

helped clarify and focus the issues. OTA also appreciates the assistance of the National

Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the State Department, as well as the numerous individuals in the private sector who

reviewed or contributed to this document. The contents of this paper, however, are the sole

responsibility of OTA.

u JOHN H.-GIBBONS

Director

. . .

III
Workshop on WARC-92: Issues and Preparations, Dec. 6, 1990

Dale Hatfield, Chairman

President, Hatfield Associates, Inc.

Raymond Crowell

Director

Industry Government Planning

COMSAT

Ben Fisher

Attorney

Fisher, Wayland, Cooper & Leaders

Gary Fereno

U.S. Department of State

William Gamble

Deputy Associate Administrator

U.S. Department of Commerce

Richard G. Gould

President

Telecommunications Systems

George Hrycenko

Chief Scientist

Spectrum Management

Hughes Aircraft Co. Space

and Communication Group

Tedson Meyers

Attorney

Reid & Priest

Richard Neat

Manager

Frequency Engineering

ARINC

Lawrence M. Palmer

Program Manager

NTIA

U.S. Department of Commerce

Thomas Plevyak

Manager

Standards

Bell Atlantic

Martin Rothblatt

President

MARCOR, Inc.

Steve Selwyn

Electronics Engineer

Mass Media Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

David Sumner

Executive Vice President

American Radio Relay League

Leslie A. Taylor

President

Leslie Taylor Associates

Thomas S. Tycz

Electronics Engineer

Common Carrier Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

Thomas Walsh

International Engineer

Office of International Communications

Federal Communications Commission

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the workshop participants. The participants do

not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this background paper. OTA assumes full responsibility for the background paper

and the accuracy of its contents.

i v
The 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference:

Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

OTA Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

James W. Curlin, Program Manager

Telecommunication and Computing Technologies Program

David P. Wye, Project Director

James Netter, Research Assistant

Administrative Staff

Liz Emanuel, Office Administrator

Karolyn St. Clair, Secretary

Jo Anne Young, Secretary

OTA Contractor

Richard G. Gould

Telecommunications Systems
Other Reviewers and Contributors

This paper has benefited from the advice of many individuals from the government and the private sector. OTA would

especially like to thank the following individuals for their assistance and support. The views expressed in this report,

however, are the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Assessment.

William M. Borman

Vice President and Director of Global Spectrum

Management

Motorola Inc.

Vary Coates

Office of Technology Assessment

Deborah A. Davis

Senior Evaluator

Information Management and Technology Division

U.S. General Accounting Office

Troy Ellington

Vice President

Engineering and Development

GTE Spacenet Corp.

Andrew S. Fishel

Managing Director

Federal Communications Commission

Michael Fitch

Senior Advisor

Bureau of International Communications

and Information Policy

U.S. Department of State

Linda Garcia

Office of Technology Assessment

Joseph L. Gattuso

Telecommunications Specialist

NTIA

U.S. Department of Commerce

John T. Gilsenan

Deputy Director

spectrum Policy

Bureau of International Communications

and Information Policy

U.S. Department of State

Yvon Henri

Orbital Resources Department

INTELSAT

Harold G. Kimball

Division Director

Office of International Affairs

NTIA

U.S. Department of Commerce

Ben Kobb

Publisher

Federal Communications TechNews

Lon C. Levin

Attorney at Law

Gurman, Kurtis, Blask & Freedman

Fred Mates

NTIA

U.S. Department of Commerce

William Moran

Program Manager

NTIA

U.S. Department of Commerce

Alejandra Ornes

INTELSAT

Richard D. Parlow

Associate Administrator

NTIA

U.S. Department of Commerce

Laina Raveendran

INTELSAT

Charla M. Rath

Communications Policy Specialist

U.S. Department of Commerce

Walda Roseman

Director

Office of International Communications

Federal Communications Commission

Charles M. Rush

Office of International Affairs

NTIA

U.S. Department of Commerce

Eric J. Schimmel

Vice President

Telecommunications Industry Association

Richard Shrum

Director

Radio Spectrum Policy

Bureau of International Communications

and Information Policy

U.S. Department of State

Francis S. Urbany

Director

International and Agency Relations

BellSouth Corp.

Ray Williamson

Office of Technology Assessment

vi
Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......0. . ......+”.”””””. “.”””””.””””” 1

summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Radio Frequency Spectrum . . . . . . . .

General Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Radio Spectrum as Public Resource . .

Spectrum Scarcity and Crowding . . . . .

Spectrum Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

World Administrative Radio Conferences

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The 1992 World Administrative Radio

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

U.S. Preparations and WARC Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

CHAPTER 2: RADIOCOMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES:

PROBLEM AND SOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “...”.”-” 27

Spectrum Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Radio Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ..... 27

Transmission Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Characteristics of Radio Frequency Bands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Technologies and Services Create Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......35

Mobile Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Part 15 Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . ....... ....... ... 40

Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Relay Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Radio in the Local Imp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Satellite Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Other Specialized Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 42

Technology Solutions to Spectrum Crowding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Use of Higher Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Trunked Mobile Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Reuse of Frequencies in Mobile Cellular Radio Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Digital Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ...... 44

Improved Transmission Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... 47

CHAPTER 3: THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT FOR SPECTRUM POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ..... 49

International Spectrum Administration: The ITU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 49

Structure of ITU Spectrum Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Activities Outside the ITU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Changes in the ITU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... 56

Major Trends Shaping International Telecommunication Policymaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Pace of Technological Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Globalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Rising Importance of Regionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Liberalization and privatization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Telecommunications and Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

New Players and Alliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Summary and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

CHAPTER 4: DOMESTIC PREPARATIONS PROCESS FOR WARC-92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

vii
WARC Preparation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Institutional Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Federal Communications Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

National Telecommunications and Information Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Department of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Private Sector and User Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS OF WARC-92 FOR U.S. RADIOCOMMUNICATION

POLICYMAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

WARC Preparations: An Exercise in Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Implications for International RadioCommunication Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

System Is Fragmented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

No Coordinated U.S. Radiocommunication Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Personal Relationships Drive Preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Little High-Level Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Resource Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

GovernmentFrequency Data Is Inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Summary and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

APPENDIX A:ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

APPENDIX B: AGENDA FOR THE 1992 WORLD ADMINISTRATIVE RADIO CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

APPENDIX C: APPLICATIONS FOR NEWSERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

APPENDIX D: U.S. PROPOSALS FOR WARC MALAGA-TORREMOLINOS, SPAIN,1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Boxes

Box Page

2-A. Basic Definitions of Radiocommunications Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2-B. Future Phone? The PCN Is a Wireless To Watch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3-A. Summary of Changes Proposed by the High Level Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3-B. Inter-American Telecommunications Conference-CITEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3-C. CITEL Preparations for WARC-92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figures

Figure Page

l-1. Radio Frequency Spectrum and Selected Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

l-2. International Telecommunication Union Regions of the World . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2-1. Frequency Band Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2-2. Radio Wave Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

,2-3. Terrestrial and Satellite Transmission Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2-4. Broadcasting-Satellite Service-Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2-5. Growth in Cellular Phone Service, 1984-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3-1. Current Structure of the International Telecommunication Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3-2. international Radio Consultative Committee Study Groups Preparing for WARC-92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3-3. International Telecommunication Union Structure: Changes Recommended

by the High Level Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4-1. Organization of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4-2. Organizational Structure of the Industry Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

4-3. organization of the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Tables

Table Page

l-1. Radio Frequency Bands and Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

l-2. International Telecommunication Union World Conferences Since 1979 . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Chapter 1

Introduction and Summary

The most pressing communications problem at this particular time, however, is the scarcity of radio frequencies in

relation to the steadily growing demand. Increasing difficulty is being experienced in meeting the demand for frequencies

domestically and even greater difficulty is encountered internationally in attempting to agree upon the allocation of

available frequencies among the nations of the world.l

Introduction

In February 1992 the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)—the organization responsible

for harmonizing and regulating international telecommunication and radio services-will hold a

World Administrative Radio Conference for Dealing with Frequency Allocations in Certain Parts of

the Spectrum (WARC-92). WARCs are international conferences that bring together the nations of

the world to coordinate radiocommunication technologies and services worldwide. WARC-92, the

most wide-ranging WARC since 1979, will seek

ways to designate radio frequencies for many

advanced communication and entertainment services, including new mobile radio services, digital

audio broadcasting, high-definition television, and

new services for communication in space. The

decisions made at WARC-92 will determine how

and when these new services will be implemented

and will influence the development of new radio

technologies and applications well into the next

century. The United States, as one of the world

leaders in radiocommunication technology and policy, has a major stake in the outcomes of WARC-92.

The decisions made at WARC-92 will

determine how and when new radio

services will be implemented and will

influence the development of new technologies and applications well into the

next century.

In the United States the process of preparing for

a WARC begins years in advance of the actual

conference. Federal Government and private sector

Harry S Truman, Feb. 17, 1950

interests come together to craft the proposals the

United States will present at the conference. The

U.S. preparations for WARC-92 brought together

many diverse interests, including broadcasters seeking to bring digital audio to listeners at home and in

the car; the national security community attempting

to protect frequencies used for aircraft testing;

promoters of innovative mobile services provided

by satellite; and a multitude of other users, e.g.,

amateur radio operators, police and fire departments,

and the makers of microwave ovens and baby

monitors. The task of sorting out and synthesizing

the views of these participants is divided between

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),

which examines the needs of the private sector and

State and local governments, and the National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which referees Federal Government

interests. These two agencies submit their final

proposals in the form of recommendations to the

Department of State, which presents official U.S.

proposals at WARCs and other international telecommunications meetings.

This report examines the U.S. preparations process for WARC-92, highlighting efforts to integrate

the needs and concerns of various interest groups. It

also reviews the forces and trends affecting the

United States as it approaches WARC-92, and is

intended to inform future congressional oversight of

the domestic and international radiocommunication

policy process.

Summary of Findings

Despite inefficiencies and problems, the domestic process of preparing proposals for international spectrum conferences works reasonably

well at present. Participants in the process, in

government and in the private sector, consider the

IHarry S T~quoted in Stanley D. Metzger and Bernie R. Burrus, “Radio Frequency Allocation in the Public Interest: Federal Government and

Civilian Use,” Duquesne University Law Review, vol. 4, No. 1, 1965-1966, p. 1.

–l–
2 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

process generally fair and responsive. Federal agencies have processes in place that allow them to

respond relatively effectively to WARC issues and

to develop coordinated positions. Final U.S. proposals for WARC-92 were developed in a timely

fashion. Nevertheless, long-standing problems contribute to a process that can be overly contentious

and political. Further, it is not clear that the U.S.

proposals reflect the broader goals of U.S. international radiocommunication policy. More formal and

rigorous government planning and high-level coordination, supported by increased staff and funds,

could strengthen U.S. leadership in international

radiocommunication technologies, services, and

policy.

The United States is at a crucial turning point

in the history of spectrum use and management.

Technological, economic, and political forces are

converging to radically alter the context within

which domestic and international spectrum decisions and policies are made. The domestic system

by which the radio spectrum is used and managed is

stretched to its limits. Congested spectrum has been

a recurring problem for U.S. spectrum managers for

over 40 years. Demand for spectrum has continually

increased, but technology has usually been able to

expand the number of services and users. Today,

however, the numbers of radio-based services and

users are growing so quickly that the perceived

scarcity of spectrum has once again become an

important public policy issue. While the U.S.

spectrum management system generally has worked

adequately in the recent past, burgeoning demand

for radio frequencies once again threatens the

Federal Government’s ability to promote innovation

and efficiency, while at the same time accommodating existing users. 2 At the international level,

WARC-92 reflects and highlights the ongoing

problems of spectrum management, and represents

an important opportunity for addressing the world’s

spectrum needs.

Because domestic problems of spectrum management do not appear to have significantly detracted

from U.S. international policy in the past, it is

tempting to assume that current domestic structures

and processes for determining international specMore formal and rigorous government

planning and high-level coordination,

supported by increased staff and funds,

could strengthen U.S. leadership in international radiocommunication technologies, services, and policy.

trum policy will continue to serve the country well.

Several trends make this assumption questionable:

1.

2.

3.

In the last decade, the use of radiocommunication services has expanded dramatically as

technology has opened new applications. The

rapid pace of technology development and

increases in the use of radio services have put

great stresses on the structures and processes

for managing radio-based communications

both domestically and internationally. Technological issues are now more complex and

interwoven with economic, social, and political concerns.

The international scene is in a period of rapid

and far-reaching transition. Old alliances are

crumbling and emerging actors, such as the

newly independent nations of Eastern Europe,

are making international negotiations more

complex than in the past. The ITU is poised to

significantly restructure its organization and

functioning, including the possibility that world

radio conferences will be held every 2 years.3

In this rapidly changing international environment, the United States is seeking new alliances and strengthening existing relationships.

The FCC and NTIA, for example, are actively

involved in efforts to strengthen the InterAmerican Telecommunications Conference

(CITEL), the regional telecommunications

forum for the Western Hemisphere.4

The United States has no overarching policy

framework or plan within which to address

international radiocommunication issues, including preparations for WARCs. While there

is much international expertise in the government and considerable technical expertise in

W.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and InfonnationAdministratio~ U.S. Spectrum Management Policy :Agendafor the

Future, NITA Special Publication 91-23 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1991), p. 13.

Ssee tie di~m~~ion of me ~$s figh ~vel Cowttee (JILC) in ch. 3 and the summary of the HLC’S remmendatiom in box 3-A.

4See ch. 3, box 3-B for a discussion of ~TEL
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 3

the private sector, it is not clear that this

expertise is being used effectively to best

realize the long-term goals of the United

States. The failure to adequately address the

strategic aspects of domestic and international

spectrum policy in the past has contributed to

international radiocommunication policy that

today lacks vision and direction. In the absence

of overall strategic policy planning, U.S.

approaches and preparations for international

conferences may not be adequate to the tasks

of the future.

The implications of domestic spectrum policymaking extend beyond narrowly defined U.S.

interests. Domestic and international spectrum

interests are converging.5 Until recently, policymakers approached international telecommunication policymaking and negotiation as an extension of

national priorities—merely ‘‘internationalizing’

domestic policy. In many cases, the focus on

domestic communication issues tended to overlook

the implications of those issues for international

telecommunications and the interests of U.S. businesses and other communications users in the global

market. Conversely, many policymakers assumed

that national spectrum problems could be solved

domestically-either by reallocating spectrum or

increasing efficiency-without considering international pressures.

Today, international concerns are rapidly becoming part of domestic radiocommunication policymaking. There is a growing recognition among

government policymakers and telecommunications

analysts that many domestic spectrum problems

have an inherent international dimension that must

be accounted for in domestic proceedings. U.S.

spectrum policy must be decided in the international

context within which the radio spectrum is managed.

This will require that domestic and international

policies be more effectively integrated. Processes

and decisions that take inadequate notice of international considerations will not be effective. The

establishment of an Office of International Communications in the FCC (see ch. 4) indicates increased

recognition of the importance of international concerns for domestic policy.

Successful U.S. international spectrum

policymaking will require that domestic

and international policies be more effectively integrated.

The lack of a unified national radiocommunication policy, including international spectrum

goals, will hurt the United States’ ability to

negotiate and compete globally. Many of the

problems in the radiocommunication policy process

reflect more general failures in highlighting the

importance of U.S. radiocommunication policy and

pursuing integrated goals that are based on welldefined technological, economic, and social priorities. The United States has no comprehensive

long-range plan or vision for the future of radiocommunications, and thus no comprehensive framework

within which to make strategic spectrum policy

decisions, either domestically or internationally.

This country depends on a system which emphasizes “market forces,’ but which reemphasizes

planning and prioritizing. This approach reflects a

long held U.S. view that formal spectrum planning

is not efficient and not desirable. There is a belief

among some government policymakers that the

government should not plan spectrum use as much

as it should respond to priorities set by the private

sector (and government users) through market forces.

A more formal planned approach, they argue, would

prejudge future radiocommunication needs and constrain technologies and services yet to be developed.

One of the objectives in a market-oriented approach

is to build flexibility into the system that will allow

the United States to respond to the new needs and

technologies of the future in a timely way. This

approach, based on a diversity of interests competing before the government, may give the system the

flexibility it needs to adequately meet the evolving

short-term needs of both the government and the

private sector, but overreliance on such market

forces may threaten the effective pursuit of broader,

longer-term goals and priorities. Market forces can

delay introduction of new products and services and

lead to inefficiencies (recall AM stereo and the battle

5~~ @end ~asnoted by OTA ~ 1985. See U.S. Conwss, Offim of T&~ology Assessmen~ Internan”onal Cooperation and competition in CiVilian

Space Activities, OTA-ISC-239 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, July 1985).
4 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

No single government agency is responsible for planning for new radio services,

and no government agency has been

mandated or assumed a leadership role

in domestic and international spectrum

policymaking.

between VHS and Beta).6 OTA notes that a shift to

private sector decisionmaking in communication

policy “has created a vacuum in the policymaking

process with respect to societal decisions about

communication that are not easily made by summing

up individual preferences or deferring to market

power. ’ No single government agency is responsible for planning for new radio services, and no

government agency has been mandated or assumed

a leadership role in domestic and international

spectrum policymaking.8

Cooperation on long-range planning or even on

establishing a long-term vision for U.S. spectrum

policy is almost nonexistent. While the Federal

Government agencies involved in spectrum policymaking have established internal procedures for

addressing specific radiocommunication issues (e.g.,

WARC preparations), and do cooperate on policy

formulation in these areas, beyond these narrow

concerns, coordination among government agencies

and between the government and private sector on

longer-term domestic and international spectrum

issues is mostly informal. In lieu of explicit mechanisms for formulating strategic international radiocommunication policy, the process depends largely

on the individuals involved and on the relationships

they have formed over time. While such coordination may be effective on a day-to-day basis, the lack

of long-term strategic guidance in spectrum policymaking has reduced policy planning to a reactive

exercise.

In this context, WARCs are especially important

because they serve as focal points for both short- and

long-term spectrum planning. More importantly,

they represent a critical opportunity for drawing

together the interests of government and industry in

developing the broader issues of international radiocommunications policy. Without WARCs, spectrum

planning and policy development on an international

level would likely be greatly reduced. With regularly

scheduled WARCs a real possibility in the future

(see ch. 3), the United States could have an

important opportunity to focus ongoing attention on

the “big picture” of international spectrum policy

and to develop integrated long-term strategies for

using spectrum resources and pursuing effective

international policies.

The Radio Frequency Spectrum

General Background

The radio frequency spectrum refers to the total

range of radio frequencies (3 kHz-300 GHz) that can

be used for telecommunications (see figure l-l)9 It

makes possible many of today’s most important

communications technologies and services. Radio

waves are used to transmit information and entertainment of all kinds, including television and radio

programming g, long-distance and cellular telephone

service, safety and navigation services for aeronautical and maritime use, radar and defense communications-even the signals used by baby monitors and

remote garage-door openers. Radio-based technologies and systems are increasingly being used to

connect to the public telephone network, allowing

users access while traveling or in rural areas without

wired service. New services are being developed

constantly, but the limited availability of adequate

spectrum may constrain future advances in radiocommunication services.

6Si@lcanfly, tie FCC is now in the process of se~ing Standmds for future high-deftition television systems, ratier tin let-tie market tie

its course.

W.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Critical Connections; Communkarionfor the Future, OTA-CIT-407 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, January 1990), p. 361.

8N~$5 effofi5 t. ~plement me ~ecomen~tiom of is Iewnt ~po~ on spec~ ~mgement indicate tit government policymakers ar e

beginning to grapple with some of these issues.

?Radio frequencies are measured in hertz, which is a measure of the number of cycles a radio wave completes in 1 second-1 hertz (Hz) represents

one cycle per second (see ch. 2). Prefmes are used to indicate numbers of hertz in multiples of 10: kHz= thousand Hz; MHz= 1 million hertz; and GHz=

1 billion hertz. The radio fkquency spectrum is only one segment of the larger electromagnetic spectrmrL which comprises all light and radio waves

and includes audible sound, radio waves (the radio frequency spectrum), infrared light visible light, ultraviolet ligh~ x-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic

rays.
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 5

u-i

UI

-———

————

————
6 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

The spectrum is divided or “allocated” into

frequency ‘bands’ that correspond to certain ranges

of frequencies and specific radiocommunication

services (see table 1-l).10 Individual radio services,

such as AM and FM radio broadcasting, television,

navigation, and satellite services, also use specific

bands of frequencies. For example, FM radio broadcasting uses the frequencies 88-108 MHz. Within

some of these radio service bands, the spectrum is

further subdivided into separate “channels,” which

are assigned by the government to individual users.

For example, 90.9 MHz in the FM radio band is

assigned to radio station WETA in Washington, DC.

The same charnel can also be assigned to other radio

stations in distant cities, thus allowing the radio

frequencies to be reused. In some frequency bands,

many users and even different services, share the

same segment of spectrum. Radio systems used for

point-to-point and mobile communications services,

for example, share many frequency bands.ll

Radio Spectrum as Public Resource

The radio frequency spectrum has long been

viewed as a vital natural and national public resource, and protecting and enhancing this limited

resource has been a Federal Government function

dating back to the early part of this century. In 1925,

then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover declared:

The ether [sic] is a public medium, and its use

must be for a public benefit. The use of a radio

channel is justified only if there is public benefit. The

dominant elements for consideration in the radio

field is, and always will be, the great body of the

listening public, millions in number, countrywide in

distribution. 12

The radiofrequency spectrum has long

been viewed as a vital natural and

national public resource, and protecting

and enhancing this limited resource has

been a Federal Government and congressional concern dating back to the

early part of this century.

Congress also has a long history of seeking to

ensure the development of this resource for the

public good, dating back even before the creation of

the FCC in 1934.13 Concern over radio spectrum and

services resurfaced in 1958, only 1 year before the

1959 general World Administrative Radio Conference:

The development of so valuable a natural resource

as the radio spectrum is a matter of paramount

importance. The spectrum is a publicly owned

natural resource the importance of which increases

year by year as its use for varied purposes grows. It

has long been apparent that the capacity of this

resource is not unlimited and that its effective

utilization cannot be expanded indefinitely. The

interdependence of regulatory measures and technology in making possible the most effective use of the

spectrum is a significant point that requires most

painstaking study. The use of the spectrum requires

as careful planning and administration as any other

national resource.14

Today, spectrum policy is increasingly recognized as an important area of national telecommunications policymaking. In the last several years

Congress, the executive branch, and the FCC have

been studying and seeking solutions to spectrum

l~c ~roce~~ of ~location refers t. tie desi~tion of a ~oup of radio frequencies to a service or family of related s~ims. For e~ple, tie bad

88.0- 108.0 megahertz (MHz) is allocated to (FM radio) broadcasting. Assignment of frequencies refers to the granting of a right to use a specific

iiequency or band of frequencies to an end user or service provider. For example, the FCC has assigned 542-548 MHz (television channel 26) in

Washington DC to WETA. For more in-depth discussion of the procedures of allocation and assignmen~ both domestic and intermtional, see Richard

Gould, Telecommunications Systems, Inc., ‘‘Allocation of the Radio Frequency Spectrum,’ contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, Aug. 10, 1990.

Ilsharing sWc~is accomplish~ inmanydifferent ways. Users can share by time (taking turns orusingforspecified hours of tie day), by g~~phy

(users can share the same frequency if they are far enough apart so tbat signals do not interfere), or by technologies that reduce interference. Sometimes

sharing is planned, as in the case of channeling arrangements, but sometimes it is not-cellular radio providers have a specific block of spectrum they

must use, but individual customers use the service on demand.

12Quo@d in Mm D. Pagh (cd.), A Ugislative History of(he Communications Act (New York, NY: Oxford Ufivm5ity press, 1989), P. 9.

lsFor a more complete description of the early history of radio regulation leading up to the Communications Act Of 1934, see PaghW- cit., foo~ote

12.

MU.S. ConWess, Semte Committee on ktem~te and Foreign Commerce, Commission To Investigate Utilization of Radio Frequemies Allocated to

the Government, 85th Cong., 2d sess., Report No. 1854, July 18, 1958, p. 2.
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 7

Table l-l—Radio Frequency Bands and Uses

Name Frequency range Examples of services

Very low frequency (VLF)

Low frequency (LF)

Medium frequency (MF)

High frequency (HF)

Very high frequency (VHF)

Ultrahigh frequency (UHF)

Superhigh frequency (SHF)

Extremely high frequency (EHF)

3 to 30 kHz

30 to 300 kHz

300 to 3,000 kHz

3 to 30 MHz

30 to 300 MHz

300 to 3,000 MHz

3 to 30 GHz

Above 30 GHz

Marine navigation

Marine and aeronautical navigation

equipment

AM radio broadcast, LORAN maritime

navigation, long-distance aeronautical

and maritime navigation

Shortwave broadcast, amateur radio,

CB radio

Private radio land mobile services such as

police, fire, and taxi dispatch; TV channels

(2 through 13); FM broadcasting; cordless

phones; baby monitors

UHF TV channels; cellular phones; common carrier point-to-point microwave transmission used by long-distance phone companies; satellite mobile services

Radar, point-to-point microwave, and satellite

communication

Satellite communications and space research

SOURCES: Harry Mileaf (cd.), Electronics One, revised 2d ed. (Roehelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co., Inc., 1976), p.

1-14; and John J. Keller, “No Vacancies,” The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 1990, p. R14.

concerns. In the 102d Congress, five bills relating to

spectrum use and management have been introduced, the Emerging Telecommunications Technologies Act of 1991 (H.R. 531, H.R. 1407, and S.

218)15 and the Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection

Act (H.R. 73 and S. 1372). NTIA recently completed

a comprehensive study of the U.S. domestic spectrum policymaking process that includes recommendations on how the system might be improved.l6 The

FCC is conducting a study of spectrum use in order

to identify underused portions of the spectrum for

possible inclusion in a “spectrum reserve” that

could be used for the development of emerging

communications technologies and services.17

Spectrum Scarcity and Crowding

The radio frequency spectrum is a finite-but

reusable—resource. It is reusable in the sense that

when one person stops using a certain frequency

another person can start. Using the resource does not

consume it. Radio frequency spectrum is finite in

that only a certain range of frequencies can be used

for communication at any given level of technology.

And although technological advances continue to

expand the range of usable frequencies, the fundamental properties of radio waves make some radio

frequencies more useful, and hence more valuable,

than others. For example, the transmission characteristics of radio waves in the 1-3-GHz band (see ch.

2) make them especially valuable for many mobile

and fixed services.18

The problem is that more and more technologies

and communication services are vying for a slice of

the valuable radio spectrum, and demand for spectrum is growing rapidly, both for new services, such

as high-definition television (HDTV) and personal

communications services (PCS) (see box 2-B), and

for the expansion of existing services such as

cellular telephony. The ITU has recorded as many

15~1 bee of these bills ~o~d ~U~e tit me govement m~e av~ab]e for tramfer to the private s~tor zoo MHz of total spectrum baudtidth.

H.R. 1407, the administration’s counter proposal to companion bills H.R. 531 and S. 218, also includes the requirement tbat spectrum be distributed

to users through a competitive bidding process.

IGBI’I’IA, u.S. Specmm Management Policy, op. Cit., fOO~Ote 2.

17pti Ofthe impe~s for this initiative has come from developments in other countries. Kcc~Sikes has noted that Europe and Japan have

taken steps to reserve speetrmn in the 1-3-GHz band and that the United States should follow suit in order to maintain its technological and competitive

edge. Speech before the Practicing Law Institute and the Federal Communications Bar Association conference, Washington DC, Dec. 6, 1990.

18F~ed sewice ~fers t. telecom~mtion s~i~s more ~mmo~y ~o~ as po~t.to-po~~ microwave, or r~io-relay systems. For a d&CUSSiOIl

of the teehnical properties of the various radio fkquency bands, see Gould, op. cit., footnote 10.
8 ● WARC-92: Issues for- U.S. International Spectrum Policy

new frequency assignments in the last 10 years as in

the previous 80 years of radio communications.19 In

response to a recent FCC announcement that it

would license 200 radio charnels to provide new

mobile communications services, the Commission

received almost 100,000 applications from potential

providers. 20

The result, and the most critical problem facing

spectrum managers today, is a shortage of unused

spectrum and serious congestion of the most valuable bands.21 The problem is a recurring one. In the

1920s the use of radio for broadcasting in the United

States exploded-interference threatened to overwhelm the industry. The problem resurfaced in the

United States in the late 1950s when a report was

issued on the allocation of television channels and

hearings were held regarding the allocation of

spectrum between government and nongovernment

users.22 Internationally, the problem dates back tO

the 1930s. At that time new aeronautical services

had begun to compete with broadcasters and maritime users for radio spectrum.23

Today, the accelerated pace of technology development, coupled with a rapidly changing world

environment in economics and politics, has made

coordinating the use of the radio frequency spectrum

increasingly complex, and has raised the issues of

radiocommunication and spectrum policy to new

prominence. 24 In broad terms, the problem is finding

ways to expand existing services and promote new

radio technologies while simultaneously accommodating existing users who have successful services

and large capital investments. At the international

level, WARC-92 is an important attempt to sort out

these issues for many applications, including mobile

services, high frequency broadcasting, and new

The problem is finding ways to expand

existing services and promote new radio

technologies while simultaneously accommodating existing users who have

successful services and large capital

investments.

space services (see the discussion of major WARC92 issues below).

Spectrum Management

Managing the use of the spectrum is an extremely

complex task both because of the variety of services

and technologies involved, and because radio waves

easily cross geographic and political boundaries.

The functions of spectrum management are twofold.25 First, spectrum managers must try to accommodate all the various services with their differing

technical characteristics and requirements. They do

this by allocating bands, or blocks, of spectrum to

the various services, such as broadcasting, mobile,

amateur, and satellite services. Second, spectrum

managers establish conditions of use for radiocommunication services in order to ensure that use is as

fair and efficient as possible. Because radio waves

do not respect national borders, spectrum allocation

and use must be coordinated internationally as well

as domestically. The most visible outcome of this

function is controlling interference between users

and between services. Managers also try to ensure

that use of the spectrum is as efficient as possible.

The international Radio Regulations that govern

radiocommunications worldwide, for example, set

levels on transmitter power to limit interference and

19Mmk IAwyn and Peter Coy, “Airwave Wars,” Business Week, July 23, 1990, p. 48.

~“rhe scramble for Frequencies, ’ Telcom Highlights International, vol. 13, No. 4, June 12, 1991.

21some bel&e, however, tit the SW-$ cshofige~~ is~~c~ con~pt—~t it has ken crated by tie processes used to allocate and assign

spectrum resources. Changing the process for distributing these resources, they argue, would eliminate any scarcity. See George Gilder, “What Spectrum

Shortage?” Forbes, May 27, 1991.

ZU.S. Congms, Semte Cohttee on ~ters~te and Foreign Commerce, Allocation of TV Channels: Report of the Ad Hoc Advisoq CO~-ttee on

Allocations, Committee Pr@ Mar. 14, 1958; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Allocation of Radio Spectrum

Between Federal Government Users and Non-Federal Government Users, Hearings June 8 and 9, 1959.

~For a dismssion of the histow of radio saicm and the development of the ITU, s= George A. cod~g, Jr. and Anthony M. Rutkowski, The

International Telecommunication Union in a Changing World (Dedb.arq MA: Artech House, 1982).

~Some a~ys~, e.g., iden~led the shortage of available spectrum as the biggest hurdle facing the Widesprmd development of P~so~

communication networks. Charles Masou “Wireless Technologies Draw Interest” Telephony, vol. 220, No. 12, Mar. 25, 1991, p. 10.

~For more discussion of thew ~ctiom, see ~U.S. Specfim ~a~ge~nt policy, op. cit. foo~ote 2; U.S. Congress, office of ‘1’whnoIogy

Assessment, Radiofiequency Use and Management, OTA-CIT-163 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofilce, January 1982), pp. 25-26.
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 9

can mandate that certain technologies be used to

promote efficiency, such as single-sideband broadcasting (see ch. 2).

In the United States, the agencies responsible for

managing the spectrum are the FCC, an independent

agency, and NTIA in the Department of Commerce.

The FCC oversees the use of the spectrum by the

private sector and all State and local government

users, and NTIA manages the spectrum used by the

Federal Government. Internationally, spectrum is

allocated and regulated by the ITU through the

WARCs that are held to review and revise the Radio

Regulations.26

The problems of domestic spectrum management

do not exist in isolation from the larger international

context within which so much of spectrum policy is

decided. Rather, domestic and international spectrum policymaking are interdependent processeseach influences the other. Domestic allocations, for

example, generally conform to the international

Table of Allocations and the Radio Regulations

maintained by the ITU and revised at the WARCs.

Those international allocations and regulations, in

turn, are the product of negotiation among many

countries, each pursuing its own national goals.

Domestic spectrum policymaking must take careful

account of the implications of international decisions if the interests of the United States are to be

adequately protected.

The more advanced our technology becomes, and

the more complicated our frequency utilization, the

more apparent it is that there must be complete

correlation of the national and international aspects

of frequency use.27

While these concerns are recognized by domestic

spectrum policymakers, it is unclear how well

domestic and international spectrum policymaking

is integrated. Few attempts have been made to

rationally lay out and harmonize international and

domestic spectrum policy goals, and what accord

does exist has occurred on a reactive, piecemeal

Domestic spectrum policymaking must

take careful account of the implications

of international decisions if the interests

of the United States are to be adequately

protected.

basis rather than as a result of any long-range

planning or cooperative effort. Some domestic

spectrum mechanisms and activities, including WARC

preparations, do take account of international parameters such as the international Table of Frequency

Allocations, but these activities often concentrate on

specific issues or radio services. They at-e not guided

by strategic policy decisions made in a framework of

long-term international spectrum goals and priorities. Longer-term domestic spectrum policymaking

has largely proceeded independently of international

concerns—policy is first set domestically and then

extended to the international arena. The failure to

aggressively link long-term international policy

efforts with domestic needs could threaten U.S.

technological and policymaking leadership and

could undermine future success in U.S. international

spectrum policymaking.

World Administrative Radio

Conferences

General

The function of a WARC is fundamentally

technical, but the process of spectrum allocation and

management has always been both a political and

technical process. 28 It is the means by which the

world distributes the resources of the radio frequency spectrum. The Final Acts of WARCs have

international treaty status, and must be approved and

ratified by member governments. Once ratified, they

26~e 1~, stri+? Sp$j.khg, does not “~mge” spectrum use on a day-today basis. Rather, it allocates spectrum bands, defines categories of

services, and sets the technical and administrative rules which govern spectrum use intermtionally. Individual national governments usually follow these

rules, but still retain fti authority in deciding how their domestic spectrum resources will be used.

zv~old E. Fellows, tw~ony at he~gs ~fore a Subcommittee of the Committee on ~ters~te and FoNign Commerce, 011 Allocation Of RltdiO

Spectrum Between Federal Government Users and Non-Federal Government Users, 86th Cong., 1st sess., June 8 and 9, 1959, p. 36.

~For a discussion of the politic~ a~ts t. ~ad WARC activities, see J~es G. Savage, The politics o~znternationuz Telecommunications

Regulation (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989).
10 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum policy

are generally adhered to by all ITU members.29 As

such, they carry enormous weight in setting future

international radiocommunication policy, allocations, and services. There are three types of administrative radio conferences. First, the general WARCs

held by the ITU address all radio services and

spectrum allocations, and can review and revise any

or all of the international Radio Regulations. General WARCs were held in Atlantic City, 1947;

Geneva, 1959; and Geneva, 1979. Despite the wide

range of issues it will cover, WARC-92 is not a

general conference since it will not examine the

complete international Table of Frequency Allocations and all of the Radio Regulations.

Instead, WARC-92 is a specialized WARC.

Specialized WARCs generally examine issues relating to specific frequency bands or radio services.

WARC-92, for example, will examine mobile services, high frequency broadcasting, and new space

services, among others. Since 1979 four specialized

WARCs have been convened, covering High Frequency Broadcasting (HFBC-84/87), space services

and orbital assignments for satellites (ORB-85/88),

mobile services (concentrating on distress and safety

services) in 1983, and mobile services (MOB-87)

(see table 1-2).30 These conferences were convened

in large part to address specific issues that the 1979

general WARC could not resolve. WARC planners

believed that a narrower focus on specific issues

would enable the ITU members to reach decisions

more easily and quickly than a broad, general

WARC could allow, thus streamlining the IT U

process.

Regional Administrative Radio Conferences

(RARCs), which bring together the ITU member

countries from a specific geographical region (see

figure 1-2), sometimes address allocation issues, but

are usually confined to specific issues that have

particular regional importance or require regional

coordination, such as television and AM/FM radio

services.31 Importantly, these conferences may not

revise the Radio Regulations, but may only propose

changes to be considered and confirmed at the next

competent WARC. A broadcasting plan developed

Table l-2—International Telecommunication Union

World Conferences Since 1979

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

General WARC (WARC-79)

—

—

Plenipotentiary (Nairobi, Kenya)

Mobile Services WARC (Distress and Safety)

High Frequency Broadcasting WARC (First SessionHFBC-84)

WARC on the Use of the Geostationary-Satellite Orbit

and the Planning of Space Services Utilizing It (First

Session-ORB-85)

—

High Frequency Broadcasting WARC (Second SessionHFBC-87)

WARC for the Mobile Services (MOB-87)

WARC on the Use of the Geostationary-Satell ite Orbit

and the Planning of Space Services Utilizing It (Second

Session-ORB-88)

Plenipotentiary (Nice, France)

—

—

WARC for Dealing With Frequency Allocations in

Certain Parts of the Spectrum (WARC-92)

Plenipotentiary (Geneva Switzerland)

—

Plenipotentiary (Japan)

High Frequency Broadcasting WARC (proposed)

—

—

Plenipotentiary (location undetermined)

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

for Region 2 at the 1983 RARC, for example, was

adopted by the 1985 specialized WARC on the Use

of the Geostationary-Satellite Orbit and the Planning

of Space Services Utilizing It (ORB-85).

The 1992 World Administrative Radio

Conference

Background

At its 1989 Plenipotentiary Conference in Nice,

France, the ITU decided to hold a World Administrative Radio Conference for Dealing with Frez91f a metier disa~=s with a speciilc action or tie action will interfe~ with domestic telecommunications operations, an adfOitdS@atiOn can take

a “reservation” in the Final Acts stating that the country will not necessarily abide by the new regulation. A reservation permits a nation to ratify the

treaty while maintaining some degree of autonomy and flexibility for its domestic policies.

wh W, 4 WAR& (in 6 smsions) took place in tie 1980S, along with 9 Regional Administrative Radio Conferences (in 12 SeSSimS).

31~e Im~divid~ tie world &t.~re#om. R@on 1 Consisfi of fic~ E~pe, ad tie U.S.S.R, Region 2 encompasses tie AIne~CaS;

including Camda, Greenland, United States, Central and souti America, and the Caribbean. Region 3 includes Asia, Australi~ and Oceania. See figure

1-2.
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 11

——

– ‘~– - ‘- ‘-

/

‘4’

27

/-L7
12 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

quency Allocations in Certain Parts of the Spectrum

(WARC-92). In 1990 the ITU Administrative Council prepared an official agenda of the topics to be

addressed. 32 (See app. B for the full text of the

WARC-92 agenda.)

In large part, WARC-92 was called to address

issues unresolved at past conferences. In the 12

years since WARC-79, many specialized radio

conferences took place that addressed specific areas

of the spectrum and specific services, such as high

frequency broadcasting and space services (see

above). While these conferences often accomplished

a great deal, they could not reach agreement on all

issues. Consequently, many of the items on the

WARC-92 agenda are based on recommendations

and resolutions from previous conferences, and, as

a result, the conference will address several old

issues, including high-frequency broadcasting in the

band 3-30 MHz, anew allocation to the broadcastingsatellite service for HDTV, preferably on a worldwide basis, somewhere in the band 12.7-23 GHz,

and allocations to Mobile services, including Mobile

Satellite Services in the band 500-3000 MHz.

In addition to the old items on the agenda, several

new issues have been added. Prior to (and at) the

1989 Plenipotentiary Conference that scheduled the

WARC, there was resistance in the United States to

abroad reallocation conference. It was felt by many,

especially government interests, that the United

States had more to lose than gain at such a

conference. 33 The United States favored a more

limited conference that would deal with space

services and/or mobile services. Once the initial

agenda was released, however, interest in the

conference grew through 1989 and 1990, especially

in the private sector, which had been developing new

technologies and services and saw the conference as

an opportunity to get radio frequencies it needed.

Lobbying by industry and the FCC’s Industry

Advisory Committee (see ch. 4), finally convinced

the government to pursue additional agenda items.

At the 1990 ITU Administrative Council meeting,

the United States succeeded in having a limited

number of new issues included on the agenda, such

as low-Earth orbiting satellites (LEOS) and a

terrestrial complement to satellite sound broadcasting (see below) .34

Although the agenda appears to be freed, and the

ITU Convention states that discussion must be

limited to those items on the agenda, this may not

always be the case. Imprecise definitions and

overlapping services encourage some governments,

including the United States, to make proposals

regarding items that are not explicitly part of the

official agenda.35 While these proposals are made in

response to spectrum needs identified by both

government and industry, some analysts are concerned that such tactics can undermine U.S. credibility abroad, and may threaten overall U.S. effectiveness at conferences.

The Context for WARC-92

In 1982, OTA published a report entitled Radiofrequency Use and Management: Impacts from the

World Administrative Radio Conference of 1979.36

Ten years later many of the same issues of spectrum

use and management remain unresolved, and many

of the same forces continue to put pressure on

domestic and international spectrum policy processes. The issues and trends outlined below form the

context within which WARC-92 will operate.

szfioWs~s forco~mences may originatewi~ind.ivid~ metiers of the ITU. More often, a Plenipotentiary Conference, oraprevious Administmtive

Conference may adopt Resolutions or Recommendations that a conference be held within a certain time perio~ to address one or more speeiflc subjects.

The agenda for radio conferences is set by the ITU Administrative Council with input and agreement from member administrations, and is based on items

requested by a Plenipotentiary Conference, including recommendations and resolutions from previous WMCS (see ch. 3).

33Dep~ent of Defense ~d aviation inte~sts spcific~ly were afraid that a general redhCi3tiOII COnfaence wo~dme awaY some of ‘ieh

frequencies. The FCC did not want a broad conference because they had neither the time nor the staff resources to do the preparation work and because

initially there was little support among industry.

34M~l, the follo~g item props~ by the u~t~ Smtes Wem put Onthe agen~ (~thoughnotnecessfily in the exact fo~r~uestti): HDTVbelow

12.7 GHz, LEOS, terrestrial sound broadcasting between 500-3(K)0 MHz, RDSS upgrade in Regions 1 and 3, primary MSS at 20/30 GHz, and a new

space service in 27.3-30 GHz.

35~e w~c-92 agen~ for exmple, o~y sp=~l~y ad&esses J-,EOS s~iws be/oW 1 GHz. ~ its f~WARC-92 propos~s (See app. D), however,

the United States has embedded LEOS above 1 GHz in a proposat to allocate spechum to the Mobile Satellite Service in the 1613.8-1626.5-MHz and

1850-1990-MHz bands. Government oftlcials and LEOS proponents maintain that this is Iegitimateunder existing service definitions (LEOS will provide

mobile satellite services) and the W~C-92 agenda. Others believe that this violates the spirit of (and a strict reading ofl the agenda, which speciiles

that only LEOS services in bands below 1 GHz are to be considered.

360p. cit., footuote 25.
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 13

Technology (ch. 2)—Technology trends drive the

WARC process. The pace of technological change is

immeasurably faster than it was only 12 years ago,

and rapid developments in technology have put

increasing pressure on the ITU and the WARC

process. The role of technology in today’s crowded

spectrum is twofold and often contradictory-it is

both problem and solution. New technologies and

services and the expanding use of old technologies

and services are squeezing available spectrum allocations. On the other hand, advances in technology

can free up spectrum and allow it to be used more

efficiently. Innovations such as digital compression,

spread spectrum, and trunking can also increase

availability of radio frequencies.

International Environment (ch. 3)—But radiocommunications is not just a technology issue. The

arena in which international spectrum allocation and

planning takes place is also changing rapidly.

Today, new players have become prominent as

others have faded, and firm alliances have given way

to rapidly shifting factions. The 1980s witnessed the

rise of Japan as a major economic power and the

industrialization of countries such as Brazil and

Korea. The influence of the Soviet Union has

declined dramatically as the Eastern bloc has dissolved and the U.S.S.R. itself is beset with internal

The role of technology in today’s crowded

spectrum is twofold and often contradictory—it is both problem and solution.

turmoil. East-West and North-South confrontations

have been replaced by regional divisions. Moving

into the 1990s, the world is seeing the emergence of

a unified Europe and a realignment of the Eastern

European nations. Accompanying these changes, the

historic tension between the developing and developed countries that characterized the 1970s and early

1980s has lessened. There is now a different tone to

international telecommunications policymaking that

is more flexible and conciliatory.

In addition to these political forces, economic

pressures are also reshaping the world environment

for radiocommunications. Telecommunications systems and services, including radiocommunications,

are increasingly global in scope, and telecommuniTelecommunications systems and services, including radiocommunications, are

increasingly global in scope, and telecommunications is increasingly seen as

an important piece of the broader context of economics, trade, and development.

cations is increasingly seen as an important piece of

the broader context of economics, trade, and development. Competitive pressures have forced many

governments to liberalize or privatize their telecommunication industries.

Recognizing the importance and scope of these

changes, the ITU established the High Level Committee to examine ways to improve the structure and

processes of the ITU in order to more effectively

respond to the challenges of advancing technology

and members’ development needs. In order for the

United States to respond to these changes, the

Federal Government, with extensive input from

industry, will have to develop new ways of thinking

and negotiating in order to be most effective in this

new climate of change. The United States must

become more adroit in setting and negotiating

international spectrum policy.

Domestic Radiocommunication Policy Process

(chs. 4 and 5)—The domestic process for allocating

and managing spectrum is complicated. Responsibility is divided between the FCC and NTIA, with

input from the private sector. International radiocommunication policymaking, including WARC-92

preparations, is also fragmented. In addition to the

FCC and NTIA, the Department of State becomes

involved as the official representative of the United

States abroad. Some consider this diversity to be a

strength, but coordination and reconciliation of

various views can be difficult, and may make the

process of preparing for international conferences

time-consumin g and inefficient. In addition, linking

the goals of WARC-92 into the overall goals of U.S.

international spectum policy was not possible because no overarching framework exists to guide U.S.

spectrum policy. Accountability for matching

WARC proposals to long-term, strategic spectrum

goals is thus almost nonexistent.
14 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

The activities of the ITU, including

WARCs, offer the United States an

important opportunity to advance its

views on technical standards and regulations.

Why Is WARC-92 Important?

Effective U.S. participation in the activities of the

ITU and the WARC process is important at several

levels. Without international standards and procedures for sharing the spectrum, global radio communication and services would be impossible. Although international interference problems are not as

much of a problem for the United States as other

countries, the United States must nevertheless coordinate services that are worldwide, such as safety

services for aeronautical and maritime services. U.S.

participation in the ITU is also crucial to our

international stature both politically and technically.

Were the United States to pull out of or fail to ratify

ITU documents, such as the Final Acts of the

WARCs, on a regular basis, a poor precedent would

be set that could jeopardize U.S. participation and

negotiations in other international bodies. Finally,

the ITU offers the United States an important

opportunity to advance its views on technical

standards and regulations, promoting global standards that allow U.S. firms to take advantage of

economies of scale in manufacturing and the provision of services. Such input is critical in maintaining

the technological and policy leadership of the United

States in international radiocommunications.

WARC-92, in particular, is important to the

United States for several reasons. The new services

of an increasingly information-oriented and mobile

society will rely heavily on radio spectrum resources, perhaps even more so than in the past. But

because the most desirable parts of the spectrum are

almost completely allocated and many bands are

heavily used, finding room for new services is

difficult. WARC-92 is the first attempt to address the

requirements of the new technologies at one comprehensive meeting. While recent conferences have

addressed more limited issues, WARC-92 will touch

on a wide range of new (and old) radiocommunication services. The decisions reached at WARC-92

will determine which technologies and services get

spectrum and how much.

The results of WARC-92 will also fundamentally

affect how new services will be introduced internationally, and on what time schedule.37 Allocations

from WARC-92 will also have substantial impacts

on future domestic developments and policies,

because changes in the international Table of

Allocations will likely be translated to the U.S.

National Table of Frequency Allocations.38 For

example, the FCC now has before it several proceedings dealing with new services such as BroadcastingSatellite Service-Sound (BSS-Sound) and PCS that

could be substantially affected by WARC decisions.39 How closely the FCC and NTIA will follow

the decisions adopted at the WARC will vary by

item, adhering closely to some and ignoring specifics of others. Ensuring American participation in the

full range of new international communications

systems will require a clear linkage of domestic

spectrum policy to the international environment.

Having U.S. proposals adopted at WARC-92 is

particularly important domestically for two reasons.

First, because the timeframe for implementing

WARC allocations and regulations is often long,

sometimes 10 or 15 years, decisions made at

WARC-92 will influence international and national

radiocommunication policy until 2010 or beyond.

Such decisions will also have important impacts on

investments in radiocommunication systems, including hardware and the development of services.

Decisions that do not support U.S. positions could

have along-term negative impact on U.S. radiocommunication development and economic competitiveness. Second, in the past, the irregular timing of

WARCs has put a premium on getting new technologies and services approved and allocated as quickly

as possible. Because a schedule of future conferences has not been set, if new services do not receive

any or inadequate frequencies at WARC-92, the next

opportunity to address them is uncertain-this may

371f efisfig users have to be moved, the ITU will agree on a timetable for existing users to vacate the band for new services to bem operation.

38Adoptionof the ~temtion~ Table of AllWatiom domesti~y is not automatic. The FCC typic~y initiates a ~cmak.ingpro~we aftCI’ a WARC

is concluded to determine how to implement changes agreed to internationally in the U.S. National Table of Frequency Allocations.

3~e FCC ~re.e=~ Notims of ~~(NoIs) ~to perso~ Commtications Servias, en Docket No. 90-314, released June 28, 1990, and

Digital Audio Broadcasting, Gen Docket No. 90-357, adopted Aug. 1, 1990.
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 15

be the last chance to get an allocation for some

services for many years. This problem is exacerbated

by the long lead times required for reallocation and

reaccommodation of existing service-even after

frequencies have been allocated to a service, the ITU

often grants existing users up to 10 or 15 years to

change frequencies. However, recognizing the important and rapid changes taking place in technology

and the international community, the High Level

Committee of the ITU has recommended that the

schedule of conferences be regularized-a conference would take place every 2 years. Such a change

would lessen the uncertainty of when issues will be

addressed (see ch. 3 for further discussion of the

proposed changes in the ITU), and would significantly affect the timing and preparation for future

WARCs. The United States has actively participated

in the High Level Committee and must continue to

be responsive to these possible changes.

WARC-92 thus represents both a risk and an

opportunity for U.S. interests. Part of enabling U.S.

companies to compete effectively depends on harmonizing international tele- and radiocommunications policies with trade policies to ensure that each

reinforces the goals of the other. WARC-92 represents an important opportunity to coordinate and

align frequencies to open up world (instead of

domestic or regional) markets in many new services.

Global coordination creates larger markets and

promises lower prices, portability of services, increasing interconnection, and greater economic efficiency. If U.S. views are well articulated, supported,

and presented, and the international community

accepts them, benefits will flow to U.S. interests. On

the other hand, lack of spectrum policy planning

risks U.S. competiveness. If the U.S. fails to present

well thought out and coherent proposals to the

international community, it risks being left out or

left behind. If other countries with less crowded

airwaves and more forward-thinking policies permit

new services first, their economies will be the frost

to benefit from new communications services.40

If new services are to be accommodated,

they will have to share spectrum with

existing users, or the existing users will

have to move.

Major Issues

The primary focus of WARC-92 will be allocating

radio frequencies to new and old services.41 These

issues are complex and often interrelated. In some

cases, several services compete for the same band of

frequencies. The problems are not as easy as simply

finding frequencies for new services, or matching a

service with the most suitable frequencies. There is

almost no unused spectrum below 3 GHz, so if new

services are to be accommodated, they will have to

share spectrum with existing users, or the existing

users will have to move.42 Reallocation decisions

have technical, political, and economic consequences. Often the decisions of where to put new

services and move old ones are based just as much

on economic and political pressures as on purely

technical requirements. Existing users with political

clout may be difficult to move. Users that make

extensive use of the band and have billions of dollars

invested in equipment may also be difficult to move,

practically and financially. The question of who

pays for such reallocation is often contentious, and

while the cost is not explicitly a WARC issue, it is

an important consideration in the development of

each government’s WARC proposals.

Many problems make WARC preparations and

negotiations difficult on both international and

domestic levels. First, some of the technologies and

services under consideration are still evolving. Final

requirements for spectrum and specific standards are

not yet in place, and the industries themselves are

often not mature-many companies are still vying

for a piece of the action. This has the effect of

making coordination and compromise even more

difficult-considering many different views from

40~k hwyn and Peter Coy, “Airwave Wars,” Business Week, No. 3170, July 23, 1990, p. 49.

AIO~er ~aers t. ~ ~&as~ by tie co~erence include: ~irements @ ~ps.at-~ ~Ve Cetild radio personnel on bored, development of

recommendations andresolutionsformeteorological aids, and consideration of the problems of the meteorological and Barth exploration satellite seMces

in the 401+03-MHz band. See app. B for the full W=C-92 agenda.

A~mme -s,sm~~=n~o comW~ s~i=can~ ~lc~t Orpmcticdy impossible. Sharing between high-powered radar systems and

some satellite services, e.g., is very difficult.
16 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

many different companies. Second, other countries

have developed systems and approaches to radiocommunications that are different from the United

States. Developing countries, for example, often use

the high frequency (HF) bands for domestic point-topoint communication. Developed countries, however, have largely replaced HF point-to-point links

with satellite or fiber-optic telecommunications

systems. They now use these bands much more

heavily for international broadcasting.43 These differences will make international agreement difficult.

In preparations for WARC-92, the most difficult

allocation problems, domestically and internationally, involve the use of the L-band (roughly 1.4-1.6

GHz). Private companies, including those developing Broadcasting-Satellite Services-Sound (BSSSound) and Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) would

like to use portions of this band because of its

favorable transmission characteristics.44 The Department of Defense, however, opposes a reallocation of the 1435-1525-MHz portion of the band for

new BSS-Sound services because of existing uses.45

The FCC, noting that the 1.5-GHz band is the band

most favored by some broadcasters and other

countries (notably CITEL) for BSS-Sound applications, believes that important new global services

and markets may be foreclosed if the Defense

Department’s opposition prevents the United States

from agreeing to worldwide allocations.% If a

worldwide allocation is agreed to at WARC-92 that

conflicts with the final U.S. position, the United

States could decide not to abide by the specific

decision. This could mean that BSS-Sound services

developed in the United States would not use the

same frequencies as the rest of the world—the

systems would be incompatible. It would then be

difficult to establish worldwide services, such as

international broadcasting, using this new technology.

In preparations for WARC-92, the most

difficult allocation problems, domestically and internationally, involve the use

of the L-band.

Below is a summary of the allocation issues to be

addressed at WARC-92, including proposed U.S.

positions (see app. D for a complete summary of

final U.S. WARC proposals),47 the views of foreign

administrations (where possible), and a discussion

of the potentially most controversial issues to be

discussed (see app. B for the full text of the agenda).

The views of foreign countries outlined below are

preliminary and may change before final positions

are decided later this year. They should be understood as only a rough guide indicating how the

various WARC agenda issues are evolving.

High Frequency Broadcasting-HF refers to

frequencies in the 3-30-MHz portion of the spectrum. The band is densely packed—numerous services and users occupy the HF spectrum, including

amateur radio, government-sponsored international

broadcasting (Voice of America, British Broadcasting Corporation, and Radio Moscow), private religious broadcasting, and international aviation and

maritime communications. Developing countries

also use the HF bands for domestic point-to-point

communications because of its low cost.

WARC-92 will consider expanding the bands

allocated exclusively to HF broadcasting. This issue

flows out of the work of the HF Broadcasting

Conferences (HFBC) of 1984 and 1987.48 For

WARC-92, the United States proposes expanding

the band by a total of 1325 kHz (in different blocks

Aq~e United Stites done accounts for 10 percent of worldwide HF spectrum use. See Final Report of “Info- Working Group 1“ to tie ~dusq

Advisory Committee to the FCC, LAC Document 48, Apr. 30, 1991.

44MSS Providen, however, w~e not able to convince government polk-ers to m~e ~s a ~ U.S. PmPos~o

A5~ong otheruse~, theseb~ds Me used by the &,p~ent of Defense ad my of its con~actors h thepfivate sector for the te,sthlg Of IleW 21h(Xiift.

46B=auSe much of the ~~ on the Feder~ Gove~ent’s u5e of sp~~ is c~ssified or not e~fly ob~~, the Fcc IIMy not have a good idea how

much and how efllciently government spectrum in this area is used. This lack of adequate data makes it very difficult for the FCC to negotiate the issue.

47~ ~, tie United Stites ~11 tie~ppro~tely 50 specfilc pmpos~s cove~g 14 diffe~nt radio services. All tiorn@ion on f~ U.S. pI’OpOsdS

comes from U.S. Department of State, United States Proposals for the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference for Dealing With Frequency

Allocations in Certain Parts of the Spectrum, publication 9903, July 1991.

4S~e 1985/1987 HF’BC W~C attempted to develop a method for planning broadcast frequency msig’nments on a worldwide basis. Bemuse ‘ie

broadcasting needs identfled greatly exceeded the fkquencies available, a workable system was never developed. As a result the Conference

recommended (Recommendation No. 511, HFBC-87) that more spectrum be allocated for HF broadcasting at a future W~C. This recommendation

was included in the agenda for W~C-92.
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 17

of frequencies, see app. D)-much less than the

amount recommended by the FCC’s Industry Advisory Committee, which suggested 2455 kHz of

additional spectrum. The 1325 kHz, or any portion

approved, would be reallocated from the Fixed and

Mobile services, which could continue to use the

bands until the end of a transfer period.

Planning and use of the HF bands for broadcasting

has been contentious for many years.49 Two factors

contribute to the problem: First, demand for HF

broadcasting spectrum greatly outstrips supply. The

International Frequency Registration Board’s (an

agency of the ITU) planning exercises conducted for

the High Frequency Broadcasting WARC of 1987

(HFBC-87) indicate that more than half of all HF

broadcast requirements submitted by member countries could not be adequately met, and between 25

and 35 percent of these requirements could not be

accommodated at all.50 Second, as noted above,

different countries use the HF bands for different

purposes. Many countries see the allocation of

additional broadcast spectrum as a threat to their

domestic (nonbroadcast) radiocommunications.

Preliminary negotiations indicate that this issue

will be difficult for the 1992 conference (see box

3-A). Many developing countries may oppose any

expansion of the broadcasting spectrum in an effort

to protect their existing domestic telecommunications

services and investments in equipment. In Europe,

the countries that belong to the Conference of

European Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), which attempts to harmonize European telecommunications policies and is coordinating the development of European WARC proposals,

have not proposed specific bands.

An additional part of the HF controversy surrounds the use of single-sideband (SSB) transmission and receivers for all new HF services (see ch. 2).

SSB broadcasting requires less bandwidth to send

information than most conventional radio broadcasting systems, and hence would allow more broadcasters to use the spectrum. The ITU has already

Planning and use of the HF bands for

broadcasting has been contentious for

many years.

mandated its use by the year 2015.51 The United

States proposes that SSB be used in all new HF

frequency bands adopted at WARC-92, and that the

effective date of implementation be moved up to

2007. A number of (especially developing) countries

have opposed this conversion because of the large

number of existing receivers and the lack of economic incentives to build the new receivers.52

Broadcasting-Satellite Service-Sound—BSSSound refers to the delivery of audio services

directly to stationary and portable receivers from

satellite transmitters (see figure 2-4).53 These services, which often plan to use digital technology

(digital audio broadcasting), promise to deliver radio

services with compact disc quality sound to any type

of receiver (home, portable, mobile) in any environment (urban, suburban, rural). Domestic service

would be provided through satellites for wide area

coverage and terrestrial transmitters for local services or to fill in areas where the satellite signal is

weak (in tunnels, for example). International service

would be provided primarily by satellite and would

allow listeners to receive programming anywhere in

the world. Planned systems will allow services to be

tailored to local, domestic or international listeners.

In the United States, several companies have applied

to the FCC for authority to launch satellites and offer

such services (see app. C).

BSS-Sound has been studied internationally, dating back at least 25 years. The issue of BSS-Sound

was raised at WARC-79, which recommended that

it be considered at a future WARC (which was later

scheduled as the 1988 WARC on the Use of the

Geostationary-Satellite Orbit and the Planning of

Space Services Utilizing It-ORB-88). ORB-88

d~or a MI discussion of tie tistow of HF spectrum allocation, see Savage, op. cit., footiote 28.

%dustry Advisory Committee, “Final Report of Informal Work@ Group Number l,” report submitted to the FCC, Apr. 24, 1991.

sl~termtio~ Tel~omm~cation Ufioq Resolution No. 517 of The World Administrative Radio Conference for the Phtig of the ~ B~ds

Allocated Exclusively to the Broadcasting Service (Geneva, 1987).

sz~~ac~em will not build the receivers until they can receive something, but tie Pmf? ammers will not broadcast in SSB until there are radios

to receive the signal. Even if some manufacturers do produce these new receivers, they are likely to be very expensive until larger markets open up.

ssB$&Somd system my ~so be coWlement~ by terres~ trammitters. Bo~ satellites ~d terresti transmitte~ me proposed to be USd eitk

separately or in a mixed system to provide complete radio coverage.
18 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

was unable to reach agreement on possible allocations and service standards and recommended that

the issue be reconsidered at a future WARC after

further technical studies by the ITU’s International

Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) (see ch. 3).54

Accordingly, the Administrative Council included

BSS-Sound in the 500-3000-MHz range on the

WARC-92 agenda.

Debate in the United States has been intense over

which bands to allocate domestically and what the

U.S. international position should be. This is the

only WARC agenda item that could not be reconciled between FCC and NTIA before final recommendations were transmitted to the Department of

State. In initial reports, the FCC and NTIA proposed

four options for BSS-Sound allocation for WARC92.55 BSS-Sound proponents favor the bands around

1.5 GHz (the so-called L-band), but U.S. Government interests, notably the Department of Defense

and its commercial contractors, are opposed because

of the existing use of the band for aircraft testing.56

The problem with all BSS-Sound options is that

sharing with other services, such as the industrial,

scientific, and medical services, which includes

microwave ovens, in the 2400-MHz bands is extremely difficult, and existing users are often unwilling or unable to move. 57 In its final Report, the FCC

recommended the reallocation of the 1.5- and

2.3-GHz bands for BSS-Sound. NTIA proposed that

the 231O-239O-MHZ band could be used. The final

size and location of the bands is subject to continuing negotiation.

Internationally, there is strong interest in the

concept of BSS-Sound, but sharp differences exist as

to which band(s) would be most appropriate for an

allocation. For example, there is little consensus

internationally on the use of the 1.5-GHz band. A

Internationally, there is strong interest

in the concept of BSS-Sound, but sharp

differences exist as to which band(s)

would be most appropriate for an allocation.

recent meeting of CITEL (see box 3-A) generally

supported an allocation in the 1.5-GHz band, and a

minority of the CEPT countries would like to use the

1.5-GHz band for BSS-Sound. However, many

foreign countries seem to concur with U.S. government opposition-including many CEPT countries-who claim that there is no way to accommodate the service in the 1.5-GHz band because of

tremendous demand by mobile services and existing

fixed services. Other countries also seem to favor

using the band for Mobile or Mobile Satellite

Services. Debate on BSS-Sound at WARC-92 is

expected to be difficult because all proposed bands

are used by existing services.58

Broadcasting-Satellite Service-High-Definition

Television—HDTV was conceived more than 20

years ago, but only recently has the technology

become advanced enough for commercial applications.59 HDTV’s main characteristics are high resolution (nearly twice that of conventional television)

and better color, a wider screen, and compact disc

quality digital sound. While HDTV systems are

currently still in development, rapid advances in

technology are being made that could bring HDTV

to consumer markets worldwide by the mid-1990s.60

Satellite transmission of HDTV services is only one

of a number of ways to deliver such programming

(others include cable, fiber optics, and terrestrial

fl~ter~tio~Tel=om~cationUfio~ ResolutionNo. 5200f ~eWorldAws~tive~&o Conference ontieuseof the Geostationary-Satellite

Orbit and the Planning of Space Services Utilizing 16 Second Session (Geneva, 1988).

5S728-788 ~; 1493-1525 ~, 23*2450 ~, 236@2410 M&C F~er~ comm~cations Commissio% ‘ ‘An hlquiry Re@ng to hparation

for the International Telecommunication Union World Administrative Radio Conference for Dealing With Frequency Allocations in Certain Parts of

the Spectrum,” Supplemental Notice Of Inquiry, Gen Docket 89-554,6 FCC Rcd 1914, p. 2.

56some proponents of~~~ audio broad~sting, a digital transmission format that could be used to provide BSS-Sound services, ~ve proposed tit

the terrestrial component of BSS-Sound would be more easily provided in existing radio broadcasting bands. They do not necessarily favor the 1.5-GHz

band for this service.

57~o~er prows~ for @~ ~u&o broadc~ting t. she spec~ ~ me~tel~ision band W= reject~ &KXNML the FCC anticipates that the

spectrum will be needed for the transmission of advanced television (ATV) signals.

58~eFCS no~s ~i~ supplmen~ Notice of @@ tit find@ a worldwide ~o~tion for BSS my be di.filcdt. It then raises the possibility thtit

allocations may have to be made on a regional basis.

59For ~xmsion of me ~stofic~, tw~c~, and econofic ~plications of H’DTV, see U.S. Congress, OffIce of TwkoIogy Assessmen4 The Big

Picture: HDTVand High-Resohdion Systems, OTA-BP-C~-64 (W%shingtonj DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, June 1990).

f@Japan ~ady has a system in operation (MUSE). Ml.
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 19

broadcasting), but proponents see HDTV as a very

lucrative market for satellite services vendors. Satellite delivery of HDTV, however, depends on the

availability of spectrum around the world, and many

believe a worldwide allocation for HDTV is needed

to further advance this service and reduce international interference problems.

A plan exists for satellite transmission of television signals directly to home receivers in the

12-GHz band. However, this band was planned

primarily for direct broadcast of conventional television signals. While it appears possible to transmit

some enhanced and narrow-band HDTV signals in

these channels, the larger bandwidths commonly

associated with full HDTV may not fit into the

current planned channel bandwidths.61 To accommodate these wider channels and any future expansion in HDTV service, HDTV allocations were

considered at ORB-88, but were not agreed to. The

ITU Administrative Council included this item in

the agenda of WARC-92 based on Resolution 521 of

ORB-88, which calls for consideration of a worldwide allocation for wide-band HDTV between 12.7

and 23.0 GHz.

The United States proposes that the existing plan

in the 11.7-12.7-GHz band can serve as the basis for

future HDTV services, but that additional allocations may also be necessary. The United States

considered 17.3 -17.7 GHz and 24.65-25.25 GHz for

these additional frequencies, and eventually the FCC

and NTIA recommended the 25-GHz band.62 The

IAC generally supported the FCC positions, but

expressed doubt about the necessity of expanding

allocations, especially in the 17-GHz bands.63 CEPT

countries have proposed using the band 21.4-22.0

GHz on a worldwide basis for HDTV. CITEL was

unable to agree on common views regarding the

necessity of additional allocations given the possibilities of future technical advances in compression

technology.

Several of the most important issues to

be considered at WARC-92 involve the

expansion of Mobile and Mobile Satellite Services.

Mobile and Mobile Satellite Services in 1-3 GHz

-Several of the most important issues to be

considered at WARC-92 involve the expansion of

Mobile and Mobile Satellite Services. Recognizing

the need to allocate additional frequencies to the

mobile services, ITU members decided at the 1987

WARC for the Mobile Services (MOB-87) that a

future conference was necessary to address these

issues. 64 Consequently, the WARC-92 agenda includes four topics related to mobile and mobile

satellite services: 1) increasing the allocations to

these services in general; 2) allocation or designation of frequencies for public correspondence with

aircraft; 3) allocation or designation of frequencies

for Future Public Land Mobile Telecommunications

Service; and 4) possible allocations for LEOS. Each

service is discussed separately below.

Mobile Services-Although the United States is

widely regarded as a leader in many areas of

radiocommunications, the European countries have

been aggressively developing and implementing

many types of mobile communication services. In

part this is because the European nations recognized

early on the importance of mobile communications

in an advanced information society, but more

importantly because the Europeans identified these

systems as a critical element in the future economic

development of a unified Europe and started working out a common plan and standards for developing

61~pi~y ~vmc~g digi~ video compression c~abil.ities Cotid conceivably allow even the widest bandwidth HDTV signals to fit into the efisfig

channel bandwidth constraints. There is no consensus, however, as to howmuchcompression will be practical in the short te~ and some administrations

remain skeptical that compression techniques will completely solve this problem. See, e.g, Organhtion of American States, Interamerican

Telecommunications Conference, Perman ent Technical Committee III, ‘‘Report of the CITEL 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference Interim

Working Group,” Document WARC-92/62 Rev. 2, May 10, 1991.

Czsupplemental NOI, op. cit., footnote 55.

63~e basis of this position is the belief tit compression technologies ~1 be able to provide mm Semice wiw the existing ~OCiltiOIIS. The

Industry Advisory Committee report also noted serious problems with sharing in the 17-GHz bands. Because of the lack of sharing problems in the

24.65-25.25 GHz-bands, these were endorsed by the Committee. See ‘ ‘Final Report of Informal Working Group-Number Three,” submitted to Industry

Advisory Committee, Apr. 25, 1991.

64~termtio~ Telecomm~cation Ution, Resolution No. 208 of the World AdminisEative ~dio Conference for the Mobile Services (Genev~

1987).
20 ● W&C-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

such services.65 The United States, by contrast,

considers mobile services more narrowly as a matter

of domestic spectrum management, not linked to

development or trade, and has no comprehensive

long-range plan for such services, preferring to

manage and plan only in response to specific

pressures. This results from a U.S. system that

depends on the market to make decisions and that

has many competing interests-an adversarial system that often resorts to litigation rather than

negotiation. Achieving consensus and developing a

unified approach is much more difficult and timeconsuming in the United States than in many foreign

countries.

Mobile Satellite Services-MSS encompass all

types of services delivered by satellite including

maritime (MMSS), aeronautical (AMSS), and land

mobile (LMSS) communications. These services

can be provided by either geosynchronous orbit

satellites or LEOS. Because of the characteristics of

radio wave propagation, the most suitable frequencies for these mobile services are below 3 GHz, and

the most heavily used frequencies are in the L-band

(1.5- 1.6 GHz). With the increasing demand for MSS

in all parts of the world, these frequencies are

becoming rapidly congested.66

Some of the most contentious and important

issues of the WARC, both domestically and internationally, involve the MSS. The United States has

proposed a generic MSS in the 1.5-1.6-GHz bands

that would combine maritime, aeronautical, and land

mobile services.67 The United States has also

proposed allocating frequencies in the 2.1- and

2.4-GHz bands totaling 80 MHz and the 1850- 1990-

MHz band to MSS. The Industry Advisory Committee Ad-Hoc Group advising the FCC on MSS

matters for WARC-92 agreed on the need for

additional MSS spectrum, but could not reach

consensus on the specific location or use of the

additional bands. Many existing users, including

public safety interests and the petroleum, railroad,

and utilities, have voiced strong opposition to the

use of bands below 2 GHz. There is special concern

that the interests of the aeronautical and maritime

distress and safety services be protected, especially

from potential interference with the proposed services for public correspondence with aircraft (see

below). The United States believes that such public

safety concerns can be protected through footnotes

allowing such services priority access to frequencies, but there is still strong aeronautical industry

opposition to this view.

Discussions within CITEL established general

support for additional allocations, but specific agreements on the use of the bands were limited. The

CEPT countries have identified MSS allocations as

the most important issue of WARC-92, and may

propose up to 100 MHz of additional spectrum in the

L-band as well as additional allocations above 2.5

GHz.68 CEPT also supports the concept of a generic

allocation for MSS, but only for newly allocated

bands.

In addition to the above allocations, the FCC

proposed to allocate 1850-1990 MHz to MSS for the

use of LEOS.69 In the final U.S. proposals, this

recommendation was modified to remove explicit

references to LEOS and was proposed under MSS.

This change reflects a potential problem for the

United States in its MSS negotiations at WARC-92.

The WARC-92 agenda specifically addresses LEOS

systems that would operate in frequencies below 1

GHz. During the course of the FCC preparations

process (after the Second Notice of Inquiry was

released), however, Motorola and Ellipsat proposed

LEOS systems that would operate in frequencies

GSS~ce the Pfivate s~tor plays a s@er role in public telecommunications systems development in Europe compared to the Ufited States, it maY

be easier for the European nations to develop regional plans. For example, Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM-formerly Groupe Special

Mobile) is a digital cellular standard that has been proposed to serve all Europe, replacing existing incompatible national (analog) systems. Its

implementation is proceeding, although more slowly than some policymakers had anticipated.

~’rhe ~termtion~ M. con~tative Committee (CCIR) has studied future requirements for all MSS and has concluded that existing Mo=tions

will not be sufilcient to meet estimated growth in these semices. CCIR studies estimate that a total bandwidth of between 177.6 and 328.2 MHz will

be required by 2010. See Organization of American States, Inter-American Telecommunications Conference, “Report of ‘he CITEL 1992 World

Administrative Radio Conference Interim Working Group,” WARC-92/62 Rev. 2, unpublished document, May 10, 1991. Tflese figures are roughly

equivalent to the IAC’S estimates. See Supplemental NOI, op. cit., footnote 55.

c7At tie 1987 Mobfle WARC, the United States did not succeed in having this view accepted. As a resti~ the United StateS took a reservation on this

allocation and created a shared allocation for LMSS, MMSS, and AMSS.

~coments of E&rhard George, CEPT observer, to CfTEL Interim Working Group meeting, Washington DC, May 10, 1991.

@Federal Communications Commission, “AnInquiry Relating to Preparation for the International Telecommunication Union World Administrative

Radio Conference for Dealing Witb Frequency Allocations in Certain Parts of the Spectrum,’ Report, Gen Docket No. 89-554,6 FCC Rcd 3900 (1991).
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 21

above 1 GHz.70 The FCC has supported these

proposals, but support for the system outside the

United States appears limited. At the International

Radio Consultative Committee WARC-92 Conference Preparatory Meeting, for example, Motorola’s

Iridium proposal was extensively discussed, but

LEOS systems in this band were not fully endorsed

because of concerns about the ability of such

systems to share spectrum with geosynchronous

satellite systems.71 Because LEO systems will be

providing MSS, the United States has indicated in its

final proposals that spectrum allocated to the MSS

could be used for LEOS operations.

This proposal is controversial on several grounds.

First, domestic MSS providers, notably the American Mobile Satellite Corporation, have argued that

the FCC has taken no domestic action yet to

establish the need or public interest standards for

these proposed LEOS systems. They contend that

bringing these proposals directly to the WARC

preparations process and the WARC itself, circumvents the proper approval process. Second, because

the concept of LEOS above 1 GHz is not explicitly

part of the WARC agenda, some foreign governments have argued that this WARC cannot consider

it. They believe that a consideration of LEOS

systems above 1 GHz violates the spirit of the

WARC-92 agenda. The U.S. strategy has some

opponents questioning why the government is expending so much energy and risking its credibility

on a proposal that has seemingly little backing

internationally .72

Future Public Land Mobile Telecommunication

Systems-Future Public Land Mobile Telecommunication Systems (FPLMTS) is another of the new

services to be considered at WARC-92. It is within

Spectrum allocated to Future Public

Land Mobile Telecommunication Systems (FPLMTS) may provide radio frequencies that could be used by future

personal communications services (PCS).

this allocation (somewhere in the 1700-2300 MHz

bands) that future PCS may be located.73 Development activities are underway around the world

examining voice and data applications for both

personal and mobile (vehicular) uses. Studies are

also underway examining the use of FPLMTS as an

alternative to wire connections to provide access to

public telephone networks (see ch. 2). Based on this

widespread interest and the work of MOB-87,74 the

Administrative Council added FPLMTS to the

WARC-92 agenda.

Allocation of additional spectrum for FPLMTS is

not the critical issue. Many countries, including the

United States, believe that the existing allocations

for mobile services in the 1-3-GHz band are

adequate. The main issue of FPLMTS centers

around the designation of a common core/band of

worldwide frequencies that would allow international roaming of PCS.75 The CCIR has recommended 60 MHz for this purpose. The members of

CITEL generally support the concept of FPLMTS

and the need for a core band of spectrum for

international roaming. The CEPT countries have

indicated that they would like 200 MHz of total

spectrum designated to FPLMTS, possibly in the

19OO-21OO-MHZ bands. The FCC, however, proposed no additional allocations for FPLMTS, and

7osPc~1c~1y, the binds appli~ for were 16101626.5 MHZ. Ellipsat also proposed to use frequencies just below 2.5 GHz. AS of J~Y IW1, seve~

other companies have applied at the Commission to build similar systems (see app. C).

Tl~termtio~ Tel~omm~cation UniOQ titemtio~ R@o Consultative Committee, CCIR REPORT: Technical and Operational Buses for the

World Administrative Radio Conference 1992 (W~C-92), March 1991, pp. 8-5,8-13,8-14.

72’1’’his co~ct reflWts the hger issue of how the world *1 a~ommodate LEOS in the intelylatio~ Radio Re@tions and in phcuk fr~llency

bands. Fundamentally, the question is: what is LJ30S? Is it a separate service, or is LEOS technology merely another method for providing an existing

service? Radio frequency allocations are generally made only to radio services, not technologies. Yet LEOS, which is technically just a

radiocommunication technology, is being treated on the WARC-92 agenda as if it were a service. This ambiguous situation is the basis for the present

controversy.

TsotherpossiblepcS Wocatiom areinthe 8m900-M&bandnear the cellular allocation. Many experimental licenses have beengrantedandapplied

for in this band (see app. C).

Td~termtio~ TelWomm~cation Ufioq R=o-en&tion No. 205 of tie World A-~~tive Radio conference for the Mobile Servic=

(Geneva, 1987).

TsT& wo~dnot 1essaWoWtiom t. the seni~~any way. fither, it wo~dcarve outaband of sp~~ that would becomrmmto FPLMTS systems

around the world. This would provide a common signaling channel worldwide that would allow users’ pcxsonal equipment to access semices no matter

where the user is located.
22 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

believes that existing allocations have sufficient

flexibility to allow any reallocation to be accomplished domestically.76 The Commission also believes that the 60-MHz requirement identified for

international roaming by the CCIR is excessive and

unnecessary. Generally, this view is supported by

the Industry Advisory Committee. At one point in

the development of proposals, the United States

agreed that a common worldwide allocation would

be desirable to allow mobile roaming of PCS, but

proposed 10 MHz as sufficient.77 In the final U.S.

proposals, however, this idea was dropped-the

United States now believes that the designation of a

frequency band for FPLMTS is premature.

Low-Earth Orbiting Satellites-LE0S systems

are another method of providing MSS. Individual

LEO satellites are smaller and much easier and

cheaper to design, construct and launch than conventional geosynchronous satellites, and proponents

envision networks of these small satellites circling

the globe. LEOS services have received much

attention in the United States, and several applications for LEOS systems are pending at the FCC (see

app. C). Two types of LEO systems have been

proposed. LEOS operating in frequencies below 1

GHz will provide only data applications, including

position determination services for cars, trucks,

ships and aircraft. In addition to these services,

systems operating in frequencies above 1 GHz plan

to provide voice services as well. Motorola’s Iridium

system, for example, which would use a network of

77 LEOS to provide data and voice services around

the world. Although LEO satellites are relatively

less expensive than geosynchronous satellites, the

networks required to provide wide area coverage

could be very expensive because of the large

numbers of satellites required and the technical

complexity of linking them all together. Iridium is

expected to cost more than $3 billion. While both

Low-Earth orbiting satellite (LEOS)

services have received much attention in

the United States, and several applications for LEOS systems are pending at

the FCC.

types of LEOS systems could be used for domestic

service, larger networks of LEO satellites could also

provide global coverage. For this reason, the United

States persuaded the ITU Administrative Council to

put LEOS (below 1 GHz) on the agenda for

WARC-92. LEOS above 1 GHz were not included

on the WARC-92 agenda because no systems using

those frequencies had yet been proposed.78

The United States considered several possible

bands for reallocation to LEOS below 1 GHz.79 Final

U.S. proposals are for 137-138 MHz (downlink),

148-149.9 MHz (uplink), and 400.15-401 MHz

(downlink). While there is relatively little interest in

LEOS in other countries, many are concerned about

possible interference between LEOS and existing

users in the proposed bands. CITEL was not able to

agree on a common LEOS proposal pending the

completion of sharing studies in progress. The CEPT

countries, as of May 1991, had no LEO satellite

proposals.

During the course of WARC-92 preparations, the

FCC also received applications for LEOS in bands

above 1 GHz.80 Although not explicitly included in

the WARC-92 agenda, in its final proposals, the

United States proposes that the band 1613.8 -1626.5

MHz be allocated to the MSS on a secondary basis

to provide transmission from the satellite to receivers on Earth (the same frequencies are already

allocated for transmission from Earth to satellites).

7cFedeml Commticatiom Commission, “Anh@ry RelaQ to Preparation for the Intermtional Telecommunication Union World ~“ “strative

Radio Conference for Dealing With Frequency Allocations in Certain Parts of the Spec~” Second Notice Of Znquiry, Gem Docket 89-554,5 FCC

Rcd 6046 (1990); Supplemental NOZ, op. cit., footnote 55.

77Apple Computa, Motorola, and Comsat w SUppOfl at least a 1O-MHZ designation to wow ~temat-io~ voi~ and data P~so~ comm~~tiom.

However, the proposal is not included in the final U.S. proposals.

TgMotorola and Ellipsat filed their applications well after the agenda had been fwd.

T~ebmds propos~ ~ tie FCC Notice of ~q~ prWe55 include: 137-138 and 148-149.9 MHz; 420-421 MHz and 930-931 *.rn additiom tie

Industry Advisory Committee proposed 173.4-174 MHz and 400.15-401 MHz. Second NO1, op. cit., footnote 76; Supplemental NOI, op. cit., footnote

55.

wMotorola and E~psat were he MM appliat5. me hidium system would use the band 1610- 1626.5 MHz for both uP~ @~-to-sateflite) and

downlink (satellite-to-Earth) transmissions, while Ellipsat would use 1610- 1626.5 as its uplink with its dowrdink transmissions at 2483.5-2500 MHz.

Recently, more applications for such service have been fded (see app. C). For a discussion of the Iridium and Ellipsat applications and FCC proposals,

see Supplemental NOI, op. cit., footnote 55.
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 23

This spectrum would be used in the United States for

LEOS services, and responds to Iridium’s proposal

to use this block of spectrum for both uplink and

downlink transmissions. The United States also

proposes that spectrum be allocated to MSS services

in 1850-1990 MHz on a shared primary basis to

provide for future flexibility and expansion of MSS

(specifically LEOS, although the proposals do not

explicitly state this). As noted above, these proposals have generated controversy on several levels.

Other Allocation Issues—Several other allocation issues, while not receiving as much public

attention as those above, pose equally great negotiating challenges for the United States, both domestically and internationally.

Public Correspondence With Aircraft-Aeronautical public correspondence (APC) refers to radiocommunication services that allow airline passengers to place telephone calls while in flight. The

demand for public communication with aircraft is

relatively recent, having been addressed for the first

time on a global basis at the 1987 Mobile WARC

(MOB-87). That WARC allocated frequencies in the

1.5-1.6-GHz band for experimental terrestrial APC.

Subsequent studies by the CCIR indicated the

benefits of a worldwide allocation for this service,

and following Recommendation 408 (MOB-87), the

issue was included in the WARC-92 agenda.

Although not particularly controversial, it appears

unlikely that a worldwide allocation for terrestrial

APC will be accepted. In many countries, the

frequencies allocated at MOB-87 are already heavily

used for other services and may cause serious

interference to radionavigation and radiodetermination satellite services also operating in the bands.

Because of this, many countries in Regions 2 and 3,

including the United States, have authorized or

begun operating terrestrial APC systems in the

800-960-MHz band (a band not specifically allocated to worldwide aeronautical mobile service) .81

Consequently, the United States will not propose

any additional spectrum to terrestrial APC, but will

propose that bands currently used in the United

States be designated for worldwide use. Most

CITEL members support the U.S. proposal, but a

common view has not been agreed to. The CEPT

countries also do not want any additional allocations

for APC in the 900-MHz band, citing extensive

existing services, but will likely propose an allocation of 10 MHz of additional spectrum in the 1.7-or

1.8-GHz bands.

Radiodetermination-Satellite Service in 1.6-2.5

GHz-Radiodetermination-Satellite Service (RDSS)

uses satellites to provide geographic location information to cars, trucks, aircraft, and ships at sea (see

ch. 2). Several RDSS systems are operating in the

United States and more are being developed. Some

of these services may be offered by the proposed

LEOS systems in combination with other data and

messaging applications (see app. C).

RDSS was put on the WARC-92 agenda according to Resolution No. 708 of the 1987 WARC for the

Mobile Services, which allocated spectrum for the

service, but also called for more study of the use of

RDSS and sharing between RDSS and terrestrial

services in various bands. Consequently, WARC-92

will address the issues of RDSS with the intention of

harmonizing regulations for its use worldwide. In

this regard, the United States will propose that

RDSS be upgraded to primary status in Regions 1

and 3 (to bring it in line with its status in Region 2).82

Fixed Satellite Service in 14.5 -14.8 GHz—The

14.5-14.8-GHz band is allocated to the Fixed

Satellite Service (FSS) internationally.83 The item

was put on the WARC agenda to correct an

imbalance in the number of frequencies available for

sending signals to (uplink) and from (downlink)

satellites. Outside the United States, the band is

allocated to transmit video programming in support

of the Broadcasting-Satellite Service. In the United

States, however, the band is allocated exclusively

for government use. Due to extensive government

use of the band, the United States opposes international use of the band for commercial purposes, and

opposed the inclusion of this item on the WARC

agenda. U.S. representatives, however, did not

prevail, and the item was included. U.S. industry has

shown some support for changing the allocations

gl~ the United Stites, the system is fUIIy operatiod and serves hundreds of aircraft. The United States uses the bands 849-851 ~~d 894-896

MHz for this system.

82~e Ufited Sbtes ~so proposes t. add MSS ~ a cop- ~location in these bands. Mss ad mss services me techniay compatible, and, hl

fac~ complement each other. They are expected to be provided by the same satellite system in many cases.

83Gener~ly, F~ed Sateflite Semim is defined ~ communi~tion be~een my NO fried (s~tio~) Eti stations using a Satellite. h may

applications, a satellite beams programming or information from one central point (the hub) to any number of stationary satellite receive dishes.
24 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

internationally, but the U.S. government remains

opposed to any changes in the band, and will take

that position into the WARC. Even if a reallocation

passes, the United States will likely take a reservation on this use, denying its use in the United

States.84

Space Operations and Research at 2 GHz—

These services provide communications, data gathering, and command and control functions for space

activities.85 In the United States, for example, they

support the space shuttle and the Hubble telescope.

In recent years, use of these services and frequencies

has intensified, making international coordination

difficult. As a result, the 1988 space services WARC

recommended that a future conference address the

issue.86 The United States proposes to upgrade these

services to primary status.

Space Services Above 20 GHz—In addition to

existing space services, WARC-92 will also consider possible allocations for new space services that

would use frequencies above 20 GHz. Among the

U.S. proposals for new services and allocations are:

the creation of a General-Satellite Service near 20/30

GHz that would be used to provide both fixed and

mobile services; an allocation for intersatellite links

at 21.7-22 GHz; a primary allocation for Earth

exploration satellites near 61 and 157 GHz; and a

primary allocation for new space research services at

37-38 and 39.5 -40.5 GHz (for a complete summary

of the U.S. proposals for new space services, see app.

U.S. Preparations and WARC Proceedings

Although the issues to be addressed by WARC-92

have been well known for many years, the actual

preparation time for the conference has been relatively short. In the past, preparation time for WARCs

has been between 3 and 5 years. The final agenda for

WARC-92, however, was not adopted until mid1990, leaving approximately only 1 year for proposals to be drafted and sent to the ITU and only 18

months before the WARC itself. This is a special

problem for the United States because of the large

number of constituencies involved and the extensive

The issues to be addressed by WARC-92

have been well known for many years,

but the actual preparation time for the

conference has been relatively short.

Nevertheless, the development of proposals was accomplished on time.

degree of private sector involvement. It takes a long

time to make sure everyone has a fair chance to have

their views heard, and then to try to work out a

compromise. Nevertheless, the development of proposals was accomplished on time.

The United States began preparing for the conference in late 1989. The FCC began its proceeding

(Gen Docket 89-554) into WARC positions and

established the Industry Advisory Committee to

provide private sector input to the formation of

Commission proposals. NTIA established Ad Hoc

206 of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee to provide government agency input for formulation of executive branch positions. Additional,

mostly technical, work was done in U.S. national

CCIR study groups. Although NTIA and the FCC

developed ‘their own proposals, in reality, the

development of executive branch and FCC proposals was very closely coordinated. This ongoing

coordination streamlines the proposal development

process and ensures that final WARC positions are

developed as quickly as possible.

However, the WARC-92 proposals from FCC and

NTIA were not exact duplicates-one issue remained unresolved. In the U.S. final proposals,

which were submitted to the ITU in late July 1991,

FCC and executive branch views had not been

reconciled on the recommended allocations for

BSS-Sound. In cases such as this, when coordination

has failed, the FCC and NTIA will continue negotiations, or the Department of State will try to negotiate

a solution or establish a mechanism to resolve the

dispute. If the proponents still cannot agree, a

~~e govements of &.mny, IMy, Spa@ and France indicated at the 1990 ITU Administrative Council thit M5 Mocation co~d not be

implemented in their countries.

gs~e ac~ frequencies Wocated for these services are 2025-2110 MHz ~d 2200-2290 MHz.

86~termtio@ Tel~mm~mtion unio~ Recommen~tion 716 of tie WMC on tie Use of tie G~s~tio~-Sateflite C)rbit ~d the Pl- g of

Space Services Utilizing Iq Second Session (Geneva, 1988).
Chapter 1-Introduction and Summary ● 25

mechanism’ may have to be created to work out a

solution. 87 One alternative is to bring the matter

before the (staff of) the National Security Council,

which is empowered by the President to resolve

disputes of this type, although this is considered a

last resort.88 The final U.S. proposal for BSS-Sound

will be submitted to the ITU in the form of a

supplemental proposal before WARC-92 convenes.

Late in the summer of 1991, the Department of

State, in consultation with NTIA and FCC, assembled the formal U.S. delegation that will attend the

conference. Approximately 50 people serve on the

delegation including representatives from FCC,

NTIA, Department of State, other Federal Government agencies, and the private sector.89 The core of

the nongovernment representatives is drawn from

the FCC’s Industry Advisory Committee (see ch. 4).

Delegations are balanced as much as possible to

ensure the participation of various industry sectors

as well as minority participation. The Department of

State also appointed a Head of Delegation and four

vice-chairs to assist him, one each from FCC, NTIA,

Department of State, and the private sector. The

process of finalizing the WARC-92 delegation

proceeded very slowly, leading many to believe that

the U.S. will not have time to adequately prepare its

negotiation strategies for the WARC. As of midSeptember, the delegation still had not been officially announced, although members had been

notified and had begun to meet. The Head of

Delegation, Jan Baran, was announced in late

August.

Once the delegation was formed, WARC preparations intensified. Leadership roles within the U.S.

delegation were established, and three committees

(Allocation, Regulation, and Technical) were created to guide final U.S. preparations. The delegation

will develop negotiating strategies and fallback

positions based on U.S. needs, but also tempered by

The process of finalizing the WARC-92

delegation has proceeded very slowly,

leading many to believe that the United

States will not have time to adequately

prepare its negotiation strategies for the

WARC.

the likelihood of foreign acceptance or room for

negotiation. Finally, the delegation will work out a

detailed negotiating strategy that includes presentation of specific proposals and the ordering of

fall-back positions.90

Starting sometime in August 1991, and lasting

until the end of the year, the chief spokespersons

(usually consisting of representatives from the

Department of State, NTIA, FCC, and the private

sector) of the delegation began bilateral and multilateral talks with the key foreign governments and

international organizations involved in WARC-92.

Until proposals for the WARC were finalized, talks

were mostly informal, giving both sides the opportunity to exchange ideas, stake out initial positions,

and get background for future negotiation strategies.

Once national proposals have been agreed to,

however, talks become more consequential as U.S.

representatives try to determine how firm each

nation’s positions are, what backup strategies and

positions the United States could develop, and how

many votes the United States can count on at the

conference. Negotiation becomes concentrated on

selling positions as opposed to flexibly discussing

them. This part of the preparations process gives

U.S. representatives the opportunity to make connections with key countries, especially those in

Africa and Asia, which may be unfamiliar with U.S.

positions, and enables them to try to build support

87me telaom~catiom Senior btmagency Group (SIG), which could have provided the basis for resolving the dispute was disbanded in the early

years of the Bush administration.

SSAIthou@ it is r= for Cotiicts to get this far, National Security Council staff have resolved disputes in the past. During 1979 WARC preparations,

Voice of America and the Department of Defense clashed over HF bands for broadcasting. Following several months of delay, the Voice of America

request for additional HF frequencies was included in the final proposals.

sqAt~e 1979 generalw”c, the United States sent 67 delegates of whom 48 (72 percent) were government representatives. ~epercentage of Private

sector delegates is expected to be higher for WARC-92 because of the wide range of topics to be addressed.

901”he United States has consistently been criticized by industry, foreign observers, and even from within the government for the way it develops and

executes conference strategy. Part of the problem is inherent in the public nature of the U.S. process. Negotiating strategies and fallback positions are

meaningless if they are made public. The result has been that some fallback positions remain concealed by government representatives, evenfiom other

delegates, until the last minute. This makes the United States appear to be unyielding and bullyish, especially in the fmt few weeks of conferences, and

can leave the United States with little room to maneuver at the conference itself. Contributing to the problem is that U.S. delegations are formed late

in the preparations process. There is often too little time to develop sophisticated negotiating strategies.

297-945 0-91 - 2 QL:3
26 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

for U.S. proposals. These efforts also allow the establishing personal relationships, enhancing awareUnited States to explain in detail the technologies ness and understanding of the technologies, and

and services being proposed, and are critical in prenegotiating issues to achieve the best possible

laying the groundwork for the conference— outcomes. 91

91B~~u~~ ~ny d~v~l~ping ~o~~e~ do not ~ve the extensive expdse in radiocom.m~cations the united States hZtS, they Me Still MtCh@ Up

on changes and developments ffom the many W~Cs held in the 1980s. And because their telecmmmmication infrastructures are less developed than

tbat of the United States, they often do not need (or want) or cannot afford the latest expensive equipment. These factors create a bias to leave things

as they are, and hence the United States must demonstrate the utility of these new technologies and semices.
Chapter 2

Radiocommunication Technologies and Services:

Problem and Solution

As the velocity of change in telecommunications technology increases, so too does the political significance

of international telecommunication regulation.l

Introduction

In the last decade, the pace of technology development in radiocommunications has dramatically quickened. Many new radio-based technologies and

services have been developed and implemented, and

yet more systems and services are waiting for

spectrum allocations in order to begin delivering

innovative services. These new technologies and

services put increasing pressure on both domestic

and international spectrum management structures

and practices, making the process of allocating and

assigning radio frequencies more complicated at all

levels. Pekka Tarjanne, Secretary General of the

International Telecommunication Union (ITU), recently commented,

This entire subject has become increasingly

complex because of the dramatically increased use of

digital transmission, signal processing, and dynamic

spectrum management techniques that both blur the

distinctions between the old notions of radio services, and afford remarkable new opportunities for a

more intensive use of the spectrum.2

These technology pressures are one of the most

significant forces driving the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) and the changes

envisioned for the ITU.

The relationship of technology/services and spectrum requirements, and the impact of new technologies and services on spectrum management is

actually twofold. On one hand, new technologies

make innovative services possible, increasing the

demand for radio frequencies and contributing to

spectrum congestion and ‘crowding. For example,

the advent of relatively low-power, limited-range

transmitters, combined with new frequency reuse

techniques and small portable phones, created the

now-booming market for cellular telephony. In

addition, existing services are also demanding more

spectrum. The demand for high frequency broadcasting spectrum, for example, consistently exceeds

the amount allocated for such services. On the other

hand, new technologies can help ease spectrum

congestion by enabling more efficient use of the

spectrum, and by squeezing more users into existing

bands. Digital compression and mixing techniques,

for example, allow more information (charnels) to

be transmitted.

Spectrum Basics3

Radio Waves

Radio waves are the basic unit of wireless communication. 4 By varying the characteristics of a

radio wave—frequency, amplitude, or phase-these

waves can be made to communicate information of

many types, including audio, video, and data (see

box 2-A). Radio waves that carry information are

called radio signals, and the process of encoding

intelligence onto a radio wave so that it can be

transmitted over the air is called modulation.5 In the

process of modulation, the information or message

to be transmitted-a human voice, recorded music,

or a television signal-is impressed onto (modulates) a‘ ‘carrier’ radio wave that is then transmitted

over the air. When a radio signal is received, the

information is converted back into its original form

(demodulated) by a receiver and output as sound,

images, or data.

IJ~es G. Savage, The politics of International Telecommunications Regulation (Boulder, CO: WestView press, 1989), P. 11.

2Pekka Tarjanne, “An Unusual Even~” Telecommunications Journal, vol. 58, No. HI, March 1991, p. 123.

sMu~h of tie ~ate~~ ~ ~s section comes from Ricw Go~d, ‘ ‘Alloation of me R~o Fr~uency Spectrum,” contractor repOrt preptlKd fOr tie

Office of Technology Assessment Aug. 10, 1990.

dAl~ou@ tie tem $ ‘r~io> $ is ~o~t como~y ~sociat~ wi~ comme~i~ radio bro~c~fig services (AM and FM radio), the term dSO prOperly

encompasses the entire range of wireless communications technologies and services, including television microwave, radar, shortwave radio, mobile,

and satellite communications.

5TW0 of tie most f~lim mod~ation tec~ques me ~pli~de mod~ation (AM) and fr~uency modulation (FM).

–27–
28 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Box 2-A—Basic Definitions of Radiocommunication Terms

Radio communication depends on a number of basic Figure 2-A-l—Basic Radio Wave

characteristics and processes.

Amplitude: A measure of the value of a radio wave,

measured in volts (see figure 2-A-l). ‘w,

Analog: In analog radiocommunication, the message

or information to be transmitted is impressed onto

(modulates) a radio carrier wave, causing some

property of the carrier-the amplitude, frequency,

or phase-to vary in proportion to the information

being sent. Amplitude modulation (AM) and frequency modulation (FM) are two common formats

for analog transmission. In order to send analog

signals, such as voice and video, over digital

transmission media, such as fiber optics or digital

radio, they must first be converted into a digital

format. See modulation, digital.

Bandwidth: The process of modulating (see below) a

radio wave to transmit information produces a radio

signal, but also generates additional frequencies

called ‘sidebands” on either side of the carrier (see

figure 2-A-2). The total width of frequencies,

including the sidebands, occupied by a radio signal

is its bandwidth. In practical terms, however, the

bandwidth of a signal refers to the amount of spectrum needed to transmit a signal without excessive

loss or distortion. It is measured in hertz. In figure

2-A-2, the bandwidth of the signal is 4 kHz. The

bandwidth of a radio signal is determined by the

amount of information in the signal being sent.

More complex signals contain more information,

and hence require wider bandwidths. An AM radio

broadcasting signal, for example, takes 10 kHz,

while an FM stereo signal requires 200 kHz, and a

color television signal takes up 6 MHz. The

bandwidth required by a television channel is 600

times greater than that of an AM radio channel.

Amplitude o

(volts)

I Period ‘

Each cycle of a pure radio wave is identical

to every other cycle.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on Harry Mileaf

(cd.), Electronics One, revised 2d ed. (Rochelle Park, NJ:

Hayden Book Co., 1976) p. 1-10.

Figure 2-A-2-Side-Band Frequencies

and Bandwidth

H---- Bandwidth

- - l

Lowe r

Carrie r

Amplitud e Uppe r

side band side band

9 8 99 100 101 1 0 2

Frequency (k Hz)

NOTE: This figure represents a 100-kHz earner wave modulated by

1- and 2-kHz frequencies.

SOURCE: Harry Mileaf (cd.), Electronics One, revised 2d ed. (Rochelle

Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co., 1976), p. 1-31.

Radio waves are distinguished from each other by have shorter wavelengths. Commercial AM radio

their frequency or their wavelength (see box 2-A).

Frequency represents the number of cycles a radio

wave completes in 1 second, and is the most

common description of a radiocommunication signal. The international unit of frequency measurement is the hertz (Hz), which represents 1 cycle per

second. 6 Radio signals can also be identified by their

wavelength. Signals with long wavelengths have

lower frequencies, while those at higher frequencies

signals, for example, consist of very long waves

(approximately 100 to 300 meters), that may complete a million cycles per second (1 megahertz

(MHz)). Microwave signals, on the other hand, are

very short (as little as 0.3 centimeters) and may

complete hundreds of billions of cycles per second

(100 gigahertz (GHz)). The relative nature of radio

wavelengths is the origin of terms such as “short

wave, ’ which was given to radio frequencies around

6M~tipIes of ~eh~ ~e indicated by prefmes (see box 2-A): “kilo” for one thouswd, “mega” for one million, and ‘giga” for one billion. Thus,

a million hertz-a million cycles per second—is expressed as one megahertz (abbreviated “MHz”).
Chapter 2-Radiocommunication Technologies and Services: Problem and Solution ● 29

Carrier: A radio wave that is used to transmit

information. Information to be sent is impressed

onto the carrier, which then carries the signal to its

destination. At the receiver the carrier is filtered out,

allowing the original message to be recovered.

Digital: Digital transmission formats can be used to

transmit images and voice as well as data. For

continuously varying signals such as voice or

images, an analog/digital converter changes the

analog signal into discrete numbers (represented in

binary form by O’s and l’s). These binary digits, or

bits, can then be sent as a series of “on’’ /’’off’

pulses or can be modulated onto a carrier wave by

varying the phase, frequency, or amplitude according to whether the signal is a “l” or a “O.” Data

is sent in a similar fashion although it does not have

to be converted into digital form first. (See figure

2-A-3,)

Frequency: The number of cycles a radio wave

completes in 1 second (see figure 2-A-4). Frequency is measured in hertz (1 cycle per second

equals 1 hertz). Radio frequencies are described as

multiples of hertz: kHz, kilohertz: thousand cycles

per second; MHz, megahertz: million cycles per

second; GHz, gigahertz: billion cycles per second.

The frequency of a radio wave is the inverse/reciprocal of its period. For example, if a wave had a

period of 0.1 seconds, its frequency would be 10

hertz.

Figure 2-A-3-Techniques for Modulating

an Analog Carrier To Send information in a

Digital Format

0011010001 0

I

Amplitude-shift keying

0011010001 0

Frequency-shift keying

SOURCE: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Big

Picture: HDTV & High-Resolution Systems, OTA-BP-CIT64 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June

1990), figure 3-3, p. 41.

Figure 2-A-4-Frequency of a Continuous Wave

One second

I I

Time

Frequency ■ 3 cycles per second

SOURCE: Harry Mileaf (cd.), Electronics One, revised 2d ed. (Rochelle

Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co., 1976), p. 1-10.

(continued on next page)

2.8 MHz in the 1920s because the wavelengths in portions of the spectrum (see figure 2-l). One

that frequency range were shorter than the wavelengths that had previously been used.

The radio spectrum is divided into “bands” that

correspond to various groups of radio frequencies.

These bands are identified by their frequencies or

wavelengths (as above), or by descriptive terms that

have been adopted over time. Several types of

descriptive names have been attached to various

method denotes relative position in the spectrum:

very low frequency (VLF), high frequency (HF),

very high frequency (VHF), superhigh frequency

(SHF), etc. Another method derives from usage

developed in World War II to keep secret the actual

frequencies employed by radar and other electronic

devices: L-band, S-band, and K-band.7 The ITU

classifies frequencies according to band numbers—

Band 1, Band 2, etc. Frequency bands are also

7~ew le~erd=iWtiom ~notpmcisemasms of fiquency~came tie band limits we defined di.ffemnflyby different se~ents of the ekctronics

and telecommunications industries.
30 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Box 2-A—Basic Definitions of Radiocommunication Terms-Continued

Modulation: The process of encoding information Figure 2-A-5--Amplitude and Frequency

onto a radio wave by varying one of its basic Modulation

Characteristics-am plitude, frequency, or phasein relation to an input signal such as speech, data,

music, or television The input signal, which

contains the information to be transmitted, is called

the modulating or baseband signal. The radio wave

that carries the information is called the carrier

wave. The radio wave that results from the combination of these two waves is called a modulated Amplitude-mOdulated wave

carrier. Two of the most common types of modulation are amplitude modulation (AM) and frequency

modulation (FM) (see figure 2-A-5).

Period: The length of time it takes a radio wave to

complete one full cycle (see figure 2-A-l). The

inverse of the period is a radio wave’s frequency.

Phase: A measure of the shift in position of a radio Frequency-modulated wave

wave in relation to time (see figure 2-A-6). Phase is

often measured in degrees.

Spectrum: Each radio signal is actually made up of a

number of different radio waves at different frequencies. The spectrum of a radio signal refers to

the range of frequencies it contains. In figure 2-A-2,

the spectrum of the signal extends from 98 to 102

kHz. The width of the spectrum is called the

bandwidth of the signal More broadly, the radio

frequency spectrum consists of all the radio frequencies that are used for radio communications.

SOURCE: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Big

Future: HDTV & High-Resolution Systems, OTA-BP-CIT64 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June

1990), figure 3-1, p. 41.

Figure 2-A-6-Phase of a Continuous Wave

Difference between

Phases . same points on

different waves

l—l

Wavelength: The distance between successive peaks I

of a continuous radio wave. A’

SOURCES: Harry Mileaf (ed.), Electronics One, revised 2d ed.

(RochellePark, NJ: Hayden Book Co.,Inc., 1976); U.S.

Congress Office of Technology Assessment, The Big

Picture: HDTV & High-Resolution Systems, OTA-BPCIT-64 (Washington, DC: Us. Government Printing

Office, 1990); William Stallings, Data and Computer

Communications (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing CO., 1985). SOURCE: Harry Mileaf (cd.), Electronics One, revised 2d ed. (Rochelle

Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co., 1976), p. 1-10.

known by the services which use them-the AM

radio broadcast band, for example, occupies the

range (band) of frequencies 535-1605 kHz.

Transmission Characteristics

Several factors affect the transmission of radio

signals, and at different frequencies, some factors

will affect radiocommunication more than others.

Attenuation refers to the weakening of a radio signal

as it passes through the atmosphere. All radio signals

are attenuated as they pass through rain or any kind

of water in the air (clouds, snow, sleet), but radio

signals at higher frequencies will be attenuated more

than those at lower frequencies. For instance, the

attenuation of a radio signal passing through a rain

storm will be 10 times as great if the frequency of the

signal is doubled from 5 GHz to 10 GHz. This makes

radiocommunication, especially over long distances,

extremely difficult in the upper (above 10 GHz)

frequencies.

Radio waves are also bent and/or reflected as they

pass through the atmosphere. Because of changes in
Chapter 2-Radiocommunication Technologies and Services: Problem and Solution ● 31

Figure 2-l—Frequency Band Designations

VLF LF MF HF VHF UHF SHF EHF

L s c x KU K k

I I I I I I I

3 kHz 30 kHz 300 kHz 3000 kHz 30 MHz 300 MHz 3000 MHz 30 GHz 300 GHz

(3 MHz) (3 GHz)

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on Richard G. Gould, “Allocation of the Radio Frequency Spectrum,” OTA contractor report,

Aug. 10, 1990. ‘-

the density of the atmosphere with height, radio

signals bend as they pass from one atmospheric layer

to the next. This bending is called refraction (see

figure 2-2). In addition to refraction, if atmospheric

conditions are right, radio waves are also reflected

by the ionosphere, the top layer of the Earth’s

atmosphere. Ionospheric reflection enables some

radio signals to travel thousands of miles, and

accounts for the long-distance communication that

is possible in the frequency range between about

3 and 30 MHz (the HF band-see below).

Although refraction and reflection are conceptually distinct, and refraction can occur without

reflection, it is possible to think of reflection as an

extreme case of refraction in the ionosphere.8 The

amount of refraction, or bending, experienced by a

radio signal is related to its frequency. Lower

frequencies bend (are refracted) easily and are

readily reflected back to Earth. Higher frequency

signals experience less refraction than those at lower

frequencies, and at progressively higher frequencies,

there will be less and less bending. At a certain

frequency, atmospheric conditions will be such that

there is so little refraction that the signal will not be

reflected back to Earth. The point at which this

occurs is called the maximum usable frequency

(MUF), and is generally in the range of 10-15 MHz,

although it can be as high as 30 or 40 MHz or as low

as 6 MHz, depending on time of day, season, and

atmospheric conditions. Below the MUF, radio

signals can be used for long-distance communication by reflecting the signal off the ionosphere.

Above the MUF, the signal travels straight through

the atmosphere and into space.

At higher frequencies, above the MUF, radio

signals travel in almost straight lines from the

transmitter to receiver, a transmission characteristic

referred to as “line-of-sight.”9 Line-of-sight conditions affect radiocommunication above the MUF,

but especially affect frequencies above 1 GHz. The

distance a line-of-sight signal can travel is usually

limited to the horizon or a little beyond. However,

because the Earth is curved, the transmission distance will also be limited depending on the height of

the transmitting antenna-the higher the antenna,

the farther the signal can travel. For example, if the

transmitting antenna is mounted on top of a mountain or a tall tower, the line-of-sight distance will be

greater. Satellites, in simple terms, extend line-ofsight to the maximum distance (see figure 2-3).

Line-of-sight transmission requires that there be no

obstacles between the transmitter and receiver—

anything standing between the transmitter and

receiver, e.g., a building or mountain will block the

signal.

Atmospheric conditions have substantial impacts

on line-of-sight radiocommunications. Differences

in atmospheric temperature or the amount of water

vapor in the air, for example, can cause radio signals

to travel far beyond the “normal” line-of-sight

8AII HIdiO waves me bent as ~ey paSS from a r@on of the atmosphere having a certain number of free electrons to a region witi a differmt nof electrons. During the day, energy from the Sun splits the molecules of the gasses far above the surface of the Earth (in the troposphere and the

ionosphere), producing many free electrons and creating layers of ionized particles. A radio wave from Earth entering one of these layers will be refracted,

and if there are enough fme electrons, the bending will be so great that the signal will be reflected back to Earth

?It is important to note that refraction does not cease to affect radio waves above the MUF. Even at frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands, radio

waves bend slightly as they move through the atmosphere.
.32 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Figure 2-2—Radio Wave Transmission

Ionosphere

— Refractio n

k

R --——— ——— —— /- - -

/’

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

distance. This condition is called ducting or superrefraction. At such times, signals travel for many

miles beyond the horizon as though the Earth were

flat. This condition is much more common over

large bodies of water than over land. Atmospheric

conditions can also bend the signal away from the

Earth, shortening the practical transmission distance. The occurrence of these rare conditions

complicates radio system design and spectrum

management. For line-of-sight systems, too large a

radius cannot be assumed for the service area

because of the possibility that “subrefraction” or

“negative’ refraction may keep the signal from

reaching the periphery of the service area. On the

other hand, the same frequency cannot be used again

many miles beyond the horizon because of the

possibility that superrefraction may carry an interfering signal far beyond its accustomed limits. One

of the basic functions of international spectrum

management is to prevent or reduce such interference.

Characteristics of Radio Frequency Bands

The physical properties of radio waves, combined

with the various transmission characteristics discussed above, determine how far and where radio

signals can travel, and make different radio frequencies better suited to certain kinds of communications

services. The following is a brief description of the

various radio bands, some of their uses, and the

factors affecting transmission of radio signals in

them.

—— —— — — __ H

---q

Very Low, Low, and Medium Frequencies:

3 to 3000 kHz

In this portion of the spectrum, encompassing the

bands denoted as VLF, low frequency (LF), and

medium frequency (MF), radio signals are transmitted in the form of “groundwaves’ that travel along

the surface of the Earth, following its curvature.

Groundwaves lose much of their energy to the Earth

as they travel along its surface, and high power is

required for long-distance communication throughout this portion of the spectrum. Groundwaves travel

farther over water than over land.

At the lower end of this region, transmissions are

used for low data rate communications with submarines and for navigation. The maritime mobile

service, for example, has allocations in this band for

communication with ships at sea. Conventional AM

radio broadcasting stations also operate in a part of

this band, at MF, typically between 540 and 1605

kHz. Attenuation during daylight hours limits the

range of these AM stations, but at night, when

attenuation is lower, AM radio signals can travel

very long distances, sometimes even hundreds of

miles. To prevent interference at these times to

distant radio stations using the same frequency,

some stations may be required to reduce the power

of transmissions in the direction of those distant

stations.
Chapter 2-Radiocommunication Technologies and Services: Problem and Solution ● 33

Figure 2-3-Terrestrial and Satellite Transmission Ranges

NAltitude = 22,300 miles

/ ■ 500 feet

/ M \ \

~- /2a-!j

60 miles

11,200 miles

NOTE: This figure is not drawn to scale.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on Richard G. Gould, “Allocation of the Radio Frequency

Spectrum,” OTA contractor report, Aug. 10, 1990.

High Frequencies: 3 to 30 MHz

In this frequency range, denoted as HF, propagation of a ‘‘skywave” supplements the groundwave

(see figure 2-2). While the groundwave dies out at

about 100 miles, the skywave can be bent back to

Earth from layers of ionized particles in the atmosphere (the ionosphere). When the signal returns to

Earth, it may be reflected again, back toward the

ionized layers to be returned to Earth a second time.

The signal can make several ‘bounces’ as it travels

around the Earth. It is this reflection that makes

long-distance communication possible. However,

there are occasional-and largely unpredictable—

disturbances of the ionosphere, including sunspots,

that interfere with HF communications. Overall, the

reliability of HF communications is low, and the

quality is often poor.

The HF ‘shortwave’ bands are used primarily by

amateur radio operators, governmental agencies for

international broadcasting (Voice of America, Radio

Moscow), citizens’ band radio users, religious broadcasters, and for international aviation and maritime

communications. Overseas telephone links using HF

radio have, for the most part, been replaced by

satellites, and Inmarsat satellites have taken over a

major portion of the maritime communications

previously provided by HF systems. Likewise,

future aeronautical mobile-satellite service (AMSS)

systems may also supplement or replace the HF

channels now used by airplanes when they are out of

range of the VHF stations they communicate with

when over or near land.

While little use is made of HF radio systems for

domestic communications in industrialized countries like the United States, developing countries still

find HF cost-effective for some of their domestic

radiocommunication needs. This has led to a conflict

over allocating the HF band internationally: the

developed world wants to use the band for international broadcasting and long-distance mobile communication, while the developing countries want to

retain it for their domestic point-to-point systems.
34 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Very High, Ultrahigh, and Superhigh

Frequencies: 30 MHz to 30 GHz

The groundwave, which permits communication

beyond the horizon at lower frequencies (VLF, LF,

MF), dies out after a short distance in this frequency

range. Moreover, the skywave--which is reflected

from the ionospheric layers at lower frequencies—

tends to pass through the atmosphere at these higher

frequencies. Communication in this band is thus

limited to little more than line-of-sight distances.

For short transmitting antennas, the maximum

distance a radio signal can travel may be no more

than 25 miles, but this distance can be increased by

raising the height of the antenna.

This limitation can also bean advantage: the same

frequencies can be reused by stations beyond the

normal transmission range. Unfortunately, the distances that these line-of-sight signals can sometimes

travel can be quite large, especially if the path is over

water. At times, atmospheric conditions may establish a‘ ‘duct” over a large body of water (see above).

As it travels down the length of the duct a signal will

be reflected back and forth between the water and the

top of the duct, which can be hundreds of feet above

the Earth’s surface. These trapped signals can travel

hundreds of miles. To minimize interference from a

ducted signal, stations on the same frequency must

be spaced far apart. This requirement limits the

frequency reuse that can be achieved.

This part of the spectrum is used by many

important communication and entertainment services, including television broadcast signals, FM

radio, and land mobile communications. These

frequencies are also used by the radiolocation

service for long-range radars (1350 MHz to about

2900 MHz), aircraft landing radar (around 9000

MHz), and for point-to-point radio relay systems

(various bands between 2000 and 8000 MHz). In

recent years, communication satellites have made

increasing use of frequencies in this band.10

The portion of this band between approximately

1 and 10 GHz is particularly valuable. It is bounded

by increasing cosmic and other background noise at

its lower end, and by precipitation attenuation at its

upper end, but in between, communications can be

carried out very well. Today, because of its favorable

transmission characteristics, the 1-3 GHz band is

especially sought after for mobile communications,

including personal communication services (PCS),

and for new broadcasting technologies such as

digital audio broadcasting (DAB).

Above 10 GHz

At 10 GHz and above, radio transmissions become increasingly difficult. Greater attenuation of

the radio signal takes place because of rain, snow,

fog, clouds, and other forms of water in the signal’s

path. Nevertheless, crowding in the bands below 10

GHz is forcing development of the region above 10

GHz. One desirable feature of the frequencies above

10 GHz, beside the fact that they are relatively

unused, is the extremely wide bandwidths that are

available. The 3-30 MHz, HF band, for example, is

27 MHz wide. That is enough bandwidth for about

9,000 voice charnels (at 3 kHz each). However, the

frequency range 3-30 GHz is 27,000 MHz wide.

That bandwidth could accommodate about 9 million

voice channels.

Technologies and Services

Create Congestion

The radio frequency spectrum has been more or

less crowded almost since its first use for communication—technology (and the regulations and procedures to support it) must continually advance to

enable the supply of spectrum to meet demand.

Today, however, as the number of users and

applications booms and more of the usable communication spectrum is filled, congestion has once

again become a serious problem. Virtually all of the

radio frequencies below 3 GHz are allocated and in

use, and innovative technologies such as PCS, DAB,

and air-to-ground communications systems must

compete with existing services and technologies for

a crucial slice of the spectrum pie. Spectrum

managers are faced with a classic battle of old versus

new—trying to accommodate existing technologies

while simultaneously promoting innovation and

technological advancement.

In the early days of radiocommunication, there

were fewer services compared to today, and relatively few users. Nevertheless, the spectrum was still

congested. The range of frequencies that could be

losatellites operating in the C-band, e.g., use frequencies around 4 and 6 GHz, and are heavily used for transmitting television pros amming to cable

television operators. Ku-band satellites, which generally operate at frequencies around 12 and 14 GHz, are increasingly being used for private

communication networks and the delivery of entertainrnent programming.
Chapter 2-Radiocommunication Technologies and Services: Problem and Solution ● 35

used was limited by available technology, and

equipment capabilities-transmitter power, antenna

gain, receiver sensitivity-and, most important, by

the cost of the equipment itself.ll The government

and commercial broadcasting concerns quickly

filled the airwaves. As technology advanced, the

range of frequencies that could be used for communication expanded, but the number of users and

applications grew as well. And as increasing numbers of users began taking advantage of new

services, the amount of unused spectrum shrank.

Over the past two decades, many new radiocommunication technologies have been developed, leading to the introduction and rapid dissemination of

many innovative radio-based services. Satellites

became a staple of long-distance communication in

the 1970s and 1980s; in the 1980s first citizens’ band

radios and then cellular telephones put two-way

radios in many of America’s cars, trucks, and boats;

and today, baby monitors, cordless phones, and

garage-door openers are in many of America’s

homes. All of these technologies, and the services

and industries they generated, depend on radio

frequencies for their operation. The use of almost all

these wireless systems and services will continue to

increase as people come to depend on them more and

more. The use of mobile radio communications

systems, for example, has exploded in the last

decade, and today there are over 10 million two-way

radios being used by industry, transportation, and

public safety (police and fire) organizations. This

dramatic growth in the use of existing radiocommunication technologies, exacerbated by the rapid

development of new radio-based technologies, has

led to increasing crowding and congestion in many

of the most valuable frequency bands.

Reallocating spectrum is difficult because the

spectrum is finite-almost any allocation that is

made to a new service (or for the expansion of an

existing service) will have to be taken away from an

existing service. The process is never easy—

reallocation of spectrum is based on social and

political factors as well as on technical and economic considerations. At the international level, the

process of reallocation takes place at the WARCs,

and WARC-92 is faced with resolving the competing demands of existing service providers who want

to protect their spectrum or even expand it, and a

variety of new services that are demanding access to

spectrum. This is the technological context facing

the United States as it approaches WARC-92. This

section will examine some of the old and new

technologies vying for spectrum both domestically

and internationally.

Broadcasting

The demand for AM, FM, and TV broadcasting

stations has been increasing, particularly in major

market areas. Prospective operators of these stations

see a need for more specialization in programming (narrowcasting) and for improved signal

quality (e.g., high definition television (HDTV) for

television stations and digital modulation for compact disc quality radio broadcasting). HF broadcasters such as the Voice of America and many

religious groups also are making increasing use of

radio broadcasting to reach audiences overseas (see

ch. 1).

HDTV, which promises picture and sound quality

far superior to today’s television, has been in

development for many years, but only recently have

definitive steps been taken to promote its widespread adoption around the world.12 Originally, an

allocation was made for ITU Region 2 (the Americas) in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band to the broadcastingsatellite service (BSS) that would allow satellites to

deliver conventional television programming directly to home receivers. 13 Since a plan was developed for this service in 1983, however, HDTV has

developed rapidly, and HDTV proponents are now

seeking to use the BSS allocations for this new kind

of television, preferably in the same frequency band

all over the world (see ch. 1). Experimental or

quasi-operational HDTV service is currently being

planned or implemented in Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.

1 l~en transmitters cost thousands of dollars, radio was used primarily for those commercial and governmental applications tit co~d Justify the

expense. Now, however, cellular mobile telephones are available for under $100, and remote garage-door openers, wireless microphones, and cordless

telephones are within the budgets of millions of individuals and families.

Izsee U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment The Big Picture: HDTV & High-Resolution Systems, OTA-Bp-CIT-64 (wm~gto~ DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1990).

13The sateflite transmission of programming directly to homes is also known as direct broadcast satellite service, or DBS. There are no DBS systems

operating in the United States, although several are planned (see app. C). Only a few DBS systems are operating in other countries.
36 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Another technology that is being aggressively Figure 2-4--Broadcasting-Satellite Servicedeveloped is BSS-Sound.14 BSS-Sound, while not Sound

yet in operation, will use satellites (supplemented in

some cases by terrestrial transmitters) to deliver

high-quality audio services directly to home and car P\

,:)’s ,,!’ I

radio receivers throughout the country (see figure

,,, !

, / , : , ,,!

2-4). Such services will not be compatible with

, , , : !

,/, ,

,

existing analog radio receivers, and will require

/

/

/

consumers to buy new radios. Some operators plan / /, / , , ;

to offer BSS-Sound services in conjunction with

/ /, / , , ;

/ ,1 , / ,,

, r,

other mobile services such as paging and location / /,

, (1

services, and several companies have filed applica- / /, / (f

tions at the Federal Communications Commission , ,,

,,

(FCC) to provide such service. However, as of early

/

/ ,,

July 1991, only one experimental application had

been granted (see app. C). The primary hurdle to m’” a-m @ @n@ ,’ ~!’ ~ ~ -

introduction of such services both domestically and f~y

internationally is a lack of agreement on the radio o e t’

!l~ m

o! m

frequencies to be used (see ch. 1).

Mobile Services

Mobile communications is one of the fastest

growing segments of telecommunications services.

In the past 10 years, there has been a phenomenal

growth of personalized radio services for generalpurpose communications: cellular mobile telephone,

specialized business mobile telephone services,

local and nationwide paging, and the newest personal telephone services just on the horizon, PCS.

Estimated yearly growth rates for mobile services

are as high as 25 percent and up to 80 percent for

cellular services worldwide, and demand shows

little signs of slacking.15 Nearly 15 percent of the

telephone lines installed in this decade are expected

to be wireless.l6 Mobile services delivered by

satellite, including data transfer, voice services and

position determination for individuals, cars, trucks,

ships, and aircraft, are also experiencing rapid

growth. WARC-92 will address increasing the

allocations for both Mobile and Mobile Satellite

Services.

.

—

—

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

Cellular

Since its inauguration in 1983, cellular telephone

service has grown at an explosive rate (see figure

2-5), and is predicted to serve over 20 million

subscribers by the year 2000.17 Today, cellular

service is available in all major urban areas of the

country, and rural cellular licensing is in progress. In

recent years, many cellular systems, especially in

urban areas, have become increasingly congested—

calls often cannot be completed because the system

is overcapacity. The cellular industry has developed

a number of innovative solutions to address this

problem. Cell sizes have shrunk, allowing frequencies to be reused more often and more users to be

served. Recently, the industry has begun moving

toward the next generation of cellular systems using

ld~e termdigi~ audio broadcas@(D~) is often used in the United States inplace of BSS-Sound, reflecting Continuingu.s. cOnCernfOrterreStIitd

broadcasting systems and operatom.

15pe~T@nne, op. cit., f~~ote 2, p. 123. One conference brochure touts a 530-pereent expansion of mobile commurdcations markets (cellulrU,

personal communication networks, cordless, mobile radio, and paging) by the year 2000.

IGPekka Thrjame, “Simpler Radio Regulations?” editoriaf in Telecommunications Journal, vol. 58, No, II, February 1991, p. 65.

17Johu Keller, “Ce~~w Phones Dial Digital for Grow@” Wall Street Journal, May 5, 1990, p. B1.
Chapter 2-Radiocommunication Technologies and Services: Problem and Solution ● 37

Figure 2-5-Growth in Cellular Phone Service, 1984-91

Total subscribers (cumulative)

Millions

8 ~

7-

6-

5-

4-

3-

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 a

aThe 1991 subscriber figure is an estimate.

Annual service revenues

5 $ billions

4

3

2

1

0

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Commerce. International Trade Administration. 1991 U.S. Industria/lOutlook (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, January 1991); and U.S. Department of Commerce, unpublished data, 1991.

. . .

digital technology. Digital compression technology,

which can pack more phone calls into a given

portion of spectrum, promises to increase cellular

system capacity from 6 to 20 times (see below). Such

advances will take time to implement, however, and

some urban cellular systems may remain congested

for many years.

In addition to traditional cellular voice applications, new data services are being developed. GTE

Mobilnet, for example, is planning a field trial of a

cellular packet data system (using existing cellular

equipment) that could give rise to new services and

expand the market potential for cellular networks .18

The system could be used for credit card verification, remote monitoring of vending machines, and

connecting field service personnel to customer’s

records stored in a remote computer.

Personal Communications Services

PCS is emerging as an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of personal communications

systems and applications now being developed.19

Basically, PCS is wireless phone service that lets

users communicate wherever they are-walking

outside; in a car, ship, or plane; or even at work. PCS

systems are usually considered terrestrially based,

but satellite-delivered systems are also being developed. The use of small, lightweight and (eventually)

inexpensive handsets is one common factor of all

these systems.

PCS takes many different forms. The most basic

type of PCS service is often called Telepoint.

Telepoint allows users with portable phones to make

calls (but not receive them) as long as they are close

enough (within approximately 100 yards) to the

Telepoint receiver that is connected to the public

telephone network. Most advanced are the fullfeatured two-way voice and data services commonly

known as Personal Communications Networks (PCN)

(see box 2-B). PCNs will operate similarly to

cellular telephone systems, but will use many more,

much smaller cells (called microcells) that allow

more people to use the system and enable smaller,

more portable phones. These types of networks,

which are being developed by telephone companies,

cable television companies, and small telecommunications companies, allow users to place and receive

phone calls or even exchange data with remote

computers—all with radio technology that frees

them from a wire connection. Eventually, users may

also be able to send and receive video signals.

Many companies have begun PCS trials around

the country, but none are operational yet (see app.

18cCG~Mob~et ~ouces a Field Tri~ of a Cell~~packet.Da~ Nehvorlq” Telcom Highlights Znfernutionul, VO1. 13, No- 3, JMI. 16, 1991, p. s.

19~e Fe- 1991 iSSue of ZEEE co~nication~ Magazine is devoted to persorlal ~mm~catio~ ad Conti dCleS 011 tCdlIIOIO~,

regulatory, and service issues. IEEE Cmnmunicafi.ons Magazine, vol. 29, No. 2, February 1991.
38 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Box 2-B—Future Phone? The PCN Is a Wireless To Watch

Pity the mail handlers at the Federal Communications Commission. When the agency asked for ideas last year

on how to promote and regulate new wireless phone services, more than 3,000 pages of comments poured in from

everywhere from Silicon Valley to Sweden. The intense interest reflected the huge potential of new wireless

technologies, especially one called the personal communications network (PCN). Impulse Telecommunications

Corp., a Dallas-based market researcher, estimates that by the year 2000, PCNs will bring in $2.78 billion

annually-about what cellular phone systems bring in today.

Even though PCNs are at the experimental stage, proponents say they could eventually render the wired local

phone monopolies passe. At minimum, they’ll be one of many forces acting to loosen the grip of local phone

companies on their customers. But before they take on the establishment, the upstart PCN systems must overcome

technical, financial, and regulatory hurdles.

As envisioned by their proponents, PCNs would have light, inexpensive handsets that would communicate via

low-power antennas. Subscribers would be able to make and receive calls while traveling, as they can with cellular

phone systems, but at a lower price. Eventually, so many people would use PCNs that most calls would never have

to travel over the wires of the local phone company.

Cable Assist. That’s a costly vision. To carry as much traffic as their business plans call for, PCN startups may

need to erect a dozen antennas to cover the same area that a cellular system now serves with one. That means an

enormous up-front investment. Indeed, companies experimenting with PCNs are already seeking ways to hold down

expenses-perhaps by piggybacking on cable TV networks or creating networks only in certain areas, such as within

large office buildings.

Finding a market niche for PCNs will be a challenge, too. Cellular is already well entrenched. And a cordless

phone service known as CT-2 does some of what PCNs promise, but at a substantially lower cost. Already used in

England, CT-2 lets customers make-but not receive-calls while in the vicinity of special transmitters.

And regulation is yet another hurdle. The FCC hasn’t decided how-or whether-to make room on the

precious airwaves for a service that overlaps existing ones. To ease its way with the commission, New York-based

Millicom Inc. is testing a PCN setup in Houston and Orlando that works on part of the spectrum already used by

microwave communications.

Even PCN entrepreneurs concede that they have a long struggle ahead. “It’s not a shoo-in, and we’re going

to have to learn things about it,” says Millicom CEO J. Shelby Bryan. Still, even if they don’t match the

cellular-phone revolution, PCNs are likely to be one more factor in the demise of the local phone monopolies.

SOURCE: Reprinted from the Mar. 25, 1991 issue of Business Week by special permission. @ 1991 by McGraw-Hill, Inc.

C). Great Britain has experimented extensively with tives and sales personnel. In recent years, pagers

the more limited second-generation cordless telephone (CT2) and Telepoint systems. WARC-92 will

address the issue of finding spectrum dedicated to

PCS as part of discussions on Future Public Land

Mobile Telecommunication Systems (see ch. 1).

Paging

The use of radio paging has also increased

markedly in the last decade. From 6.5 million

customers in 1987, paging services are expected to

be used by 15 million customers by 1995.20 Like

many telecommunications applications, paging started

out as a local service (for repair people, technicians,

doctors), but now serves customers from all segments of the business community, including execuhave also gained popularity with illegal-drug dealers,

who use them to keep in contact with their buyers.

Paging systems primarily use terrestrial radio

signals to reach local subscribers, but several

companies have developed national terrestrially

based paging systems and still others plan to use

satellites to deliver national paging. Paging companies would like to offer their services in foreign

countries (’‘international roaming’ ‘), but equipment

incompatibility is a limiting factor. Many different

frequencies are used in other countries, and none of

the larger developed countries use the same frequencies for their national paging service as those used in

the United States. This means that a U.S. traveler

~.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “Telecom 2000: Chartm“ g the Course for a New

Century,” NTIA Special Publication 88-21 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, October 1988), p. 286.
Chapter 2-Radiocommunication Technologies and Services: Problem and Solution ● 39

cannot be served by his or her pager in a foreign

country. New frequencies are being sought to permit

paging anywhere in the world using the same paging

unit.

Specialized Mobile Radio

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services were

created by the FCC in 1974 to provide land mobile

communications on a commercial basis to businesses, government agencies, and individuals.21

SMRs operate in two bands (around 800 and 900

MHz), and provide dispatch services and service

similar to cellular telephony .22 Construction companies with many trucks at different job sites or

limosine services are typical SMR users. Since the

first service began operation in 1977, SMR service

has grown to over 7,000 SMR systems serving over

1 million users. The annual growth rate for 800-MHz

SMRs has been about 15 percent, but the growth rate

of the newly introduced 900-MHz SMRs between

1988 and 1990 was over 240 percent. The FCC

expects the growth rate for SMR services to remain

in double digits for some years.

Radiodetermination-Satellite Service

The Radiodetermination-Satellite Service (RDSS)

uses satellites to provide location information (primarily for vehicles, ships at sea and airplanes) and

the transmission of brief data messages. RDSS

systems, using new allocations around 1600 MHz

for uplinks to the satellite, and around 2500 MHz for

downlinks, are expected to be widely used by the

transportation industry, among others, for locating

vehicles and also will serve vital safety and rescue

functions by helping to locate lost hikers, boats, and

downed airplanes. Currently, the future of dedicated

RDSS systems is in doubt with the recent bankruptcy filling of Geostar Corp., a leading proponent

of RDSS. Some claim that RDSS will not survive as

a service by itself, and that RDSS spectrum and

services should be considered as part of a more

generic Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) that would

provide voice and data services in addition to

RDSS.23 Several companies, including those developing low-Earth orbiting satellite (LEOS) systems,

plan to offer RDSS services bundled with more

advanced messaging services (see app. C).24

Aeronautical Services

Another relatively new mobile radiocommunication service is air-to-ground telephone service for

airline passengers. The FCC has expanded the

number of service providers in the nascent field of

phone service from airplanes (none transmits to

airplanes yet). Currently, six providers are licensed

to provide service from airplanes, up from only one

a year ago.25 Data services for airplanes are also

being developed and implemented. COMSAT and

ARINC, for example, have begun offering satellitebased low-speed data services to airlines with

eventual services expected to include voice, electronic messaging, fax, and computer file transmissions.

Mobile Satellite Service

The increase in terrestrial mobile communication

services is mirrored in space. Several developments

have recently widened the provision of MSS. A

portion of the spectrum previously set aside for

aeronautical mobile-satellite service (AMSS) was

recently reallocated by the ITU to land mobilesatellite service (LMSS). In the United States, the

FCC approved a domestic mobile-satellite system

which is scheduled for operation in the mid- 1990s.26

Proponents of mobile-satellite services are already

requesting that more spectrum be allocated for such

systems, and WARC-92 will address how and where

to provide more spectrum for future expansion of

MSS (see ch. 1).

In the United States, interest is also growing in

LEOS systems (see ch. 1). In contrast to the more

zlFor a d~scfiption of SMRS, the~ histov, and their regulations, see Doron Fertig, “Specialized Mobile Radio,” back~owd PaPer, Fede~

Communications Commission, Private Radio Bureau, Land Mobile and Microwave Division, Policy and Plarming Branch March 1991.

22SMRS me generally smaller, less complex, and less costly to construct and maintain than cell~w sYstems.

23~c~w, ~r~Q~comm Ventme, “ Telecommunications Reports, vol. 57, No. 24, June 17, 1991, p. 28.

~Q~~mm, ~c+ ~~dy Opaates an extemive (16,~ terminals) two-way messaging service, and Orbital COmm~~tiom COT. and S~Ys, ~c.

plan to use LEOS to provide similar services (see below). Daniel Marcus, “Messaging Market Evolves, “ Space News, vol. 2, No. 24, July 8-14, 1991.

25The s~ we: ~one, kc., the ffist company t. receive an expefien~ license ~m the FCC; Clairtel Communications Group; Mobile

Telecommunications Technologies Corp.; American Skycell Corp.; Jet Tel; and the In-Flight Phone Corp.

26The fi~e of this system, t. be opemted by the Am~canMob& satellite co~ofli~ (AMSC), was in doubt after a COIUI s~ck down key pOl_dOm

of the FCC’s ruling requiring a consortium approach. The FCC subsequently has issued a tentative decision reaffinning AMSC’S status as the U.S. MSS

licensee. AMSC is proceeding with its plans.
40 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

common ‘conventional” satellites, which circle the

Earth in a geosynchronous orbit 22,300 miles above

the equator, LEOS systems will use a network of

smaller, lighter, and cheaper satellites to maintain

constant contact with users on the ground.27 Nine

companies have applied with the FCC to offer LEOS

services, basically divided into two groups-those

planning to operate at frequencies below 1 GHz and

those planning to operate above 1 GHz (see app. C).

The frost LEOS systems proposed to the FCC plan to

use frequencies below 1 GHz to deliver data

services. Of this original group, none has been

granted an operational license, but Orbcomm and

VITA have received experimental licenses.28 The

other group of applications, including Motorola’s

Iridium system, propose systems that would use

frequencies in the L-band (1.5- 1.6 GHz). They plan

to offer both voice and data services. None of these

applications has yet been acted on.

Part 15 Devices

Part 15 of the FCC Rules regulate radio-operated

devices that, in theory, use such low power that they

will not cause interference to other services and

systems in the same band, and therefore do not need

to be licensed. However, the number and variety of

these devices has increased sharply in recent years,

bringing about interference between the devices

themselves, and between them and other services.

Part 15 devices include: cordless telephones, wireless or cordless microphones (for stage performers,

and for baby monitors), garage-door openers, control and security alarm devices (for fire, and intrusion detection), automatic vehicle identification

systems (e.g., at toll plazas), auditory assistance

devices (headsets used by hearing impaired patrons

in theaters), and devices that permit the simultaneous viewing of a VCR on several TV sets

throughout a house.

Part 15 devices operate under the restrictions that

they must not cause interference to other users, nor

claim protection from interference. However, the

consumers who buy these devices are often unaware

of their tenuous regulatory status. Not unreasonably,

consumers think that the devices they have bought

should perform their advertised function throughout

their useful lifetime.

Point-to-Point Microwave

Radio Relay Systems

The general growth in telephone usage, data

communications, and information services and in

the distribution of video materials such as TV

programming and teleconferencing has brought

about a commensurate increase in the need for

long-distance, wideband, point-to-point systems for

transmitting this information. Even though some of

this demand has been absorbed by communications

satellites and by the use of coaxial and fiber-optic

cable systems, the number, extent, and capacity of

terrestrial microwave systems have been growing.

As the lower bands have become congested, particularly in and around major metropolitan areas, higher

frequencies have been employed around 11 GHz,

and 18-23 GHz. Some systems in the higher bands

are designed for relatively short distances, with close

spacing of the relay stations. These relays are small

and self-contained, and can be mounted on existing

telephone poles.

Radio in the Local Loop

A larger trend that may have an impact on the

demand for radiocommunication services is the

opening of portions of the public telephone network

to competition.29 Bypass of the public network ‘s

increasing as large companies build their own

networks or subscribe to private fiber networks and

satellite teleports. Cable companies have begun to

examine how their existing wire networks can carry

telephone calls as well as video entertainment.

Radio technologies, including microwave, cellular,

and eventually microcell/PCN and satellite communications systems are increasingly seen as viable

alternatives to the traditional wireline network—

either replacing it completely or serving as an

alternative way to connect to the public telephone

network. These technologies provide potential competitors to the phone companies a way to build a

zT~le tie individ~ sate~tes USeCI inLEOS systems may be inexpensive compared to traditional geosynchronous satellites, this does nOtme~ tit

the LEOS systems are any less expensive. Since they require many more (anywhere from 24 to 77 in current plans) satellites to cover the Ear@ initial

system costs still remain high. Motorola’s Iridiw e.g., is expected to cost well over $2 billion.

mhhw Jenks, “Fl~ of LOW lhrth orbit Filings Fbod the FCC,” Washington Technology, vol. 6, No. 6, June 131991.

~or a recent discussion of the technologies and politics of bypms and comWtit.ion in the Iocal loop, see Gary Slutsker, “Divestiture Revisited,”

Forbes, Mar. 18, 1991, pp. 118-124; Peter Coy and Mark le~ “The Baby Bells Learn a Nasty New Word: Competitio~” Business Week, Mar. 25,

1991, pp. 96-101.
Chapter 2-Radiocommunication Technologies and Services: Problem and Solution ● 41

competing network and service without the major

expense and time (and without having to acquire

rights of way) for laying cable.

Many companies are now experimenting with

wireless alternatives to the ‘‘last mile’ or local loop

connection of the phone companies, including the

phone companies themselves. Several cable companies are investigating using their existing cable

networks to supply PCN services (see app. C). There

are several examples of how wireless local telephone

service can be provided.30 Cellular/PCS systems

could supplement the existing wire network, but

some advocates believe that with enough subscribers these systems could actually become a second

phone system separate from the wire system. The

second way in which radio technologies are coming

into the local loop are through a new generation of

digital radio services designed to bring local telephone service to rural areas not economically served

by wire technologies. The primary advantage of

such systems is their ability to bring ‘plain old’ and

eventually advanced voice and data services to rural

customers without the heavy expense of laying

(copper or fiber optic) cable.31 Such systems are

currently serving more than 15,000 customers, with

estimates that up to 900,000 more remote subscribers could be served.32

For the same reasons radio technology is attractive to rural applications in the United States, it also

being deployed in developing countries and in

countries with underdeveloped telecommunication

infrastructures, such as Eastern Europe. The German

Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, for

example, is considering radio technologies such as

CT2 and PCN in order to improve telecommunications services in former East German states.33

Satellite Services34

Another fast growing telecommunication service

vitally dependent on spectrum is the rapidly growing

field of satellite communications. Satellite communication systems are used for a variety of purposes

including delivering entertainment programming,

transmitting long-distance telephone calls, and facilitating data transmission. For example, private users

as well as government agencies are making increasing use of private satellite networks based on very

small aperture terminals (VSATs). The decrease in

size, cost, and ease of installation has made satellite

receivers attractive to users with minimal communications requirements. Customer premises Earth stations are frequently located on the roof of a company

headquarters or a warehouse. These stations are

most commonly used for data communications, but

can easily accommodate voice and video applications as well.

Networks of these satellite terminals allow businesses to communicate directly with hundreds or

thousands of individual locations. Currently, an

estimated 20,000 VSATs are operating in the United

States, and estimates project use to increase severalfold by 2000.35 Chevron, for example, has begun

building a private network connecting approximately 4,000 service stations and corporate sites,

primarily for interactive data, but also with some

video services.36 The FCC typically grants blanket

licenses to hundreds or even thousands of VSATs at

a time.37

Two of the most rapidly increasing uses of

satellites are for videoconferencing and education.

Interactive videoconferencing has increased dramatically in recent years as standards have been

established and technology has improved the quality

~ora more detailed description of how radio technologies are being used to deliver local telephone service in rural are~, see U.S. Congress, OffIce

of Technology Assessment Rural America at the Crossroads: Network”ngfor the Future, OTA-TCT-471 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing

office, April 1991), pp. 71-74.

sl~e avwage cost of p~vi~ accas to rural customers can run as high as $10,000, while the average cost of digital radio is $3,000. hid., P. 73.

Wbid.

33LQcal ~eless access will be test~ later this year with CT2 in order to get subscribers connected to the public network as quickly and cheaply as

possible. In the future, PCN may either fimction as an alternative to the public network or as a supplement to it, as cellular. “Wireless Technology for

Eastern GermanY,” Telecommunications, International Editio~ vol. 25, No. 4, April 1991, pp. 15-16.

34~e ~mi=s desc~~d ~ ~s=tion represent ~~y one s~~fion of all the satellite-b~~ syst~s. other services, such x mobile satelfite,

are described elsewhere in this chapter depending on what type of service they deliver.

SS’’VSAT NOTES,” Telcom Highlights International, vol. 13, No. 13, m. 27, 1991, P. 14.

36< ~Hu@es M* Hybfid VSAT Network for ~e~on cow-> “ Telcom Highlights International, vol. 13, No. 1, Jan. 2, 1991, p. 16.

qTScien~cAflm@ e.g., ~= ~mt~aliwme for 2,500 VSATs, while G~ spacenetw~g~t~ a ti~nsefor 101. “Actions of Mer@ at the FCC,”

Telcom Highlights International, vol. 12, No. 50, Dec. 12, 1990, p. 15.
42 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

of the transmission while simultaneously lowering

the cost. During the recent war in the Persian Gulf,

for example, videoconferencing increased dramatically as U.S. businesses restricted travel abroad. The

educational use of satellites, distance education, has

also increased dramatically in the last 5 years.38 In

most education uses, satellites are used to transmit a

live, one-way video image of the teacher to subscribing schools around the country. Students at the

schools can respond to the teacher in real-time

through the use of telephones (“800” numbers) or

computers. Such systems have proven to be a highly

effective way to bring educational resources to

isolated students.

During the 1980s, C-band satellites, operating in

the 6/4-GHz bands, were the most commonly used

satellites for commercial, education, and entertainment applications. However, the anticipated growth

in smaller Earth stations has led to launching of

many higher-power, Ku-band satellites for U.S.

domestic service. The next frontier for satellite

services is at 20 and 30 GHz, the Ka-band. This shift

up in frequency is occurring not because the higher

frequency bands are attractive technically (in fact,

they are extremely sensitive to rain attenuation), but

because lower frequency bands are at or near

capacity. Italy and Japan have launched experimental Ka-band satellites, and the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration’s (NASA) Advanced

Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS), expected to be launched in 1993, will operate in this

band. Norris Satellite has filed an application for a

commercial Ka-band system.

Other Specialized Services

Many other specialized radio services are being

developed, some of which are already operating:

Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems

Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems (SVRS) are

proliferating. Ire-jack, a service intended to aid in

the radiolocation of stolen vehicles, is one example.

A radio receiver/transmitter is mounted in an unobtrusive location on vehicles. If a vehicle so equipped

is stolen, the owner calls the police and a coded

transmission is broadcast which turns on the transmitter in that vehicle. Radio direction finders can

then be used to home in on the stolen vehicle.

Implementation of this new service required the

reallocation of only one 25-kHz wide radio channel,

but even that small “loss” of spectrum was strenuously opposed by many government agencies having large and growing mobile radio requirements. In

addition to the original Ire-jack system, many other

companies have entered the vehicle location and

tracking market, including Teletrac, which plans to

expand its services to 100 metropolitan areas in the

next several years.39

Interactive Video Data Service

Interactive Video Data Service (IVDS) uses radio

signals to allow television viewers with special

home transmitters to interact with all forms of

commercial, educational, and entertainment programming delivered by broadcast, cable, or direct

broadcast satellite technologies.40 Users are able to

shop or bank from home, respond to polls, and

receive information through their television sets.

The system has been tested and is currently the

subject of an FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.41

Wireless Business Telephone

Wireless business telephone systems are being

developed which provide the same features and

capabilities of existing (wire-based) business telephone systems. These systems utilize digital radio

signaling and intelligent transmission management

techniques to eliminate many of the quality, noise

and fading problems of cordless and cellular telephones. At the same time, they provide complete

coverage anywhere within a building.42

38For ~ complete di~cwsion of dis~ce lemfig, see U.S. Congress, O&Ice of Tec~ology Assessment Linking$~r harning: A New cour.se~ir

Education, OTA-SET-430 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1989).

sg’’Tele@ac Launches Fleet Locator Service, ’ Telcom Highlights International, vol. 13, No. 3, Jan. 16, 19!91. p. 16.

40~cFCC ~oposes ~tmactivc Video Data Senim ~ the 218.218.5 -Ban d,” TeZcom Highlights International, vol. 13, No- 3> Jan. IG* 1991* P.

18; “FCC Proposes Spectrum Allocation for New TV-Based ‘Interactive Video Data Service,’ “ Telecommunications Reports, vol. 57, No. 2, Jan. 14,

1991, p. 10,

dlGen Docket No. 91-2, Notice of proposed Ru/e Making “Amendment of Parts (),1,2 and 95 Of the Commission Rties to fiovide for ~teractive

Video Data Services,” 6 FCC Rcd 1368 (1991).

42 S~New WTtieless B~s~ess Telephone M&et To Reach $2.1 Bilfioq” Telcom Highlights Inter~tional, VO1. 13, No. 6, Feb. 6, 1991, p. 5.
Chapter 2-Radiocommunication Technologies and Services: Problem and Solution ● 43

Wireless Data Applications

One of the “hottest” new wireless services

involves the use of radiocommunications for data

transmission. Many types of wireless data systems

are being developed using infrared signals, spread

spectrum (see below) signals below 1 GHz, and

microwave signals.43 Wireless data applications

include both wireless local area networks (LANs)

such as those marketed and proposed by Motorola

and Apple, and wide-area data services such as Ardis

(Motorola/IBM), Coverageplus (Motorola), Mobitex (Ericsson), and VISA’s proposed radio-based

authorization system for credit cards.44 Ram Mobile

Data has begun operating a digital mobile data

service in several cities in the SMR band.45 NEC has

also introduced a wireless portable computer that

combines the functions of a standard personal

computer with cellular communications capabilities. &

Technology Solutions

to Spectrum Crowding

Many solutions have been proposed to alleviate

spectrum congestion. Some of these are technological, some economic, some legislative, and some

administrative. The earliest technological advancements involved the development of inexpensive and

widely available microprocessors, which allow radio

signals to be easily manipulated. Recently, advances

in digital technology have reduced required channel

bandwidths, increased charnel capacities, and made

it easier to combine and configure radiocommunications systems to make them more efficient.

Most of the technological solutions to spectrum

crowding focus on opening up more of the spectrumexpanding the range of usable (higher) frequencies

and making spectrum use more efficient. Improved

efficiency generally means that more users can share

the same spectrum bands and that different services

can coexist using the same frequencies.47 Certain

technological solutions that have increased the

efficiency of spectrum were developed specifically

to solve a congestion or interference problem.

Others, however, were developed to create new

radiocommunication services, but did so in a way

that made more efficient use of spectrum than the

conventional systems they replaced or supplemented. This section will describe some of the

technological solutions that may help ease spectrum

crowding.48

Use of Higher Frequencies

As the lower frequency bands have become

increasingly crowded, engineers have begun to

develop technologies that would use higher, less

crowded frequencies.49 The use of higher frequencies does not mean that more efficient use is now

being made of the spectrum-it is simply an escape

to less crowded territory. As was the case in

extending terrestrial frontiers, taming the wilderness

is difficult and expensive. In addition to the cost of

developing new devices that will operate at the

higher frequencies, transmission problems typically

worsen at higher frequencies. Some of those problems, such as increased attenuation due to rain,

appear to be surmountable only by brute force-by

increasing transmitter power. In satellite systems,

4sFor tier discussion of wireless LANs, see Christopher HalliMII, “Cableless LANs: The Network of the Future?” Telecommunications,

International Edition, vol. 25, No. 6, June 1991.

‘$$~aBrods@, “w~elessDataNetworks and the Mobile Workforce, “Telecommunications, North AmericanEditiou vol. 24, No. 12, December 1990;

“VISA, Digital Radio Networks Have Pact To Roll Out ‘Radio Wave Authorization Services,’ “ Telecommunications Reports, vol. 57, No. 7, Feb. 18,

1991, p. 36.

MC ~~ Mobile Data Rofls tit Di@~ packet-switched Mobile Data Service in 10 Mmkets,’ Telecommunications Reports, vol. 57, No. 7, Feb. 18,

1991, p. 34.

“ ‘Japan’s NEC Corp. Unveils Its Wireless Notebook PC,’ Wall Street Journal, Mar. 28, 1991, p. B1.

avEfficiencY is not easily defined. while efficiency is often tout~ as a goal in and of itself, it is r~ly pmsued for its ow sake, Rather, it iS mOre

properly conceived of as a means to ~ end—a way to extend or expand the use or availability of a resource, in this case spectrum. The ultimate goal

of efilciency in this view of spectrum use, therefore, is not~st being efficient, but permitting as many users and services to share the spectrum as possible.

Other definitions of efficiency emphasize the social use of the resourc~is one television charmel or 600 AM radio stations or 1,500 telephone calls

most eftlcient? Ifall use the same amount of spectrum, some type of social utility or market value approach may be used to define which is more efficient.

48For a discussion of the rmge of solutiom t. spm~ ~ow~g, see U.S. r)ep~ent of Commerce, Natio~ Telecomm~~tion and hfOIYIMltiOll

Administratio~ U.S. Spectrum Management Policy: Agenda for the Future, NTIA Special Publication 91-23 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, February 1991), p. 13; and Richaxd Gould, op. cit., footnote 3. See also Margaret E. Kriz, ‘Supervising Scarcity,’ The National Journul,

July 7, 1990, and George Gilder, “What Spectrum Shortage?” Forbes, May 27, 1991, for a broader discussion of the issues involved in domestic

spectrum allocation and management.

@For a recent &scWsion of the Upwind expamion of usable mdio frequencies, see ~~d L. Andrews, “seeking ‘r’o USe More Of the RadiO

Spec@um,” New York Times, Sept. 11, 1991, p. D7.
44 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

power must be increased at both the original

transmission (uplink) site on Earth and on the

satellite itself. Increased satellite power greatly

increases costs.

Trunked Mobile Systems

In conventional (nontrunked) mobile radio systems, one or more users are assigned to the same

charnel. If that channel is busy, the user must wait

until the channel is free. This process is unnecessarily time-consuming to the user, and delays the

handling of messages. Not infrequently, the same

channel is assigned to different companies, some of

which may even be competitors in the same field

(e.g., taxi companies, pizza delivery services, cement suppliers). Such disparate users have no

business incentive to accommodate the needs of

others seeking use of the charnel. Moreover, all the

information being sent on the charnel can be heard

by all its users, including potential competitors.

Trunking can increase the amount of traffic that can

be handled by specialized mobile telephone systems

while protecting the privacy of the user.

Trunked systems use many communication channels to serve a much larger number of users. A user

seeking access to the system initiates a request for a

communications charnel by lifting a microphone or

handset (or pressing a button). The system automatically searches for an open pair of frequencies (one

each for incoming and outgoing signals) and assigns

it to the user. When the connection is ready both

stations are signaled, and both the mobile unit and

the base station are automatically tuned to the

selected frequencies. Busy signals are sent if no

channels are available, or if the base station is

otherwise occupied. Requests for a specific base

station can be stacked up and handled in order of

receipt. In trunked systems, users do not ‘inadvertently hear any other conversations. Scrambling or

channel-hopping schemes can be built in to the

system controller to increase the level of privacy.

Establishment of trunked systems has been somewhat easier for nongovernment users than for

government agencies. The majority of SMR systems, for example, are trunked systems. A group of

companies, or an individual entrepreneur, can establish a trunked system for common use based on its

economic appeal: namely, better communications at

lower cost than in separate, individual channel

systems. However, it has been difficult for the

government to use trunked systems since agencies

generally do not like to share systems with each

other.

Reuse of Frequencies in Mobile Cellular

Radio Systems

Mobile cellular radio is an example of a technology that was developed to provide a new service, but

that also makes more efficient use of spectrum than

previously existing mobile systems. In cellular

systems, a mobile user is switched automatically

from one base station to another as the vehicle

moves from one part of a city to another, or travels

from city to city. This “cellular’ feature, designed

to provide geographic continuity of service, results

in a significant reuse of frequencies, and the amount

of frequency reuse can be increased as traffic in the

system increases.

In order to visualize how a cellular system

maximizes frequency reuse, imagine a large metropolitan area covered, at frost, by one base station with

power high enough to cover the whole area. In that

situation, the frequencies are used only once throughout that area. As the traffic volume within the service

area grows, the one base station can no longer

accommodate all users and is replaced by several,

lower-power stations. While the same frequencies

cannot be used by adjacent transmitters (i.e., by

transmitters in adjoining cells), they can be reused

two cells away. Within a geographic area encompassing many cells, the same frequencies might be

used three or four times. Shrinking cell sizes and

lower transmitter powers, however, are not a permanent solution. Growth will continue, and there are

limits on how small a cell can be and how low power

can go while still maintaining adequate quality.

Eventually, new methods must be found to accommodate steadily increasing numbers of users.

Digital Compression

The trend toward digital processing and transmission in all forms of radiocommunication has significant potential to increase channel capacity and

service quality and options. Ironically, converting

and transmitting analog signals in a digital transmission format requires larger bandwidths than transmitting the analog signals in their original form. The

benefits of digital radiocommunications come in its

ability to compress and combine signals. Digital

compression works by removing redundant or unnecessary information from the signal. In audio
Chapter 2-Radiocommunication Technologies and Services: Problem and Solution ● 45

transmission, for example, sound frequencies that

the human ear cannot hear are often removed. This

allows less information to be sent, requires less

bandwidth, and allows more channels (conversations, broadcasts) to be transmitted.

Applications using digital compression techniques are spreading rapidly in many radiocommunication services. In cellular telephony, for example,

digital signal processing (DSP) promises improved

quality and capacity eight times as great as existing

analog cellular systems.50 COMSAT has developed

technology that digitizes, compresses, and combines

up to three separate TV signals for transmission on

a single satellite transponder.51 Other technology is

under development that will combine up to 16 video

signals on a single charnel.

Combined with compression, digital transmission

techniques also allow radio signals to be sent more

efficiently. Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA)

and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) are

digital coding schemes that allow more charnels to

be packed into any given bandwidth than analog

technology could ever allow.52 TDMA divides each

conversation or data stream into discrete chunks and

sends them at specified times coordinated with a

receiver that then reassembles the chunks of data

into the whole conversation. CDMA techniques

assign each transmission a unique identification

code that allows the receiver to pick out the desired

signal from among many simultaneous signals. All

signals share the same range of frequencies. CDMA

is used in many spread spectrum applications (see

below). The primary application of such techniques

is in mobile communications such as cellular and

PCS, where their impressive capacities promise to

alleviate at least some of the near-term capacity

shortages now being experienced in cellular systems

around the country. TDMA, for example, is expected

to increase current capacity by 3 to 5 times, while

CDMA proponents claim that CDMA will boost

capacity 10 “to 20 times.53 Which technique will

dominate is unclear. TDMA appears to be further

developed than CDMA, and has already been

endorsed by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association for use in second generation

cordless systems. CDMA, on the other hand, maybe

more spectrum efficient than TDMA, but will

require new, and potentially expensive, transmission

and receiving equipment. Many companies, however, are testing CDMA and some have announced

plans to build CDMA systems.

Improved Transmission Techniques

Satellite Antennas

Advanced satellite antennas permit the use of

smaller, less expensive Earth stations by making

more efficient use of available satellite power. Such

antennas direct the signal toward, and concentrate it

in, areas where the intended users are located.

Systems with such antennas, called spot beams, also

make more efficient use of spectrum than those with

large, circular beams which waste satellite power by

transmitting beyond the limits of the desired service

area. The reduction of signal levels outside the

service area permits the same frequencies to be

reused by other systems serving nearby areas, in the

same way that cellular technology operates. Motorola’s Iridium and NASA’s ACTS satellite systems

both plan to use spot beam techniques.

Spread Spectrum

Spread spectrum is a modulation technique first

developed to hide military communications amid

natural noise. More recently, spread spectrum has

been used to permit low-level signals to share

spectrum with other services. As the name implies,

the original modulating signal is spread over a wide

range of frequencies (bandwidth) for transmission.

The spreading over the wider band of frequencies is

done according to a pattern that is also known by the

receiver. The receiver reconstructs the incoming

signal using the same pattern as the one used for

spreading it. Interference from conventional signals,

or other spread spectrum signals using a different

spreading pattern, appear as noise to spread spectrum signals, and can be faltered out.

There are several types of spread spectrum

systems. One type, known as direct-sequence spread

spectrum, divides a radio signal’s energy over a wide

range of frequencies so that a little part of the signal

50Steve Cox and Bob Ffie, “DSP my S@l Relief for Urban cell~m Congestion” Telephony, VO1. 220, No. 9, MM. 4, 1991, p. 18.

S1’’Compression News From CoMSAT,” Satellite Communications, VO1. 15, No. 1, Jan- 1991, p. 9.

52For a discussion of ~~~d ~~,s= Dodd L. sc~lling, ~~ond L. pic~ol@, and ~~nce B. M.ilste@ “Spread Spectrum Goes

Commercial,” IEEE Spectrum, vol. 27, No. 8, August 1990.

sqc~les MZI.SOq “Motorol& PacTel To Test CDMA,” Telephony, vol. 220, No. 17, Apr. 29, 1991.
46 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

appears on each frequency in the band. Frequencyhopping spread spectrum techniques spread a signal

out over many frequencies by hopping from frequency to frequency in a sequence synchronized

with the receiver. One frequency is not dedicated to

one user, and all frequencies can be used more

efficiently. Satellite CD Radio, for example, has

proposed a digital frequency-hopping scheme for its

BSS-Sound system that hops frequencies every

2,000th of a second and is thus better able to resist

the fading of a particular frequency, resulting in

improved quality .54

Frequency modulation or FM, is a crude form of

spread spectrum. Terrestrial radio relay systems and

satellite transponders compensate for their limited

transmitter power by using FM, which spreads the

signal over a much wider bandwidth. Thus, bandwidth can be ‘‘traded’ for some of the power that

would otherwise be required to send a usable signal

from space to Earth. The price for this reduced power

requirement is much less efficient use of spectrum.

A TV signal that can be broadcast from a local

station using only 6 MHz requires some 36 MHz

when carried by satellite.

Because of spread spectrum’s ability to coexist or

overlay other types of radiocommunications signals,

it is being aggressively developed as a way for many

users to share spectrum. But while the spread

spectrum technique permits many low power signals

to share a band, each of the spread spectrum signals

adds to the background noise level of the other

signals in the band—including any other spread

spectrum signals, lowering the signal-to-noise ratio

of them all. As more signals are added, the noise will

eventually become too great for good communications. New adaptations of spread spectrum techniques, including advanced forms of CDMA may

help solve some of these problems.55

Single Sideband Transmission

In single sideband transmission (SSB), only one

set of the sidebands (see figure 2-A-2) that makeup

a radio signal is transmitted.56 This is possible

because all of the intelligence in a radio signal (e.g.,

music, video, speech) is contained and duplicated in

both upper and lower sidebands. Eliminating one of

the sidebands has no effect on the information being

sent, and receivers can still reconstruct an accurate

signal.

There are several advantages in SSB transmission, most importantly, the fact that SSB reduces by

half the bandwidth required to send a signal, thereby

allowing more signals to be sent or to reduce the

interference between signals. Another advantage of

SSB is its reduced susceptibility to noise and other

forms of interference since there are fewer frequencies for noise to invade. The disadvantage of SSB is

that it requires more sophisticated (and hence, more

expensive) transmitters and receivers. Today’s HF

broadcast receivers will not work with SSB transmissions, and replacement will be necessary .57 One

of the U.S. positions for WARC-92 involves the

expanded use of reduced carrier SSB transmission

for HF broadcasting.

Alternatives and Competitors to Radio Systems

The remarkable advances in radio technology

have been paralleled by equally remarkable advances in wire-based systems and devices.58 In many

cases, these technologies can provide an alternative

to radio-based systems, thus relieving some of the

pressure on crowded spectrum resources. The use of

fiber optics for long-distance telephone service is

one example. The majority of long-distance telephone calls used to be carried by microwave radio

links and satellites. However, with the development

of fiber-optic transmission technologies in the 1980s,

~satellite communications, Op. cit., footnote 51, pp. 9-10.

sss~c~onous CD~, e.g., is be~g developd for use in future personal communications systas. Jack Taylor, CY~ Perso~ comm~catio~

Mar. 14, 1991.

56For a discussion of sidebmds ad s~gle sideband ~ms~ssiom see Harry ~eaf (cd.), Electronics One (RWhelle Park, NJ: Hayden B~k CO.,

1976).

57cWen@, fill.c~m double-sidebad is used ~ the HF broadcast~g b~ds. This is a major barrier, especidy for developing countries, where the

cost of radio receiver replacement becomes an issue. Broadcasters do not want SSB until listeners have receivers, but no one will manufacture or buy

receivers until there is something to listen to. To address this probleu the United States submitted a proposal to the Inter-American Telecommunications

Conference (CITEL) Interim Working Group for the WARC, ‘‘encouraging the manufacture, in developing CITEL countries, of inexpensive,

HF-broadcast receivers compatible with the three classes of emission potentially involved in the conversion of HF broadcasting from the full-carrier

double-sideband (DSB) presently in use, to reduced-carrier single-sideband (SSB).” Input document W=C-92/19 for CITEL PTC III 1992 WARC

Interim Working Group.

58Whe-based is used here t. refer t. my of the so-~led fieline medi% ~clu~g: twisted copp~ we p~s, COa.xial cable, digiti T-1 lines, or fiber

optics.
Chapter 2-Radiocommunication Technologies and Services: Problem and Solution ● 47

many long-distance telephone providers began to

build extensive fiber-optic networks to take advantage of the huge capacity and high quality of optical

transmission. Today, most domestic long-distance

telephone service is routed over fiber-optic lines,

leaving satellites and microwave to carry data and

video services.59

Another alternative to radio transmission, primarily for the delivery of video programming to the

home, is cable television. Broadband cables for

cable television now pass 85 percent of homes in the

United States, and cable penetration is above 60

percent. Most cable service is now transmitted over

coaxial cables, but in new installations the trend is

to use fiber optics. Such systems could supplant

some radio-based systems to bring communications

to homes and businesses at freed, and more or less

permanent, locations. Such a shift would release

spectrum to those services, such as broadcasting to

mobile and portable receivers and the mobile

services in general, that have no practical alternatives to radiocommunication.

In the long run, the division of communications

services and resources between wired and radio

services may need to be revisited. Many analysts

believe that communication services now using

radio spectrum could be easily (and in some cases

better) supplied through wire media.60 Radiocommunication systems would be used for applications

or services not possible or practical with wired

systems, such as mobile applications. If applications

were switched from radiocommunication to wire

delivery, a large amount of spectrum could potentially be freed for other (mobile) uses.

Barriers to such a fundamental reordering of the

communications infrastructure in this country are

formidable. Entrenched users will fight to keep their

spectrum resources. The question of who would

finance such a changeover is also difficult. In the

case of long-distance providers, adequate market

incentives existed to make the switch. Unfortunately, that may not be the case for all alternatives

and incentives may have to be put in place to

encourage users to move. Long-term U.S. telecommunications policy should examine the consequences of this shift in communication resources in

order to maximize the efficient use of the spectrum.

Consistent with these themes, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA) makes the following recommendations:

NTIA and the FCC should develop policies on the

use of non-radio technologies as part of a coordinated program to foster spectrum efficiency, when

consistent with other public policies. NTIA and the

FCC should also develop additional regulatory or

economic incentives for the use of alternative

technologies in congested areas.61

Summary

Recent developments in radiocommunications

technology have put increasing pressure on spectrum management structures and processes, but also

offer opportunities for using spectrum resources

more efficiently-allowing more users to have

access to them. Structures, procedures, and philosophies that were adequate for dealing with technology

developments in the past maybe inadequate to meet

future planning and allocation needs. The rapid pace

of technological development requires nations to

adopt a flexible approach to wireless communication and spectrum management. Hardened approaches

protected by entrenched interests, both within the

government and the private sector, international and

domestic, must give way to structures and processes

that encourage innovation and flexibly combine the

interests of all users.

s~owever, as illushatedby~ny of tie distance learningprojects being built around the country, fiberoptic is alSO being extemivelyusedfor ptivate

videoconferencing applications. See OTA, Linh”ng for Learning, op. cit., footnote 38.

@see tie discussion ~d comments in NT’IA, U.S. Spectrum Management Policy, OP. cit., footnote 48, p. 156.

CINT’IA, u.S. spec~rn Management Policy, op. cit., footnote 48, p. 157.
Chapter 3

The International Context for Spectrum Policy

Telecommunication has acquired strategic importance. With globalization and increasing information

intensity of economic activity, the importance of telecommunication now transcends the established

organizations responsible for providing basic services. It now reaches all fields of economic and social

. .

endeavor. l

Introduction

Since the 1979 World Administrative Radio

Conference (WARC), the world economic and

political scene has changed dramatically. The 1980s

witnessed the rise of Japan as a major economic

power and the industrialization of countries such as

Brazil and Korea. The influence of the Soviet Union

has declined dramatically as the Eastern bloc has

dissolved and the U.S.S.R. itself is beset with

internal turmoil. Moving into the 1990s, the world is

seeing the emergence of a unified Europe and a

realignment of the Eastern European nations. Accompanying these changes, the historic tension

between the developing and developed countries

that characterized the 1970s and early 1980s has

lessened. There is now a more flexible and conciliatory tone to international telecommunications policymaking.

The larger shifts in economic and political power

in the world have altered the context within which

international telecommunication issues are addressed.

Rapidly advancing technology is linking more

systems in networks that are increasingly regional

and global. Competitive pressures have forced many

governments to liberalize or privatize their telecommunication industries. In the past, the main telecommunication (radiocommunication) actors were wellknown, and alliances were stable. Today, new

players have become prominent as others have

faded, and firm alliances have given way to rapidly

shifting factions. East-West and North-South confrontations have been replaced by regional divisions.

Recognizing these changes, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) established a High

Level Committee to examine ways to improve the

structure and processes of the ITU to more effectively respond to the challenges of changing technology and members’ development needs. This is the

environment within which the United States must

negotiate new international radio allocations at

WARC-92—a world in which the actors are more

numerous, their views more diverse, and relations

more complex. This chapter examines the present

structure of the ITU, discusses the proposed changes

in the ITU, and identifies some of the larger trends

that are altering the world’s telecommunications

policy order.

International Spectrum

Administration: The ITU

Description

The International Telecommunication Union was

formed in 1932 through the merger of the International Telegraph Union and the members of the

International Radiotelegraph Convention. It is the

principal international organization responsible for

allocating and regulating the use of the radio

frequency spectrum on an international basis. The

ITU provides a forum for the development of global

standards and procedures aimed at assuring compatibility of telecommunications facilities and services.

It also acts to reduce interference between nations

and among services in order to maintain harmony in

the international use of the radio frequency spectrum

and the provision of wireless communications services. The ITU sets equipment and systems operating

standards, coordinates and disseminates information

required for the planning and operation of telecommunication services, and promotes the development

of global telecommunication systems and services.2

Since 1947, the ITU has been a United Nation’s

specialized agency, and is governed according to an

International Convention, which is periodically

IInternatio~Tele~~uni~tion UniO~ ‘The Changing Teleconununication Environment,’ Report of the Advisory Group on Telecommunication

Policy, February 1989, p. 33.

?For a discussion of the history, structure and functions of the ITU, see George A. Codding, Jr. and Anthony M. Rutkowski, The Internationcd

Telecommunication Union in a Changing World (D- MA: Arteeh House, Inc., 1982); and James G. Savage, The Politics of International

Telecommunications Regulation (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989).

49-
50 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

reviewed and revised at Plenipotentiary Conferences. 3 The ITU currently has 164 member countries, and operates according to a one-nation, onevote process.4

Although the mission of the ITU is primarily

technical, because of the voting process and the fact

that the ITU is the principal international forum for

allocating the world’s radiocommunication resources,

the activities of the Union are also strongly affected

by economic and political concerns. In some cases,

clashes in the ITU are based on different philosophies of public policy as much as on technical

considerations. For example, one of the consistent

battles fought in the ITU over the past decade centers

on the necessity and desirability of planning the

radio frequency bands. This issue has traditionally

divided the developing and developed countries.

Developing countries favor a priori planning to

ensure that, as they develop more advanced radiocommunication technologies and services, spectrum

resources will be available. This can mean that bands

of frequencies are reserved for future use and

development. Developed countries, however, favor

a continuation of the ITU’s traditional system of

“first-come, first-served,” which allows them to

develop and use frequencies as needed. Developed

countries believe that planning leads to inefficient

use of frequencies as some lie unused. Developing

countries maintain that planning is necessary in

order to guarantee them access to spectrum they may

need in the future.

Over the past 20 years the Plenipotentiary and

Administrative Radio Conferences of the ITU have

been characterized as increasingly “politicized.”5

In the last several years, however, this trend seems

to have been interrupted. As a result of new

economic realities and shifting geopolitical alliances, the overt politics and polemics of past ITU

meetings have subsided—political concerns have

been pushed aside by the increasingly vexing

economic problems facing many countries.6 Unfortunately, there is no way to judge how long-lasting

this trend may be. It maybe that the world is only in

a transition period that will eventually give way to

some of the old politicking (albeit in different forms

from different countries), as new alliances solidify.

For the near future, it is possible that the shifting

nature of radiocommunication alliances could contribute to more cooperation as actors search out new

partners. This break in overt hostilities presents the

United States with a unique window of opportunity

to establish new relationships, develop new policy

partnerships, and make significant gains at WARC92.

Structure of ITU Spectrum Activities

The ITU pursues its mission of allocating, regulating, and managing the spectrum resource through a

number of different bodies (see figure 3-l). The

structure for spectrum activities within the ITU

consists of five different parts:7

Plenipotentiary Conference

The Plenipotentiary Conference is the supreme

governing body of the ITU, and has ultimate control

over the direction and work of the Union. This power

derives from the plenipotentiary’s position as the

only ITU body able to review and revise the

International Telecommunication Convention, the

document that established the ITU and sets out its

basic functions and regulations. The Plenipotentiary

Conferences, which are held on a somewhat irregular basis, bring together high-level representatives of

member governments to elect the major officers of

the ITU (including the Administrative Council),8

establish the future schedule of WARCs, and recommend items to be included on WARC agendas (as

recommended by previous WARCs). The last Plenipotentiary (Nice, France) was held in 1989. Future

sc~nges in ~e~temtio~ Convention are approved in the form of a treaty among ITU members. The last such revision Of the Convention occmed

at the 1989 Plenipotentiary Conference in Nice, France. The Nice Plenipotentiary proposed to divide the Convention into two separate pieces. The fmt

part, called the Constitution would contain the organizational setup, functions, and mandates of the ITU, and would not be subject to change at each

Plenipotentiary unless enough members agreed. The second pm still called the Conventio~ would define the operational principles the ITU would

follow in pursuing the mandates defined in the Constitution. This document could be changed by a majority vote at the Plenipotentiary. The decisions

of the Nice Plenipotentiary have not yet entered into force, and the governing document of the ITW is still the Nairobi Conve~tion from 1982.

@ecenfly reduced from l(jfj due to the consolidation of the Yemens and the reunitlcation of East md WeSt Germany.

5FOr a discu55ion of WS pefi~ of tie ~d tie impfi~tions of “politicizatio~” see Savage, op. cit., footnote 2, pp. 52-55.

61t my ~so be tit me ~~y tw~c~ name and l~ted s~pe of recent conferen~s ~,s~ed more visible politic~ concerns ad rhetoric.

Y’r’he ~te~ iII tissection is based on Codding and Rutkowski and Savage, Op. Cit., fOOtnOte 2.

8The S=re~-Genm~, Depu~ secre~.~ner~, five IFRB members, and the Directors of tie CcrR and CCI’I’T (and soon the Director of the

Bureau for Telecommunications Development-BDT).
Figure 3-l-Current Structure of the International Telecommunication Union

Plenipotentiary

Conference

,

Administrative

Council

I

I

World

World Administrative

Telecommunication Radio

Conference Conference

I I

1

I

1

I I I 1 —— ? + — — — — — —1 I r 

— — —

I I Q

CCITT

Plenary

Assembly

1 1 1

General

Secretariat

I I l. —————A———L——

r

1

CCIR

Plenary

Assembly

I————lr ————lr ———l

I

Secretariat H

Study Groups H

Laboratory I

International

Frequency

Registration

Board (IFRB)

Secretariat

?

1 T

.

-

‘tudyiroups ~ F

KEY: CClTT=lnternational Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee; CCIR-lnternational Radio Consultative Committee

SOURCE: Richard G. Gould, “Allocation of the Radio Frequency Spectrum,” OTA contractor report, Aug. 10, 1990, p. 40.
52 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

plenipotentiaries are scheduled for December 1992

(a special plenipotentiary to consider the changes

proposed by the High Level Committee, see below)

in Geneva and 1994 in Japan. Because of the

enormous importance of the Plenipotentiary Conferences to the functioning of the ITU, they are

generally the most political and polemical of the

ITU’s bodies.

Administrative Council

The Administrative Council of the ITU consists of

42 members and serves as the governing body of the

ITU between Plenipotentiary Conferences? It meets

annually to implement the decisions of the plenipotentiaries, oversee the ITU’s annual budget, complete other tasks as directed by the Plenipotentiary

Conferences, and set the agendas for future WARCs

in consultation with the members of the ITU. In this

role, the Administrative Council has substantial

influence on the nature of the topics the ITU will

consider through the WARC process. The United

States has been a member of the Council since its

inception.

World Administrative Radio Conferences

These conferences bring together radiocommunications engineers and policy experts from ITU

member nations who prepare for years to make

proposals on radio technologies and services that

will guide world development of radiocommunications. The WARCs are the primary instrument of the

ITU through which changes to the International

Table of Allocations are made and by which the

Radio Regulations are revised (see ch. 1).10 WARCs

provide an opportunity to make broad changes in the

ways the spectrum is used. Thus, a WARC really

represents the beginning of the actual work of the

ITU-frequency allocations are made to different

radio services, and regulations are set to encourage

the most efficient and interference-free use of the

spectrum. The more technical of these activities,

including frequency planning, establishing technical

standards and regulations for use, and developing

assignment and coordination procedures, are continued after the WARC in the ongoing work of the

International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR)

(see below).

International Frequency Registration Board

The International Frequency Registration Board

(IFRB) is a five-member board responsible for

recording, registering, publishing, and assessing the

legality of every radio frequency used in the

spectrum. The IFRB also advises individual countries on technical matters and does larger technical

studies recommended by the WARCs. Since the

1979 WARC, the work of the IFRB has shifted in

focus from high frequency issues to a broader range

of topics, including satellite communications, where

the Board has conducted planning exercises for the

geostationary orbit.

The influx of developing countries in the ITU over

the past 20 years has had a substantial impact on the

IFRB. Developing countries have come to rely on

the Board for technical advice and for development

assistance in planning their domestic telecommunication systems. This shift in the IFRB’s role reflects

the larger shift of the ITU into more developmentrelated activities. The developing countries have

come to see the IFRB as an important ally in the ITU

to counter the technical dominance the developed

countries enjoy in the CCR.

Almost since its inception, the IFRB has been

criticized, primarily by the developed countries, for

being political, too closed, and too interpretive in its

activities. Many criticisms center on the (actions of)

board members themselves, more than on their

mandated role. There is concern about the quality of

the members elected to this technical board-some

are viewed as highly expert, but some are not. In

addition, board members have become increasingly

uncooperative with each other over time, sometimes

replacing cooperative decisionmaking with (political) squabbling. Some representatives of the developed countries believe that the IFRB has outlived its

usefulness. Developing countries, while still committed to the IFRB, have recently become disillusioned by the loss of some key advocates who were

voted off the Board. These concerns on the part of

both developed and developing countries have led to

recommendations for a substantial reworking of the

Board’s role and structure (see below).

~orty-three countries are technically part of the Council, but the merging of East and West Germany ended separate East German participation.

l~e ITU ~so holds ~~uent World Adminis&ative Telecommunication Conferences (formerly World Administrative Telegraph-Telephone

Conferences-WAITCs), which addms wire-based telecommunication technologies. The last such conference was held in 1988.
Chapter 3-The International Context for Spectrum Policy ● 53

International Radio Consultative Committee

The CCIR, originally established in 1927, studies

technical questions related to radiocommunications

and recommends global standards of use for all types

of radio systems and equipment.ll The CCIR is

directed in its work by a Plenary Assembly that

meets approximately ever-y 4 years-the last being

held in 1990.12 The substantive, technical work of

the CCIR is conducted in small study groups and

working parties, which meet often between the

Plenaries. There are currently 10 study groups

covering a wide range of topics. Most of the

participants in the CCIR study groups for the United

States are members of the private sector. They have

the extensive technical expertise the government

often has in only short supply. Government policymakers in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the National Telecommunications and

Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of State closely follow the activities of the

CCIR and a limited number of government representatives participate actively in CCIR meetings and

deliberations.

Participation in CCIR activities is open to all

members of the ITU and to nongovernment agencies

and companies that have been approved by their

respective governments. 13 Private sector participation depends on what business the company is

involved in. Recognized Private Operating Agencies

(RPOAs) are private-sector telecommunication service providers such as AT&T and COMSAT. Scientific or Industrial Organizations (SI0s), which

design or manufacture telecommunications equipment or study telecommunications issues, such as

Rockwell and Hughes Aircraft, also participate quite

extensively in the substantive work of the CCIR. The

increasing numbers of telecommunications companies around the world may lead to increased

involvement and important new roles for private

companies in the ITU (see below).

In addition to its general technical work, the CCIR

also develops the technical bases for Administrative

Radio Conferences. Before every WARC, the CCIR

holds a joint meeting of all the study groups involved

in preparations for the conference. The objective of

this meeting, called a Joint Interim Working Party

(JIWP), is to prepare a technical report for the

guidance of the countries whose delegates will

participate in the conference. The extensive preparatory mechanism for WARC-92 is shown in figure

3-2. Each study group concerned with WARC-92

issues first met in Interim Working Parties (IWPs)

and in JIWPs of several related study groups. In

March 1991 an overall JIWP was held bringing

together IWPs and JIWPs that met previously. The

product of this meeting was a voluminous report

containing all the technical advice to the conference

concerning suitable frequencies for the services to

which allocations may be made, sharing and interference criteria and other technical conclusions and

recommendations relating to use of the orbit and

spectrum by those services.14

Because of the essentially technical nature of its

work, the CCIR has generally been seen as less

political than the WARCs or the Plenipotentiary

Conferences. 15 However, CCIR proceedings and,

especially, the JIWP before the WARCs have gained

in importance in recent years as governments have

realized the importance of the technical underpinnings to the WARC. The JIWP meetings have

evolved beyond merely technical meetings and are

now widely regarded as “mini-WARCs,” that

provide countries an important opportunity to exchange ideas, float trial proposals, and do some

initial discussion and negotiation in preparation for

the WARC itself. The result is that CCIR activities

and the work of the study groups has become

ll~e kte~tio~ Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCI’IT) studies technical issues relating tO wke-based Commtititions,

including such topics as standardization computer communications, and fiber optics.

12@estiom for cm s~dy my ~so be proposed by me plenipoten~ or world Awstrative ~dio Conferences, the Administrative CO~Cd,

the CcIT”I’, or the IFRB.

13P~icipation ~ most other activities of tie 1~ is restricted to member co~tries and their delegates o~y; private sector companies CiirltlOt be

members of the ITU. Representatives of the private sector, however, may become members of CCIR and CCITT iftheyhave been appointed as anoftlcial

delegate by their government.

14~termtio~ Tel~om~cation u~om CCIR REPOf/T: Technical and Operatio~l Basesf@r the WorldAd~”nis~ative Radio conference 1992

(W~C-92) (Geneva: March 1991).

IsMost Pficipmts ~ the work of the CCR s~dy groups me tec~~ s~, not high-level government O&IC&. h the united ShteS, fOr eMmple,

most CCIR participants come horn private industry, with only limited participation and direction by the Federal Government. This is in part a fimction

of the shortage of technical staff in the government, and also due to industry recognition that the study groups provide a good way to introduce proposals

for new technologies and refine technical ideas and systems.
Figure 3-2—lnternational Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) Study Groups Preparing for WARC-92

Plenipotentiary

Conference

1989 R 3

Plenary

Assembly

1990

I

Spectrum utilization —— IWP 1/6 and monitoring

II Space research and ——

radioastronomy IWP 2/’2

- Ill Fixed services below

about 30 MHz \

b

.\

Iv Fixed services

using satellites – \– –

IWP 4/1

\

v

Propagation in non- \

ionized media 4 \ AI

-1 VI I

Ionospheric propagation

Standard frequency and //

— Vll

time-signal services / /

1: 11 I //

i

Vlll Mobile services +

I

\

JI WP

\ JIWP 10-3-6-8 WARC -92

7

High frequency Geneva,

March 1991

I WP 8/15

lx Fixed services -/’- ,~y//

“/

x

Sound broadcasting

service

,:,-,~y/

Television

– xl

KEY: BSS-Sound=broadcasting satellite service-sound; HDTV=high-definition television; lWP=lnterim Working Party; JIWP=Joint Interim Working Party.

broadcasting service ‘:’-m

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on Richard G. Gould, “Allocation of the Radio Frequency Spectrum,” OTAcontractor report, Aug.

10, 1990, p. 41,54.
Chapter 3-The International Context for Spectrum Policy ● 55

increasingly “politicized,” especially at meetings

such as the JIWP.

CCIR activities have become more important in

recent years due to the tremendous growth of

telecommunications in general and the rapid development of new radio technologies. Because of this

growth, and increasing workloads, the work of the

CCIR (and the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT)) has

slowed, prompting calls for reform (see below).

The ITU’s High Level Committee has proposed

changes in the structure and functioning of the ITU

that would combine the functions of the CCIR’s

Plenary Sessions with the more general activities of

the administrative conferences. Despite such criticisms, however, the work of the CCIR is praised for

its businesslike approach and high quality.

The CCJR has been dominated by the developed

countries for many years, due to their substantial

expertise, personnel, and financial resources. Historically, the developing countries have played a minor

role in the work of the CCIR study groups due to a

shortage of qualified personnel and a lack of funds

for preparation activities and travel to the meetings.

Smaller countries face a number of unique problems

participating in the CCIR and the ITU in general.

First, governments in smaller or developing countries often change rapidly. Telecommunication

staffs are often changed just as quickly. This

prevents many countries from developing the base of

expertise and international contacts that would

enable them to participate effectively in international meetings. Second, developing country telecommunications staffs are often small, consisting of

between one and six people. In this country, there are

hundreds of people in government and industry

working on WARC preparations. At conferences,

the problem becomes more severe, because one

delegate cannot cover all the various meetings and

drafting/working groups his or her country has an

interest in. Finally, smaller countries often do not

have the funds to adequately prepare their delegates.

They do not have sufficient travel money to send

their delegates to all the meetings that would help

them understand and prepare for the WARC. Lack of

funds also prevents many countries from beginning

their preparations until the last minute, when it is too

late. It is reported that some delegates get to the

WARC before they even see other countries’ proposals. The industrialized countries, by contrast,

begin preparing for WARCs years in advance.

Importance

The work of the ITU in spectrum management and

effective U.S. participation in it is important for

several reasons. Most broadly, the work of the ITU

extends beyond radiocommunication services and

encompasses virtually all aspects of international

telecommunications. The agreements reached at the

ITU form the basis for most of the world’s use of

radio services and contributes to an industry vital to

economic, political and social interests.

Effective U.S. participation in the ITU is crucial

for several reasons. Without international standards

and procedures for sharing the spectrum, global

radio communication and services would be impossible. Although international interference problems

are not as much of a problem for the United States

as for other countries, the United States must

nevertheless coordinate services that are worldwide,

such as safety services for aeronautical and maritime

services.

Leaving these matters to bilateral negotiations or

regional associations is unlikely to produce satisfactory solutions given the large number of countries

involved and the growing significance of global

telecommunication networks.l6

Participation in the ITU is also crucial to the

international political and technical stature of the

United States. Were the United States to pull out of

or fail to ratify ITU documents on a regular basis, a

poor precedent would be set that could jeopardize

U.S. participation and negotiations in other international bodies. Finally, the ITU offers the United

States an important opportunity to advance U.S.

views on technical standards and regulations, promoting global standards that allow U.S. firms to take

advantage of economies of scale in manufacturing

and the provision of services. Such input is critical

in maintainingg the technological and policy leadership of the United States in international radiocommunications.

Activities Outside the ITU

In addition to the international spectrum activities

conducted under the aegis of the ITU, nations also

engage in bilateral and multilateral discussions and

16c~~e q~gTeleco~~cation Ednmrmmt,” Op. cit., footnote 1, p. 11.
56 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

negotiations. Often these discussions involve neighboring countries trying to resolve specific interference problems. Bilateral discussions can also form

the basis of more regional planning as in the case of

the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which have

agreements in many broadcasting areas. Multilateral

negotiation takes place under the auspices of regional organizations such as the Conference of

European Postal and Telecommunications (CEPT)

administrations or the Inter-American Telecommunications Conference (CITEL), and in many international organizations with specific concerns, such as

the International Civil Aviation Organization. Some

advocate a more ongoing and more formal process

or mechanism that would allow the United States to

develop and coordinate U.S. positions with regard to

these other organizations and countries.17

Changes in the ITU

The more intensified globalization of telecommunication networks, including increasing complexity

of telecommunication technology and a growing

diversity of actors in the telecommunication field,

has created additional pressures. There are now more

pressing demands on ITU for accelerated handling of

information and closer coordination of the activities

of members. With increasing network interdependence, more effective harmonization of actions is

necessary to ensure optimal connectivity and operability of networks and services. These changes in the

international telecommunication environment call

for an urgent review of the role and activities of ITU,

if it is to fulfill its historic mandate of facilitating

global telecommunication development.18

Recognizing the pressing nature of these changes

and the importance of aggressively meeting new

challenges, and to keep up with the rapid pace of

radiocommunication technology development, the

ITU has embarked on a broad and vital revision of

its structure and processes. There was special

concern that the work of the ITU was becoming

increasingly bogged down and ineffective, and that

if changes were not made, ITU member countries

could begin bypassing the ITU in international

standards and coordination activities. overall, there

was a desire to make the workings of the ITU more

businesslike, more regular, and less subject to

political and emotional whims. The proposed changes

in the ITU (if accepted) will substantially alter the

way international spectrum policy is decided, and

will have important consequential impacts on how

the United States pursues its international spectrum

policies. While many of the changes discussed

below will not directly affect the proceedings of

WARC-92, they will have important, if still uncertain, impacts on future radiocommunication conferences.

High Level Committee (HLC)

Background—Responding to the increasing

complexity of the international telecommunications

environment, the 1989 Plenipotentiary Conference

(Nice) decided that:

a High Level Committee (H.L.C.) should be

established to recommend, on the basis of an

in-depth review of the structure and functioning of

the Union, measures to enable the ITU to respond

effectively to the challenges of the changing telecommunication environment.19

Accordingly, the Administrative Council at an

Extraordinary Session in November 1989 established the HLC to examine current ITU structure and

conferences and recommend changes to improve the

functioning and efficiency of the organization and

its activities in light of rapid telecommunications

changes. 20

Membership in the HLC consisted of representatives from 21 countries elected in 1989 by the

Administrative Council. Each elected country then

designated individual representatives. The U.S.

representative to the HLC was Ambassador Gerald

Helman, Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of

State for Political Affairs, who was assisted by staff

from the Department of State’s Bureaus of International Communications and Information Policy and

International Organization Affairs, FCC, and NTIA.

17Hans J. Weiss andRa~ondB. Crowefl, ‘Comments of Communication Satellite Corporatio~’ presentedbefore the National Telwommticatiom

and Information Administration in the matter of a Comprehensive Policy Review of the Use and Management of the Radio Frequency Spec~

Washington DC, Feb. 27, 1990.

18~~’rhe ~~g Telecomm~cation Environment” Op. Cit., footnote 1, P. 2.

1~~ Repofi of the ~@ ~vel Committ= (HL.C.) to Review the s~c~e and F~ctioning of tie ~te~tio~ Telecommunication UniO~

“Tomorrow’ sITU: The Challenges of Change,’ Doeument 145-E (Geneva: International Telecommunication Union, April 1991), pp. 12-15. (Hereafter:

HLC Final Report).

~Aws@ative comciI Resolution No. 990 defmti the tasks of the group and selected 21 member WUes to send r~reSentitiveS.
Chapter 3-The International Context for Spectrum Policy ● 57

Box 3-A-Summary of Changes Proposed by the High Level Committee (HLC)

1. The world of telecommunications is undergoing rapid change in technology, in the creative and worldwide

application of that technology, and in its immensely varied commercial applications. The information and

telecommunications revolution+-almost a cliche in the hands of writers and analysts-is a daily practical

reality in the work of the ITU. The ITU remains unique and irreplaceable as an intergovermental organization,

both in its leading role in the global information economy and society and in the manner in which it addresses

the needs of developing countries and engages the private sector in its work as part of the wider ITU family.

2. Our [HLC] Recommendations aim to help the ITU to meet the challenges of change and to continue to play

its leading role in world telecommunications. Our principal recommendations areas follows.

3. The ITU should not seek to broaden or change its overall mandate, but should play a stronger and more catalytic

role in stimulating and coordinating cooperation between the increasing number of bodies concerned with

telecommunications. It should also recognize the growth of regional bodies and develop with them

relationships which retain the ITU’s primary role but allow for necessary, complementary activities.

4. The supreme body should remain the Plenipotentiary Conference, meeting every four years. It should be

supported by the Administrative Council, to be renamed ITU Council, playing a broader and more strategic role.

5. The substantive work of the ITU should be organized in three Sectors: Development, Standardization and

Radioconmmunication. The Standardization Sector should include the current work of the International

Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT) and some standardization work currently done by

the International Radio Consultative Committee CCIR). The Radiocommunication Sector should include most

of the current CCIR work and that of the International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB) and its specialized

secretariat. The division of responsibilities between the Standardization and Radiocommunication Sectors will

be kept under review and adjusted when necessary to meet changing needs and to ensure efficiency. The

Development Sector should encompass the current work of the Telecommunications Development Bureau

(BDT). The distinct functions originally envisaged for the Center for TelecommunicationsDevelopment should

be integrated into the BDT

6. The current full-time five-member IFRB should be replaced by a part-time nine-member Radio Regulations

Board.

7. For each Sector, the supreme body should be aWorld Conference, supported by Study/Working Groups. World

Conferences should be held between Plenipotentiary Conferences, in a regular cycle, to promote more effective

planning.

8. For each Sector, elected Directors should head Bureaus at ITU headquarters. They should also chair Advisory

bodies which, according to the needs of the Sector, should review its strategies, priorities and activities and help

ensure coordination of work and adaptation between conferences to changing needs and circumstances.

(continued on next page)

The private sector also had input to the process box 3-A for a summary of proposed changes) .21 The

through the CCIR and CCITT National Committees. HLC has recommended that the ITU be restructured

Changes—The changes recommended by the into three equal sectors: Development, StandardizaHLC could have a profound impact on the structure tion, and Radiocommunication (see figure 3-3).

Each sector would be governed by its own confer- and functioning of the ITU, including the WARCs,

although the timing of such changes is uncertain. ence and headed by an elected director. The techniAnd while the changes proposed by the HLC will cal work of the sectors would be conducted in study

have no direct impact on WARC-92, the potential groups.

ramifications of the changes for future conferences The new Radiocommunication Sector would comare significant, and add another element of change bine the work of the CCIR and the IFRB, which

that U.S. spectrum policymakers must address (see would be changed to a part-time 9-member board.

21~e~CF~Rqofi~~~~id~r~~ny is~~~ ~ec@&fll~e of tie ~.~ss~tionwillconcentrate orllyon~ose &UlgeswithadireCt iInpaCt

onradiocommnnications and the spectrummanagement process. For a complete discussion of the changes proposed by the HLC, see HLC Final Report,

op. cit., footnote 19.
58 ● WARC.92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Box 3-A—Summary of Changes Proposed by the High Level Committee (HLC)-Continued

9. Each Sector should have its own budget, with all costs and revenues clearly identified, to ensure that all costs

are assigned to the appropriate “end user” Sector.

10. The Secretary-General is the chief officer of the Union, with a key role in strategic planning, management and

coordination. This role should be strengthened. He should be supported by a new Strategic Policy and Planning

Unit, reporting to him but serving the needs of all Sectors. He is also encouraged to set up a Business Advisory

Forum through which he can conduct a dialogue with business leaders.

11. At the same time, and supported by improved management systems, he should delegate responsibility to

Directors for the management of their budgets and staff, within agreed parameters. The Coordination

Committee should play a stronger collegial role in conducting and managing activities.

12. Specific improvements should be made in the internal management of ITUheadquarters, in the fields of finance,

personnel and information systems. The primary aims are to: improve strategic planning and provide more

effective financial, personnel and information management; promote, within this improved framework,

delegation of responsibility, greater cooperation between staff and greater exercise of initiative; and,

importantly, enable the staff more fully to realize their potential within a well managed organization.

13. Our [HCL] Recommendations seek to encourage greater participation by all those who have important interests

in ITU activities. The ITU is an intergovernmental organization and Members are States represented by

Administrations. But it exists to meet a wide range of interests: to facilitate provision of services to end users

by operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers; and to assure effective use of theradio-frequency

spectrum by all users. Non-Member participants also make a great contribution to its work Their even greater

participation should be encouraged.

14. Our [HCL] Recommendations will increase some costs, but also lead to savings. With effective

implementation, changes in the culture of the organization and the goodwill and support of the staff, we believe

that the cumulative impact will have a positive effect on the finances of the ITU and will enhance performance.

We have no doubt that the quality and dedication of all who work in the Union will ensure that the ITU does

respond to the challenges of change.

15. Our [HLC] proposals for implementing our Recommendations are in Chapter VII. It is vital that the ITU not

lose momentum in taking action on this report and in implementing its recommendations. Any delay will

weaken the ITU’s capacity to respond to the rapidly changing telecommunication environment.

SOURCE: Final Report of the High Level Committee (_H.L.C.) to Review the Structure and Functioning of the International Telecommunication

Union “’Tomorrow’s ITU: The Challenges of Change,” Document 145-E (Geneva: International Telecommunication Union, April

1991).

The radio activities of the ITU would be directed by each of the new sectors. Meetings of World RadioWorld Radiocommunication Conferences, which

would combine the work of the CCIR Plenary

Assemblies and the WARCs. The Committee also

recommended that the new conferences should

include a coremittee open to nongovernmental

bodies in order to increase the amount and quality of

RPOA, SI0, and other interested organizations’

participation. The current work of the CCIR study

groups would continue, but some work related to

standards would be transferred to the Standardization Sector, and a Radiocommunication Study Group

Advisory Committee would be established to guide

the work of the groups.

In addition to structural changes, the HLC has

recommended a regular schedule of Plenipotentiary

Conferences and administrative conferences for

communication Conferences would take place every

2 years. This regular schedule of world radio

conferences may have several effects. First, a regular

schedule should make it easier for countries to plan

for conferences in terms of budgets and personnel,

and gives the United States an opportunity to

formalize and institutionalize WARC preparation

processes, both in the government and industry.

Private sector involvement in WARC preparation

activities could become more integrated and continuous. Rather than the uncertain budget demands of

irregular WARCs, including salaries, temporary

staff, and wildly fluctuating travel demands, a

regular cycle allows administrations (and the private

sector) to get into a rhythm that promotes more

efficient and rational planning for the WARCs.

Personnel requirements could also be rationalized
Figure 3-3—lnternational Telecommunication Union Structure:

Changes Recommended by the High Level Committee

m

Conference -

ITU

Council

I

I 1

– – – – – – 17 – – – –

1

Conferences

Development

Sector

nStudy

Groups

El Conferences

El- Business

Advisory

Committee

Standardization

Sector

nStudy

Groups

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

‘-~l-----@ I

Secretary Strategic

General Policy and

Planning Unit

I 1

I

Radiomrnrnunkation

Sector

Radio

Regulations

Board

F,__.~1
60 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

because a regular schedule would allow managers to

apportion time and hire staff according to needs.

This should serve more broadly to regularize the

domestic preparation process itself and presents an

opportunity for the United States to build a core

group of international staff with continuing responsibility for WARC preparations. Such changes could

potentially enhance the efficiency of the U.S.

preparation process and improve U.S. effectiveness

at international conferences.

The HLC recommended a number of ways to

increase the formal and active participation of

members of the private sector in the work of the ITU.

As countries have liberalized and privatized their

telecommunications industries, more new companies have come into existence. They are playing an

increasingly important role in the ITU process,

especially through the work of CCITT/CCIR study

groups. The HLC recognized this greater role and

has recommended that the Administrative Council

begin a review of the participation of nonmember

representatives. It also recommended that intergovernmental satellite organizations be given greater

status and access to ITU meetings and that a

Business Advisory Forum be created to advise the

Secretary-General on private sector interests and

concerns.

Impacts—The impact of these changes on the

functioning of the ITU and its work in spectrum

management has yet to be felt. The timeline on

which these changes will take place if adopted is still

unclear, but changes are likely to be phased in over

a period of years. Some alterations, such as those to

the IFRB, will require the approval of a Plenipotentiary Conference, while others may require only

Administrative Council or Secretary-General approval. Still other changes reflect and reinforce

improvements that have been underway for several

years, especially in the CCIR./CCIlT The final

impacts of the proposed changes (which are passed

and which are not) will depend on where the

decisions are made, what changes are finally approved, and how long it takes to implement them.

The major effect of regular radio conferences is to

make the ITU WARC process more orderly and

predictable, yet flexible. The future schedule of

conferences is now uncertain. Hence, great importance has been attached to WARC-92, since no one

knows when the next opportunity to address current

issues will be. With future radio conferences occurring every 2 years, and planning for conferences

going on almost continuously, it should be easier

and faster for each country and the ITU overall to

address rapidly changing technological issues. These

changes could also make it easier to schedule issues

to allow for longer, more thorough consideration and

preparation time if needed—since the time to the

next conference would not be so long and would be

known. This would have the effect of lessening the

uncertainty associated with today’s conferences

because unresolved issues could be more easily

scheduled for upcoming conferences. It is uncertain

whether regular world radio conferences will be

broad, taking up a variety of topics every 2 years, or

more specialized, dealing with specific topics. It

seems likely, however, that future WARCs will deal

with a more limited set of issues, even if they are not

completely specialized.

The benefits of regular conferences do not come

without costs, however, and will not solve all the

problems with ITU spectrum allocation and management procedures. The main disadvantage is that

regular conferences will require additional finding

on the part of the private sector and government.

Instead of sporadic preparation, the preparation

process will become continuous, requiring the commitment of additional staff and funding resources.

The increased resource requirements also represent

a strong barrier to developing countries, who have

limited personnel available for WARC activities and

are already short on funds. Regularizing the conference schedule will probably not improve developing

country participation in WARC activities.

Overall, the changes proposed by the HLC may

prove to be far-reaching, but not dramatic. Many of

the recommended changes reinforce and legitimize

changes that were already underway or had previously been proposed. The work of the CCIR study

groups, for example, may not be affected much

beyond the streamlining already put into place. In

any case, changes in the structure and functioning of

the ITU will require changes in the ways in which

the United States prepares for future conferences.

Regular conferences may require the establishment

of permanent offices to handle conference preparatory activities. The greater involvement of the

private sector in the activities of the ITU should

greatly benefit the United States with its already

extensive industry involvement, but closer coordination between government and industry may be

necessary to coherently promote U.S. radiocommu-
Chapter 3-The International Context for Spectrum Policy ● 61

nication policies abroad. These shifts offer both

challenges and opportunities that must be planned

for if the United States is to continue to be effective

in world radiocommunication policy.

Voluntary Group of Experts

In addition to (complementary with) the work of

the HLC, the ITU has also begun a study of the Radio

Regulations that govern the use of the radio frequency spectrum internationally. This study is being

conducted by a Voluntary Group of Experts (VGE)

in an effort to simplify the Radio Regulations and

improve use of the spectrum worldwide. The VGE

was established by the 1990 Administrative Council

based on the recommendation of the 1989 Plenipotentiary Conference (Resolution PL-B/3). Membership is open to all member countries. At the first

meeting of the VGE, which took place in late

January 1991, experts from 22 countries and four

international organizations participated. The VGE

plans to complete its work by mid-1993. A WARC

will then be needed to implement its recommendations since they directly concern the Radio Regulations.

The VGE is pursuing several objectives. Simplification of the international Radio Regulations is its

primary goal. Over the years, as successive conferences have added to and modified the Radio

Regulations, complaints have been raised that the

regulations are too complex, very time-consuming,

administratively burdensome, and not able to keep

pace with the rapid changes in technology .22 There

are over 700 footnotes in the international Table of

Allocations that make specific modifications to the

allocations to accommodate specific country or

service requirements. Many of these are now considered obsolete. By simplifying the Radio Regulations, the VGE hopes to increase the flexibility of

spectrum use and management. This is a much

broader and long-term task that will affect how

spectrum is allocated at WARCs.

To accomplish its objectives, the VGE has

divided its work into three tasks: Task 1 considers

the allocation process, including definitions of radio

services, alternative approaches to spectrum allocation, and the use of footnotes in allocation tables.

Task 2 addresses the problems of frequency assignment, including procedures for coordinating and

recording assignments and preventing interference.

Task 3 encompasses operational and administrative

provisions. Since most of the work of the VGE is

highly technical, the CCIR established Task Group

1/1 to provide the VGE with expert support.23 The

United States has representatives on both the VGE

and Task Group 1/1.

Because VGE’s work began only recently, its

possible impacts on the functioning of the ITU and

its effects on the spectrum allocation and management process are unclear. The work of the VGE is

closely tied to that of the HLC and is, in part,

dependent on the implementation of proposed HLC

changes. If these changes are not approved or

implemented, the work of the VGE may be undermined.

The fact that the work of the VGE is so technical

may have limited its appeal to high-level policymakers in the United States. Little attention is being

paid to the work of the VGE outside of those actually

involved. It may also be that HLC activities have

overshadowed the work of the VGE (which was

established after the HLC) and diverted the attention

of top policymakers. Reportedly, there was initially

little high-level thought or planning being given to

the work of the VGE, and no concrete goals have yet

been established for the U.S. representatives to the

VGE to follow. A private sector task force under the

national CCIR’s Strategic Planning Committee provides advice to the U.S. VGE representative on

possible U.S. objectives in the VGE.

CCIR

Much of the impetus for change in the ITU

originally came from the international consultative

committees. Several years ago both the CCIR and

CCITT were having increasing difficulty keeping up

with the rapid pace of technological change. Technical issues must be quickly and effectively decided if

the ITU is to maintain its leadership role in

international telecommunications, and ITU officials

feared that, if the ITU could not act quickly enough

in setting standards and rules of operation, member

countries and the private sector would resort to

institutions outside the ITU, including the emerging

regional standards organizations, to get things done.

~G.C. Brooks, “Possible Evolution of Ihe International Regulation of the Space Services, ” Telecommunications Journal, vol. 58, No. II, February

1991, p. 88.

~~e me~emfip of the VGE overlaps with lhsk Group 1/1 M well M wi~ tie HJ-C.
62 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

It was felt that this could hurt the development of

global networks and services.

In an effort to speed up their processes and

improve their responsiveness, first the CCITT and

then the CCIR adopted reforms to improve their

work and streamline their processes. CCIR’s Resolution 24, adopted in 1990, was designed to accelerate the approval of recommendations on radio

standards by streamlining the work of the study

groups and adopting faster working procedures.

These changes have taken place independently of

the HLC study and are being folded into the HLC

proposals. Many of them are already being implemented.

CCIR has convened a new Study Group 12 to

examine ways to accommodate the growing demand

for mobile services and spectrum. In the long-term,

if the study group proves successful in its mission,

the way is opened to consider whether a much

broader array of spectrum management issues,

normally dealt with at Administrative Radio Conferences, might be handled by more dynamic Consultative Committee mechanisms.24 In the absence of

possible changes to ITU structure and procedures

(discussed below), this shift to the CCIR groups

could benefit the United States in that the CCIR

activities have long been dominated by United

States and developed country contributions. A

strengthening and streamlining of the CCIR process/

procedures could translate into a stronger U.S.

presence in the ITU generally, and represents an

opportunity for the United States to both push

technology advancements more rapidly and lay the

groundwork for U.S. proposals at future WARCs.

Under the changes proposed by the HLC, the

work of the CCIR would be subsumed under the

Radiocommunication Sector and the CCIR as an

separate body would be eliminated.25 The work of

the CCIR study groups, however, would continue

largely intact. Many of the administrative functions

of the CCIR would be merged with the WARCs into

World Radiocommunication Conferences.

Development

With the rising numbers and political power of the

developing countries, development—specifically telecommunications facilities and systems development—has become an increasingly important concern of the ITU. Over the last decade, the ITU has

made telecommunication development and technical assistance to developing countries a more

integral part of its mission. In 1985, for example, the

ITU established the Center for Telecommunications

Development, and in 1989 the Nice Plenipotentiary

created a new Bureau for Telecommunications

Development. The trend continues in the HLC

proposal to create a separate Development Sector

equal in status with the Standardization and Radiocommunication Sectors.

The issue of development, and the potential

broadening of the mandate and activities of the ITU

indicates a major shift in the purpose of the ITU and

could have a major impact on international telecommunications policymaking. Although its direct impacts on spectrum policymaking are unclear (since

the changes have not yet been implemented), two

scenarios appear possible. First, the increasing

concentration on development activities and the

high status of the Development Sector may result in

a shifting of resources away from radiocommunication activities.26 Given the concurrent regularization

of the WARC schedule, it will be important for the

United States to monitor the situation very closely to

ensure that the important activities of the WARCs

and the (CCIR) study groups are not given short

shrift. Second, a focus on development may affect

the work programs the study groups undertakemoving them away from allocation, sharing, and

standards work and toward more operational or

design issues.

Major Trends Shaping International

Telecommunication Policymaking

As the world moves toward a society and economy based on information and knowledge, telecommunications, including the new radio-based technologies, will assume an increasingly important role in

all aspects of life.

‘Pekka lhrjanne, “An Unusual Event,” Telecommunications Journal, vol. 58, No. III, March 1991, p. 123.

XMost CCIR ~ctiom will con~ue ~der tie Radiocommunication Sector, but some activities dealing with radio and public network kterface

standards will be transferred to the Standards Sector.

Zscoments of COMSAT before NTIA, op. Cit., footnote 17.
Chapter 3—The International Context for Spectrum Policy ● 63

Historically there has been a tendency to view

telecommunication as a service by itself. Consideration of telecommunication as a facilitator of economic development, as a source of global competitive advantage, as a provider of social and welfare

benefits, as a contribution to reducing regional

disparities, and as a provider of information for the

general elevation of the population, have not been

dominant considerations in the formulation of national telecommunication policies. However, for the

future, with information and knowledge becoming

strategic resources, and telecommunication becoming the primary means determining their availability,

a policy framework for making telecommunication

a truly universal resource will need to emerge. With

more people engaged in the service economy in

post-industrial societies, including certain sections

of developing countries, telecommunication matters

are becoming increasingly important for national,

economic and social policy in all countries.27

Broad changes in the economic, social, and

political landscape will shape the future of radiocommunications policymaking.28 These changes

will substantially affect the arena for international

radiocommunication policy, and present U.S. policymakers with a number of important challenges

that must be forcefully and coherently addressed if

the United States is to continue to play a leading role

in international spectrum policymaking. The following sections summarize some of the most important

trends shaping the international telecommunication

environment.

Pace of Technological Change

The pace of technology development in radiobased services has accelerated dramatically in recent

years (see ch. 2). This acceleration, coupled with

increasing congestion in many parts of the radio

frequency spectrum, has put substantial pressure on

both domestic and international radiocommunication policy processes. Spectrum managers are struggling to accommodate increasing demands for frequencies for new services and the expansion of

existing services, while at the same time ensuring

minimal interference and enhanced efficiency. Current structures and processes are increasingly unable

to keep up with the rapid pace. The inclusion of

many completely new services on the agenda for

WARC-92 is evidence of the rapid pace of technology development, and the ITU’s efforts to respond.

These pressures put a premium on rapid and

flexible approaches to spectrum policy, and present

a challenge and an opportunity to make aggressive

changes to policy structures and processes. Policymakers must respond rapidly and flexibly in order

to take maximum advantage of technology advances. In the United States, NTIA recently completed a comprehensive report on U.S. spectrum

management policy, and the FCC has initiated

several proceedings on new services and is studying

the creation of a spectrum reserve for new technologies. Internationally, the ITU is in the midst of

efforts to streamline its processes and adapt its

structure to better address emerging telecommunications needs (see above). If conferences were scheduled every 2 years, technology developments would

be rapidly addressed and planning for future conferences could flexibily adapt to members’ concerns

and priorities in a more timely manner. For the

United States to adequately respond to the accelerated development of new technology, adequate

resources must be part of a coherent plan that links

domestic and international spectrum policy goals.

Globalization

Telecommunication and radiocommunication systems are interconnecting on a larger and larger scale,

giving rise to telecommunication networks and

services that are increasingly global in scope. New

international satellite systems are being planned and

the connection of continents with fiber optic cables

continues. Services are becoming increasingly internationalized as new information, computer, and

communication services merge and extend their

reach to all countries of the world. At WARC-92, for

example, the main issue in future public land mobile

services (see ch. 1) is how and in what band to

establish a common core of frequencies that users

can access from any location on Earth. Major new

services, such as Broadcasting-Satellite ServiceSound and personal communication services (PCS)

zT”~e ~m~g Teleco~@cations Environment, ” op. cit., foOtIlOte 1, p. 3.

2$~ its F~~ Repofi t. he 1~, tie W@ ~vel Committee identified six major trends affecting the internatioml teleCOmmticatiOn env~o~ent.

They include: globalization, pace of technological change, information economy and society, rising importance of regional organizations, the

development gap, and new players and alliances. See HLC Final Report, op. cit., footnote 19; these ideas are also reflected in Government of Canadq

Department of Communications, Telecommunications Policy Branc~ Spectrum and Orbit Policy Directorate, ‘‘Towards a Spectrum Policy Framework

for the Twenty-First Century, ’ Discussion Paper, September 1990.
64 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

are being developed not only for domestic use, but

with global markets in mind.

As a result of the worldwide expansion of

technologies and services, telecommunications markets and competition in those markets are becoming

increasingly global.

Telecommunication has become increasingly important to industry in most countries as a basis for

improving on organization’s internal efficiency in

expanding global markets. For many firms in both

manufacturing and service sectors, it also has

become a tool to enhance competitiveness by

providing instant communication and information

exchange among the many different locations of

translational corporations around the world, and

between major fins, their suppliers, their customers, and other intitites that together makeup a firm’s

network of business relations.29

Because of the large potential markets for international services such as satellite broadcasting and

mobile satellite services, the spectrum is increasingly being viewed as a strategic resource for the

future development of radio services and products

for the consumer.30

Tempering this trend is the reality that negotiating

agreements on international standards and allocations is becoming increasingly difficult. As the

number of manufacturers and vendors increases and

users become more sophisticated, positions diverge.

International consensus is often undermined by

numerous exceptions to the Radio Regulations. At

the same time, for services that have clear worldwide

applications and effects, such as safety and distress

services, opinion is still strong that worldwide

allocations and protections are desirable.

For U.S. spectrum policy, globalization means

comprehensive planning and management of domestic requirements in the context of policy changes

taking place at the international level.

The expansion of telecommunication networks

and services has pushed many issues of national

policy to the international level. Global information

and communication networks require much more

than compatible technical standards. A higher degree

of compatible telecommunication policies and regulations is needed in respect of service offerings, tariff

structures and other matters. . . there is no longer a

clear demarcation between many national and international networks.31

This trend makes the effective functioning of the

ITU, as the primary international body for addressing telecommunication matters, critical, and effective U.S. participation in the process even more

important.

Rising Importance of Regionalism

At the same time that telecommunication systems

and services are becoming increasingly global,

regional networks, services, and organizations are

becoming more widespread. The ITU notes that:

Telecommunication systems are becoming translational, and subregional in many areas of the world.

Pan-European, Andean, Central American, African,

South Pacific Islands, Nordic systems, are all at

various stages of design and development. Physical

networks are interconnected regionally; services are

crossing borders; tariffs are being coordinated;

regional standards institutes and organizations are

being established; and the planning of regional

satellite systems continues. All geographical areas

have one or more regional telecommunication bodies, with differing mandates and missions but

collectively addressing operations, planning, financing, training, and policy .32

The rise of regional cooperation and coordination

has been driven by several converging trends.

Advances and proliferation of many new technologies have given regions a variety of ways to address

telecommunications needs, and what technologies a

region chooses depends on what types of systems

and services the countries want to develop and how.

As users become more sophisticated, technical

choices will further diversify, creating more regional

and subregional networks. The creation and interconnection of such networks requires regional arrangements for fostering harmony and cooperation

between telecommunication operating entities and

for improving administrative and technical services

across regions.33 Economic and political forces are

also leading countries with common interests to join

zg”~e ~m~g ‘1’dtxornrnunication Enviromneng” op. cit., footnote 1, p. 11.

mGovm~ent of Cana&, Discussion Paper, op. cit., footnote 28, P. 10.

sl~~~e ~n~g Teleco~@cation Environrnen~” op. cit., foo~ote 1, pp. 11, 29.

%id., p. 18.

331bid., p. 31.
Chapter 3—The International Context for Spectrum Policy ● 65

forces as they seek to integrate efforts on many

policy fronts in order to expand their economies and

better compete in world markets.34

These pressures have resulted in many different

forms of regional cooperation and collaboration,

including the formation of free trade zones (United

States, Canada, and possibly Mexico) and common

markets (European Community (EC)). They have

also led to the establishment or strengthening of

different regional organizations such as the Pan

African Telecommunication Union, Asia Pacific

Telecommunity, and the Arab Telecommunication

Union.

The foremost example of the rise of regionalism

is the EC.35 In international telecommunications

negotiations, the countries of Europe have taken

bold steps to coordinate their policies and the

presentation of positions. CEPT, established in

1959, currently consists of31 European telecommunications administrations. It synchronizes individual

national telecommunications positions into an integrated regional telecommunications policy. In 1988

the European Telecommunications Standards Institute was spun out of CEPT in order to harmonize and

strengthen the standards-setting process in Europe.36

The power of the European countries in international

forums such as the ITU has increased as their

political and economic ties have become closer, and

could increase further with the proposed merger of

the EC countries and the countries comprising the

European Free Trade Association.37 This merger

would create a trade zone encompassing 19 countries and more than 350 million people, significantly

larger than the U.S. market.

In addition to the new regional arrangements and

organizations, existing regional bodies are also

showing a resurgence. They are being modified and

substantially strengthened to adapt to the new world

environment. These organizations will require effective organization and adequate resources to meet

increasing demands.38 Policymakers at NTIA and

the FCC, for example, are mounting strong efforts to

invigorate the Inter-American Telecommunications

Conference (CITEL), the regional telecommunications organization of the Western Hemisphere, to

bring increased coordination to Western Hemisphere policymaking and as a partial counter to the

strength of the CEPT voting bloc (see box 3-B). The

private sector, which sees CITEL as a potentially

effective forum for addressing regional telecommunications issues and has recently begun to recognize the potential of Latin American and Caribbean

markets, has been actively involved in these efforts.

As a result, CITEL preparations for WARC-92 have

been an important focus for both government and

private sector interests (see box 3-C).

Increases in regional power and coordination will

have significant impacts on the ways in which world

telecommunications policy is decided—impacts that

could be either positive or negative. On the negative

side, regionalism could increase and strengthen bloc

voting within the ITU-with negative impacts on

U.S. interests. U.S. negotiators, for example, have

noted increased difficulty at recent WARCs (and at

recent meetings of the CCITT) negotiating with

individual European countries. There is concern that

tight European coordination and a corresponding

increase in bloc voting will lead to a strengthening

of the European positions and a diminishing of U.S.

interests and power.

The rise of regional organizations and voting

blocs could also lessen the importance of international bodies such as the ITU and the work of the

CCITT and CCIR. Some analysts have expressed

concern that participation and resources devoted to

new regional activities will detract from the resources, time, and commitment devoted to the ITU,

and more global concerns.39 For example, many

believe that regional standards organizations could

be the driving force in world standards-setting

activities, superseding the ITU. Regional standards

~Comments of COMSAT before NTIA, op. Cit., footnote 17, p. 14.

ssEWopMn Comm~~ currently has 12 members: Belgium, De nmar~ France, Germany, Great Brita@ Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,

Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain.

36 Si@lc-fly, appmfiately one.~ of be new membe~ joining the European Telecommunications Standards ~titute ~ tie first ~of 1991

were wireless communication companies. Simila regionat standards-setting bodies also exist in North Amenca(T- 1) and Japan (the Telecommunication

Technical Council-TTC). For a broader discussion of the issues of standards-setting, see forthcoming OIA study on International Standards.

sTE~Ame~m ~clude: Aus~a, F~d, I~land, Li~htemte@Norway, Sweden, ~d Swi~rland. See pa~ck@ter, “Treaty Maps Out a Unified

Europe,” The Washington Post, June 16, 1991, p. H1.

3gc~~e ~a~ Telecomm~cation Environment” Op. cit., footnote 1! P. ‘.

39see tie ~oments of COMSAT ~fom ~~ tie mafier of its comprehensive .spec&um review, op. cit., footnote 17.
66 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Box 3-B—Inter-American Telecommunications Conference-CITEL

The Inter-American Telecommunications Conference (CITEL), established in 1963, is a Specialized

Conference of the Organization of American States

(OAS).1 CITEL’S primary mission is to promote the

development and coordination of telecommunication

policies and systems in the Americas by conducting

studies of technologies, standards, and legal issues;

convening meetings to address these issues; and

maintaining contact with other regional telecommunication organizations and the ITU.. In the last several

years, one of CITEL’s primary functions has been to

serve as a regional forum for the development of

members’ positions for WARC-92. Thirty-four countries in South, Central, and North America and the

Caribbean are members.2

CITEL is not a separate institution within the

OAS-it has no permanent staff, officers or a headquarters. Rather, CITEL is an ongoing series of

conferences that meet periodically (the next conference, CITEL-VI, is scheduled for the fall of 1991) to

establish priorities and direct the work of CITEL’s four

permanent committees. The Permanent Executive

Committee (COM/CITEL), which serves as the executive organ of the Conference, deals primarily with

administrative matters. Three Permanent Technical

Committees (PTC) are concerned with substantive

technical issues (see figure 3-B-l). PTC-I addresses

matters involving public telecommunications systems,

PTC-II addresses broadcasting issues, and PTC-III is

concerned with radiocommunication issues other than

broadcasting. The work of COM/CITEL and the PTCs

is supported and overseen by a Permanent Secretary,

a position that is, ironically, not permanent.

Historically, CITEL has played a minor role in the

region’s telecommunication activities, reflecting the

low priority traditionally given telecommunications by

the countries of the OAS.3 CITEL budgets have been

underfunded (generally less than $100,000 per year),

and the lack of domestic funds has substantially

Figure 3-B-l—Organization of the Conference of

Inter-American Telecommunications Within

the Organization of American States

General Assembly of the

Organization of American

States

I

I

Inter-American Economic

and Social Council

Conference of Inter-American

Telecommunications (C ITEL)

bPermanent

Secretariat

1

r I

Permanent Executive

Committee (COM/CITEL)

KEY: PTC-Permanent technical committee

@ @ E

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications

and Information Administration, Frequency Management Advisory Council, United States Preparations for the 1991 lnterAmerican Telecommunication Conference (CITEL) (Washington, DC: Apr. 1, 1991), p. 6.

l~e IWMETM in this ~tion is based on U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications md hformatiOIl ~“ “stratio%

“United Ma&a Preparations for the 1991 Inter-Arneriean Telecommunications Conference (CITEL),” Report of the Frequency Management

Advisory Subcommittee, April 1991. In addition to background information on CITEL, the report contains speeific recommendations on

improving the effectiveness of CITEL and U.S. positions regarding CITEL activities. For more extensive discussion of the history and efforts

to restructure CITEL, see Brian Seg~ “Report on the Importance of CITEL and Options for Restructuring,’ Report prepared for the Fourth

Confcmmce of CITEL, March 1983; and John J. O’Nei.U, Jr., “Commentary on Report on the Importance of CITEL and Options for

Restructuring,” unpublished document, March/April, 1984.

%21’XT?L member states: Antigua and Barbud& Argentina, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,

CostaRic4 Dornimica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grena@ Guatemala, Guya~ Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua,

PanamtL Paraguay, Peru, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Luck Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and ‘Ibbago, United States,

Uruguay, and Venezuela.

3fitofic~y, tie ~nefits of telWo~~catiom for ~nomic development~ve notb~n well unde~t~dor appreciated. co&qu@tly,

it has been difllcult to convince OAS/CITEL members that telecommunications activities are important enougb to warrant signii%cant fimding.

The current intereat in CITEL activities via-a-via W~C-92 indicate that these attitudes may be changing. See O’Neill, op. cit., footnote 1.
Chapter 3-The International Context for Spectrum Policy 67

reduced the ability of member countries to participate in the work of ClTEL. As a result, CITEL does not have the

status and importance necessary to achieve its stated goals, and is generally viewed as lacking substance and

ineffective. This view has translated broadly into a lack of commitment from member states, and a consequent

reluctance to provide additional funding. An additional problem identified by U.S. delegates to international

conferences is that some Latin American delegations lack continuity. Changes in governments and telecommunications ministries bring new delegates to the conferences that have never attended before. This has made it very hard

to develop lasting relationships with some governments. Consequently, until recently, CITEL has attracted little

attention from U.S. policymakers and the private sector.4

Changes implemented in the past 5 years may make CITEL more effective. Driven by the changes in world

politics and a newly competitive world telecommunications environment, CITEL is seeking to broaden its activities

and is encouraging greater private sector participation. Mandates and agendas of the PTCs have been expanded to

include more items of regional interest and of interest to the private sector. Steps have also been taken to improve

work processes that would allow the PTCs to become more effective and responsive to the needs of ClTEL’s

members. More such changes may result from the sixth quadrennial meeting of CITEL (VI-CITEL) to be held later

in 1991. That meeting will examine the performance of CITEL, identify ways to improve its performance and give

member states an opportunity to reassess their participation and support of CITEL.

Efforts to make CITEL a more effective organization have gathered substantial momentum in the last year.

There is a growing feeling among U.S. and foreign government representatives and the private sector that CITEL

should play a more significant role in coordinating regional telecommunication activities. A new spirit of

compromise has been noted by delegates from several countries, including the United States. Developing countries

also view CITEL as a valuable source of technical support in developing their own WARC proposals. When no

national position has been developed, many countries may use CITEL views as (the basis for) their own national

positions.

In the last several years, CITEL has received increased attention from some United States international

spectrum policymakers and the private sector. They increasingly view it as an important, but underutilized,

underfunded and underpowered resource for regional coordination and in the WARC preparation and negotiation

process. For example, CITEL is playing an active role in WARC preparations for 1992 through an Interim Working

Group of Permanent Technical Committee III (PTC-III), which is attempting to form common CITEL views which

would then be carried into the WARC (see box 3-C).

Several factors have contributed to the renewed interest of government policymakers. First, the growth and

strengthening of regional voting blocks within the ITU, in particular the European countries, has led the United

States to look for new alliances.5 Beginning in the late 1980s, the Europeans, through the Conference of European

Postal and Telecommunications administrations (CEPT), began to formulate strong regional positions that were

strictly adhered to at international conferences. This type of unity has made it increasingly difficult for the United

States to promulgate its views in a forum such as the ITU with its one-nation, one-vote system. Consequently, to

improve its position and in order to offset developing country blocs and the increasing power and solidity of the

European countries, the United States is attempting to build regional support through the CITEL conferences and

by advancing common CITEL views that will hopefully reflect United States interests. Implanting United States

interests in the larger context of common CITEL views will provide added support for U.S. positions and may

improve bargaining positions and chances of success at the WARC. U.S. Policymakers, however, must remain

flexible in these negotiations in order to build support for a wide range of common views. Strong preliminary work

at CITEL before WMC-92 should enhance the U.S. leadership role at the Conference. Developing countries also

see CITEL as a reaction/counter to the increasing power of the European countries, and view it as a valuable

4For m~ple, only hdfthe member countries sent delegations to the most recent meetings of PTC-111 (OttaW% September 1990 ~d tie

Interim Working Group preparing for W=C-92 (Mexico City, January 1991 and Washington DC, May 1991). ‘f’his may reflect a lack of

commitment or merely a lack of Iravel funds. However, for CITEL meetings, this was a good turnout.

SW Hwpm comm~ty (EC) ~d~m not tX@Vd@. ~WaS fOrmd k 1959 to s~~lc~y reprwent tie ~t~ests ‘f ‘e

European post telegmp& and telephone administrations (PITs). It now represents the interests of 31 European telecommunications

administrations. The EC is more broadly focused. Telecommunications policy in the EC has evolved, at least in pq in reaction to the narrow,

traditional views of the PIT% and CE~, but recently, EC telecommunications policy has begun to reflect the broader goals of the EC itself-to

promote unity and integration among European nations. CE!PT has come under attack in recent years for its closed systerq and has taken steps

to reform, such as spinning off its standards activities. However, it still wields considerable influence in intermtional radiocommunications

activities.

(continuedon rmtpage)
68 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Box 3-B—Inter-American Telecommunications Conference-CITEL-Continued

opportunity to prenegotiate some of the WARC issues. This type of interaction is seen as very valuable in allowing

developing country governments to prepare more effectively for the WARC. Second, CITEL offers a way to

coordinate telecommunication policy on a regional basis, apart from any international concerns. There is increasing

recognition among the countries of CITEL that technologies are increasingly crossing national boundaries and that

domestic policies alone will not guarantee development. In this sense, its aims mirror (and extend) the theme of

regional cooperation evident in the Enterprise for the Americas initiative, the Canadian Free Trade Pact and the

possible Mexican Free Trade Agreement.

Traditionally, private sector participation in CITEL has been limited, perhaps because of ClTEL’s general

ineffectiveness. The private sector is not allowed to participate directly in most activities, and industry interest in

CITEL’s activities has been minimal.6 Efforts are now under way to increase industry participation in PTC-II and

PTC-III There is some support in the U.S. private sector for strengthening ClTEL. Industry believes that a mom

effective forum is needed to focus attention on the practical and technical issues facing telecommunications

providers in the region, including standards. Telecommunication vendors and service providers have also begun to

recognize the potential and the importance of Latin American telecommunications markets. A series of conferences

such as CITEL provides an opportunity for United States companies to make contacts in potentially lucrative Latin

American markets where they have historically been overshadowed by European competitors. The extensive

participation by industry in the recent PTC-III WARC Interim Working Group meeting held in Washington, DC

in May 1991 demonstrates the extensive interest that the private sector has in CITEL and its member states.

Although there is much support for strengthening the role of CITEL in regional telecommunications activities

and WARC preparations, some policymakers remain skeptical. It remains to be seen whether potential changes will

occur, whether members’ commitment to CITEL can be sustained, and how successful CITEL’s activities in

standards-setting and WARC preparations will be. Changes in attitude and the commitment of a small number of

dedicated policymakers to make CITEL a more effective organization may not be enough. The future success of

CITEL will depend on continued and high-level commitment by member governments, increased private sector

participation and a proven record of success in accomplishing substantive work— including agreement on major

spectrum issues. The primary challenge for CITEL is to attract the funding from the OAS necessary to improve its

effectiveness.

The results of government and private sector efforts to enhance the role of CITEL and the strength of common

views that might emerge will not be seen until the WARC concludes. Even if the common views forged at CITEL

do not endure, or regional cooperation falters, efforts to raise the level of CITEL will likely continue. Improving

the level of ClTEL’s work is a long-term process-it is too soon to expect spectacular results.

%%eonlywayforthe private sector toparticipateis throughmembersMponU.S. delegations toCITELmeetings.In 19S’7, CITELadopted

a resolution encouraging mom direct private sector participation in the activities of IWC-I. This experiment has been generally considered a

success, and there is increasing pressure to open up FTC-II and -Ill However, there is as yet no formal mechanism for direet ptivate sector

participation in PI’C activities.

organizations could coordinate their efforts and prenegotiate some conference issues.40 Many reinstitute procedures to avoid duplication of work gional associations are attempting to facilitate coorwithin the CCIR and CCITT. Most substantive work dination and harmonization across regions as a

would be done in regional bodies, and then merely stepping stone to global coordination and harmoniconfirmed at ITU conferences. On the other hand, zation through the ITU. 41 These efforts could make

regional organizations and conferences could serve the ITU more efficient in developing global standas important precursors to the international con- ards.

ferences—a way to sample ideas, build support, and

%commentingonregionalism in the standards-setting proeess, COMSATnotes that:“the joint meeting of the T-l, ETSI, and TTC organizations. . .

was animportantfmtmeeting to explore mutual cooperation among these regional bodies, and to discuss ways to enhance the effectiveness of the CCI’IT

in its global standards role,” ibid., p. 15.

41t<T& (2han@g Telecommunication Environment op. cit., footnote 1, p. 6.
Chapter 3-The International Context for Spectrum Policy ● 69

Box 3-C-CITEL Preparations for WARC-92

At its August 1989 meeting, Permanent Technical Committee III (PTC-III) of the Inter-American

Telecommunications Conference (CITEL) established an Interim Working Group (IWG) to work out common

regional views CITEL member countries could then use in developing their own WARC proposals. This was the

first time that formal common positions had been attempted by CITEL members. After the agenda for the WARC

was finalized in June 1990, PTC-III devised a work schedule for the IWG, and countries agreed to develop papers

on WARC agenda issues for consideration by the Group.

The IWG met twice. At Mexico City in January 1991, 13 countries attended, and considered approximately

60 input papers and 40 technical documents. Before the formal meetings of the Group, a seminar on WARC-92

issues was held to provide in-depth information to the delegates. The results of the meeting were generally viewed

positively by representatives from both foreign countries and the United States. The delegates agreed to common

CITEL views on a number of WARC agenda items, and produced a first draft of a comprehensive report covering

the most important WARC-92 issues.

The IWG met for the second, and final, time in Washington, DC in May 1991. Representatives from 16

countries, three international organimations, and an observer from the Conference of European Postal and

Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) attended. Approximately 90 new input papers were considered by

the delegates and more than 20 papers were presented by members of the private sector at a technical symposium

held during the week of the meetings. Foreshadowing future debates, a large number of the papers concerned

Broadcasting-Satellite Service-Sound and Mobile Satellite Services, including low-Earth orbiting satellites. The

first draft of the group’s report was substantially revised and contained common CITEL views on several items.

Many of the most important issues, however, could not be agreed to, including specific allocations for high

frequency radio broadcasting, Broadcasting-Satellite Service-Sound, high-definition television, some Mobile

Satellite Services, and Future Public Land Mobile Telecommunication Systems. Delegates were generally pleased

with the outcome of the meeting, although some voiced disappointment that more common views were not agreed

upon. The report will now be sent to the chairman of PTC-III and all the CITEL governments for use in preparing

their own proposals for WARC-92.

SOURCE: Organization of American States, Interamerican Telecommunications Conference, Permanent Technical Committee III, “Report of

the CITEL 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference Interim Working Group,” Document WARC-92/62 Rev. 2, May 10,1991.

Liberalization and Privatization

As the trend toward increasing global competition

intensifies, both developing and developed countries are searching for ways to be competitive.

Traditional models of telecommunication operation,

regulation, and policy development are increasingly

being challenged.42

There is a widespread concern with national

telecommunication monopolies that they may be

unable to provide the increasing diversity of communication services necessary to meet the expanding

variety of communication needs and demands . . . .

Many countries, both developed and developing, are

now in the process of redefining their national

telecommunication policies and regulatory mechanisms. 43

Post, Telephone and Telegraphs (PTTs), the

institutions that historically have controlled telecommunications services in many countries, are

being restructured so that monopolistic privileges

are replaced by a more competitive environment.

Many countries have privatized (sold shares in), or

will soon privatize, their government-owned PTTs—

taking control out of the hands of government and

replacing it with more private sector control. Since

Britain privatized British Telecom in 1984, six

countries have privatized their telecommunications

systems (Japan, New Zealand, Malaysia, Argentina,

Mexico, Chile) and several more are about to do so

(Hungary, Singapore, Uruguay, South Korea, possibly Germany and Czechoslovakia). France has

chosen an alternative to privatization, namely strong

state intervention to encourage the adoption of new

technologies and services. In 1991 France separated

its telephone service (France Telecom) from the

Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (but did

%id., p. 8.

431bid., p. 11.
70 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

not privatize it) so that it could become more

competitive internationally.

In addition, many countries have liberalized their

telecommunications markets and networks, allowing new equipment vendors and service providers to

provide goods and services in addition to the

traditional service provider (usually a PTT or

equivalent). 44 Many countries, for example, are

trying to encourage the development of private

networks of all sorts. Because of the advances in

radiocommunications technologies, and the lack of

a highly developed public communications infrastructure, wireless communications is playing a very

important part in this expansion of services.

The major effect of liberalization and privatization on the activities of the ITU is to increase the

number of actors on the world stage and raise the

level of private sector participation in international

spectrum policy processes. Privatization of national

industries may also have the effect of making those

industries increasingly responsive to world trends,

and more involved in international policymaking.

Newly privatized companies have strong incentives

to become actively involved in international policymaking to protect their interests and ensure that

they can be competitive and efficient. This new

activism may make them important players in

international spectrum issues. The ITU and CITEL,

for example, were once primarily intergovernment

organizations. In recent years, however, with the rise

of liberalized companies, the increasingly global

scope of corporations and networks, and the plethora

of new communications vendors, the private sector

has been aggressively pursuing a more active role in

the international policy process, including radiocommunications. Industry representatives want more

of a say in international telecommunication policymaking and would like to see forums such as the

ITU and CITEL serve as a common meeting ground

for addressing government and nongovernment

interests.

The ultimate extent and importance of these

trends is uncertain, and the implications for U.S.

policymaking are still unclear. Some believe that the

effects of liberalization and privatization may be

overstated. Even in countries that have been liberalized or had their industries privatized, governments

often still retain strong control over the industry.

These new companies and competitors do not have

enough clout to significantly influence policy yet. In

the future, however, as their power and prestige

builds, they may become more influential both

internally and internationally. They will add to the

rapidly increasing and complex array of radiocommunications players discussed below.

Telecommunications and Economics

In international fora of all types, telecommunication issues are increasingly being linked to economic

policy. Radiocommunications in particular is increasingly being recognized as an important force in

its own right, as a major market and source of trade

dollars. Sales of telecommunication products and

services have increased dramatically over the last

decade. Shipments of radio communications equipment are estimated at more than $55 billion annually

and revenues from broadcasting and cellular services are estimated to exceed $30 billion annually.45

As the globalization of society continues, the size

and importance of these markets will increase

dramatically. However, there are indications that the

preeminent position of the United States may be

slipping in a global environment marked by increasing competition in telecommunications markets.

Between 1981 and 1987, the U.S. trade balance in

telecommunications equipment went from a $817-

million surplus to a $2.6-billion deficit.46

The trade implications of domestic and international telecommunications policy decisions, and the

fact that telecommunications underlies a substantial

portion of U.S. trade are becoming apparent. World

markets for televisions, radios, and cellular phones

are all large and all depend on spectrum. Spectrum

decisions made internationally will critically affect

how these markets develop and to what extent the

U.S. can take advantage of them. Stakes are likely to

be even higher in the future as the world moves

toward an information economy, as radiocommunications systems become increasingly global, and as

trade opportunities open abroad in response to

liberalization and privatization.

~“~e ~~~g Telecommunication Environmen~” Op. cit., fOO@Xe 1, p. 50.

45u.s, D~@mentof Comerce, Natio~ Tele~o~~~tiom and ~o~ationAtis&ation, u.S. specfrumh4a~gement policy: Agen.dafor the

Future, NTIA Special Publication 91-23 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1991), p. 13.

46U.S. D~~ment of Comeme, Natio~ Teleco~~cations and ~o~ation Atistratio~ N’TZA Te/ecom 2~@-), ~ Special Publication

88-21 (Washingto@ DC: U.S. Governrnent Printing Office, October 1988), p. 41.
Chapter 3—The International Context for Spectrum Policy ● 71

Telecommunications products and services are

also increasingly recognized as a crucial component

in maintaining economic competitiveness. Telecommunication serves industry in most countries as a

basis for improving efficiency in global markets, and

as a tool to enhance competitiveness by allowing

instant communication among the many different

locations of worldwide corporations, and between

major firms, their suppliers, and their customers.

The connection between radiocommuncations in

particular and competition is evident in the push to

establish high-definition television systems and

standards in both the United States and Europe in an

attempt to head off Japanese hegemony in this

potentially huge market for products and services.

Many countries have recognized the link between

radiocommunications and development and have

begun to establish priorities and formulated policies

in order to rapidly develop new radiocommunication

technologies. Great Britain, for example, has taken

the lead in PCS, by clearing frequencies in its

television spectrum. Japan has tried to clear room for

digital cellular. There has been a strong push to

establish Standards for many new types of services

including PCS, digital cellular, and next-generation

mobile systems. Centralized administrations and

policymaking (and a less diverse telecommunications industry) allow such decisions to be made

quickly, an important advantage in light of the rapid

pace of technology development. In the United

States there is no national vision or plan, and no

consensus on priorities for communication technologies and services.

Historically, the United States has wielded considerable influence in the international radiocommunication policy arena because the United States has

been the world’s largest market for advanced telecommunications products and services. The United

States was able to make technical and economic

decisions and force others to follow its lead. Today,

the situation is shifting. With the rise of a consolidated Europe and the increasing regionalism among

other areas of the world, notably the Pacific Rim, the

United States soon will no longer be the largest

telecommunications equipment and service market.

In addition, the United States is a rapidly maturing

market-many companies see larger growth opportunities in the developing countries, which have not

yet reached U.S. levels of technological sophistication and saturation.

The result is that the United States is in danger of

losing its market-based power and with it, some of

the enormous influence this country has enjoyed in

international radiocommunication policymaking. The

Europeans, for example, have shown an increasing

unwillingness to follow the U.S. lead in international

spectrum policy. This is yet another reason why

WARC-92 is so important. The new technologies

and services to be considered at the WARC offer the

United States an important opportunity to solid@ or

even expand its leadership in many radiocommunication areas. Without the new services made available by the new radio-based technologies, the U.S.

position as market leader could slip further, siphoning off business and innovation to countries with

more flexible radiocommunication environments.

New Players and Alliances

International geopolitics are substantially different today than only a few years ago. The international radiocommunication policy environment of

1992 is characterized by a much more diverse array

of participants, and new sets of allies. The forces of

globalism, regionalism, and the new players created

by the forces of privatization have created a

situation in which alliances have shifted and many

new actors have come to the fore.

Part of the problem facing the United States as it

tries to influence international spectrum policy is

that different nations use telecommunications in

different ways and have different communications

needs. Most nations do not use radiocommunications as extensively as the United States, and are not

as advanced in their use of radiocommunications. It

is easier for them to find room for and develop new

technologies. Also, many countries cannot afford the

latest technologies. Even if they see the benefits, it

may be many years before such new technologies are

actually introduced. These are but some of the

dynamics operating as the United States tries to

negotiate internationally for spectrum so that it may

improve domestic services.

The conflicting needs of many countries have

important implications for how countries develop

positions for the WARC. Developed countries are

making greater use of the spectrum resource as new

technologies are developed and old services expand.

Developing countries increasingly see telecommunications in general, and radiocommunications in

particular, as a vital component in their economic

and social development. Individual domestic con-
72 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

siderations are translated to the international level as

spectrum managers and policymakers see spectrum

allocation not only in the narrow technical terms of

spectrum use, but also as part of the globalization of

economics, trade, and international services.47 W~C92 is perceived as an important opportunity to open

up new services not only domestically, but also

internationally.

The wealth of new players and relationships

represents both a major challenge and an important

opportunity for the United States as it seeks to

expand its telecommunications manufacturing and

services industries and move into new markets.

These pressures put increased impetus on the United

States to be flexible and cooperative at WARC-92.

European Community and CEPT-As noted

above, the European countries have formed strong

regional telecommunication organizations, most notably CEPT. The 31 CEPT countries48 have coordinated their WARC proposals, and are expected to

have common positions that will be strictly adhered

to by member countries at the conference. Such

developments are likely to substantially strengthen

the role of the European countries in WARC-92, and

will make the process of preparing U.S. negotiating

strategies more difficult.

The growing power of the European bloc will

force a major reconsideration of who U.S. allies

actually are for each issue. Many traditional European allies have banded together in a voting bloc that

has grown increasingly stronger over time. Attendees at past conferences report that it is becoming

increasingly difficult (and in many cases, impossible) to deal with individual countries in the “usual’

manner. This loss of flexibility not only makes it

harder for the United States to negotiate for support

among individual countries, but also poses a serious

threat in terms of the number of votes the EC and

CEPT can now command. This is forcing the United

States to look beyond its traditional allies and to

forge new alliances with others. A strong, unified

Europe has also led to strong interest in the United

States to enhance the power and effectiveness of

CITEL as a possible counter to expanding European

power.

Developing Countries-The United States has

already begun to reach out to the developing

countries in the Western Hemisphere through the

CITEL conferences, but government representatives

also plan extensive trips to Africa and Asia to

establish ties and build support in preparation for

WARC-92. The United States may find that it has

more in common with the developing countries than

originally believed because of the nature of the

technologies taking center stage at WARC-92.

Many of the technologies to be discussed are new

technologies that represent breakthroughs in ways to

provide inexpensive and reliable data, voice, and in

some cases, video, services. These types of wireless

services, which do not depend on an extensive or

developed infrastructure to work, may enable the

developing countries to “leapfrog” generations of

services, and obtain advanced services earlier than

previously thought possible. It also provides an

opportunity for the developing countries to improve

their telecommunications infrastructure and services

without building extensive (and expensive) terrestrial wireline systems.

The United States may have already found some

new allies, especially among the countries of Africa.

At the 1990 Administrative Council meeting, where

the United States succeeded in adding many items it

wanted to the WARC-92 agenda, the United States

was largely supported by the Africans as well as

many developing countries. The EC countries, on

the other hand, may have lost some support, possibly

due to the strength and inflexibility of their common

positions. This state of affairs, however, may not

carry over to the WARC itself, thus making it even

more important for the United States to strengthen

these ties in the months before the conference.

Several trips are planned by U.S. government

representatives to Africa and Asia to accomplish this

goal.

The increased emphasis on courting (and counting) the developing countries, however, will not be

easy and will come at increased cost. Specifically,

more money will be needed for travel for U.S.

representatives to make the contacts, establish the

relationships, and do the initial negotiating that

could help obtain positive outcomes at the 1992

conference. There are now more countries to talk to,

47~e incr=sing impo~~ce of spec~ in economic considerations is also seen at the regional level in the increased empkks put On the aCtivitim

of regional bodies such as CITEL.

~With the expected addition of Albania later in 1991, there will be 32.
Chapter 3-The International Context for Spectrum Policy ● 73

requiring travel farther a field than previously. Trips

are being consolidated, but only so much can be

accomplished on one trip. A lack of funds may mean

that some important countries or issues do not get

addressed.

Decline of the U.S.S.R. and the Realignment of

Eastern Europe—Another substantial change from

past WARCs is the much reduced influence and

significance of the Soviet Union. The Soviets, long

a major player in international radiocommunication

circles, have lost much of their power and prestige.

This will be the first WARC without them as a major

force. Two primary trends have contributed to this

loss of influence. First, the internal turmoil in the

U.S.S.R. itself has made it difficult for the Soviets to

prepare for WARC-92. They are expected to offer

few changes in the allocations. Second, the disintegration of the Eastern bloc and the loss of Soviet

control over its votes could radically change voting

patterns, and will likely lead to a substantial loss of

political (voting) power for the Soviet Union in the

one-nation, one-vote forum of the ITU. The disintegration of the Eastern bloc has also added uncertainty in world telecommunications bodies regarding what role the newly freed Eastern European

nations will play in international radiocommunications policymaking. These nations are shifting their

alliances, particularly toward Western Europe, and

many of them may join CEPT, adding to its voting

power. However, the effects of their participation in

WARC-92 are still uncertain.

Summary and Implications

Changes in the world telecommunication environment pose significant challenges for U.S. domestic and international spectrum policymaking and to

the process of preparing for world radio conferences.

Changing alliances, new geopolitical and economic

realities, and the proposed changes in the structure

and functions of the International Telecommunication Union will require the United States to reevaluate the preparation process for international conferences, and consider domestic spectrum policy in the

larger context of international radiocommunication

issues. Domestic spectrum policy will have to

strategically link U.S. and international spectrum

concerns.

Unless the United States responds quickly and

effectively to these forces, it may find itself unable

to successfully negotiate the challenges these changes

present. U.S. approaches to international spectrum

policymaking will have to flexibly adaptor domestic

structures and processes for addressing international

spectrum concerns may become outdated and less

effective. The Federal Government, collaborating

with the private sector, must develop new strategies

for policymaking and negotiation to meet the

demands of this new climate of change. Government

spectrum policymakers recognize these challenges,

but there is little consensus on what long-term

strategies and goals the United States should pursue.

The fragmented nature of the U.S. policy process

hinders the development of unified policy and

makes timely reaction to change difficult.

It remains to be seen how effective and successful

the United States will be at WARC-92, but the

current state of flux in world affairs presents the

United States with a unique opportunity to influence

the structures and procedures the world uses to set

spectrum policy. In the longer term, for the United

States to be most effective, the country must

continue to take an active role in ITU activities and

in future WARCs. Responding to the many changes

taking place in the world will require flexibility and

a commitment to well thought-out and carefully

defined goals. Without such goals and a common

vision on how the United States would like to see the

ITU evolve, U.S. policy will continue to react to

change rather than aggressively shaping it. Given

rapid shifts in both technology and the international

environment, without clear agreed-upon goals there

is no way to ensure that the best interests of the

United States will be met.
Chapter 4

Domestic Preparations Process for WARC-92

Introduction

The United States is influential in international

spectrum circles through its leadership in radio

technologies and services and its status as one of the

largest telecommunications markets in the world.

Decisions made regarding spectrum allocations and

radio-based services in the United States have

substantial impact on world radiocommunication

policies and an important influence on spectrum

management in other countries. The process by

which domestic spectrum policies are set, and the

way the United States prepares for international

conferences, directly impacts international policymaking.

Unlike most countries, the United States has no

central authority that is responsible for domestic or

international spectrum policymaking and management. The Communications Act of 1934 divided

spectrum management responsibility between the

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an

independent agency, and the President.1 In 1978,

Executive Order 12,046 transferred the President’s

authority to the Secretary of Commerce and created

an Assistant Secretary for Communications and

Information, who is also the Administrator of the

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).2 Today, domestic spectrum

management and policymaking responsibility is

shared by the FCC and NTIA. NTIA manages all

Federal Government use of the spectrum and also

serves as the President’s adviser on telecommunications matters. The FCC regulates and manages all

commercial and private sector use of the spectrum as

well as State and local government use. In international spectrum negotiations and conferences, the

State Department exercises primary authority as the

President’s representative in foreign policy matters.

WARC Preparation Activities

The process of preparing for WARCs involves

four separate, but interdependent, subprocesses. The

frost, and most open to the public, is the development

of proposals by the FCC that reflect the interests and

needs of the private sector. Second, NTIA simultaneously coordinates and develops executive branch

proposals. This subprocess has been largely closed

to the public in the past since the work of the

agencies is generally not open to direct public access

or input.3 The third subprocess involves the more

informal coordination between the NTIA, FCC, and

State Department in the development of final U.S.

proposals. Staff at the FCC and NTIA work closely

and in parallel to ensure that their final recommendations to the State Department are as similar as

possible in order to speed the determination of final

proposals. The State Department, while not as

actively involved in the development of specific

WARC positions as the FCC and NTIA, nevertheless plays an important role in ensuring that international political considerations are adequately considered in the final proposals.4 Fourth, after proposals have been set, the official U.S. delegation, which

is composed of both government and private sector

representatives, develops negotiating strategies and

backup positions—positions that support the final

proposals. The State Department, along with the

FCC and NTIA, manages and coordinates the

activities of the delegation.

Tension in the preparations process, among government interests, private sector and industry interests, and between the government and the private

147 us-co, ~Wtiom 151, 152, 305 (1989).

%xecutive Order No. 12,046, reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Congressional& Administrative News, 9685-9692.

3Following r=omendations out~~ ~ its recent report on spec~ management ~has be~ opening some of its activities tO mOre public

participation. While too late to affect the preparations process for WARC-92, these changes could substantially improve private sector input into future

NTIA spectrum management activities, including preparations for future W~Cs (see sections on NTIA below). U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Spectrum Management Policy: Agenda for the Future, NTIA Special Publication

91-23 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1991), p. 13.

ABecause the State Departments mo5tcon~m~~th~e representation of U.S. policy abroad, it isgenerdymore active ill the pIOpOSd development

process when an issue (or even a whole conference) has spccitlc political overtones or when an issue appears particularly contentious internationally.

This varies by issue: the more politically sensitive an issue is, the more the State Department is usually involved. The Department, for example, is usually

very involved in preparations for Plenipotentiary Conferences, since they deal more with matters of governance and administration than with the more

technical issues that characterize the work of the WARCS.

–75–
76 ● WARC-92:Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

sector, is an inherent part of the system. Because of

this tension, some of the most contentious issues

may not be resolved before final proposals are set. In

these rare cases, the parties involved continue

negotiating, but if agreement cannot be reached,

other alternatives are available. The State Department (or one of the affected parties) can, as a last

resort, submit the matter to the National Security

Council for resolution.5 Other alternatives may be

available, but are not well-defined. There is no

formal mechanism at a level high enough (in the

FCC, NTIA and State Department) to resolve such

disputes. New procedures may have to be devised to

expedite the decision process. However, at these

higher policy levels, political compromises often

play a more important role in resolving disputes than

technical merit or the greater national interest.

In the WARC-92 preparation process there were

many areas of intense debate, especially between

industry (and the FCC representing those interests)

and the Federal agencies, but only one issue remains

unresolved. Throughout WARC-92 preparations,

government and industry interests clashed over the

use of the 1435-1525-MHz band. At the beginning

of the preparations process, both Mobile Satellite

Service (MSS) providers and the proponents of

Broadcasting Satellite Service-Sound (BSS-Sound)

sought to use this band, but the Department of

Defense (DOD), its aerospace contractors, and some

commercial aircraft manufacturers opposed reallocation of the band to protect their use of these

frequencies for aircraft testing and other uses (see ch.

1). MSS interests dropped their proposals early in

the process, but BSS-Sound advocates have maintained their need for the band.6 If not modified,

DOD’s position on this issue will preclude the

United States from using the band for new BSSSound applications, even if these frequencies are

approved at WARC-92. In that case, BSS-Sound

applications in the United States would have to use

frequencies different from the rest of the world, and

equipment and systems would be incompatible

internationally.

Negotiations have been difficult, private sector

representatives, complain, because DOD and its

contractors have not released enough data on the use

of these frequencies to make a fully informed

decision. Executive branch representatives contend

that all necessary information has been made available. National security concerns and lack of data

have played a role in this dispute. Negotiations

between the interested parties continue, and a fina1

proposal on the matter will be submitted in a

supplemental proposal to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) before WARC-92. This

case highlights the interaction of domestic and

international spectrum policy and demonstrates the

need for well-defined procedures for resolving such

disputes. The process must balance the national

security concerns of the government with the private

sector’s need for more open access to information

about radio frequency use and efficiency.

Institutional Roles

Federal Communications Commission

Structure

The FCC is functionally divided into bureaus and

offices that manage the day-to-day activities of the

Commission in radio and wireline communications

and develop more long-term plans and policies (see

figure 4-l). The majority of the FCC’s work

involves regulation of the domestic telecommunication industry, but the regulatory bureaus also have

staff that deal with international matters as well. The

activities of the FCC are directed by five commissioners, who are appointed by the President, confined by the Senate, and serve 5-year terms. The

President also appoints the Chairman of the FCC,

who usually takes the lead in establishing overall

policies and direction for the Commission. The

current Chairman of the FCC is Alfred C. Sikes.

Although the FCC has long maintained a commitment to international activities, there has been no

ongoing, formally recognized structure within the

Commission for coordinating WARC preparations.

Rather, conference preparation activities have been

carried out in a variety of ways. For many past

conferences, the Chief of the FCC’s Office of

Engineering and Technology (OET) directed Coms~ ~rqmationfor tie 1979 WARC, for emple, Voice of America (VOA) wanted additional spectrum for high fr~uency broadcmfig, a PmPosal

which the Department of Defense opposed. VOA took ifi case to tie National Security Council, where its proposal was eventually accepted.

%e FCC included such a need in its final recommendations to the Department of State, but did not identify the specific size or location of the band.

See Federal Communications Commissio~ “An hquiry Relating to Preparation for the International Telecommunication Urdon World Administrative

Radio Conference for Dealing With Frequency Allocations in Certain Parts of the Spectrum,’ Gen Docket No. 89-554, Reporz, 6 FCC Rcd 3900 (1991).
Chapter 4---Domestic Preparations Processor WARC-92 ● 77

Figure 4-l-Organization of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission

1 1

I 1 r 1

I

Office of II Office of

Legislative Affairs Plans and Policy

The Commissioners

Alfred C. Sikes, Chairman

James H. Quello

Sherrie P, Marshall

Andrew C. Barrett

Ervin S, Duggan

I

Office of

Managing Director

1 I

Officeof

Inspector

General

Office of

Review Board Administrative

Law Judges

1

1 I I

1 1

Common Carrier

Bureau a

Mass Media

Bureaua

Private Radio

Bureaua

ElOffice of

International

Communications

aln ~ition t. the office of International Communi=tions, these bureaus and offices also have staff working on WARC issues.

NOTE: This chart represents lines of policy and judicial authority. It should be noted that the Office of Managing Director has management and administrative

authority over all other offices and bureaus with the exception of the Office of Inspector General.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment and Federal Communications Commission, 1991.

mission efforts, drawing together the needed staff office was disbanded several years after the 1979

and coordinating the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) conference. There appeared to be a less obvious need

process. Prior to the 1979 WARC, for example, the for a central focus for international activities, and

Commission established a Conference Preparatory staff and responsibilities for international matters

Group within the Office of the Chief Engineer (now were dispersed to various operating bureaus and

OET) specifically to address WARC preparations. offices where they remain. This division has worked

However, because of the specialized nature of the because many issues on the WARC agendas overlap

conferences that were scheduled for the future, the with domestic concerns. Thus, staff are familiar with
78 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

the basic technological and spectrum issues that

WARCs address, and individual staff members have

built up a wealth of experience in international

conference preparation work.

After the 1979 WARC, international telecommunications advisors, appointed by the Chairman,

oversaw FCC conference preparations. Individual

bureaus also assumed responsibility for preparing

for some of the conferences that dealt specifically

with their areas of expertise, often coordinating with

OET. Preparations for the Mobile Services WARC

in 1987, for example, were concentrated in the

Private Radio Bureau.

The FCC’s initial preparation for WARC-92 was

coordinated by OET, primarily through its Spectrum

Engineering Division, and involved staff from many

offices. Staff in the Private Radio Bureau worked on

WARC issues in 3-30-GHz range, although they are

not identified as “international’ staff. The Mass

Media Bureau has international staff that coordinate

broadcast plans with Mexico and Canada as well as

specialists in WARC broadcasting issues such as

BSS-Sound and high-definition television (HDTV).

Staff in the Common Carrier Bureau are responsible

for several of the issues in the 1-3-GHz band. The

Field Office Bureau has also been involved in

WARC preparations. The Office of International

Communications (OIC) was established after preparations had already begun, but was actively involved

in the latter stages of the process.

Office of International Communications-h

January 1990 the Commission created OIC to

coordinate the FCC’s international activities and

policy development, not only for spectrum matters,

but for all areas of international telecommunication

policy. The decision appears to have been, in part, a

response to the upcoming WARC, but more generally reflects the Chairman’s desire to establish a

focal point in the Commission for international

matters. It also signals recognition of the larger

importance of international telecommunication issues for the domestic policy process—the consequences of liberalization, regionalism, and global

networks on U.S. companies and domestic regulation.

According to the FCC Order that established OIC,

the functions of the Office are to:

It

(1) Ensure the integration of Commission international policy activities; (2) ensure that the Commission’s international policies are uniform and consistent; (3) assume the principal representational role for

Commission activities in international fora; and (4)

serve as the focal point for international activities.

The Director of International Communications will

provide coordination among Bureaus with regard to

development of international policy, representation

of this policy and participation in international

conferences. Additionally, the Director will facilitate

Commission guidance of Bureaus’s international activities. 7

is important to note, however, that the new OIC:

“will not replace the existing bureaus in the

execution of the various international responsibilities. ’

The Order gives OIC a broad mandate for

coordinating the FCC’s international telecommunication policy development, and OIC’s activities are

not confined to spectrum-related or WARC preparation issues. However, the ironically constrained

nature of this mandate has caused several problems

in the early life of the Office relating to its

international spectrum activities. First, although the

FCC received more than 300 resumes for seven

professional positions, it was apparently difficult to

attract staff who were experienced in international

spectrum matters. While the FCC has a wealth of

highly skilled personnel with extensive expertise in

international radiocommunications, many observers

believe that senior FCC staffers with such background were wary of moving to the new Office either

because of the short life of the conference preparation group in the early 1980s or because they

prefered to remain in active policymaking roles

rather than merely coordinating policy development.

Also, concern that the bureaus would not be able to

replace the experienced staff who moved to OIC

may have slowed the staffing of the Office. For

whatever reason, a senior international engineer was

not hired (from outside the FCC) until almost a year

after OIC was created.

Second, OIC has had difficulty establishing its

role and functions in regard to international spectrum matters, especially in its early months. On one

hand, the emphasis in the Order establishing OIC on

‘‘coordination’ may unduly narrow the scope of

747 CFR 0.5 (1990).

81bid.
Chapter 4-Domestic Preparations Processor WARC-92 ● 79

OIC’s activities in policy development, and hamper

its efforts to effectively address the problems

identified in the Order. Many radiocommunication

policy observers feel the office does not have enough

power to set policy and lacks strong institutional

authority. It is important to reiterate, however, that

the stated function of OIC is not to decide policy, but

only to:

provide coordination among Bureaus and Offices

with regard to development and representation of

international policy and participation in international

conferences.9

This function leaves unclear exactly what kind of

input OIC can have in the policy development

process, and what role the Office can or will play in

setting international radiocommunication policy. A

more aggressive mandate may be needed to ensure

the long-term effectiveness of the Office. Other

observers, however, complain that OIC has sometimes gone beyond its mandate in presenting FCC

positions abroad and has claimed too much power

for itself in international negotiations.

In the long run, it is unclear how strong a role OIC

will be able to play within the FCC in establishing

priorities for bureau activities in support of international conferences. The FCC maintains that OIC has

sufficient authority to carry out its mandates, and

that the Office’s ability to fulfill its functions is no

longer in question. The Commission, for example,

points to OIC’s success in integrating the views of

the FCC on a number of matters, including specific

WARC-92 issues and the planning of bilateral

meetings with other countries on telecommunication

matters. Without direct lines of authority, however,

the ability of OIC to direct the bureaus’ work in

preparation for international conferences and effectively coordinate preparation activities is still uncertain. The required level of cooperation and coordination will depend on the interpersonal relationships

between the Director of OIC and the bureau chiefs.

Some analysts believe that OIC will not be able to to

pull together the various constituencies that characterize the bureaus. These constituencies can cause

conflict between bureaus on specific courses of

action, and it is not clear that OIC yet has the power

or ability to meld these opinions into coherent,

unfiled FCC positions.

Finally, because OIC’s mandate encompasses all

international communication issues, of which WARC

preparation is only one part, some analysts are

concerned that WARC-related activities may suffer

if adequate staff or funds are not assigned to them.

The interests of the Director will determine how

effective and aggressive OIC is in developing and

coordinating spectrum policy. On the other hand, the

increasing recognition of the importance of international spectrum decisions for domestic telecommunications policy and the potential regularization of

the radiocommunication conference structure of the

ITU may give added impetus to OIC’s spectrum

activities.

Although the role of OIC in international spectrum activities is still evolving, some of its specific

functions are beginning to jell. OIC’s main role in

international spectrum activities will be to represent

the FCC in bilateral negotiations and at conferences.

It will also act as a “traffic cop,” for the bureaus

involved in international activities, coordinating

their activities, and sifting through the positions of

various constituencies. It will have to continue to

work closely with OET to develop international

spectrum policy, a functional arrangement that

mirrors the division of responsibility between NTIA’s

Offices of International Affairs and Spectrum Management (see below). Finally, OIC will serve as the

principal liaison between the FCC, NTIA and State

Department on international spectrum matters. Currently, the director of OIC and the chief engineer are

meeting with their counterparts in NTIA and the

State Department to coordinate the upcoming bilateral negotiations the United States will conduct in

preparation for WARC-92.

Because OIC is relatively new, and because the

Office and its staff are still settling in and staking out

their own role in the U.S. international radiocommunication policy process, the long-term future of OIC

is far from clear. As a creation of Chairman Sikes,

and with little institutional memory or historical

power, the Office could conceivably be disbanded

when he leaves the Commission. At this relatively

early stage in its life, OIC is very dependent on

high-level support for effectiveness. An important

determining factor in the long-term success of the

Office will be how effective the Director is in

carving out a specific role and responsibilities, both

within the FCC and in relation to NTIA and the State

947 cm ().51 (1990).
80 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Department, and how effectively these responsibilities are carried out. Winning over skeptics outside

the FCC will take time and effort as the Office

continues to mature. Ensuring continuity in both

OIC’s staff and policies, and maintaining cooperative working relationships with NTIA, the State

Department, and the private sector will be critical in

determining the long-term success of OIC.

WARC Preparation Activities

The FCC’s role in the WARC preparation process

is to represent the interests of the public and gather

private sector views on the specific WARC items.

The Commission uses a number of mechanisms to

collect this information.

Inquiry Process—The primary method the FCC

uses to gather information is its public inquiry

process. Before making a decision, the FCC publishes a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in the Federal

Register that discusses the background of the

issue(s) addressed in the notice and poses questions

about possible courses of action the Commission

might take. The public is invited to file comments

with the Commission that will be considered in

reaching a final decision, which takes the form of a

final Report.

For WARC-92, the Commission issued a series of

three NOIs.10 The first, released in December 1989,

sought comments on the proposed agenda for the

upcoming WARC (the final WARC-92 agenda was

not adopted by the ITU A dministrative Council until

June 1990) and proposals regarding frequency needs

for several services including high frequency broadcasting, mobile services, BSS-Sound, HDTV, and

new space services. In September 1990, the Commission adopted a Second NOI in response to the

specific agenda released by the ITU. The Second

NOI sought comments on the expanded agenda

items and reaction to specific proposals for U.S.

positions that had been developed up to that point.

A Supplemental NOI was released in March 1991

further refining questions in the Second NOI, but

primarily concentrating on digital audio broadcasting (BSS-Sound), Mobile Satellite Services (MSS),

low-Earth orbiting satellites (LEOS), and future

public land mobile telecommunication systems

(FPLMTS). In June 1991, the Commission released

a Report that outlines final FCC recommendations to

the State Department on the positions the United

States should take on each WARC agenda item.11

Combined with input from NTIA, these recommendations were used to establish the official U.S.

proposals for WARC-92.

In addition to the WARC inquiry, the Commission has several other proceedings or formal inquiries underway that overlap with the issues addressed

in the WARC inquiry. 12 How the VariOUS proceedings affect each other, and the degree that domestic

decisions will conform to the international allocations made at WARC-92 is uncertain. Submitting

proposals to the WARC does not commit the United

States to using a service authorized at the conference, nor does it commit the United States to use the

same frequencies domestically. It will be possible

after the WARC is completed for the FCC to conduct

any proceedings necessary to implement disputed

services. For example, it seems unlikely that the

Commission will propose rules allocating and governing personal communication services before

international agreements are reached at the WARC.

In the case of BSS-Sound and LEOS, several

applications have been filed at the FCC to provide

such services (see app. C), and the FCC has received

comments regarding those applications. This should

give the Commission some (limited) sense about the

public interest implications for this service. However, because of the short time involved, WARC

positions had to be established before a full Commission proceeding could be concluded.

The result is that the FCC’s WARC inquiry

process has superseded Commission action on other

matters. For example, the NOIs contained proposals

for LEOS systems. However, the FCC has conducted no formal proceedings to determine the

public interest requirements, parameters, and standards for these services. 13 Critics charge that the

IOFede~ co~ficatiom Co-ssion, ‘hlnquiry Relating to preparation for the IntermtionaJ Telecommunication Union World Administrative

Radio Conference for Dealing With Frequency Allocations in Certain Parts of the Spectrum,” Gen Docket No. 89-554, Notice of Inguiry, 4 FCC Rcd

8546 (1989); Second Notice of Inquiry, 5 FCC Rcd 6046 (1990); Supplemental Norice of Znquiry, 6 FCC Rcd 1914 (1991).

ll~e~ort, op. cit., footnote 6“

12~ong o~em, fiese include NotiCm of@@ for perso~ communication services and digi~ audio broadcasting and application prOCtXdingS

for LEOS (above and below 1 GHz), HF broadcasting, MSS, HDTV, and PCS for data applications.

ls~e FCC ~s, however, plac~ on public notice and received comments on applications for such SwiWS and petitiom for R~e_g tit ~ve

been filed seeking Commission action on allocations and service rules for LEOS systems (below 1 GHz).
Chapter 4-Domestic Preparations Processor WARC-92 ● 81

Commission skipped a step by bypassing the vital

public interest part of the process. Instead of

deciding these issues in the proper domestic context

(a separate NOI), the FCC has forced interested

parties to fight a battle of filings in the WARC

proceeding, unnecessarily cluttering the preparation

process. Critics believe that the Commission has

assumed for the purposes of the WARC that these

services are in the best interests of the country and

has gone about formulating positions to support

them. They also contend that this amounts to the

FCC prejudging the issue—granting unfair advantage to some service providers over others.

The FCC was caught in a problem of timing.

There may not have been enough time for the

Commission to complete a full inquiry into LEOS

systems and services. This concern is complicated

by the fact that LEOS systems operating at frequencies above 1 GHz were not even proposed until well

after the WARC inquiry had begun. There is also

concern in the FCC that completing a domestic

proceeding would reduce the flexibility of U.S.

proposals at the WARC. FCC actions on personal

communications services (PCS) and digital audio

broadcasting (DAB) may provide a model for how

such issues could be worked out in the future. In

these cases, domestic proceedings were begun, but

are not expected to be completed before the WARC

concludes. The results of WARC-92 will be used as

input to the domestic process before a final decision

on these services is reached.

The FCC Commissioners vote on the final Report

that outlines the Commission’s recommendations to

the State Department on WARC-92 issues. While

the Commissioners’ staffs track the issues involved

and the development of the proposals, it is not clear,

given the wide range of important topics the

Commissioners must address, how closely individual Commissioners have been able to follow WARC

preparations or how knowledgeable they are about

the technologies, services, and issues involved.

Some participants in the WARC preparations have

expressed disappointment that the Commissioners

were not more actively involved in the preparations

process, given the broad scope and long-term

importance of WARC-92 issues.

Industry Advisory Committee—In addition to the

formal inquiry process, the FCC created an Industry

Advisory Committee (IAC) in January 1990 to

provide direct private sector input to the Commission on WARC matters. The IAC actually played a

dual role in the FCC’s WARC preparation process.

It was a commenter on the NOIs and it developed

some of the proposals later included in the FCC’s

final Report. Thirty-five representatives were named

to the IAC, representing all areas of the private

sector, including manufacturers, service providers,

and user groups. 14 The Committee was cochaired by

FCC Commissioner Sherrie Marshall and Frank

Urbany of BellSouth. The IAC’s task was to

consider the needs of the U.S. private sector for the

WARC, discuss the recommendations proposed by

the FCC in its NOI proceeding, and propose possible

WARC positions. The IAC submitted its final report

to the FCC in April 1991; its charter expires in

November 1991.

The IAC split its substantive work into three

Informal Working Groups (IWGs), a technical

committee and a regulatory committee (see figure

4-2). IWG-1 dealt with WARC issues in the 3-30-

MHz band, primarily the HF broadcasting issues.

IWG-2 dealt with some of the most controversial

issues on the agenda, those in the 500-3000-MHz

band (0.5-3 GHz), including LEOS, BSS-Sound,

Mobile Satellite Service, and FPLMTS. IWG-2

created four Ad Hoc groups (A to D), to consider

each of these issues separately. IWG-3 considered

items on the agenda in the frequency bands above 10

GHz, including HDTV. The technical and regulatory

committees played little role in the IAC process

since most of their responsibilities were accomplished in the three IWGs. Participation in the

substantive work of the IWGs was open to the

public-not just members of the IAC-and was very

broad.

The IAC played a crucial role in the development

of the FCC’s proposals for final WARC positions.

Its work, however, is difficult to characterize. At first

glance, it appears that the IAC was supposed to

develop unified industry positions and present them

to the FCC. In this regard, the IAC was successful in

some areas (HF broadcasting), but not in others

(MSS allocations). Because the IAC failed to reach

14some ~&=mer~ ~ve noted tit tie MC is composed ptiy of tr~itio~ telecommunications companies, who are heavy users of fXkt@

services. Proponents of innovative services, they claim, were fewer in number. Given the number of new proposals advanced and defended in the IAC

process, this claim is doubtful.
82 ● WARC.92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Figure 4-2—Organizational Structure of the Industry Advisory Committee

Co-chairs

Committee of the Whole

1 I I 1

El@mlE IWG-5

Regulatory

KEY: IWG=lnterim Working Group; HF=high frequency; UHF=ultrahigh frequency; SHF=superhigh frequency; LEOS=low-earth orbiting satellites;

FPLMTS-future public land mobile telecommunication systems; BSS-Sound-broadcast satellite service-sound.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment and Federal Communications Commission, 1991.

consensus on many issues, some observers have

expressed disappointment with final IAC outcomes.

The contentious nature of many of the issues made

consensus a nearly impossible goal.

Some, however, argue that the IAC was never

conceived to be a decisionmaking body and that

expecting common industry positions to be developed for all issues is unrealistic-too many competing, parochial interests were involved. Some observers have even characterized the IAC process as little

more than “make believe,”an exercise with little

hope of success. The reality of the situation lies

somewhere in between. The IAC was successful in

negotiating some unified positions, but the conflicting demands of different industries, the participation

of a large number of representatives, and the more

complex nature of domestic radiocommunications

made consensus impossible to achieve in other

areas.

The most important factor limiting the IAC’s

ability to determine common industry positions was

its operation as a consensus body with members who

were proponents and opponents of certain services

and technologies. Further, participation in the substantive work of the IWGs was a self-selecting

process. These factors led to a belief among many

observers that some of the participants involved

were more interested in advancing their own parochial interests than in developing consensus or

working for the overall benefit of the United States.

These problems were complicated because there was

no formal mechanism to finally resolve disputes. On

some issues, closure was not possible. Some have

suggested that issues should be decided by voting.

Once a vote is polled, all parties would have to abide

by the decision of the group. A number of problems

complicate such an approach. Votes might be traded

on various issues, thereby further politicizing the

process. In addition, practical questions remain,

such as what should constitute agreement, a majority, two-thirds, unanimous?

The real value of the IAC is not gauged by the

number of issues it settled or formal industry

positions it developed, rather it is the process and

work of the IAC itself. The IAC contributed

substantially to FCC deliberations on a number of

levels. First, the IAC provided the private sector a
Chapter 4-Domestic Preparations Processor WARC-92 ● 83

public forum to discuss and debate their ideas and

proposals face-to-face. The IAC process stimulated

discussion, prompted technical studies, narrowed

issues, and refined industry requirements, giving

industry representatives a chance to resolve disagreements and present a united front to the FCC.

This open public interaction and negotiation speeded

the process, and raised the status of the IAC

proposals and recommendations. The IAC’s collective positions were more persuasive than individual

proposals would have been. The IAC process

reduced the chaos of dealing with individual proposals by weeding out the least desirable-presenting

the FCC with a more cogent, limited selection of

options than it would have gotten in the NOI process.

Another important benefit of the IAC deliberations was the wealth of technical material it produced. Early in the WARC preparations process,

much of the regulatory and technical analysis came

from industry in the form of technical requirements

for services and technical studies. These studies

relieved the Commission of the pressure of responding to every proposal and petition with its own

technical and regulatory analysis. In relation to

LEOS, for example, geostationary satellite service

providers and the FCC were initially concerned that

the new LEOS services operating in frequencies

below 1 GHz would interfere with existing services.

The Commission indicated that without a study

showing the feasibility of sharing, new systems

might not be approved. Industry did the study and

negotiations progressed. This background was extremely valuable to the FCC in reaching final

decisions. 15 In relation to LEOS systems above 1

GHz, concerns about the ability of the proposed

systems to share the spectrum with other (geostationary satellite) MSS providers have not been

resolved.

Finally, the meetings of the IAC and the IWGs

provided an invaluable opportunity for informal

contacts between IAC/IWG participants and FCC

staff. FCC representatives were usually present at

the meetings of the IAC and its working groups—

allowing for an important informal exchange of

views and discussions between industry and FCC

representatives. Representatives from NTIA also

attended many of the meetings, providing indirect

input to NTIA from the private sector.

The members of the IAC and the IWGs were

generally happy with the FCC participation in their

activities and felt that the process was effective

within limits. Their opinions on the outcome of the

IAC process, however, reflected the ambiguous

nature of the IAC noted above. Different observers

had different expectations. These differing opinions,

in turn, reflect a lack of clarity as to what the IAC

could realistically accomplish. In retrospect, it is

unclear what the IAC’s function was really supposed

to be. If the IAC is to develop or represent

consolidated industry positions, it may have to be

constituted differently, or require a change in

working and decisionmaking styles. In the future,

the FCC must clearly establish its expectations for

such private sector groups.

Implications

The WMC preparation process has become more

difficult over the last decade. Several factors are

affecting the FCC’s ability to execute its WARC role

effectively. First, the FCC and the WARC preparation process have been significantly affected by the

rapid pace of technology development. In the past,

there were fewer technologies and services, private

sector interests were less divisive, and fewer government staffers were involved. Today, the FCC must

consider the views of a larger number of private

sector participants and reconcile increasingly diverse views with those of the Federal Government.

Second, FCC officials have little more access to

government spectrum use data than the private

sector. It is extremely difficult for both the Commission and the private sector to develop proposals for

the WARC without adequate information. In the

case of L-band proposals (see ch. 1), for example, the

Federal Government, through NTIA, has made the

use of these bands almost non-negotiable. There is

no way for the FCC to independently determine

exactly which frequencies are being used, how

much, or if they are being used efficiently.lG There

is concern in the Commission and the private sector

that the FCC does not have adequate information to

make informed decisions in such cases.

IsSome advocate making such studies amoxe integralpartof the IAC process from tie vewbeg inning. This could improve the efficiency of the process

and allow more timely discussion and decisions.

~GNegotiators in tie executive ~~ch claim tit similar problems of access exist for (h@ on COmInerCid spw~ use.
84 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Third, the FCC lacks the personnel and financial

resources to effectively and efficiently prepare for

the 1992 (or a future) WARC. There are few staff

members assigned exclusively to WARC preparations. The technical staff working on WARC issues

are spread throughout the agency, according to their

individual specialties. This has two effects. First,

staff have regular duties in addition to WARC

preparations; they cannot devote their full time and

attention to WARC preparations. Second, staff have

several constituencies to represent, including the

industry they regulate as well as the bureau they

work for. Internal dissension among staff over

domestic policy and resources may preclude timely

and effective policymaking in regard to the WARC.

Finally, the FCC serves political constituencies

and interests as do other government agencies, and

political factors can play a major role in deciding

which proposals go forward and which do not.

Decisions are not always based on solely technical

merit or the public interest. The case of LEOS is an

example. There has been no domestic public interest

assessment of LEOS, nor is there evidence of broad

global support for such a system. LEOS systems

(operating in the frequencies above 1 GHz) are not

even explicitly included in the WARC-92 agenda.

Nevertheless, the United States will support LEOS

above 1 GHz through its proposal to allocate

spectrum to MSS applications, where there appears

to be greater need and more widespread support for

additional spectrum.17

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

Description

The NTIA is responsible for developing and

promoting executive branch telecommunications

policy. It is to:

serve as the President’s principal adviser on

telecommunications policies, [and] provide for the

coordination of the telecommunications activities of

the Executive Branch.18

It is also the agency responsible for administering

the Federal Government’s use of the radio frequency

spectrum. In this role it works closely with the FCC

to coordinate the National Table of Frequency

Allocations. 19

In the international arena, Executive Order 12,046

defines the responsibilities of NTIA:

The Secretary of Commerce shall develop and set

forth, in coordination with the Secretary of State and

other interested agencies, plans, policies and programs which relate to international telecommunications issues, conferences, and negotiations. The

Secretary of Commerce shall coordinate economic,

technical, operational and related preparations for

United States participation in international telecommunications conference and negotiations. The Secretary shall provide advice and assistance to the

Secretary of State on international telecommunications policies to strengthen the position and serve the

best interests of the United States, in support of the

Secretary of State’s responsibility for the conduct of

foreign affairs.20

NTIA plays a substantial role in the WARC

preparation process. As the agency responsible for

managing the Federal Government’s use of the radio

frequency spectrum, NTIA oversees the preparation

of Federal Government WARC proposals and coordinates executive branch policies with the FCC.

NTIA’s work in the preparation process culminates

with a final report similar to the FCC’s (in form and

content) that is submitted to the State Department for

integration into the final U.S. WARC proposals.

Structure

Prior to 1983, all international spectrum activities

were handled by NTIA’s Office of Spectrum Management (OSM). In 1983 NTIA created the Office of

International Affairs (OIA), which now has primary

responsibility for international telecommunication

policy (see figure 4-3). At the same time, a Conference Preparatory Program (similar to the group

established in the FCC) was established within OIA

specifically to coordinate international conference

preparations and WARC-related activities. The program was abolished several years later as part of a

general reorganization of NTIA. NTIA believed, as

did the FCC with its group (see above), that such

activities could be convened as needed. Today, one

person in OIA coordinates most of NTIA’s preparaITSee ch. 1 for a more complete discussion of the controversy surrounding LEOS (above 1 Gfi) at WmC-92.

lsEx~utive ordti NO. 12,04.6, op. cit., footnote 2, sections 2-401 and 245, P. %87.

l~e Natio~ Table of Fr~uency AUo=tiom combines the U.S. Government Table of Allocations and the FCC Table of AlkXations.

~xecutive Order No. 12,046, op. cit., footnote 2, section 2404, p. 9687.
Figure 4-3-Organization of the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Administrator

I Deputy Administrator I I

I

J

I I I

● Manages Federal use of spectrum to ensure efficiency and

effectiveness

o Makes approximately 80,000 frequency assignments

annually

● Reviews major planned systems to ensure spectrum

availability

“ Chairs the 23-agency interdepartment radio

advisory committee (IRAC), which plans for future use

of Federal Government spectrum

● Provides technical expertise to support U.S. participation in

international telecommunications spectrum conferences

● WARC ’92

 HF broadcasting WARCS

r I

Office of Policy Analysis

and Development

Office of

International

Affairs

“ Develops and advocates international telecommunications

policies

“ Separate satellite systems

o COMSAT instructional process

 Liberalization of foreign telecommunications regulation

● Coordinates U.S. preparation for, and participation in,

international conferences

● CCITT/CIR standards

● WARC ’92

 HF broadcasting WARCS

● ASEAN conference

● Participates in bilateral telecommunications trade negotiations

● Provides technical/policy assistance to developing countries

KEY: CClTT=lnternational Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee; CCIR=lnternational Radio Consultative Committee; HF=high frequency; ASEAN=Association of Southeast Asian

Nations.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment and National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1991.
86 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

tions for WARC-92, with help from individuals in

both OIA and OSM. OSM continues to supply

extensive policy advice and technical assistance to

OLA in WARC matters, and is responsible for the

day-to-day spectrum management activities of the

Federal Government (see figure 4-3). OSM also

leads NTIA’s participation in the activities of the

International Radio Consultative Coremittee (CCIR)

(see ch. 3). Other government agencies, including

Voice of Americaj National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the FCC, provide technical WARC support

through papers and technical studies.

In addition to the coordination and technical work

done by OIA and OSM, several other entities within

the Department of Commerce and NTIA have roles

in the WARC-92 preparations process.

Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee—

The Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee

(IRAC) predates NTIA, having been established in

June 1922.21 The IRAC advises the Secretary of

Commerce on spectrum matters and is the principal

forum through which Federal Government spectrum

activities are coordinated and managed.22 Currently,

the IRAC has approximately 20 members from

Federal Government agencies and a liaison from the

FCC. The organization of the IRAC includes three

permanent subcommittees (Frequency Assignment,

Spectrum Planning, and Technical) and a number of

ad hoc committees that study specific spectrum

issues. IRAC meetings are not open to the public for

security reasons, although a public comment/

presentation period has been added to the beginning

of each meeting.

Ad Hoc 206-Within the IRAC, Ad Hoc Committee 206 was established in mid-1989 to coordinate

executive branch preparations for WARC-92, and

was responsible for developing Federal Government

proposals for the WARC. Since it is a subcommittee

of IRAC, membership in Ad Hoc 206 is limited to

government agencies (approximately 15 Federal

agencies actively participated in the work of Ad Hoc

206), and because of the classified nature of many of

the issues addressed, the public was not allowed to

attend meetings. Ad Hoc 206 was chaired by NTIA’s

Office of International Affairs, and divided its work

into four subgroups: high frequency (3-30 MHz), 1-3

GHz, above 20 GHz, and international regulatory

affairs, each also chaired by NTIA staff from either

OSM or OIA. The work of these groups was closely

coordinated with the official FCC liaison to facilitate

the development of common positions and FCC

staffers also acted as liaisons with the four substantive subgroups. Ad Hoc 206 finished its work in May

1991. It is still in force, but inactive.

The objective of Ad Hoc 206 was to develop U.S.

government proposals for WARC-92. The group

developed papers that were submitted to OIA,

OSM, and IRAC; prepared position papers for

meetings of the CCIR’s study groups (see ch. 3); and

provided input to the U.S. group preparing for the

Inter-American Telecommunications Conference

(CITEL) Working Group meetings. Although IRAC/

Ad Hoc 206 is the titular focal point of executive

branch WARC preparations, it is important to note

that the IRAC group itself does not develop proposals. Individual members draft proposals that are then

reviewed and reworked in Ad Hoc 206. IRAC/Ad

Hoc 206 served more as a controller, enabling the

various agencies to forward their positions for

response by others. In addition, IRAC/Ad Hoc 206

did not develop detailed proposals on all WARC-92

issues. It concentrated primarily on issues directly

related to Federal Government activities, such as the

space service proposals. In the case of proposals

involving commercial or private sector interests,

such as the mobile services, the FCC took the lead

in drafting proposals that were then shared with

NTIA/IRAC/Ad Hoc 206. This division of labor has

prompted some critics in the private sector to

complain that IRAC and Ad Hoc 206 functioned

mostly as reviewers or censors, passing or blocking

specific proposals, and that much of the substantive

work was actually done by staff of the FCC and

members of industry.

Frequency Management Advisory Council/Spectrum Planning Advisory Committee—The Frequency Management Advisory Council (FMAC)

was established in 1965 to provide private sector

advice to the executive branch agency responsible

for managing government use of the spectrum-first

the Office of Telecommunications Policy within the

zlFor more info~tion on euly IR4C and spec~ allocatio~ see Stanley D. Metzger and Bernie R. Burrus, ‘ ‘Radio Frequency moeation in the

Public Interest: Federal Government and Civilian Use,” Dzquesne University Luw

Review, vol. 4, No. 1, 1965-66, pp. 1-96.

22For more info~tion on tie role of Wc, see NTIA, U.S. Spectrum Management pOliCy, op. cit., footnote 3.
Chapter 4-Domestic Preparations Processor WARC-92 ● 87

White House, and beginning in 1978, NTIA. April

1991, the FMAC was rechartered as the Spectrum

Planning Advisory Committee.

The original FMAC was composed of 15 to 20

representatives from industry appointed by the

Secretary of Commerce for 2-year terms. Membership included individuals with technical or administrative experience in spectrum matters—with

balance of views. The FMAC was directed to:

review, as appropriate, recommendations of the

IRAC; review the progress of electromagnetic compatibility programs; and provide recommendations

for United States positions on spectrum matters with

respect to International Telecommunication Union

conferences. 23

a

The Chair of the FMAC was the Associate Administrator of OSM.

Historically, the role of the FMAC was limited.

Without a statutory base of power outside the

informal backing of the Administrator of NTIA, the

aggressiveness of the FMAC in pursuing outside,

private sector interests was diminished. Agendas for

FMAC activities were set by NTIA through the

Chair, making the Chair extremely important in

guiding the Council and determining its aggressiveness. As a result, the FMAC was primarily a reactive

body, responding to the initiatives and requests of

NTIA. In large part, the activism of the FMAC

reflected and depended on the activism of NTIA as

a whole. The current Administrator of NTIA, Janice

Obuchowski, emphasizes the role of the private

sector, so the FMAC was perhaps the focus of

greater attention during her tenure than in the past.

Over its lifetime, subcommittees of the FMAC

examined specific issues (in response to NTIA

interests), such as trunkming for government agencies

and CITEL (see below), but, by and large, the FMAC

did little substantive work. The one area in which the

FMAC had substantial input was in NTIA’s study of

U.S. spectrum management. Council members

worked closely with NTIA over the course of the

study and provided advice on implementing the

recommendations in the report. The FMAC’s role in

preparing for WARC-92 was limited, because positions for the Council to respond to were not

finalized. The FMAC was also not deeply involved

in past WARCs, although it was active in preparing

for Plenipotentiary Conferences. The FMAC on

several occasions, however, indicated strongly the

need to establish delegations for WARCs sooner,

and for the United States to reevaluate its policies

regarding zero budget growth for the ITU.

Many felt that the FMAC could have been more

effective in presenting its views and that the

members of the FMAC, highly qualified and experienced individuals, could reflect the views of industry

effectively if given the opportunity. Members garnered prestige by serving on the FMAC and turnover

was low. Many recommendations contained in the

 spectrum report involve “opening” the Federal process to more private sector involvement, and

the FMAC was the focus for several of those

recommendations. The report proposed, for example, to broaden the membership of the FMAC to

include government representatives, and to:

. . . expand its role to include a strategic planning

function. . . This advisory committee could address

both specific, immediate problems and long-term

issues to assist NTIA and the FCC in developing

rational, unified spectrum management plans and

policies based on the best interests of the nation as a

whole. 24

As a result of these recommendations, in April 1991,

the FMAC was rechartered as the Spectrum Planning Advisory Committee. While the basic functions

of the FMAC were carried over to the new Committee, its mandate was broadened to include a strategic

planning function and its membership was expanded

to include government representatives.25 It will still

function only in an advisory capacity.

FMAC Subcommittee—In addition to the activities related to WARC-92, NTIA also examined the

functions and effectiveness of CITEL (see box 3-B)

in relation to regional and U.S. telecommunication

interests. A special subcommittee of the FMAC was

established in July 1990 to prepare draft proposals

for the CITEL VI conference scheduled for Septemm~, U.S. Specmm Management Policy, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 27.

‘Ibid, p. 28.

25~e new Cotittee ~1 ~omi~t of 15 Pfivate sector ~presentatives and 4 Fed~~ Gov~nment participants, ~ch appointed for a l-year t-. The

Committee is expected to meet at least twice a year or more, if necessiuy.
88 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

ber 1991.26 The subcommittee’s approximately 30

members were mostly from the private sector, but

government representatives from the NTIA, FCC,

State Department, NASA, National Science Foundation, and U.S. Information Agency also participated.

Members of the subcommittee regard the working

partnership between government and private sector

representatives leading to the development of U.S.

proposals as a major accomplishment. The subcommittee examined the organization of CITEL, evaluated U.S. interests in the conferences, and discussed

the role CITEL could play in future regional and

international telecommunications policymaking.27

Upon presentation of its final report to NTIA, the

work of the subcommittee was finished and it was

abolished in April 1991.

The work of the subcommittee reflects the growing importance of Latin America and the Caribbean

in international telecommunications negotiations,

especially in the ITU. The changes suggested by the

subcommittee are too late to affect planning for

WARC-92, but there is increasing pressure in the

government to improve the effectiveness of CITEL

in order to forge stronger common positions for the

Western Hemisphere at future world conferences.

Many in the United States see CITEL as a way to

counter the increasing power of the European

countries in international radiocommunications, and

an improved CITEL could give the United States

another (stronger) forum for pursuing its agendas at

future WARCs. Private sector interest in CITEL

reflects the growing importance of the region as a

market for telecommunications equipment and services. Many members of the private sector as well as

government policymakers from the United States

and other countries of the region view CITEL as a

valuable forum for discussing the region’s telecommunication needs and addressing common telecommunication issues.

Implications

To the outsider, the conference preparatory structure at NTIA seems mostly informal and ill-defined.

While preparation procedures do exist, the long

experience and collegiality of the staff is vital in

allowing the process to work effectively. This

process works now, but staff turnover through job

changes or retirement and the lack of younger

experienced staff could devastate the process. Possible changes in the ITU and regularization of

conference schedules present an opportunity for

NTIA to reevaluate its conference preparatory structure and processes.

The process for coordinating the exchange of

views between NTIA and FCC is structured but also

largely informal. The FCC’s liaison to the IRAC also

serves as the liaison to Ad Hoc 206, and other

members of the Commission staff work with the four

subgroups. NTIA staff (usually the chairs of the

subgroups) attended meetings of the IAC and the

IWGs to get informal private sector input and work

with FCC staff in developing government positions.

Much informal work took place between NTIA and

the private sector Chair of the IAC.

NTIA has been criticized in a number of areas for

its spectrum management practices and policy

development. % In contrast to the FCC inquiry

process and the role of the IAC, which are considered accessible and open to the public, the WARC

preparation process at NTIA, and more broadly

among all government agencies, is widely seen as

closed off from public participation. In its recent

report, NTIA recommended several changes that

could substantially improve the domestic spectrum

management process-changes that could alter the

ways in which WARC preparations are conducted.

Some of these changes have already been implemented. To increase private sector participation in

its activities, for example, NTIA has begun opening

IRAC meetings with a public comment/presentation

period. This may broaden the domestic policymaking process-opening NTIA deliberations on international proceedings to greater public participation

and improving industry input into the Federal

Government’s WARC preparation process.

Several other improvements in the NTIA preparations process have been suggested. First, a full-time

permanent subcommittee of the IRAC responsible

for international radio conference preparations (sim-

~~t mee~g will Considm the organization tmd functioning Of the~conference structure and could recommend changes that would increase

CITEL’S stature and effectiveness-making it more of a force in regional and international (W?ARC) telecommunications policy.

zT~e subcornmitt=’s findings and recommenbtiom are deti~ in its fti report: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Tel=ommtications

and Information Administratio% ‘United States Preparations for the 1991 Inter-American Telecomtnunication Conference ICITEL], ” Washingto@ DC,

April 1991.

%lTIA itselfsummarized these criticisms in U.S. Spectrum Management Policy, op. cit., footnote 3.
Chapter 4-Domestic Preparations Processor WARC-92 ● 89

ilar to Ad Hoc 206) could be created. Second, the

Radio Conference Preparatory Program that existed

early in the 1980s could be revived. Expansion and

improvement of WARC activities will require additional personnel and funds that may be difficult to

get.

The arcane nature of international radiocommunication policymaking, combined with the relatively

low level occupied by NTIA in the Department of

Commerce structure have made it difficult for NTIA

to pursue international spectrum issues as aggressively as some would like. For the past several years,

for example, a battle (for staff and resources) has

been fought within the Department of Commerce

between NTIA/OIA and the trade sections over

responsibility for international telecommunications

trade. A failed attempt was made in 1989 to subsume

NTIA under another division within the Department

of Commerce. Such a demotion would have made it

even more difficult for NTIA to carry out its

international activities. Raising the status of NTIA

—through clarification or amendment of Executive

Order 12,046-could remedy some of the problems

of funding and prestige. In July 1991, H.R. 3031, the

NTIA Organization and Authorization Act, was

introduced. This legislation, if passed by the Congress, would codify the authority of NTIA as

outlined in Executive Order 12,046, and could add

legitimacy to its policy role.

Description

According

Department of State

to Executive Order 12,046, the role of

the State Department in international telecommunications is to represent the United States at international meetings:

With respect to telecommunications, the Secretary of State shall exercise primary authority for the

conduct of foreign policy, including the determination of United States positions and the conduct of

United States participation in negotiations with

foreign governments and international bodies. In

exercising this responsibility the Secretary of State

shall coordinate with other agencies as appropriate,

and, in particular, shall give full consideration to the

Federal Communications Commission’s regulatory

and policy responsibility in this area.29

Compared to the FCC and NTIA, the State

Department’s role in the WARC preparation process

is limited, especially in the initial stages. It helps

determine the broad directions and focal points of

overall U.S. policy and attends the meetings of the

IRAC, but does not actively participate in the

development of specific proposals, leaving that

work to the FCC and NTIA. The State Department

monitors the preparations process and helps resolve

disputes, but its most important function early in the

preparations process is representing the United

States, with technical support from the FCC and

NTIA, at preliminary bilateral and multilateral

international negotiations. The State Department

also coordinates U.S. WARC activities with the ITU

and handles the procedural and administrative duties

related to the WARC, including correspondence

with the ITU, meeting deadlines, and submitting all

official documents.

The State Department becomes more active in

WARC preparations in the final stages of the

process. The Department is responsible for determining the official U.S. WARC proposals to be

submitted to the ITU based on the recommendations

of the FCC and NTIA. Usually, these recommendations are nearly identical, having been previously

coordinated by FCC and NTIA, but in some cases,

issues cannot be reconciled and are left unresolved.

In these cases, the Department has the authority to

set final proposals (see below for the case of

BSS-Sound in WARC-92 preparations) .30 The State

Department also is responsible for designating the

official U.S. delegation that will attend WARC-92

(based on lists submitted by FCC, NTIA, and the

State Department itself) and for appointing an

official Head of Delegation, who is granted temporary Ambassador status for the WARC.

The primary role of the State Department is to

promote U.S. interests and proposals abroad and to

ensure that they are presented as effectively as

possible. It represents U.S. interests in bilateral

meetings between the United States and other

countries and in multilateral fora such as CITEL and

the WARC itself. Its main contributions come,

however, after final proposals have been set, and the

United States turns its attention to the preparation of

negotiating strategies and preliminary negotiations.

The Department will act as the lead agency coordinat2%3xecutive Order No. 12,046, op. cit., footnote 2, aection 5-201, p.

me State Department doea no~ however, have the legal authority to overturn FCC and NTIA deterrninationa.
90 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

ing all negotiations in preparation for the WARC,

including the extensive travel and meetings scheduled for late 1991. At the WARC, the Head of the

U.S. delegation assisted by the State Department

will coordinate the presentation of U.S. policy in all

meetings.

In addition to its direct involvement in the

‘ preparations process, one of the more important

roles the State Department plays is its coordination

and oversight of the national CCIR and International

Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee

(CCITT) committees that function as advisory

bodies to the Department. It is through these

committees that technical papers written by domestic (often private sector) contributors are prepared,

reviewed, and submitted to the (international) CCIR

study groups (see ch. 3). The work of the study

groups, in turn, is crucial in the international

preparation for WARCs, establishing the technical

bases for the conferences.

Structure

Primary responsibility for international telecommunication policy rests with the Bureau of International Communications and Information Policy

(CIP), in the Office of the Under Secretary of State

for Economic Affairs. CIP was originally established by the Congress in 1982 as the Office of

United States Coordinator of International Communications. 31 The purpose of this legislation was to

establish:

. . . a central point within the State Department for

coordinating the increasingly important issues involving international telecommunications.32

The office was upgraded to its present Bureau

status in 1985, and is currently directed by Ambassador Bradley P. Holmes.

Responsibility within CIP for ITU and WARCrelated activities is diffused throughout the Bureau.

Specific activities are assigned to individual staff

members on the basis of experience and interest.

WARC preparation and U.S. participation in the

ITU’s High Level Committee (HLC), for example,

are being coordinated by Ambassador Holmes’

Senior Advisor, CCIR and CCITT activities by a

Deputy Director, and activities in CITEL and the

ITU’s Voluntary Group of Experts by other members of the staff. CIP has a very flat organizational

structure that operates more according to overlapping topics than to strict organizational boundaries.

CITEL activities, for example, are directly involved

in WARC preparations, and staff working in both

areas must coordinate closely. This is accomplished

through some formal meetings but mostly informally through internal personal interaction.33

Telecommunications Advisory Committee—The

State Department established a Telecommunications Advisory Committee in 1987 to provide

private sector input on telecommunications matters.

Membership consists of high-ranking representatives from major telecommunications companies.

The Committee has been following the proceedings

of the HLC, and was briefed by Ambassador Gerald

Helman, the U.S. representative to the ITU’s High

Level Committee, in April 1991. Input by the

Advisory Committee to the HLC process, however,

has been virtually nonexistent (see below), and in

matters relating to WARC-92, the impact of the

Advisory Committee is unclear. Some industry

representatives believe the Advisory Committee to

be mostly show, having little real impact on State

Department policy.

Implications

The work of the State Department and CIP in the

WARC preparation process is very important, but

the constrained nature of CIP’s role is the source of

many complications in the development and presentation of proposals, and has given rise to uncertainties concerning the Department’s (and CIP’s) effectiveness. CIP’s work is handicapped by several

factors. First, the technical nature of the WARCs

limits CIP’s contributions until late in the conference preparation process. CIP does not have sufficient technical staff or resources to become deeply

involved in the actual preparation of proposals. This

may make it difficult for CIP to substantially affect

the course of preparations. Second, it is not clear

from the mandates of Executive Order 12,046

exactly what role the State Department should play

Slfiblic ~w 98.164, Nov. 22, 1983.

Szu.s, Dep~entof State, ‘‘Bureauof Intermtional Communications and InformationPolicy,” Publication9860 (Washinton,DC: U.S. Government

Printing OffIce, March 1991.

33~ere is some ~ue~tion how ~xten~ive this ~temction ac~y can be. ~ staff is located b several different locations ~thh the I13tih Shlte

Department building.
Chapter 4-Domestic Preparations Processor WARC-92 ● 91

in setting international radiocommunication policy,

including the development of WARC proposals and

strategies. Critics have accused the Department of

not being aggressively or substantively involved in

the development of specific policies or issues. This

may result from several factors. Past Directors of

CIP may not have interpreted Executive Order

12,046 broadly, resulting in a lack of prominent

involvement. It is also possible, because of the way

responsibilities are divided, that NTIA and FCC

have, in the past, shut out (CIP or deflected its

attempts to become more involved earlier in the

process, thus discouraging more active involvement.

These factors have led critics to charge that CIP

contributes little leadership in radiocommunications

matters, preferring to wait and see how issues are

resolved rather than taking a leading policy role.

On the other hand, CIP staff have been accused of

overstepping their authority on occasion. Many of

CIP’s staff came from FCC and NTIA, are experienced in WARC activities, and are used to taking

more of an active role in the preparations process.

Such activism, however, is often rebuffed by NTIA

and FCC staff, who prefer to work out the technical

details themselves, turning issues over to CIP only

when specific problems arise. This conflict can carry

over to the conference itself, where NTIA and FCC

expect CIP staff to limit their activities to administrative matters and let NTIA and FCC technical

staffs handle the details of allocations and negotiations in the working groups and committees.

These “turf battles” give rise to tension in the

preparations process between the FCC, NTIA, and

the State Department. CIP staffers perceive themselves to be an important part of the process, but

there is belief among many FCC and NTIA staff that

CIP is little more than a rubber stamp for the work

accomplished in NTIA and FCC. They believe that

when CIP staff understand their own role, and its

limitations, the process works smoothly. If, however, CIP staff are perceived to overstep their

bounds, the other agencies consider them troublemakers. These problems stem from the vague

division of international telecommunications authority laid out in Executive Order 12,046. Until

roles are more clearly defined and coordination

mechanisms firmly in place, CIP’s activities will

continue to be buffeted by the forces of aggressiveness and passivity.

Several specific criticisms have been made about

the way CIP prepares for conferences. First, the

Department has been criticized-primarily by industry leaders—for forming delegations and naming

Heads of Delegations too late.34 Most critics would

prefer that the delegation be formed at least 9 months

before the WARC, to allow enough time for the

(private sector) delegates to understand the U.S.

government’s priorities and develop effective negotiating strategies and back-up positions. Even for

those delegates that served on the IAC or who have

been involved in the preparations process from the

beginning, there is a learning curve related to the

government’s plans for the WARC, and without

sufffcient lead time, delegates may not understand

what the government is trying to accomplish or what

the negotiation strategies entail. This reduces the

effectiveness of the delegation. As of midSeptember 1991, the final list of delegates had not

been released, although members had been notified

of their selection and had begun to meet. The Head

of Delegation, Jan Baran, was not officially announced until late August.

Another problem identified by analysts and past

participants is that the Head of Delegation changes

from conference to conference.35 Some have complained that lack of continuity makes it difficult for

the United States to establish long-term relationships at high levels that could enhance U.S. presence

and effectiveness in international meetings.36 On the

other hand, some observers play down the importance of such continuity, noting that the participants

in the delegations are relatively consistent over the

years. 37 Without long-lasting personal relationships

and trust, negotiation becomes more difficult.

~For ~ discu~~ion of tie ism= involved ~ putting togemer a &Jegatio& see U.S. congr~s, ~IIX of Tecllnolo~ &sessment, Radiofle~ency use

and Manugernent, OTA-CIT-163 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1982).

sso~er com~es often maintain Heads of Delegation across many CO~erenCeS.

36some believe hat tie FCC~s ~lce of ~tematio~ comm~~tiom is attempfig to fdl ~ gap, H @e, MS cotid be perceived u undermining

the State Department’s authority. More importantly, the problem indicates a leadership vacuum and the need for a focal point for U.S. spectrum dealings

abroad.

sv~o~~y, tie ~pid c~- of telecom~Wtiom offlci~s ~ ~ny of me ~fi ~eric~ co~tries k been identified by U.S. government

officials as one of the key problems affecting the effectiveness of CITEL.
92 ● WARC.92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Finally, some believe that the Head of Delegation

is more a political or honorary choice than a choice

based primarily on merit. Some Heads of Delegation

have had little or no telecommunication experience.

However, past Heads have proven to be extremely

competent. Troubles at conferences have more often

been attributed to institutional failures or lack of

effective preparation than to a lack of leadership at

the conference. These concerns apply also to the

delegation as a whole. The selection process is often

political. In addition to the government staff that

have been working on the WARC issues, many

members of industry wish to participate. The IAC

will form the core of the private sector’s participation, but there are too many people for too few spots.

Filling out the delegation is a matter of achieving a

political balance so that all interests are represented.

Although not specifically related to WARC-92

preparations, the State Department has been criticized for its handling of U.S. participation in the

activities of the HLC. While the Department was

seemingly open to comments from all interested

parties in and out of the government, the overall

impact of this input is uncertain. In addition,

although State Department staff and the Ambassador

were available to brief interested parties, there is still

a perception among some of those involved that the

progress and results of the HLC proceedings were

held closely. The consultant report the ITU commissioned, for example, was not released until the final

report of the HLC was released.38

Ambassador Helman had staff support from CIP,

FCC, and NTIA, but aside from the specific staffers

assigned to him, few other government officials had

direct input. The extent to which the staff from NTIA

and FCC affected the process is uncertain. Participation by the private sector in the HLC process was

even more limited, and the impact private sector

comments had is also unclear. One problem was the

extremely short time the HLC had to do its job and

the short periods of time the State Department had

for sending out proposals and receiving comments.

To oversee the progress of the HLC, both the

national CCITT and CCIR committees set up task

forces, but they simply could not respond quickly

enough in many cases to provide comprehensive

comments. Industry representative were illustrated

because the process was not open to public scrutiny,

making it difficult to judge how well input was

considered, and what goals the State Department

was pursuing. Industry was not privy to the ambassaor’s instructions and had no part in determining

final U.S. positions. Indifference or even outright

hostility of some members of the private sector to

changes in the ITU also may have contributed to

their lack of impact.

Private Sector and User Groups

Opportunities for Input

FCC-IAC, Notices of Inquiry—Participation of

the private sector in the preparation for WARC-92

has been extensive, and comments from both government and private sector representatives reveal

mostly satisfaction with the process and its outcomes. By almost all accounts the FCC takes careful

consideration of the work and recommendations of

the IAC as well as the comments received in

response to the NOIs. FCC staff attendance at the

meetings of the working groups fostered effective

cooperation and coordination between the Commission and the private sector. Nevertheless, several

changes have been suggested to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the IAC. Some have

suggested a switch from operating by competition

and negotiation to some form of formal voting. If the

objective of the IAC is to develop specific industry

proposals, voting may be a solution. But if the most

effective role of the IAC is to develop a wide range

of proposals and negotiate compromises, voting may

actually be harmful. Votes can be traded, voting does

not build the same support as negotiation, and

rivalries could be deepened rather than resolved.

Various industry sectors could try to “stack the

vote,’ and there are practical questions as to who

would be allowed to vote-members of the working

groups or only members of the IAC. Many private

sector representatives regard voting as counterproductive and there is some doubt that companies

would participate in such a forum, or support its

outcomes, when their positions could be summarily

defeated.

Although participation in the preparations process

by industry was extensive, the number of individuals

and companies involved was relatively small. There

is a great deal of overlap in the membership of

various private sector groups engaged in WARC

sgSee~ex2 inFti Repofl of tie Hi@~vel Committee (H.L.C.) to Review the Structure and Functioning of tiektmmtio@Telmommtication

Uniom “Tomorrow’s ITU: The Challenges of Change,” Document 145-E (Geneva: International Teleeommuoication Unio~ April 1991).
Chapter 4-Domestic Preparations Processor WARC-92 ● 93

preparatory activities. The industry participants in

the work of the IAC, for example, are roughly the

same as those who helped prepare U.S. positions for

the CITEL working group. Although there are no

rules against entry, the extent of small company

participation was limited. The majority of IAC

participants represent traditional radiocommunication companies and interests. Some other companies

with consultants or lawyers in Washington, DC are

also informed about the process, but many smaller

companies may remain uninformed or only vaguely

aware of the importance of the WARC proceedings

and how WARC outcomes may affect them. The

Telecommunication Industries Association, among

others, tries to bridge this gap for smaller companies

by representing those who cannot afford a private

consultant.

NTIA—Private sector/industry input to NTIA is

less extensive than the FCC. Three factors constrain

the private sector’ s role in executive branch proceedings. First, NTIA’s primary constituency (through

the IRAC) is not industry, but the Federal Government users of spectrum. As a result, NTIA seems

hampered by conflicting functions and mandates.

On the one hand, NTIA is the organ of administration telecommunications policy. This would imply

that policy decisions be made with input from all

relevant sectors of society, including industry, and

that a broad range of policy considerations be

integrated, including trade. On the other hand,

NTIA’s primary spectrum duties focus on representing only government interests. As an advocate for

the government, NTIA currently does not take direct

account of the needs of the private sector in spectrum

policy decisions.39 It is also possible in spectrum and

radiocommunication matters that government spectrum interests, represented by specific Federal agencies, will prevail over the less-focused interests of

trade, for example. NTIA is aware of private sector

concerns, and has taken steps to improve private

sector involvement in the policy development process, but current efforts to open the NTIA process are

too new to judge their effectiveness, and it remains

to be seen how well NTIA will be able to reconcile

its dual responsibilities to government users and

private sector interests in the future.

Second, much of the deliberations and decisionmaking processes of NTIA remain closed to the

public. IRAC meetings, which were previously

attended only by government representatives, have

only recently been opened to allow some private

sector participation. The new Spectrum Planning

Advisory Committee (SPAC, formerly the FMAC)

provides for private sector input to NTIA on

spectrum matters. However, the work of the group

has been much more limited in scope and participation than, for example, the LAC. By and large, the

FMAC fell short of private sector needs and

aspirations. Its ability to be an effective voice for the

private sector was limited by its narrow mandate and

the nature of the body itself: competing interests and

services can cancel each other out as services vie for

prominence (broadcasting v. mobile). The new

SPAC does, however, serve a useful and important

function for its participants. It provides a‘ ‘window’

into NTIA, allowing members of industry to get a

feel for the people making policy at NTIA, and the

ebb and flow of interests the agency is concerned

with. NTIA has identified this type of informal

sharing and cooperation as very important and has

recommended ways to increase such interchanges to

improve strategic planning efforts.40 While some of

these recommendations, as noted, have already been

acted on, it is still too soon to tell what longer term

impacts they will have on opening NTIA’s processes

and improving domestic spectrum management and

WARC preparations.

Third, participants in the WARC-92 preparations

process complain that the lack of private sector (or

even FCC) access to data on government frequency

use makes it very difficult for industry representatives to develop proposals for the WARC. Without

access to relevant data, without knowing exactly

what frequencies are being used and how, private

sector representatives do not know what frequencies

are available and what technical considerations

might affect their proposals. As a result, the development of new technologies or uses for the spectrum

may be inhibited by. A more fundamental issue in

providing access to data is first gathering the

information. It is not clear that adequate data exists

on government spectrum use. Data may be incomplete, outdated, or may not have even been collected.

3

-note ofthisperceivedlackof private sector input NTIAhasproposed toestablishtwovic*cbairs of thelRAC, one of whom will “coordinate

activities of the IRAC with the private sector.” NTIA, U.S. Spectrum Management Policy, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 22.

-id, p. 28.
94 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Providing access to data means little if that data is

not reliable and complete.

NTIA has proposed several remedies to improve

government data and access to it, including: a

unified database of spectrum use information combining the frequency lists of both FCC and NTIA, a

proposal to declassify some government frequency

data, and improved distribution of data either

through on-line computer access or compact disc-readonly-memory (CD-ROM) .41 Other improvements

and solutions to these problems have been identified, and some of them have already been implemented or are being planned. NTIA has a plan for

addressing these issues over the next 2 fiscal years.

However, because of resource constraints, it is

unclear how many of NTIA’s recommendations can

and ultimately will be implemented, and how

effective they will be. Mechanisms must be put into

place to ensure industry access to both relevant data

and policymakers if private sector participation in

the WARC preparation process is to be effective,

timely, and fair.

State Department—The private sector had the

least direct input into State Department preparations

for WARC-92. This is largely a function of the

limited role it plays in the formation of the proposals. Once the official U.S. delegation is formed, State

Department officers will become much more involved with industry representatives in the formation of negotiating strategies and as the lead U.S.

agency at the WARC itself.

CCIR and CITEL Work—Some of the most

important input that industry had on the WARC-92

preparation process is through participation in the

work of the CCIR national study groups and through

the informal work of the CITEL working group (see

box 3-C). Internationally, U.S. industry participates

extensively in the work of the CCIR study groups.

The participation of the private sector in these

groups is one of the most important ways in which

the United States can directly and indirectly influence the WARC process. 42

Conference Participation

Private sector participation at conferences is

somewhat limited, but extremely important. Representatives from the private sector are allowed to

participate as official members of the U.S. delegation to WARCs upon filing conflict of interest and

financial disclosure statements. The State Department accredits all delegates. Principal spokesmen,

however, are usually government representatives

from the State Department, FCC, and NTIA. The

private sector will be represented by a vice-chair

appointed by the head of delegation, to accompany

the vice-chairs from the FCC, State Department, and

NTIA.

In the past there have been problems with

members of industry representing the United States

abroad, but they appear to have been resolved.43

Members of the private sector contribute mostly in

the conference’s working groups and study groups,

where their extensive technical experience and

expertise is used most effectively.

Industry participants from past conferences complain that government leaders often isolate themselves from industry representatives during the

course of the conference, and that the private sector

has little say in strategy setting. Government representatives advance positions and pursue goals that

had not been previously discussed with all the

delegates. This may be necessary at times to react to

fast-moving developments, but it circumvents private sector interests. Greater cooperation of government and industry delegates from the inception of

the delegation could alleviate some of these problems. Building trust among the members of the

delegation is crucial if the United States is to be

effective in negotiating from a unified position.

Forming delegations earlier and involving the private sector extensively in the preparation of negotiating positions could help achieve this goal.

Improving Private Sector Participation

As the role of the private sector in radiocommunications becomes increasingly important, the United

States must find ways to raise the level and

effectiveness of private sector input into the U.S.

411bid, pp. 29-32.

AzCh. 3 provides a more in+pth dismsion of the U.S. p~cipation in the work of the CCIR and its tiuenCe on the Wfic Pro~@W

d3Forafifl dismssionof~e problems smow~gp~vate smtorp~cipation in inte~tio~ m~tings, and the effects on the 1979 W~C, See 0~

Radio frequency Use and Management, op. cit., footnote 34, pp. 60-62.
Chapter 4-Domestic Preparations Processor WARC-92 ● 95

international spectrum policymaking process, while

at the same time protecting U.S. public policy

interests. 44Changes now underway show recognition of the importance of private sector input, and

should be followed through. At the FCC, OIC will

serve as a focal point for industry input on an

ongoing basis. This should allow FCC international

policy and industry perspectives to be more easily

coordinated and integrated on an ongoing basis. The

activities and problems of the WARC-92 IAC can

serve as a learning tool for future FCC advisory

committees. With the completion of the IAC’s work,

industry has no coordinating body and no unified

voice to represent its interests before the FCC or the

executive branch. Some analysts have called for

industry to fund their own IAC to keep close ties and

oversee the work of individual companies in the

CCIR study groups on a continuing basis. This group

could serve as liaison not only to the FCC, but also

to the State Department and NTIA, and could be an

important link and focal point for industry activities

in international spectrum matters. Changes recommended by NTIA in its spectrum report are far-

-reaching and could substantially improve the quantity and quality of the private sector input to the

executive branch.

Changes on the international scene have propelled

the private sector to center stage. Proposed changes

in the structure of the ITU and current efforts to

increase the level of industry participation in the

work of CITEL (see ch. 3) offer the private sector an

opportunity to increase its participation in the

ongoing radiocommunication policy process. Continued active involvement of the U.S. private sector

will be crucial to maintain the technological leadership the United States now enjoys in many radiocommunications sectors, and the opening of international bodies to more private sector participation

could enhance U.S. effectiveness in international

radiocommunication negotiations and conferences.

~*pl-ivate sedorp~cipatior.linu.s. international policy activities increases, questions arise as to what constitutes ~ “American” compmy. -Y

companies that are headquartered in foreign countries have substantial manufacturing and service operations in this country. Should they be allowed

to participate inU.S. W~C preparation activities? Whose interests would they represent? The United States may have to revisit policies def~foreign

company participation in U.S. policy as contained in section 310 of the Communications Act.
Chapter 5

Implications of WARC-92 for U.S.

Radiocommunication Policymaking

Introduction

The U.S. process of preparing for WARCs is

based on a democratic approach that guarantees

participation by a broad range of interests. This

process has been described as “loose,” “good and

bad,’ and having ‘no rules.” Overall, the domestic

preparations process for WARCs works relatively

well in the current environment. However, the

divided nature of the U.S. telecommunications

policy process may not serve long-term U.S. spectrum interests nearly as well in the future, and may

threaten the effectiveness of the United States at

future WARCs.

Rapid advances in technology coupled with a

more competitive international telecommunications

environment will challenge the United States to

adapt its conference preparation and negotiation

strategies in order to remain successful in international policymaking. Such changes have already

prompted the International Telecommunication Union

(ITU) to take steps to improve its structure and

processes in order to better meet the needs of its

members. These same forces are increasing pressure

on U.S. policymakers to integrate international

radiocommunication policies with broader political

and economic goals. A broader, more strategic

approach to international radiocommunication policymaking will require increased speed, flexibility, and

decisiveness in domestic decisionmaking. WARC

preparations are a crucial element in the long-term

development of radiocommunication services and

policies, and should reflect the broader goals and

priorities of overall U.S. telecommunications policy.

It is not clear that this happened in the WARC-92

preparations. Some of the difficulties with the

WARC preparations process reflect a more general

lack of vision or coordination of long-term strategic

international U.S. radiocommunications policy. Thus,

the issues raised by WARC-92 preparations have

significant implications for the entire U.S. radiocommunication policy process.1

WARC Preparations:

An Exercise in Democracy

The domestic approach to WARC preparation—

in both the government and the private sector—is

adversarial in nature, but ultimately results in some

form of negotiated consensus. Competing private

sector companies file comments with the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) in response to

Notices of Inquiry (NOIs), and proponents and

opponents of different systems, technologies, and

proposals debate their positions in the Industry

Advisory Committee (IAC). Federal agencies vie for

spectrum to support their mission-related activities

through the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), which advises the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA). In the negotiations between the FCC and

NTIA, the interests of the private sector compete

with the interests of the government. This competitive process is not necessarily neat, but it conforms

to U.S. notions that every voice be heard, every

opinion expressed. No single interest gains absolute

control, and a rough balance of power is achieved.

Diversity of interests is the strength of the U.S.

process, and this freedom and variety should serve as

the basis for any effort to improve the U.S. WARC

preparations process.

However, while diversity is the strength of the

process, it can also be a major weakness. Deregulation in the telecommunications industry has expanded the number and variety of radiocommunication interests in the United States. Companies and

groups which normally compete (for spectrum

and/or customers) are forced to work together to

negotiate and support common WARC proposals

that will serve broader national needs. Entrenched

interests are often reluctant to compromise and

consensus is sometimes impossible. As a result,

negotiating the most contentious issues can be

time-consumin g and frustrating. These divisions are

also reflected at conferences, where the timely and

IFor ~ more complete diSaSSion of he iSSueS, ~ptiom, and s&ate@es for improving domestic teleco~~cations poky coordinatio~ see U.S.

Congress, (Mice of Technology Assessment Critical Connections: Conununicationfor the Future, O’L4-CIT-407 (Washingto% DC: U.S. Government

Printing Gf15ce, January 1990).

–97-
98. WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

effective execution of negotiating strategies maybe

impeded when many individuals are involved representing a myriad of interests.

Government officials often criticize private sector

interests for resisting compromise and delaying the

development of proposals. Even when agreement is

reached, it is not clear that compromises between

competing factions reflect sound decisions that best

serve U.S. interests. They may represent little more

than a politically expedient solution—the least

common denominator of agreement-rather than a

thoughtful part of a broader conference strategy or

well-defined policy goals. For the government

agencies that must sort and consider the various

proposals and compromises, making the final decisions is very difficult and time-consuming.

Critics charge that the preparation process, especially the development of private sector proposals, is

made more difficult because of the lack of strong

government leadership. Industry representatives,

and some government policymakers, complain that

when compromise and consensus cannot be reached,

the government does not step in quickly enough to

provide substantive policy direction and resolve

specific disputes. These criticisms have been made

before. Glen O. Robinson, Chairman of the U.S.

WARC-79 delegation, in testimony said, “Of

course, it is necessary to have some locus of final

decision making; there must be someplace, wherein

Truman’s words, the ‘buck stops.’ “2 Many participants involved in WARC-92 preparations have

voiced similar complaints-that the process got

bogged down in negotiation and compromise, and

that decisions were often not made until the last

minute. Some industry representatives, for example,

would have liked more explicit FCC direction in the

IAC. Such direction would not necessarily have

stifled private sector views, but could have given

more focus to the preparations process and the

development of proposals.

The solutions suggested by members of the

private sector to these problems vary, but represent

a range of increased government activism. Some

suggest that the government could exert stronger

direction within the existing division of responsibility. Others believe that a closer partnership between

government and nongovernment interests would

allow policymakers to better define goals and

priorities and lead to a more effective process. Still

others maintain that in order to bring the needed

amount of discipline and direction to the preparation

process (as well as to the larger spectrum policymaking process) a single authority for domestic and

international spectrum policymaking should be created.

overall, the government agencies involved (FCC,

NTIA, State Department) have been either unable or

unwilling to take strong policy stands in the absence

of clearly developed or stated objectives. Government policymakers appear to have been content to

follow the lead of the private sector in many cases

rather than take an active policy role themselves.

This lack of aggressive leadership often conflicts

with the need for incisive international decisionmaking, and is due to several factors (discussed below).

New approaches are needed in the preparations

process-and during conferences—that accommodate the need for decisive action with the need to

ensure effective public and private participation.

Implications for International

Radiocommunication Policy

The difficulties uncovered in the WARC-92

preparations process may have serious consequences

for the development of broader U.S. international

spectrum policy. These concerns derive from several

basic problems with the U.S. radiocommunication

policy process. First, the system is fragmented. In

the absence of a single agency or focal point for

policy development, coordination mechanisms for

strategic long-range policy development in radiocommunications are inadequate. Further, there is no

overarching vision or plan to guide U.S. spectrum

policy; that is, goals and priorities are not being

cooperatively set by the Federal agencies responsible with sufficient input from the private sector.

Finally, there has been a lack of commitment to

international spectrum issues at high levels of the

Federal Government that could encourage a more

aggressive and integrated policy development process. However, recent efforts, especially in the FCC

and NTIA, indicate heightened awareness of both

domestic and international spectrum issues. How

long this attention will continue is uncertain and

2Glenn O. Robinson quoted in U.S. Congress, Ofilce of Technology Assessmen4 Radiofkequency Use and Management, OZ4-CIT-163

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1982), p. 45. Robinson goes onto argue that such power should rest with the State

Department.
Chapter 5-Implications of WARC-92for U.S. Radiocommunication Policymaking 99

may depend on the interests of the senior government policymakers involved.

System Is Fragmented

The division of responsibility for international

spectrum issues between three Federal Government

agencies complicates both the WARC preparations

process and the development of overall international

radiocommunication policy. In the WARC preparations process, which deals with fairly well-defined

issues, the problems of divided responsibility have

been worked out relatively well over time. Each of

the agencies involved has long-established internal

procedures for WARC preparations, and mechanisms exist that allow the coordination of proposals

between agencies to take place. These interagency

coordination mechanisms, however, are generally

less well-defined than the agencies’ internal procedures, and consist primarily of assigning liaisons to

other agencies-establishing a path through which

communication and coordination can take placeand reviewing and responding to various draft

proposals.3 Beyond that, the substance of coordination is murky. No guidelines exist that describe what

interagency coordination will entail, and no explicit

rules outline each agencies’ responsibilities vis-`a

vis the others. Furthermore, there is no mandate that

relevant information be made available or even what

types of information should be shared. This situation

makes accountability very difficult to judge and

creates an atmosphere that is best described as

‘‘clubby.’ ‘ In this context, what makes these mechanisms work is the experience and personal relationships that individuals have developed over many

years of working together, both in and out of the

government.

While these coordination mechanisms are relatively effective vis-`a-vis the specific issues of

WARC-92, at the broader levels of strategic and

long-term policy development, the fragmented nature of the system is much more problematic. The

three Federal agencies that have jurisdiction over

international spectrum matters (FCC, NTIA, State

Department), each have their own interests and

priorities. Adequate mechanisms do not exist at the

policy level to bridge divided responsibilities, and

forge common goals. The result is that despite the

enormous importance of telecommunications to the

domestic economy and in international activities,

the United States has no central authority or focus

for international telecommunication or radiocommunication policy development. The inadequacies

of such an arrangement have long been clear:

There is no high-level agency within the Government to resolve conflicts arising among governmental interests, much less those arising between governmental and nongovernmental interests. Government

policy and administrative development have not kept

pace with technical and industrial development in

communications. 4

OTA echoed these comments in 1990:

Although all agencies now have to be more

cognizant of international developments, the fragmented nature of the agencies means that no one

agency is equipped to fully present a coherent and

clear-cut U.S. communications policy perspective.5

Finally, this divided policy process has long been

recognized as hampering the development of international spectrum policy in the United States:

The existing split in responsibility whereby the

regulation of private communications resides in the

Commission and Government communications (titularly) in the President fosters a deplorable lack of

accountability aggravated by recourse to the cloak of

security. The dichotomy precludes effective overall

telecommunications planning. At present there is

solely the avenue of coordination and compromise,

a hopeless device when authoritative leadership is

lacking.6

In terms of WARC preparations, this means that no

individual or agency is accountable for ensuring that

the proposals advanced for the WARC support the

broader goals of U.S. policy. Because of the

essentially reactive nature of WARC preparations,

no conscious attempt was made to link WARC

proposals to an already established, more long-term

3~ cWell-defmed7$ ~ ~ed here is a ~e~tive te~. To ~ose involved, the processes ~ V- weu-defm~, roving been h place ~d f~k tO bm

for many years. However, to the outside observer, there are few explicit rules that govern the process and no formal guides that outline the substance

of coordination- i.e., what information should be exchanged.

A~~coti~sion T. ~vestigate Utibtion of R@O Fr~uencies Allocated to tie Gove~en4 “ Report to the Seriate Committee on Interstate and

Foreign Commerce, Report No. 1854, July 18, 1958, p. 3.

SOTA, CtitiCaZ Connections, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 366.

6Additio~ views of ~wmd L. Bo~les in “~ocation of TV c~nnels,” Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Allocations to the

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. Senate, 85th Cong., 2d sess., Cornrnittee Printj Mar. 14, 1958, p. 12.
100 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

strategic policy. This is not a failure of the WARC

process, however, because a long-term framework

for making spectrum decisions or developing longterm radiocommunication policy does not exist in

the United States.

Instead, formal coordination mechanisms and the

development of unified policy have been replaced by

interagency coordination and cooperation that is

heavily dependent on the goodwill and personalities

of the individuals involved (see below). “Unfortunately, accomplishing such coordination is dfficult

when faced with disputes among agencies, competing demands for high-level attention, time pressures,

and often inadequate resources. ’

There have been several attempts in the past to

coordinate U.S. international telecommunication

policy development, including radiocommunications, but most have been short-lived. In the early

1980s, for example, a group made up of senior staff

from the NTIA, FCC, and State Department-the

‘‘troika’ —attempted to coordinate telecommunications policy issues. The troika was not a formal,

institutionalized group, but it did hold regular

meetings and address ongoing policy issues, including international matters. Although the regular

meetings of the troika eventually faded, meetings

between high-level staff continued on an ad hoc

basis. The next major effort to coordinate internationtal telecommunications policy came in 1984

when a Senior Interagency Group was formed to

examine international telecommunications policy

issues. It was abolished approximately 5 years later.

Another attempt to establish a more formal process

was made in late 1989, when Ambassador Bradley

Holmes, director of the State Department’s Bureau

of International Communications and Information

Policy (CIP), set up regular meetings with FCC

chairman Alfred C. Sikes and NTIA Administrator

Janice Obuchowski to discuss international issues

that involve all three agencies. The meetings were

scheduled quarterly, and were to be supplemented

by informal contact among key aides. The impact of

these meetings on WARC preparations is unclear.

There is a growing sense that the United States is

fast approaching a point at which its fragmented

system may inhibit the development of coherent

radiocommunication policy and ultimately reduce

the effectiveness of the preparations process for

international conferences such as the WARC. Multiple layers of decisionmakm“ g slow U.S. responsiveness, confuse negotiation strategies, and provide

additional opportunities for domestic (and foreign)

interests to play off the agencies against each other.

The multitude of players and a democratic decisionmaking process also confuses foreign officials and

delegates who do not understand the U.S. processor

the pressures it responds to.

Despite the problems with the fragmented U.S.

system, however, many observers believe that a

rigidly centralized domestic spectrum management

system would be worse. With policy authority

concentrated in one agency or person (a telecommunications “czar”), the development of policy could

be made more efficient, but could also reduce the

amount of private sector and industry input into the

process. Critics of such a solution in both the private

sector and government fear that this approach would

make the preparations process more bureaucratic,

less open, and perhaps even more secretive than it is

now.

No Coordinated U.S.

Radiocommunication Policy

The United States process for formulating telecommunication policy has long been criticized for

lacking focus, direction, and coordination.8 OTA has

previously identified the lack of coordinated policymaking as a serious impediment for the United

States in the near term:

The lack of a coherent and coordinated national

process for making communication policy is likely

to severely hinder efforts to develop and execute an

appropriate strategy for dealing with the myriad of

communication policy issues that will emerge as the

United States takes its place in an increasingly global

information economy.g

W.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration NTIA Telecom 2000, NTIA Special Publication

88-21 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1988), p. 179. See also OTA, Cn”ticaZ Connections, op. cit., footnote 1.

gFor a dis~ssion of such issues, see Henry Geller, The Federal Structurefor Telecommunications Policy (Washington ~: The Benton Foumlatio%

1989); OTA, Critical Connections, op. cit., footnote 1; OTA, Radioj?equency Use and Management, op. cit., footnote 2; and NTZ4 Telecom 2000, op.

cit., footnote 7, ch. 9.

90m, Critical Connections, op. cit., footnote 1, P. 361.
Chapter 5-Implications of WARC-92 for U.S. Radiocommunication Policymaking ● 101

Because this issue has not been adequately

addressed in the past, many of the problems of

international radiocommunication policy development still exist today. Beyond responding to specific

WARC issues, broad goals are few and ill-defined.

No single vision guided U.S. policy development in

preparation for WARC-92, and there is no long-term

plan that incorporates and integrates domestic spectrum needs and policy with international spectrum

policy. In its report to the ITU, the Advisory Group

on Telecommunication Policy notes:

It is to be expected that in the future governments

will need to incorporate telecommunication policy

directly into a cross-sectoral, long-term socioeconomic strategy for new technologies, within a

framework of economic and social growth. In some

countries governments are already seriously studying this issue.10

Government policymakers generally agree that

more long-term strategic planning is needed for

spectrum, but do not want to concretely ‘‘plan’ for

future spectrum use and development. In pointing

out the difficulty of centralized planning, they

maintain that it is virtually impossible to develop a

plan that specifies what bands will be used for what

purposes when future needs, technologies, and

applications are unknown. The present strategy of

responding to evolving uses ensures that the system

is flexible enough to adapt to new technologies and

services. Specific planning, they fear, would destroy

this flexibility and force the United States to commit

to applications and systems that might not be

efficient or needed in the long term. This view

reflects long-held U.S. opposition in international

spectrum policymaking to a priori planning of the

radio frequency spectrum. While there is merit in

this position, especially given the diverse nature of

the U.S. radiocommunications industry, it does not

mean that the present market-driven system is

meeting all needs in a timely fashion. Legislation

that has been proposed in the Congress to shift some

frequencies from Federal Government use to commercial and public use indicates, in fact, that the U.S.

market-driven system does have problems.ll

It is important to note that coordinated and

focused spectrum policy development does not

necessarily imply centralized spectrum planning.

Philosophical opposition to government planning

does not necessarily preclude the setting of longterm priorities and goals and developing strategies to

achieve those goals, including strategies for WARCs.

Between a rigid spectrum “plan” and a completely

market-driven system, it may be possible to develop

a flexible framework that allows radio technology

and system development to respond in a timely way

to market forces, while at the same time marshaling

those forces in the context of a longer range, more

comprehensive framework for developing radiocommunication policy and services. A cooperative

partnership with the private sector to establish some

general direction to the process and define some

basic goals and priorities could satisfy private sector

calls for more direction and aggressive government

involvement without putting government policymakers

in the position of spectrum “planner.”

Finally, from an international perspective, the

proposed regularization of the ITU WARC schedule

affords the United States an opportunity to revisit the

issue of more formal spectrum planning. An ongoing

series of conferences, conducted at regular intervals,

may allow the United States to develop plans and

coordinate resources in a more effective manner.

Efforts to develop strategic goals and objectives for

WARC preparations should be an integral part of the

long-range planning process for spectrum use. Goals

and priorities must be established, and resources

allocated to ensure that government and industry

representatives working on ITU or WARC preparations have the funds, time and staff necessary to

prepare U.S. positions in an effective and timely

manner.

Personal Relationships Drive Preparations

The WARC preparation process depends on the

power of individual personalities and the interpersonal relationships among major players. While

formal mechanisms do exist through which coordination takes place, individual experience and personality are the most important determinants of

effective coordination in the WARC process. The

process works because the individuals involved

have a commitment to work cooperatively, not

because rigid procedures necessarily force them to.

In short, the mechanisms for coordinating WARC

lo~terMtio~TelWomm~cation Ufiom “TheC&ngingTeIecommunicationE!nviro~en~” Reportof theAdvisory Group on Telecommunication

Policy, February 1989, p. 3.

1lSW tie Emerging Telecommunications Technologies At of 1991 (H.R. 531, H.R. 147, ~d S. 218).
102 . WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

proposals work because the people involved make

them work.

When participants “play by the rules,” the

process works smoothly, but when individuals will

not compromise or cooperate, government officials

and private sector representatives complain that the

process cannot work because people do not understand what they are doing. It is not clear that if the

current players were replaced, the system would

continue to work as well. Some analysts maintain

that changing the individuals involved would not

harm the process, that company and/or agency

perspectives and goals would still be adequately

communicated and addressed. While this may be

true to some extent, the individual experience gained

through many years of involvement in the process

will not be easily replaced. The individuals involved

and the personal relationships they have forged are

more important than the procedures they follow or

the formal institutional arrangements that exist.

In WARC-92 preparations, the individuals involved got along well, and cooperation among

agencies was good. Several factors contributed to

this cooperative atmosphere. First, the individuals

involved have, in many cases, been participating in

WARC preparations for many years. Relationships

and a basis for understanding each other have been

formed over a long period of time. Second, a great

deal of crosspollination occurs between the three

Federal telecommunication policy agencies and

between the government agencies and the private

sector. Many State Department staff, for example,

came from the FCC. This fosters an understanding of

how the process works, what individuals’ roles

require, and what pressures are put on their colleagues. The private sector also benefits from

government experience. Many of the consultants

and lawyers representing industry came from government and understand how the process works and

what is important. These good relations-especially

among the heads of NTIA, FCC, and CIP-represent

a tremendous opportunity to reform the international

spectrum policy process in this country. U.S. policymakers must capitalize on the current spirit of

cooperation in order to ensure the long-term effectiveness and responsiveness of U.S. international

spectrum policy.

Despite the relative success of the WARC-92

preparations, however, the current dependence on

individuals and personal relationships for guiding

the WARC process may ultimately undermine

long-term U.S. interests. First, the mechanisms for

coordinating international policy may prove inadequate in the near future. The successor failure of the

preparations process depends on people working

together, within the government and between the

government and the private sector. Changes in

personnel as staff retires or transfers, and shifts in

emphasis or philosophy may threaten future cooperation; current collegial relations may vanish and

battles over responsibilities and roles could recur.12

Especially troubling is the aging of current government spectrum policymakers and radiocommunication industry representatives. The cadre of spectrum

policymakers in this country is small, and many of

the most experienced U.S. international radiocommunication experts will retire in the next 5 to 10

years. Few young people have entered the field, and

fewer are being trained by the government agencies

to replace these retiring staff.13 The lack of experienced younger staff could reduce U.S. effectiveness

in international negotiations as inexperienced spectrum policymakers assume more important roles.

This problem is especially critical because the

international spectrum policy process is built on

personal involvement and individual memory rather

than on formal mechanisms and institutional memory. Without these individuals, the (little) continuity

and the direction in U.S. international spectrum

policy could be lost.14

Second, in the absence of larger policy goals and

more involved high-level oversight, a danger exists

lzAt the high~= 1~~~~ of the ~m agencies, such battles have occurred in me past and persofi~ conflic~.g., at the 1989 ~iCe

Plenipotentiary-have caused problems.

ISNTIA r~oxs the seriousness of tbis problem in an appendix to its report: ‘‘The need for the tmining of personnel is more critical today than

it was when the earlier NITA/OTP [~lce of Telecommunications Policy] training program started, because of the increased complexity of managing

the spectrum and the aging of current agency stafTs, with few replacements entering this field.” U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Specrrum Management Policy: Agenuh for the Fuzure, NTIA Special Publication 91-23

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Off@, February 1991), p. H-3.

14~e problem is less ~nous ~ he Pfivate ~tor, which is ~tter able to attract and keep q-led young sp(xm engineers and managers. Other

countries also are aggressively bringing along young staff. Japan, for example, often sends large delegations to conferences, many of whom are young

staffers whose pximary role is to observe and learn.
Chapter Implications of WARC-92for U.S. Radiocommunication Policymaking ● 103

that instead of national policies or even agency/

departmental policies, that individuals may project

their own goals and values into the process. These

goals, although based on years of experience, may

nonetheless be very narrowly focused and take

inadequate account of all perspectives. Stronger,

more formalized arrangements to coordinate international policies may need to be imposed to ensure

that adequate and ongoing cooperation occurs in the

long term.15

Little High-Level Commitment

The domestic process of preparing for WARCs

suffers from a lack of high-level attention and

inspired policy guidance. Spectrum issues must be

addressed at a high enough level in the government

and industry to ensure that radiocommunication

policy is clearly linked to policy goals guiding trade

and other economic, social, and political objectives.

High-level coordination between FCC, NTIA, and

the State Department would provide leadership,

direction, and coordination for WARC preparations

and for the development of broader radiocommunication policies. But more fundamental change may

be needed. Some analysts, for example, maintain

that the United States suffers from the absence of a

permanent Head of Delegation who could represent

the United States at all major international radiocommunication conferences, build long-term relationships and alliances with other delegates, and

who could provide continuity to U.S. delegations

across WARCs. Officials at NTIA, FCC, and the

State Department do not have the necessary position

to accomplish this objective. Some have suggested

that the United States should establish a position

similar to the U.S. trade representative to address

international telecommunications matters.

Recent government initiatives indicate that spectrum issues have become more important than in the

past, and U.S. agencies are beginning to tackle them

more aggressively. NTIA’s recent report on spectrum management, for example, indicates that the

Federal Government is beginning to take the issues

of spectrum management more seriously, and is

beginning to think more strategically about the radio

frequency spectrum as an important competitive

resource .

16 The FCC has also responded to the

increased importance of spectrum issues through its

ongoing study on the creation of a spectrum reserve

for new technologies and services.

Resource Constraints

The lack of high-level support for ongoing

international spectrum activities translates into shortages of funds and personnel. One of the critical

problems with domestic and international spectrum

decisionmaking is a serious shortage of qualified

personnel to manage spectrum resources and develop policy. 17 Because of their small numbers, staff

at both the FCC and NTIA are stretched thin. At the

FCC, for example, when an international conference

such as WARC-92 takes place, FCC staff must add

WARC issues to their existing duties. Not only does

this take time away from “official” duties, it also

gives inadequate time to the new, but equally

important and more time-consuming, task Of preparing for the conference. 18 Although the work is

getting done, more staff devoted to conference

preparation and international activities in general

could help ease the agencies’ workloads, speed

decisionmaking, and contribute to a higher quality of

policymaking.

Inadequate funding for FCC, NTIA, and State

Department international spectrum activities hurts

the U.S. preparations process in several ways. First,

lack of funds means that these agencies cannot start

preparing for international conferences early enough.

Preparation times are compressed, with the result

that a lot gets done at the last minute and some things

may not get done at all. Second, many personnel

problems are the direct result of inadequate funding.

Without adequate funding, government agencies

cannot attract, train, and keep qualified young

spectrum engineers and managers. Third, lack of

travel funds curtails preconference activities that are

crucial for building alliances with other countries

and developing conference strategies. If the United

States is to be successful at future conferences,

lfiM~r~ f~rmal~ed~~~rdinati~n of d~mestic s~trumpoli-gwas ~commended fi ~, U.S. spec~m~amgemntpolicy, O

13, p. 51.

l%id., p. 13.

17~e shortage is ~spci~ly ~mte among minorities and women. Few are invoIved h inkxnationd SpeC&UIIl pOliCyDMkillg.

IsMore time-consuming in the sense that much of the preparation process entails engaging in bilateral and multilateral talks with foreign

administrations. This usually means frequent travel, and often for extended periods of time.
104 WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

representatives from U.S. Government agencies

must have adequate time and money to develop new

alliances and cultivate existing relationships. Without such preconference work, the United States may

seriously threaten its effectiveness when decisions

are made at conferences.

Government Frequency Data Is Inadequate

The lack of coordinated policymaking is complicated by the lack of adequate information from the

government agencies themselves regarding spectrum use, another problem that goes back decades. In

1959 hearings on spectrum allocation, one witness

stated:

. . . although all the non-Government [civilian]

users present information of use and justification for

what they request in the spectrum, similar information is not submitted with respect to the [Federal]

Government use of the spectrum which might

indicate how the entire natural resource could best be

utilized. The [Federal] Government users are not

required to justify before Congress, public opinion,

or any impartial body, their use of frequencies . . .

and there is certainly an inability on the part of

non-Government users to obtain the information

regarding Government usage which is pertinent to

any resolution of the problems.19

Today, the situation remains unchanged. Many in

the private sector complain that it is difficult for

them to apply for new services or propose new

positions for the U.S. internationally when they do

not have adequate information about government

spectrum use.20 In preparing for a WARC, such

information is crucial for both the FCC and the

private sector—inadequate information severely limits their ability to develop effective proposals.

Summary and Implications

WARC-92 represents a significant opportunity

for the United States to capitalize on its technologi-

. cal leadership, influence world opinion, and guide

negotiations on spectrum allocations. It also represents a challenge for the United States to protect the

gains that U.S. innovation and research and development have provided. Changes in domestic priorities

and the international scene offer an opportunity for

individual agencies to reassess their conference

preparation processes. Proposed changes in the ITU,

especially, provide the United States with an opportunity to reevaluate how international telecommunications policy is made and how government agencies and industry prepare for international conferences. A regular conference schedule would help

regularize planning for future conferences and

would make the preparations process less subject to

the “fits and starts” of the past. The FCC has

already taken a step in this direction with the

establishment of Office of International Communications. More cooperation and continuous institutionalized leadership would serve to smooth out the

bumps and plan U.S. preparations for the long term.

The fundamental problem with domestic WARC

preparations is that roles and functions are not

specifically defined. Processes are not always well

understood, and while a structure for coordination

between the NTIA, FCC, and State Department

exists, it is highly dependent on the abilities and

personal relationships of the individuals involved. In

order to rationalize the process and lessen its

dependence on the individuals involved, many have

called for a clarification of the roles of the three

agencies regarding international activities and negotiations possibly by modifying Executive Order

12,046 and/or by restructuring the agencies themselves in a more rational and complementary manner. The objectives of such a restructuring would be

to provide formal mechanisms for coordination of

policy, including specific recommendations for

resolving conflicts, and promote increased highlevel interaction by the heads of the various agencies

in order to build a common vision to guide U.S.

policy overseas and to guide the actions of U.S.

delegations at international conferences. Some analysts believe that merely clarifying roles is not

enough, and have called for the creation of a single

agency to oversee telecommunications policy and

19Harold E. Feflows, testimony at hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign commerce, on Allocation of

Radio Spectrum Between Federal Government Users and Non-Federal Government Users, 86th Cong., 1st sess., June 8 and 9, 1959, p. 36.

mone of~e s~onger ~emes tit apW~ed in OTA’S workshop on WARC-92 was the tid~~cy of data on government (~d commemi~) -~

use. Many of the participants, both government and private sector, recognized easy and timely access to such information as a prerequisite to better

spectrum management overall. For a detailed discussion of the problems of access to government spectrum information and proposals for opening up

the government process, see NTIA, U.S. Spectrum Management Policy, op. cit., footnote 13. The report makes many recommen&tions for improving

access to information and statistics on government use of the spectrum. NT’IAhas already begun to implement many of theproposedchanges, and expects

to begin others in the next several years.
Chapter 5-Implications of WARC-92 for U.S. Radiocommunication Policymaking ● 105

development in this country. 21 Some industry participants in the WARC-92 process have called for a

similar agency or office that would coordinate

international spectrum policy, including WARC

preparations.

Improving the WARC preparations process will

entail serious tradeoffs. Centralizing authority could

make the process more efficient, but could also

jeopardize the free exchange and representation of

ideas. Instituting formal voting arrangement among

private sector participants might produce decisions

more quickly, but the process of attracting and

brokering votes could make the outcome highly

political. Improving existing coordination procedures seems most realistic in the present and short

term, but such incremental changes may have

limited effects. More serious study of such problems

and options is needed.

zlmzA Tejecom 2000, op. cit., footnote 7, ch. 9; @her, Op. Cit., fOOtIIOte 8.

297-945 0 - 91 - 5 QL:3
Appendix A

Acronyms and Glossary of Terms

Ad Hoc 206: A subcommittee of the IRAC that was

established to coordinate Federal agencies’ preparations for WARC-92.

Allocation: The designation of a band of frequencies to

a specific radio service or services. Allocations are

made internationally at World Administrative Radio

Conferences and are incorporated into the international

Table of Frequency Allocations. International allocations are usually, but not always, incorporated into

domestic frequency tables.

Analog: In analog radio communication, information is

transmitted by modulating a continuously varying

electronic signal, such as a radio carrier wave. Voice

and video messages originate in analog form since

sound and light are wave like functions. In order to send

these analog signals over digital media, such as fiber

optics or digital radio, they must be converted into a

digital format. See digital, and modulation.

APC: Aeronautical public correspondence. APC refers to

radiocommunication services that allow airline passengers to place telephone calls while in flight. Also

known as air-to-ground (ATG) communication.

Assignment: The granting by a government of the right

to use a specific frequency (or group of frequencies) to

a specific user or station. Each television station, for

example, is granted a small group of frequencies that

correspond to a specific channel number.

Bandwidth: The total range of frequencies required to

transmit a radio signal without undue distortion is its

bandwidth. It is measured in hertz. The bandwidth of

a radio signal is determined by the amount of

information in the signal being sent. More complex

signals contain more information, and hence require

wider bandwidths. An AM radio signal, for example

takes 10 kHz, while an FM signal requires 200 kHz,

and a television signal takes up 6 MHz. The bandwidth

required by a television channel is 600 times greater

than that of an AM radio channel.

BSS: Broadcasting-Satellite Service. An ITU-designated

service that refers to the delivery of information or

programming from satellites directly to user receivers.

Subsets of BSS include new systems planned to deliver

high-definition television services (BSS-HDTV) and

audio services (BSS-Sound).

Carrier: A radio wave that is used to communicate

information. Information to be transmitted is impressed onto the carrier, which then carries the signal

to its destination. At the receiver the carrier is filtered

out from the radio signal to recover the original

information. See modulation.

CCIR: International Radio Consultative Committee. An

organ of the ITU that studies and makes recommenddations on the technical standards for radiocommunication.

CCITT: International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee. An organ of the ITU that studies

and makes recommendations on the technical and

operational standards for international wireline communications. CCITT also addresses international tariff

issues.

CDMA: Code division multiple access. CDMA is a

recently developed radiocommunication format that

uses digital technology and spread spectrum transmission to send information. Each radio signal is assigned

its own unique code and is then spread over a range of

frequencies for transmission. At the receiving end the

receiver can reconstruct the original signal by following the code.

CEPT: Conference of European Postal and Telecommunications Administrations. Established in 1959,

CEPT consists of 31 European telecommunications

administrations. It acts to coordinate and reconcile

regional telecommunications policy.

CIP: Bureau of International Communications and Information Policy. Bureau of the State Department that

represents the United States in international telecommunications negotiations and conferences.

CITEL: The Inter-American Telecommunications Conference. A specialized conference of the Organization

of American States (OAS) that deals with both radio

and wireline communications. CITEL is a permanent,

ongoing series of conferences that has 35 members

from North and South America and the Caribbean.

C-band: C-band is the designation for satellite communications that use 6 GHz uplinks and 4 GHz

downlinks. These frequencies are also extensively

used for terrestrial microwave communication.

CT2: Cordless telephone 2. Personal communications

system that allows users to make calls, but not receive

them. CT2 systems have been demonstrated in Europe,

but only one system has been demonstrated in the

United States.

DAB: Digital audio broadcasting. DAB refers to the

transmission of audio broadcasts in digital form as

opposed to today’s (AM or FM) analog form. DAB

promises compact disc quality sound over the air.

Many formats are being developed, and transmission

is possible via terrestrial transmitters, satellites, or

hybrid systems.

DBS: Direct broadcast satellite. Medium- to high-power

satellites that are designed to transmit programming

directly to small satellite receive dishes at users’

homes. No DBS systems are operating in the United

States, although several systems are planned.

–107–
108 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Digital: In digital communication, the continuously

varying signals of images and voice are converted to

discrete numbers represented in binary form by O’s and

1‘s. These binary digits, or bits, can then be sent as a

series of ‘on’ ‘/’‘off pulses or can be modulated onto

a carrier wave by varying the phase, frequency, or

amplitude according to whether the signal is a 1 or a O.

Downlink: In satellite communications, the signal that

travels from the satellite down to the receivers on

Earth. The direction the downlink signal travels is also

called space-to Earth. See uplink.

FCC: Federal Communications Commission. An independent Federal agency that regulates private and all

non-Federal government use of the radio frequency

spectrum. The FCC is also responsible for regulating

most other forms of communication, including broadcast and cable television, and some telephone services.

FMAC: Frequency Management Advisory Committee. A

committee within IRAC, composed of representatives

from the private sector, that advised IRAC on matters

of spectrum policy. The FMAC was recently rechartered as the Spectrum Planning Advisory Committee

and will include government representation and a

broader mandate.

FPLMTS: Future public land mobile telecommunication

systems. FPLMTS is the ITU designation for terrestrial

public mobile services, including PCS.

Frequency: The number of complete cycles a radio wave

completes in 1 second. Frequency is measured in hertz

(1 cycle per second equals 1 hertz). Radio frequencies

are described as multiples of hertz:

kHz, kilohertz: thousand cycles per second;

MHz, megahertz: million cycles per second;

GHz, gigahertz: billion cycles per second.

Groundwave: Groundwaves are characteristic of very

low frequency radio waves that follow the curve of the

Earth as they travel. see also skywave.

GSM: Global System for Mobile communications, formerly, Groupe Special Mobile. A digital mobile

communications standard that has been proposed to

provide next generation cellular/mobile services all

over Europe.

HDTV: High-definition television. Refers to future

generations of television that will have higher picture

resolution, a wider aspect ratio, and digital quality

sound.

Hertz (Hz): Cycles per second. See frequency.

HF: High frequency. Refers to radio frequencies in the

range 3-30 MHz. These frequencies are used by

international broadcasting services including Voice of

America, religious broadcasters, and fixed services

such as the point-to-point communication systems

used by developing countries.

HFBC: High Frequency Broadcasting Conference. Specialized world radio conferences were held in 1984 and

1987. A future conference on planning the HF bands

has been proposed for 1995.

HLC: High Level Committee. The HLC was established

by the Administrative Council of the ITU, in response

to instructions from the Nice Plenipotentiary, in

November 1989 in order to review the structure and

various functions of the ITU. The study included

structure, organization, finance, staff, and coordination. The group finished its work in June 1991.

IAC: Industry Advisory Committee. The FCC setup the

IAC to coordinate and focus private sector input for the

WARC-92 preparation process. It consisted of 35

representatives from the private sector and was cochaired by FCC Commissioner Sherrie Marshall. It

issued its final report in April 1991.

IFRB: International Frequency Registration Board. The

organ of the ITU responsible for maintaining the list of

radio frequencies used worldwide. It also conducts

technical and planning studies for the ITU.

IRAC: Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee.

Established in 1922 and now located in the Department

of Commerce, the IRAC consists of approximately 20

to 25 representatives from the various Federal Government agencies involved in or using radio frequencies. The IRAC advises NTIA on matters relating to

Federal Government use of the radio frequency

spectrum.

ITU: International Telecommunication Union. The ITU

is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international regulation of telecommunications

services of all kinds, including telegraph, telephone,

and radio.

Ka-band: Ka-band is the designation for frequencies in

the 30/20-GHz range that will be used for future

generations of communications satellites.

Ku-band: Ku-band colloquially refers to frequencies in

the 14/12-GHz bands that are used for satellite

communications.

LEOS: Low-Earth orbiting satellite. LEO satellites are

smaller and cheaper to design, build, and launch than

traditional geosynchronous satellites. Networks of

these small satellites are being planned that will

provide data and voice services to portable receivers all

over the world.

Modulation: The process of encoding information onto

a radio wave by varying one of its basic characteristics

—amplitude, frequency, or phase-in relation to an

input signal such as speech, music, or television. The

input signal, which contains the information to be

transmitted, is called the modulating or baseband

signal. The radio wave that carries the information is

called the carrier wave. The radio wave that results

from the combination of these two waves is called a

modulated carrier. Two of the most common types of

modulation are amplitude modulation (AM) and frequency modulation (FM).
Appendix A-Acronyms and Glossary of Terms ● 109

MSS: Mobile Satellite Service. MSS is an ITUdesignated service in which satellites are used to

deliver communications services (voice or data usually, one- or two-way) to mobile users such as cars,

trucks, boats, and planes. It is a generic term that

encompasses several types of mobile services delivered by satellite, including Maritime MSS (MMSS),

Aeronautical MSS (AMSS), and Land MSS (LMSS).

NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information

Administration. The agency in the Department of

Commerce that oversees all Federal Government use

of the radio frequency spectrum. NTIA also serves as

the President’s adviser on all telecommunication

matters.

OIA: Office of International Affairs. The office in NTIA

responsible for international aspects of telecommunications, including preparation and participation in

international communications negotiations and conferences.

OIC: Office of International Communications. Established by the FCC in January 1990 to coordinate and

serve as the focal point for international activities in the

FCC.

OSM: Office of Spectrum Management. The office of

NTIA responsible for day-to-day management of

Federal Government spectrum use. Also provides

technical assistance to OIA in preparation for international negotiations and conferences.

PCN/PCS: Personal communication network/service.

Although the terms are not yet clear, PCS seems to be

emerging as an umbrella term that refers to any of the

many services (voice and data) designed to serve

individuals wherever they are (walking, driving, flying). PCN generally refers to specific networks (in

specific locations) that providers want to set up to

provide communication services. Alternatively, the

PCN has been used to describe the evolution of the

current (wire-based) public telephone network into a

comprehensive network integrating wire-based and

PCS services.

Period: The length of time it takes a radio wave to

complete one full cycle. The inverse of the period is a

radio wave’s frequency.

Phase: A measure of the shift in position of a radio wave

in relation to time. Phase is measured in degrees.

PTC: Permanent Technical Committee. Three PTCs

provide technical support to ClTEL. PTC-I deals with

public (wireline) telecommunications systems, PTC-11

addresses broadcasting issues, and PTC-III deals with

all other areas of radiocommunication.

PTT: Post, telegraph, and telephone administration. PTTs

are the government agencies that have been the sole

providers of telecommunication services in many

foreign countries for years. Today, their power and

monopolies are declining in the face of liberalization

and privatization.

RDSS: Radiodetermination-Satellite Service. RDSS is an

ITU-designated service in which satellites provide

location information to ships, planes, vehicles, and

even individuals such as hikers.

Refraction: The bending a radio wave experiences as it

travels through the atmosphere. As frequency increases, the amount of bending or refraction decreases.

RPOA: Recognized private operating agency. A category

for participation in CCIR activities. RPOAs are private

telecommunication service providers such as AT&T

and COMSAT.

Sideband: Sideband frequencies are generated as part of

the modulation process. They consist of newly created

frequencies both above (upper sidebands) and below

(lower sidebands) the carrier wave frequency. While

AM produces a set number of sideband frequencies,

FM produces a theoretically infinite number of sidebands.

SI0: Scientific and industrial organizations. A specific

category for participation in CCIR activities. SI0s are

designers or manufacturers of telecommunication

equipment.

Skywave: Skywaves are characteristic of higher frequency radio waves that travel straight (as opposed to

groundwaves) and can be bounced off the atmosphere

in a process called reflection. This allows radio signals

to travel many miles and makes long-distance radiocommunication possible.

SMR: Specialized Mobile Radio. SMR is a radio service

created by the FCC to allow providers to offer mobile

radio services, such as dispatch and two-way voice

communications, to users on a private (as opposed to

public cellular service) basis.

Spectrum: The spectrum of an individual radio signal is

the range of frequencies it contains. The width of the

spectrum is also called the bandwidth of the signal.

More broadly, the radio frequency spectrum consists

of all the radio frequencies that are used for radio

communications.

SSB: Single sideband. A method of transmitting radio

signals in which only one sideband is transmitted and,

often, the carrier is transmitted at reduced power. See

sideband.

Uplink: In satellite communications, the signal that

travels from an Earth transmitting station up to the

satellite. The direction the uplink signal travels is also

known as Earth-to-space. See downlink.

VGE: Voluntary Group of Experts. The VGE was

established by the ITU Administrative Council in 1990

to examine ways to simplify the international Radio

Regulations. The first meeting of the VGE was held in

January 1991. Representatives from 22 Administrations participated and observers from 4 international

organization also attended.

WARC: World Administrative Radio Conference. WARCs

are the primary forum for distributing the frequencies
110 . WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

of the spectrum to the various radiocommunication international treaty status and must be signed by

services. They can address all radio services (a general member governments. The allocations decided on at a

WARC) or only specific portions of the spectrum WARC usually are incorporated into domestic tables

(specialized WARC). The Final Acts of a WARC have of allocations.

SOURCES: Harry Mileaf (cd.), Electronics One, revised 2d ed. (Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Company, Inc., 1976); U.S. Congress, Office of

Technology Assessment The Big Picture: HDTV & High-Resolution Systems, OTA-BP-CIT-64 (Washington DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, June 1990); William Stallings, Data and Computer Communications (New York NY: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1985).
Appendix B

Agenda for the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference

Document 7042E

(CA45-136 )

20 June 1990

Original: English

Resolution

(approved at the fourth Plenary Meeting)l

R No. 995 WORLD ADMINISTRATIVE RADIO CONFERENCE FOR DEALING WITH FREQUENCY

ALLOCATIONS IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE SPECTRUM

(WARC-92)

The Administrative Council,

considering , inter alia

a) that Resolution No. PL-B/1 of the Plenipotentiary Conference, Nice, 1989, scheduled a

World Administrative Radio Conference for Dealing with Frequency Allocations in Certain Parts of

the Spectrum (WARC-92) to be convened in Spain in the first quarter of 1992 for a period of four

weeks and two days;

b) that in accordance with Resolution No. PL-B/1 of the Plenipotentiary Conference, Nice,

1989, the agenda of the WARC-92 shall take into account the Resolutions and Recommendations of

WARC HFBC-87, WARC MOB-87 and WARC ORB-88 relating to frequency allocations;

c) that, pursuant to Resolution No. PL-B/1, the WARC-92 may in addition consider defining

certain new space services and consider allocations to these services in frequency bands above 20

GHz;

d) that the Plenipotentiary Conference, Nice, 1989, having recognized that the Plan for the

aeronautical mobile (OR) service, contained in Appendix 26 of the Radio Regulations requires

appropriate adjustments, adopted Resolution No. PL-B/2;

e) that in accordance with Resolution No. PLEN/8 of the Plenipotentiary Conference, Nice,

2989, the WARC-92 should consider the provisions of Articles 55(rev.) and 56(rev.) of the Radio

Regulations, as amended by WARC MOB-87.

considering further that the radio spectrum to be considered by this Conference is already

allocated to certain radio services, and the requirements of these services must be taken into

account.

welcoming the invitation of the Administration of Spain to the ITU to hold WARC-92 in that

country.

resolves

1 Subject to approval being received from a majority of the Members concerned.

–111–
112 . WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

1.

Certain

of four

2.

that the World Administrative Radio Conference for Dealing with Frequency Allocations in

Parts of the Spectrum (WARC-92) be convened in Spain from 3 February 1992 for a period

weeks and two days;

the agenda for WARC shall be as follows:

on the basis of proposals by administrations and taking account of reports from the IFRB

and the CCIR:

2.1 to consider definitions for certain new space applications and to review the relevant

provisions of Article 1;

2.2 to review the provisions of Article 8, taking account of considering further above, with a

view to:

2.2.1 the consideration of possible allocations of frequency bands above 20 GHz to the new space

service applications;

2.2.2 the possible extension of the frequency spectrum allocated exclusively to HF broadcasting,

as indicated in Recommendation No. 511 (HFBC-87);

2.2.3 the consideration of the allocation of frequency bands to the broadcasting-satellite service

and the associated feeder links:

a)

b)

c)

d)

for the broadcasting-satellite service (sound) in the range 500-3000 MHz, as

indicated in Resolution 520( Orb-88), including the accommodation of

complementary terrestrial sound broadcasting uses within this allocation;

for the development in the approximate range 1 -3 GHz of a would-wide system

of public correspondence with aircraft, as indicated in Recommendation No.

408( Mob-87), or designate for this use a band already allocated to the mobile

service in the same range;

for the development of the international use of the mobile service for future

public land mobile telecommunication systems, as indicated in Recommendation

No. 205( Mob-87), or designate for this use a band already allocated to the mobile

service;

consider possible allocations of up to 5 MHz of a frequency band below 1 GHz to

low-orbit satellites on the basis of appropriate sharing criteria;

2.2.5 the consideration of the allocation of the frequency band 14.5 -14.8 GHz to the fixedsatellite service (Earth-to-space) with due protection of assignments appearing in Appendix 30A of

the Radio Regulations, and to take account of services to which these frequency bands are currently

allocated;

2 Communications with manned space vehicles may be defined as a new space application

which may require the indication of the space service and the frequency bands that this service may

use for this purpose.
Appendix B-Agenda for the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference ● 113

2.2.6 the examination of the frequency bands 2.025-2110 MHz and 2200-1 290 MHz for the

space operations and space (research services, as indicated in Recommendation 716(Orb-88);

2.2.7 the consideration of footnotes relating to the radiodetermination-satellite service in the

frequency range 1.6-25 GHz with the view to harmonizing them and allowing administrations to

revise the status of their respective allocations to this service and to review the sharing criteria as

indicated in Resolution No. 708( Mob-87);

2.2.8 the examination of the footnotes RR 635 and RR 797B;

2.3 to consider the provisions of Articles 55( Rev.) and 56( Rev.) of the Radio Regulations which

concern the mandatory carriage on board ships of personnel equipment, as indicated in Resolution

No. PLEN/83;

2.4 to consider minimum modifications to Article 12 of the Radio Regulations as a result of

actions taken with regard to Appendix 26, as indicated in Resolution No. PL-B/24;

2.5 to consider appropriate action, in light of the decision of the Conference relating to

definitions in accordance with Resolution No. PL/105;

2.6 to make such consequential changes and amendments in the Radio Regulations as may be

necessitated by the decisions of the Conference;

2.7 to develop new Recommendations and Resolutions in relation to the agenda of the

Conference including Meteorological aids service in frequency bands below 1000 MHz and present

allocations to space services above 20 GHz which were not placed on this agenda;

2.8 to consider problems associated with the use of the frequency bands in the range 401 -403

MHz by the meteorological satellite and earth exploration satellite services with the view to

recommend their consideration by the next competent administrative radio conference;

2.9 to consider, revise as necessary, and take other appropriate action upon the relevant

Recommendations and Resolutions;

2.9.1 to safeguard the interests of services that may be affected by changes in the Table of

frequency allocations by adopting appropriate sharing criteria when required and to adopt

appropriate schedule for the entering into force of the decisions adopted by the Conference;

2.9.2 to review Resolution No. 703 in the light of the procedure adopted by the XVllth CCIR

Plenary Assembly (Resolution PLEN/75) for the approval of Recommendations in the interval

between Plenary Assemblies;

3 Plenipotentiary Conference, Nice, 1989.

4 Plenipotentiary Conference, Nice, 1989.

5 Plenipotentiary Conference, Nice, 1989.
114 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

2.10 to identify the financial implications of the decisions of the Conference, taking into account

the Union’s budgetary provisions, and as necessary to submit a statement thereon to the

Administrative Council in accordance with Article 80 of the International Telecommunication

Convention and Resolution No. 48 of the Plenipotentiary Conference, Nairobi, 1982,

invites

1. the CCIR to prepare the technical and operational bases for the Conference and to submit to

administrations and a report setting out the results of its work at least eight months prior to the

opening of the Conference.

2. the IFRB to provide technical assistance for the preparation and organization of the

Conference and to submit to all administrations a report on results with respect to the appropriate

above agenda items at least ten months prior to the opening of the Conference.

instructs the Secretary-General

1. to make all the arrangements necessary for holding the Conference;

2. to communicate this Resolution to ICAO, IMO, WMO and to other concerned international

organizations.
Appendix C

Applications for New Services

The following is a list of companies that have applied to the Federal Communications Commission for licenses (both operational

and experimental) in four new services: Broadcasting-Satellite Service-Sound (BSS-Sound); direct broadcasting satellites (DBS);

low-Earth orbiting satellites (LEOS); and personal communication networks (PCN).

Broadcasting-Satellite Service-Sound

Company Band Status Comments

Radio-Satellite Corp.

Satellite CD Radio

Afrispace (WorldSpace) 1470-1530 MHz, 29.9- Experimental— Experimental license to broadcast direct radio

30.0 GHz granted services all over Africa and the Middle East.

Operational— Trying to prove that direct, high-quality

pending radio broadcasts will work over large

regions. Plans to lease channels to

governments and will donate capacity to the

World Health Organization.*

1545-1559 MHz, 1646.5- Pending Applications to use American Mobile Satellite

1660.5 MHz Corp. satellites for digital audio

broadcasting service.

1470-1530 MHz Pending Two satellites and hundreds of terrestrial

transmitters, which would broadcast up to

100 compact disc-quality radio program

channels nationwide.

Strother Communications 225-2700 MHz Pending

Direct Broadcast Satellite2

No specific band was requested, just the

allocation of 48 MHz in the range listed.

Company Band3

Status4 Comments

Advanced Communications 12.2-12.7 GHz Granted Will provide entertainment programming, as

well as two full-time transponders, cost free,

to the Foundation for Educational

Advancement Today.

Continental Satellite Corp. 12.2-12.7 GHz

Direct Broadcast Satellite Corp. 12.2-12.7 GHz

Directsat Corp. 12.2-12.7 GHz

Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. 12.2-12.7 GHz

Echostar Satellite Corp. 12.2-12.7 GHz

Hughes Communication 12.2-12.7 GHz

Tempo Satellite, Inc. 12.2-12.7 GHz

United States Satellite 12.2-12.7 GHz

Broadcasting Co.

Granted

Granted

Granted

Granted

Granted

Granted

Pending5

Granted

Plans to operate largely or exclusively on a

common carrier basis.

No programming information available.

Plans to lease transponders to other providers

Plans to focus on educational programming.

Will provide entertainment (pay-per-view

movies, comedy, and children’s

programming) plus religious programming.

Plans to operate as a common carrier.

Expected to be the DBS platform to which the

K Prime Partner venture would migrate.

Plans to use 3 satellites to deliver 11 channels

of diversified entertainment programming

nationwide. It is the highest powered DBS

service yet proposed.

IMary Lu Camevale, “FCC Gives License to WorldSpace for Radio Satellite,” Wall Street Journul, June 24, 1991, p. B1. 2~ fiofia ~ DBs ~d~dth~ ~d ~~ ~ ~Cc~~&d DBs Field AW~tS ~~~kel Alloc~~ @ Fee,” ~h DBS Report, June 1990, pp. 1,7-8,

%srauge was preset as the band for DBS setices by &e FCC.

t~ DBs applicati~m for operational system.

% FCC k holding capacity in reserve until a character qualificatim issue k IWOlved.

–115–
116 . WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Low-Earth Orbiting Satellite6

Company Band Status Comments

Constellation

Communications, Inc.

Ellipsat

Leosat

Loral Cellular Systems Corp.

Motorola, Inc.

Orbital Communications

Corp.

Starsys, Inc.

TRW, Inc.

Volunteers in Technical

Assistance, Inc. (VITA)

1610- 1625.5 MHz

(uplink),

and 2483.5-2500 MHz

(downlink)

1610- 1626.5 MHZ

(uplink), and 2483.5-

2500 MHz (downlink)

148-149 MHz (uplink) and

137-138 MHz

(downlink)

1610-1626.5 MHz, 2483.5-

2500 MHz

Pending for both

operational and

experimental

licenses

Pending

Pending

Pending

1610- 1626.5 MHz7 Pending

137-38 MHz and 148-

149.9 M Hz

137-38 MHz and 148-

149.9 MHz

29.5 -30.0 GHz 19.7 -20.2

GHz 1610-1625.5 MHz

2483.5-2500 MHz

137-138 MHZz 148-149.9

MHz, 400.15-401 MHz

Experimental—

granted

Operational—

pending

Pending

Pending

Operational—

pending

Experimental—

granted

Aries system of 48 satellites would include

position determination/reporting, two-way

telephony, dispatch voice, facsimile, and

data collection, distribution, and control

services.

Ellipso unit will connect to a cellular phoneconverting 800-MHz cellular to the 2.5/l.6-

GHz Radiodetermination-Satellite Service

(RDSS) bands.

Planning to provide communications for an

intelligent vehicle highway system (IVHS).

The Globalstar system will use 24 satellites for

U.S. coverage (48 for global coverage) and

will provide RDSS, voice and data

communications using Code Division

Multiple Access (CDMA) spread spectrum.

They have three alternative spectrum

proposals, with feeder links in the C-band.

Loral is jointly owned by Loral Aerospace

and Qualcomm.

The Iridium system would use 77 satellites to

provide mobile and portable phone service

to any location on Earth. Planned startup in

1997.

Requesting a 370-kHz band in the frost range

(downlink) and a 478-kHz band in the

second (uplink). The Orbcomm system

would be used for low-cost, low-speed data

transmissions.

The Starnet system will use the same

bandwidths as Orbcomm, providing data

services.

The 12-satellite Odyssey system (operating at

medium earth orbits) plans to provide voice,

radiolocation, messaging, and data services

using CDMA spread spectrum modulation.

VITA is a nonprofit organization that plans to

offer data services, including file transfer.

The system would offer services in health,

education, and technical assistance

primarily for developing countries.

Experimental system has been operating

since 1990, and system is planned to be

operational in 1993-94.

GM bandwidth information for LEO satellites is from Pe&ral Co mmun.ications Commissio~ “An Inquiry Relating to Preparation for the International Telecommunication

Union World Administrative Radio Confenmce for Dealing With l%equ~y Allocations in Certain Parts of the Spectruq” Gen Docket No. 89-554, SuppZementuZNotice

ofInguiry, 6 FCC Rcd 1914 (1991); and “TRW, bm@ualcomm Venture . . .“ Telecommunications Reports, vol. 57, No. 24, June 17, 1991, pp. 28-30.

T~&w J~s, ‘SFIW of ~w ~a~t Fhgs Hood the FCC,” Washington Technology, VO1. 6, No. 6, J- 13, 1991, p. 9.
Appendix C-Applications for New Services ● 117

Personal Communication Services

Company Band Status 9 Comments

Adelphia Cable

Communications

Personal communication services (PCS) test by

cable company using fiber optic in

Pittsburgh, Miami, Buffalo, and Tequesta,

FL.

Using CT2 technology in New York City.

Second application (864-868 MHz) granted

for use in Monticello, NY.

902-928, 1850-1990,

2400-2483.5 MHz,

12.7 -13.5 GHz

930.5 MHz (paging),

902-928, and 940-941

MHz. Also 864-868.1

M H z

901-902,930-931,

940-941 MHz (902-

928: Part 15 Spread

spectrum device)

849-851,864-868,

894-896,901-902,

930-931,940-941,

1850-1990 MHz

901-902,930-931,

940-941 MHz.

Also 1850-1990 MHz

Pending

Advanced Cordless

Technologies

Granted

Granted Two simultaneous applications granted: one in

Boston and one in Miami-Ft. Lauderdale.

Advanced Mobilecom

Technologies, Inc.

Advanced Wireless

Communications, Inc.

Pending Tests of CT2 and PCN systems, testing possible

sharing with air-to-ground in San Francisco

and Cincinnati.

American Personal

Communications, Inc.

Granted

Granted

Granted

Granted

Granted

Partnership with the Washington Post to

provide service in and around Washington,

DC.

A second application has been granted to test

services in Washington, DC and Baltimore,

MD.

For use in eastern Texas, using Part 15 telepoint

service. Application also granted for

southern California.

American Telezone 2400-2483.5 MHz

1850-1990 MHz

1850-1990 MHz

Ameritech Direct Spread spectrum in Chicago.

Communications, Inc.

Associated PCN Corp. For use in Los Angeles, using spread spectrum.

Pending application for the same

technology and frequency for New York,

Chicago, and Washington, DC.

PCN equipment test in Manchester, NH,

Providence, RI, and Boston. A second

application is pending for a PCS test in San

Francisco and San Jose.

Atlantic Cellular Co., L.P. 902-928,931-932,

941-948, 1850-1990MHz

Pending

1850-1990 MHz

5.9-6.4 GHz

Granted

Pending

Pending

Research of different types of PCN equipment

in Chester, NJ.

AT&T

AT&T Systems would use existing microwave relay

towers to trial PCN hardware and software

in Boston, Atlanta, and Los Angeles.

Barden Communications,

Inc.

902-928, 1850-1990,

2400-2483.5,5725-

5850 MHz, 12.7 -13.5

GHz

902-928,1850-1990,

2400-2483.5 MHz

866-869,902-928,

PCS test by cable company using fiberoptic in

Detroit.

Bell Atlantic Mobile

Systems, Inc.

BellSouth Enterprises, Inc.

Pending

Granted

Development of PCS equipment for Pittsburgh,

Philadelphia, Bedminister, NJ, and

Washington, DC.

Two separate applications granted. First in

Atlanta, second in Athens, GA. CT2 in

Athens, using cellular frequencies.

1850-1990 MHz Also

846.5-849 MHz

SM ~omtion on PCS was provided h Federal CO mnnmictions Commission “PCS Expexirnmtal Applications by Filed Date,” May 30, 1991, unpublished docuxmnt.
118 . WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Personal Communication Service8

Company Band Status 9 Comments

Bell South Services, Inc.

BNR, Inc. (Subsidiary of

Northern Telecom)

Cable TV of East Providence,

Inc.

Cable USA, Inc.

Cablevision

CASCO Cable Television, Inc.

Cellular 21, Inc.

Cellular General, Inc.

Cellular Services, Inc.

Cencom Cable Associates, Inc.

Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co.

Citizens Utilities Company of

CA

COMCAST Corp. “

Continental Cablevision of

California, Inc.

Continental Cablevision of

Jacksonville, Inc.

Continental Cablevision of

Massachusetts, Inc.

Cox Enterprises, Inc.

Cylink Corp.

Dial Page, L.P.

864-869,902-928, 1850-

1990 MHz

864-868,902-928,930-

960, 1850-1990,2400-

2483.5, 5725 -5850 MHz

902-928,1850-1990,2400-

2483.5, 5725 -5850 MHz

866-868, 1850-1990 MHz

902-928,2400-2483S,W25-

5850 MHz and 12.7-

13.5 GHz

902-928,1850-1990,2400-

2483.5,5725-5850 MHz

866-868 MHz and 940-941

M H z

866-868 MHz

901-902,930-931,940-

941, 1850-1990 MHz

1850-2120 MHz, 12.7-

13.5 GHz

864-868, 1850-1990 MHz

902-928, 1850-1990 MHz

902-928,1850-1990,2400-

2483.5 MHz and 12.7-

13.5 GHz

1850-1990 MHz and 12.7-

13.5 GHz

1850-1990 MHz and 12.7-

13.5 GHz

1850-1990 MHz and 12.7-

13.5 GHz

902-928,2400-2483.5,5725-

5850, and 1850-1990

MHz

902-928,2400-2483.5,5725-

5850 M Hz

866.1 -868.1 MHz

Granted

Pending

Pending

Granted

Granted

Pending

Granted

Granted

Pending

Pending

Pending

Pending

Pending

Granted

Granted

Granted

Granted

Pending

Pending

— Tests of wireless Access Business Systems in

Birmingham, AL and Atlanta.

CT2 and PCN in Richardson, TX, Mountain

View, CA, and ResearchTriangle Park, NC.

Also have an application pending for a

1-day demo of equipment (nationwide) on

same frequencies.

Use of cable to tie cells together in East

Providence, RI.

CT2 and PCN in Omaha, Kearney, Grand

Island, and Hastings, NE.

PCN interfacing with existing cable system in

Cleveland, New York City, Chicago, and

Boston.

Cable used to tie cells together in Brunswick,

ME.

Two applications have been granted. The first

(866-868 MHz) was for a test of British

equipment in Gillet, PA and Elmira-Ithaca,

NY. The second (940-941 MHz) was for a

50-mile radius around the Empire State

Building, with only one base station.

A test of British equipment in Deerfield, FL.

PCS test in Los Angeles.

Development of PCS equipment by cable

company using fiber optic in Riverside, CA,

Alhambra, CA, Olivette, MO, and

Fultondale, AL.

CT2 and PCN test in Cincinnati.

Development to replace local loop in Elk

Grove, CA.

Cable will be used to tie cells together in

Indianapolis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, West

Palm Beach, and Los Angeles.

Uses cable to tie cells together in Stockton, CA.

Uses cable to tie cells together in Jacksonville,

MS.

Uses cable to tie cells together in Boston.

For use in San Diego and New York City.

Nationwide demo of Part 15 devices,

Test of foreign equipment in High Point, NC.

SM fiomtion on PCS was provided in Federal CO- cations Commission “PCS Expe rixwntal Applications by Filed Date,” May 30, 1991, unpublished docunxmt.

9~ applic~~ are for experimmtal systems.
Appendix C-Applications for New Services ● 119

Personal Communication Service8

Company Band Status9 Comments

Granted PCN and Part 15 devices in San Jose and San

Francisco.

Digital Spread Spectrum

Technologies, Inc.

902-928,2400-2483.5,5725-

5850, and 1850-1990

MHz

864-866, and930-960 MHz

940-952 MHz

Granted

Granted

Pending

Granted

Pending

Easyphone, Inc. CT2 in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Ericsson Paging Systems, Inc. A wireless PBX system, in building, for use in

Washington, DC, and Anaheim, CA.

General Instrument Corp. 864-868,902-928, 1850-

1990,2400-2483.5 MHz

1910-1920 MHz

Development of PCS equipment in Hatboro,

PA.

Graphic Scanning Corp. Application granted for Detroit, White Plains,

New York City, and Chicago.

GTE Mobile

Communications

849-851, and 894-896 MHz Test will cover the continental U.S. near

Airfone stations. Will use CT2 to test the

potential use of air-to-ground frequencies

for CT2 use.

Hewlett Packard Co. 864-868 MHz Pending

Pending

Granted

Test of foreign equipment at own office in

Camel, IN.

Intermedia Communications of

Florida, Inc.

LDH International, Inc.

1850-1990 MHz Development of PCS by cable company in

Tampa and Orlando.

901-902,902-928,930-

931,940-941,2400-

2483.5,5725-5850 MHz

and27.5-21L14and28.5-

29.14 GHz

1850-1990 MHz

For Greenville, NC, Denver CO and Atlanta.

PCN in San Diego, Palm Springs, Phoenix, and

Las Vegas.

Linkatel Communications,

Inc.

LiTel Telecommunications

Corp.

Pending

2400-2483.5,5725-5850MHZ Granted 2400-MHz band for communication between

users and base station, 5700-MHz band used

to tie base stations together. Both bands Part

15 Spread spectrum device. For use in

Columbus, OH.

LiTel Telecommunications PCS test in Cleveland and Cincinnati.

Corp.

864-868,902-928,930-

960, 1850-1990,2400-

X83.5, 5725-5850 MHz

1850-1990 MHz

901-902,930-931, and 940-

941 MHz

864.1 -868.1 MHz

Pending

Local Area Telecommunications, Inc.

Pending

Granted

Granted

PCN in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Matrix Personal

Communications, Inc.

McCaw Cellular

Communications, Inc.

For use in Chicago.

For use in Orlando, Seattle, and West Palm

Beach. CT2 service and equipment would

be converted to cellular frequencies later.

Media General Cable of

Fairfax County, Inc.

Micronet, Inc.

902-928,1850-1990,2400-

2483.5,5725-5850MHz

864-868 MHz

Pending

Pending

Development of PCS equipment by cable

company in Fairfax, VA.

Test of foreign equipment in Lancaster,

Jamison, and Philadelphia, PA, and Austin,

Dallas, and Houston, Texas.

Test of equipment within office in Duluth, GA.

Also has a pending application for 862-864

MHz in various locations nationwide.

em info~tion on PCS was @&d in kkd C~CdCHIS ~‘ si~ “PCS Expe rimental Applications by Filed Date,” May 30, 1991, unpublished document.

9All ~lic&ons are for experimenhl systems.
120 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Personal Communication Service8

Company Band Status 9 Comments

Motorola, Inc.

MTEL PCN, Inc.

Novatel Communications, Inc.

NYNEX Science&

Technology

Omni-Point Data Co., Inc.

Pacific Telesis Group

PCN America, Inc.

(Millicom)

PCS Network, Inc.

Personal Communications

Network Services of New

York, Inc.

Personal Communications

Network Services of New

York

Pertel, Inc.

Prime II Management, Inc.

SCS Mobilecom, Inc.

Satcom, Inc.

Tele-Financing Corp., Inc.

Telepoint Personal

Communications, Inc.

Tel/Logic Inc.

Time Warner Cable Group

Timex Communications

Corp.

1850-1990 MHz

1850-1990 MHz

940-952 MHz

1850-1990 MHz

902-928,2400-2483.5, and

5725-5850 MHz

614-806,824-849,869-

894,849-851,894-896,

901-902,930-931,940-

941,902-928, 1850-

1990,2110-2130,2160-

2180,2400-2483.5 MHz

1850-1990 MHz

901-902,940-942 MHz

1850-1990 MHz

940-952 MHz

902-928,2100-2483 .5,5735-

5850,1850-1990 MHz,

and 12.7 -13.5 GHz

902-928,941-948, 1270-

1350,1850-1990,2400-

2483.5,5725 -5850 MHz

1850-1990 MHz

866-868, 1850-1990 MHz

1850-1990 MHz

940-941 MHz

1850-1990 MHz

902-928,1850-1990,2400-

2483.5,5725-5850 MHz

and 12.7-13.2, and 17.7-

19.7 GHz

864.15-868.05 MHz (902-

28 MHz Part 15)

Granted

Granted

Pending

Granted

Granted

Granted

Granted

Granted

Granted

Pending

Granted

Pending

Pending

Granted

Pending

Granted

Pending

Granted

Granted

For use in Chicago and Atlanta, using spread

spectrum. Motorola also has an application

pending in the 864-868 MHz band (test of

PCS at factory in Chicago).

For use in Dallas-Ft. Worth area.

For use in Boston, New York City, and White

Plains, NY.

CT2 service covering continental United

States.

Use in San Francisco, Chicago, Dallas, New

York City, and Los Angeles.

A test of a spread spectrum digital system in

Houston and Orlando.

For use in Boston, Philadelphia, and New York

City.

For New York City and Newark, using spread

spectrum.

Wireless PBX in New York City.

Used in Philadelphia, Cleveland, and

Pittsburgh. Cable is used to tie cells

together.

Development of PCS equipment by cable

company in Anchorage, Atlanta, Chicago,

Las Vegas, and Houston.

Spread spectrum in Long Island, NY.

Testing in rural areas around Spokane, WA,

Missoula, MT, and Billings, MT.

PCN in Appleton, WI.

CT2 demonstration system in Atlantic City.

CDMA spread spectrum, in Pittsburgh and

Dallas-Ft. Worth.

In New York City, St. Petersburg, Cincinnati,

and Columbus, using cable to tie cells

together.

For use within the Timex Building in

Middlebury, CT

8M ~omtion on Pcs was provided in Fe&ral CO~ cations Comrnissioq “PCS Expe rirmntal Applications by Filed Date,” May 30, 1991, unpublished docwmrt

9~ appfic~om are for experimenkd systems.
Appendix C-Applications for New Services . 121

Personal Communication Services8

Company Band Status 9 Comments

Unicell Corp. 940-948 MHz Granted For use in Boston.

United Artists Cable Corp. 866-868,901-928,930- Pending PCN in Denver, Baton Rouge, Westchester,

931,940-941, 1710- NY, Oakland, and Tulsa.

1850,1850-1990,1990-

2110,2110-2200,2200-

2290, 2400-2483.5 MHz

USA Mobile Communication, 788-794, 800-806 MHz Granted

Inc. II

Viacom International, Inc. , 900-901,902-928,930- Pending

931,940-941, 1850-

1990, 2400-2483.5, 5725-

5850 MHz and 12.7-

13.5 GHz

For use in Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Louisville,

Toledo, Cleveland, and Columbus.

8M ~omtion on PCS was ptided in Fbkid c~cations Commissio~ “PCS Experirmn M Applications by Filed Date,” May 30, 1991, unpublished document. 9All appfic~om -f~ expe~ systems.
Appendix D

U.S. Proposals for WARC Malaga=Torremolinos, Spain, 1992

INTRODUCTION

I. General Remarks

The 1992 International Telecommunication Union World Administrative Radio

Conference provides the opportunity to update the Radio Regulations to facilitate further

advances in telecommunications. The United States, in preparing for the 1992 WARC, has

been guided by certain principles in line with the purposes of the Union. These are:

a. To promote the implementation of a variety of new operational programs as

rapidly as practicable so that all countries may realize the benefits and spectrum savings

promised by modern telecommunication technologies;

b. To provide flexibility in the international regulations to ensure that the needs

of all countries can be met;

c. To reduce regulatory, technical, and operational barriers so that technologies

can rapidly be introduced and used to the benefit of all mankind; and

d. To provide up-to-date regulations that assure greater safety-of-life on land, on

the sea, in the air, and in space.

During the last Plenipotentiary cycle (1982-1989), several radio conferences were held

that addressed mobile, space, and broadcasting services. These conferences recognized that

technology was advancing rapidly and recommended that future conferences address a number

of topics in adapting to changing needs.

The Plenipotentiary Conference, Nice, 1989, responded by deciding to hold a

conference in 1992, to once again examine and update the Radio Regulations. The agenda

adopted by the ITU Administrative Council provides for consideration of a broad range of

telecommunication topics. The reports from the International Radio Consultative Committee

(CCIR) and the International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB), together with proposals

of ITU Members, will constitute the principal input documentation for the work of the

conference. We are hopeful that a collaborative effort will enable the ITU Members to update

the Radio Regulations to further advance the development and availability of telecommunications services, economically, on a worldwide basis. -

This document sets forth the views of the United

changing telecommunications environment. Study of some

there may be some additional United States proposals at a

.

States regarding the needs of the

of these matters is continuing and

later date.

II. Broadcasting Service at High Frequency

There is a need for additional high frequency (HF) spectrum for broadcasting. To meet

that demand we propose an additional 1325 kHz for HF broadcasting above 5900 kHz in ITU

Region 2, and an additional 1125 kHz in Regions 1 and 3. Except for the proposal at 18/19

MHz, these new allocations are contiguous to existing broadcasting bands. We also propose

that reduced carrier single sideband (SSB) emission be implemented earlier in the existing

broadcasting bands and in the new bands, that the fixed and mobile services have access to

any new broadcasting allocations, and that a reaccommodation procedure be adopted which

would assure protection of displaced existing HF assignments.

–122–
Appendix U.S. Proposals for WARC Malaga-Torremolinos, Spain, 1992 . 123

New Allocations for Broadcasting.

We propose the following additional allocations for HF broadcasting:

5900-5950 k H z 13800-13900 kHz

7400-7525 k Hz 15600-15700 kHz

9350-9500 kHz 17450-17550 kHz

11550- 11650 kHz 18900- 19300 kHz

Changes Consequential to Aligning Broadcasting Allocations at 7 MHz.

We also propose to shift broadcasting in Regions 1 and 3 from the current 7100-7300

kHz to the band 7200-7400 kHz. For Region 2, we propose to allocate 7200-7300 kHz to

broadcasting in place of the current amateur allocation. To compensate for this loss of 100

kHz by the amateur service, we propose to allocate the band 6900-7000 kHz to amateur; this

would be a consequential action. These actions result in an exclusive worldwide proposed

allocation for the amateur service from 6900-7200 kHz, and for the broadcasting service from

7200-7525 kHz. The present unsuitable regional sharing situation would be resolved with this

proposal.

The Use of SSB.

Our proposals require that any new frequency allocations for HF broadcasting be

limited to reduced carrier SSB using characteristics as specified in Appendix 45 of the Radio

Regulations. Additionally, in order to encourage the early use of reduced carrier SSB, we are

proposing the advancement of the date when all broadcasting must be converted to SSB from

2015 to the year 2007. These proposals promote spectrum efficiency and enhance frequency

utilization.

Reaccommodation.

The protection of existing radio services through a reaccommodation procedure is an

essential part of any new allocation of spectrum to the broadcasting service. We have used

Resolution Nos. 8 and 9 from the 1979 WARC as a basis for a procedure to ensure reaccommodation of displaced assignments. This procedure requires that the changeover from the old

to the new assignment take place not later than 1 July 2007.

Access bv Non-Broadcasting Services in Broadcasting Allocations.

Technical studies and current operational practice demonstrate that in certain

instances, time and geographical sharing amongst different HF radio services is feasible.

Therefore, we propose permitting access to new broadcasting allocations by fixed and mobile

services on a secondary basis. This proposal does not replace the requirement to accommodate the existing fixed and mobile assignments.

III. Low Earth Orbiting Satellites Below 1 GHz

Recent research and operational testing indicates that low earth orbit satellite systems

can offer a number of radio services which can complement those provided by geostationary

satellite operations. These newer technologies offer the potential to meet demands for data

communication services using lightweight pocket-sized terminals. Low earth orbit systems

offer the possibility of providing low-cost two-way data communications. A wide range of
124 . W&C-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

applications can be implemented to support economic development worldwide. To obtain

efficiencies in the satellites and earth terminals, VHF bands are preferred. As these bands are

used extensively, techniques have been developed to facilitate sharing with existing services.

The United States proposes allocations for the mobile-satellite service to be added to

three bands for use by low earth orbit systems. The bands proposed are: 137-138 MHz

(downlink), 148-149.9 MHz (uplink), and 400.15-401 MHz (downlink). In the 137-138 MHz

band we propose an additional provision to protect the meteorological-satellite service.

IV. New Space Service Applications for Communications

with Manned Space Vehicles Conducting

Space Research Activities around 400 MHz

Extra-Vehicular Activity at 410-420 MHz.

Extra-vehicular activity (EVA) is work activities undertaken by astronauts outside the

shelter of their base space vehicle, protected only by a life support space suit. A primary

allocation in an appropriate radio service is needed to provide for communications between

astronauts and base spacecraft, such as the Space Shuttle and Space Station Freedom, while

they are performing activities, such as maintenance, outside the base vehicle.

Operating range for an EVA link would normally be confined to about 100 meters of

the primary spacecraft, though reliable operation at up to 1 km is required to support

contingency operations. The band selected must be between 270-575 MHz to comply with

extremely limited power, on the order of 250 mW, and size restrictions of the astronaut’s life

support suit. Limited EVA communication capabilities are currently provided below 300 MHz.

However, with the future expansion of EVA activities, new systems require additional

capacity up to 10 MHz bandwidth. Because of present spectrum usage, a frequency band

below 400 MHz is not available. For these reasons, the United States proposes that this new

space service application concerning manned space vehicles be satisfied with a primary space

research (space-to-space) allocation at 410-420 MHz, restricted to these activities by a footnote.

We also propose to protect fixed and mobile operations in this footnote.

Proximity Operations at 400.15-401 MHz.

There is a requirement to communicate with approaching space vehicles, for example,

during docking maneuvers and for interrogation of co-orbiting unmanned experimental

containers, at distances up to 37 km. This activity requires transmit power levels somewhat

higher than those available from an astronaut’s suit. The United States proposes to allocate

the frequency band 400.15-401 MHz to the space research service (space-to-space direction) for

communications with manned space vehicles. The restriction to manned space vehicles in the

proposed footnote to the allocations table is important, but further restriction as to distance

would not be useful.

V. Mobile Services In The Approximate Range 1-3 GHz

Mobile Service Allocations and Future Public Land Mobile Telecommunications Systems

The demand for spectrum for the mobile services is growing. Considerable emphasis

has been placed on accommodating future mobile service needs by providing suitabl e

allocations in the 1700-2450 MHz band. These needs include personal communication
Appendix D-U.S. Proposals for WARC Malaga-Torremolinos, Spain, 1992 ● 125

networks, cordless telephones and future public land mobile telecommunication systems

(FPLMTS). As the table of frequency allocations contains a primary mobile allocation in

Region 2 from 1700-2690 MHz, which could permit future implementation of mobile services,

we see no need to make specific allocation proposals for Region 2.

Further, we note that the WARC will specifically consider possible designation of a

band of frequencies for use by future public land mobile telecommunication systems

(FPLMTS). This concept, which embraces a wide variety of personal communications

applications, has been under intensive study by the CCIR. Proponents wish to set aside a band

of frequencies for future use which they indicate would facilitate global roaming of personal

stations. While we support the work of the CCIR on FPLMTS, we believe that the WARC must

exercise caution before reserving spectrum, particularly because of the numerous demands in

the 1-3 GHz frequency range. Furthermore, technical standards such as modulation

parameters, protocols, and channelization schemes will be just as important as an allocated

band in facilitating any requirements for global roaming. These standards and protocols may

obviate the need for a common worldwide band for international roaming. We believe that

it is premature to designate a frequency band until the CCIR has progressed further in its

work.

Terrestrial Aeronautical Public Correspondence.

The United States and some other administrations have already implemented a

terrestrial aeronautical public correspondence system in the 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz

bands. Since this system has become fully operational and hundreds of aircraft are already

equipped with systems operating in these bands, we believe that these band segments should

be used for this purpose on a worldwide basis. Therefore, we propose to allocate 849-851 MHz

(air-ground) and 894-896 MHz (ground-air) for this purpose.

VI. Mobile-Satellite Services at 1-3 GHz

The demand for additional spectrum for the mobile-satellite service is growing. The

CCIR recognized this situation and estimated the spectrum requirements of these services.

Our proposals exceed the minimum amount projected by CCIR.

Because of the demands being placed on the 1-3 GHz spectrum by a multitude of

services, we believe it is extremely important to utilize the spectrum efficiently. The current

service specific allocations in the 1.5/ 1.6 GHz bands are too restrictive to permit flexible usage

to adapt to dynamic changes in communication needs. We recognize, however, that special

provisions are necessary so that safety services will be protected from interference, and that

these services will be ensured priority access over other communications in these bands.

The United States proposes to reallocate the land mobile-satellite and maritime mobilesatellite service bands at 1530-1544 MHz (space-to-Earth) and at 1626.5 -1645.5 MHz (Earthto-space) to the mobile-satellite service. These proposals provide additional spectrum, permit

flexibility based on operational demands, and provide priority access with real-time

preemptive capability for maritime safety needs. We also propose to allocate the band 1525-

1530 MHz to the mobile-satellite service (space-to-earth) to balance the amount of spectrum

allocated downlink with that already available in the corresponding 1.6 GHz uplink band.

In the bands 1545-1559 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 1646.5 -1660.5 MHz (Earth-to-space),

the United States proposes to reallocate the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) (AMS(R)S) and

land mobile-satellite services to the mobile-satellite service. This proposal for a mobile-
126 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

satellite service also provides priority access with real-time preemptive capability for the

aeronautical mobile-satellite service (R).

These allocation proposals will enhance flexibility for future usage. Existing

operations in the bands will not be adversely affected, as we have been careful to preserve the

integrity of distress and safety communications for the Global Maritime Distress and Safety

System (GMDSS) and AMS(R)S. We do so by continuing to provide sufficient capacity and

priority access with real-time preemptive capability over all other communications in the

bands proposed for reallocation from service specific use. This is accomplished by linking our

proposals to specific footnotes, (ADD) RR’s 726C and 730B, addressing safety requirements

in the maritime mobile-satellite service bands and the AMS(R)S bands. Along with these

footnotes, we propose a consequential change in Article 61. These measures assure that the

GMDSS and the AMS(R)S can fulfill their respective safety requirements.

The United States proposes new worldwide allocations of 40 MHz, in each direction,

for the mobile-satellite service. The proposed allocations are 2110-2130 MHz and 2160-2180

MHz in the space-to-Earth direction, and 2390-2430 MHz in the Earth-to-space direction.

The United States proposes to add a co-equal primary allocation for the mobilesatellite service in the radiodetermination-satellite service (RDSS) bands at 1610 -1626.5 and

2483.5-2500 MHz. Footnotes are proposed to require that such use would be in accordance

with appropriate CCIR Recommendations to ensure compatibility with the RDSS. The MSS

and RDSS complement one another in these bands and in some cases may be provide by the

same system. Therefore, in order to ensure equality of these services on a worldwide basis, we

are proposing to upgrade the radiodetermination-satellite allocations in these bands in

Region’s 1 and 3. We also propose a secondary allocation (space-to-Earth) for the mobilesatellite service from 1613.8 -1626.5 MHz to permit a possible bi-directional use of the band.

We also propose an allocation footnote to add the mobile-satellite service to the band

1850-1990 MHz. This addition is intended to complement the existing services. The added

flexibility should permit greater sharing of the band and promote development of a variety

of personal communications services.

We are examining the use of low earth orbit satellite systems in the mobile-satellite

service at 1-3 GHz. Mobile-satellite service allocations can accommodate this requirement;

some systems of this type contemplate use of common bands for both uplink and downlink.

The CCIR has already begun studies on the sharing parameters for these systems and some

information is provided in its report to the WARC.

VII. Broadcasting-Satellite Service at 500-3000 MHz

The United States is evaluating possible spectrum allocations for the broadcastingsatellite service (sound) in the spectral region between 500 and 3000 MHz. The radio listener

markets that may be served by this allocation include both domestic and international radio

program listeners of direct satellite broadcasts, as well as complementary local terrestrial

broadcasts. The CCIR and other international organizations have performed recent additional

studies. A United States proposal on particular bands for this service will be presented in a

supplemental proposal.
Appendix D-U.S. Proposals for WARC Malaga-Torremolinos, Spain, 1992 ● 127

VIII. Space Research and Space Operation Services at 2 GHz

WARC-ORB-88 in Recommendation 716 noted that the 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290

MHz bands are allocated to the space research and space operations services, subject to the

provisions of Article 14 of the Radio Regulations. The WARC recognized that there is

increasing use of these bands by the space research and space operation services, leading to

increased coordination difficulties under the provisions of Article 14.

Major space programs of several administrations depend on use of the allocations at 2

GHz for reliable communication, data acquisition, and command and control. In the United

States, these include the shuttle, Space Station Freedom, Hubble Space Telescope, and the

Tracking and Data Relay Satellite Systems. For these reasons, the United States proposes that

the space service allocations in these bands be upgraded to primary with consequential

regulatory changes to apply existing power flux density (PFD) limits.

IX. Fixed-Satellite Service at 14.5 -14.8 GHz

The WARC agenda includes consideration of the allocation of the frequency band

14.5 -14.8 GHz to the fixed-satellite (Earth-to-space) service. Because of mobile and fixed uses,

the United States cannot agree to fixed-satellite service operations in this band. In the United

States, we cannot agree to any licensing of fixed-satellite operations, nor can we agree to

protect such operations from interference from other users of the band. Accordingly, the

United States proposes no change in the allocation at 14.5 -14.8 GHz and associated footnote

863.

X. High Definition Television Broadcasting-Satellite Service

The United States proposes a two-pronged approach to satisfying future needs for high

definition television (HDTV) via satellite. We believe that the existing 12 GHz broadcastingsatellite service (BSS) allocations and associated plans can serve as the basis for meeting this

demand. We recognize that this approach may require changes to the modification procedures

for these plans. Such changes, however, should not be extensive and could be accomplished

at some future conference. We further note that there could be difficulty in accommodating a few specific HDTV-BSS assignments within the 12 GHz BSS plans, so we also propose to

allocate the 24.65-25.25 GHz band for use by the broadcasting-satellite service.

XI. Space Services Above 20 GHz

A. Inter-Satellite Service Requirements.

The WARC agenda permits consideration of allocations for new space service

applications above 20 GHz, and we propose a number of allocations. We also propose a minor

modification to the inter-satellite definition to provide for links between data relay satellites

and other satellites that may not necessarily be Earth-orbiting.

1. Inter-Satellite Requirement at 22 GHz.

We propose to allocate the 21.7-22 GHz band to accommodate projected requirements

such as cross-links between satellites of the mobile-satellite services.
128 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

2. Future Data Relay Satellite and Space Station (Proximity) Wideband Links.

The United States proposes a primary allocation in an appropriate service and

associated sharing criteria for wideband space-to-space links. The wideband links would be

between low orbiting user spacecraft, such as the United States space shuttle or space station

Freedom, and geostationary data relay satellites (DRS), such as the U.S. Advanced TDRS.

Forward DRS-to-user links are planned to operate in the inter-satellite service in the 22.55-

23.55 GHz band based on the availability of bandwidth and the feasibility of sharing. For

similar reasons, return user-to-DRS links are proposed to operate in a new primary allocation

in the 25.25-27.50 GHz band. In addition, wideband space-to-space links are required between

the space station and a variety of co-orbiting space vehicles in close proximity to the space

station. It would be preferable if these proximity links operate under the same service

allocation as used for the DRS links.

B. Space Research Service Requirements.

1. Narrowband and Wideband Space Research Links for Future Planetary

Mission and Other Applications.

The United States, in cooperation with other countries, plans to establish a lunar

settlement early in the 21st century followed by manned exploration of Mars. These activities

will require wideband communications. There are no frequency bands allocated in the Radio

Regulations that could be used for wide bandwidth links between the Earth and the Moon and

between the Earth and Mars. Use of the same band for both sets of links is desirable because

it would permit use of common equipment. Smaller bandwidth transmissions can occur in the

space research allocations near 2 and 8 GHz. In addition, other space research activities such

as Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) by satellite will require wider operating

bandwidths. The definition of deep space does not permit space research service allocations

for deep space to be used to communicate with the Moon. For these reasons, the United States

proposes that 37-38 GHz and 39.5 -40.5 GHz be allocated on a primary basis for space research

to support communications associated with a lunar or Martian research base or colony. These

bands should not be restricted to deep space.

2. Space Research (Deep Space) Allocations Near 32/34 GHz.

The trend toward international cooperative missions for deep space exploration

creates the need for a worldwide primary allocation for space research (deep space) service

with direction indicators. The nature and status of allocations to the space research service

near 32 and 34 GHz are complex, not uniform and not worldwide. For three administrations,

the space research allocations are restricted to deep space only. There is a serious potential

for interference to national and international deep space missions because the current

allocations allow uplinks and downlinks for space research conducted by Earth orbiters to use

the same bands as deep space links. These links are not compatible because of the widely

different transmission e.i.r.p. and received signal strengths. Therefore, the United States

proposes an upgrade of the space research service (deep space) allocations at 32/34 GHz. The

proposal is for a worldwide primary allocation to support increasing space activities in these

bands.

C. Earth Exploration-Satellite ( passive) near 61 GHz and 157 GHz.

The passive bands are being used increasingly by space sensors to obtain higher quality

data and data in regions of the atmosphere that are not available by the use of other bands.
Appendix D-U.S. Proposals for WARC Malaga-Torremolinos, Spain, 1992 ● 129

To avoid the potential of future interference to passive bands now in use or planned for use

in the near term, allocation of passive bands above 60 GHz are proposed. Bands below 60 GHz

are affected by Earth’s magnetic field when being used to measure mesospheric temperatures

at heights between 45 and 75 km. The band at 157 GHz is needed to avoid interference from

local oscillators in the same sensor measuring temperatures in the 50 to 60 GHz bands.

Therefore, the United States proposes primary earth exploration-satellite (passive) allocations

at 60.7 -60.8 GHz and 156-158 GHz.

D. Uplink Power Control Beacon near 27 GHz.

The United States notes that uplink power control systems will be required for fixedsatellite (FSS) systems operating near the 20/30 GHz range to achieve FSS uplink availability

and performance standards. To accomplish this, the uplink earth station should monitor a

narrow-band beacon transmission from the satellite. At present, the 27.5 -29.5 GHz band is

allocated to the FSS for uplink use only. To accommodate a downlink beacon transmission in

this band, the United States proposes to add a footnote to permit the use of downlink beacon

operations within the 27.5 -29.5 GHz band in support of uplink power control.

E. General-Satellite Service near 20/30 GHz.

In a number of administrations throughout the world, including the United States,

efforts are underway to develop and implement communications satellites integrating a wide

variety of capabilities on a single space platform. These include fixed, mobile, and pointto-multipoint applications. Accordingly, the United States proposes a new service definition.

The United States proposes the creation of a primary allocation to the general-satellite service

at 19.7 -20.2 GHz and 29.5 -30.0 GHz, replacing current primary fixed-satellite and secondary

mobile-satellite service allocations within these frequency bands.

F. Radiolocation-Satellite Service Near 25 GHz.

We propose to define a new space service - the radiolocation-satellite service - and to

provide a primary allocation for this service in the band 24.55-24.65 GHz. The Radio

Regulations currently define the radiodetermination-satellite service and a sub-category, the

radionavigation-satellite service. However, the regulations do not now provide for a

radiolocation sub-category of radiodetermination. This new definition and allocation will

provide for satellite-based radiolocation services to a variety of users. The type of protection

associated with a radionavigation service need not be applied.

XII. Aeronautical Mobile Off-Route (OR) Service Issues

In its report to WARC-92 concerning aeronautical mobile (OR) service, the IFRB noted

that it is not possible to develop modifications to Article 12 without modifying Appendix 26.

The IFRB suggests changes to Article 12, a draft revision to Appendix 26 (except for the

allotment plan which is being developed) and draft resolutions to implement the changes. The

United States considers that the IFRB has carried out the Plenipotentiary Conference action

assigned to it and met administration requirements to retain flexible and maximum access to

the exclusive aeronautical mobile (OR) service frequency bands.

While the United States generally concurs with the IFRB work mentioned above, a final

determination will be made when the frequency allotment plan being developed by the IFRB

is available. Concerning draft Resolution AER-1, the United States agrees with the implementation date for new assignments but proposes that the dates for operating on replacement
130 ● WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

frequencies and ceasing all double sideband emissions should be respectively, 1 March 1994

and 1 March 1996. Dates in draft Resolution AER-2 should be aligned accordingly.

Consequential to adopting changes to Article 12 and Appendix 26, WARC-92 should suppress

Recommendation 406 as no further action will be required.

XIII. Licensing of Radio Operators

The WARC Mob-87 revised Articles 55 and 56 of the international Radio Regulations

to specify certificates for radio personnel operating in the Global Maritime Distress and

Safety System (GMDSS). Unfortunately, the outcome of the 1987 Conference was at variance

with the decisions at the 1988 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

concerning radiocommunications for the GMDSS. Many countries delivered protocol

statements to the Final Acts of the WARC Mob-87 and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference,

Nice, 1989, which reserved their position on Articles 55 and 56.

As a result of study of Articles 55 and 56 and the SOLAS Convention, the United

States seeks to realign the texts so as to make them consistent. The United States proposes to

do so by deleting the mandatory First-Class Radio Electronic and Second-Class Radio

Electronic Certificates from Article 55, while making consequential changes to Article 56.

The United States proposals reaffirm the need to ensure adequate safety is provided aboard

ship by qualified individuals.

XIV. Updating of Definitions (Resolution 11)

The WARC agenda requires the Conference to provide, under the terms of Resolution

11, that any changes to definitions appearing in the Radio Regulations and in Annex 2 to the

Convention (Nairobi, 1982) “shall be submitted to the Administrative Council for onward

transmission to the Plenipotentiary Conference...”. The United States proposes changes to some

definitions appearing in Article 1; however, none of these proposals affect the definitions

appearing in Annex 2 to the Convention.

XV. Sharing Between Space and Terrestrial Services (Resolution 703)

The WARC agenda requires the Conference to review Resolution 703 in light of the

procedure adopted by the XVIIth CCIR Plenary Assembly. The United States proposes to

amend Resolution 703 to bring it into conformance with the approval process adopted by the

CCIR.

XVI. New Resolutions and Recommendations

Resolution and Recommendation Relating to Wind Profiler Radars.

The WARC-92 agenda invites development of recommendations and resolutions in

relation to the agenda of the Conference including the meteorological aids service in

frequency bands below 1000 MHz. The wind profiler is a radar operating as a meteorological aid to measure wind direction and speed. Experimental units operating near the 406 MHz

region cause interference to the COSPAS-SARSAT system at 406-406.1 MHz. The United

States proposes a Resolution to urge administrations to avoid making frequency assignments

to wind profiler radars in the 402-406 MHz band, and suggests that this issue be treated at a

future conference.
Appendix D-U.S. Proposals for WARC Malaga-Torremolinos, Spain, 1992 . 131

Resolution Relating to Meteorological Satellites 401 -403 MHz.

The WARC agenda also permits inclusion of future consideration of meteorological

satellites in the 401 -403 MHz band. We propose in a resolution that a future WARC address

this issue.

SOURCE: Reproduced from U.S. Department of State, United States Proposals for the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference for Dealing With

Frequency Allocations in Certain Parts of the Spectrum, Publication No. 9903 (Washington DC: July 1991).
Index

Ad Hoc 206,24,86

Administrative Council, 12,52

Advanced communications technology satellite (ACTS), 42,45

Aeronautical mobile-satellite service (AMSS), 20,33,39

Allocation, 4

AM radio broadcasting, 30,32

APC (aeronautical public correspondence), 23,39

Apple Computer, 43

Attenuation, 30-31

Bandwidth, 28,34

Baran, Jan, 25,91

British Telecom, 69

Broadcasting, 35-36

BSS-Sound (Broadcasting-Satellite Service-Sound), 12, 14,16,

17-18,36,76,80

Bureau of International Communications and Information

Policy, see CIP

Bypass, 40-41

Cable television, 37,38,47

Carrier wave, 27,29

C-band, 42

CCIR, see International Radio Consultative Committee

CCITT, see International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative

committee

CDMA (Code division multiple access), 45,46

Cellular telephone service, 36-37,44

CEPT (Conference of European Postal and Telecommunications

Administrations), 17,65,67,72

CIP (Bureau of International Communications and Information

Policy), 90-92

CITEL, see Inter-American Telecommunications Conference

Communications Act of 1934,75

Compression, 44-45

COMSAT, 45

Congress, 6-7

CT2 (cordless telephone 2), 38,41

Department of Defense, 16,76

Department of State, 13,24,75-76,89-92

and private sector 94

Digital audio broadcasting (DAB), 34,36

Ducting, 32,34

Eastern bloc, 13,73

Emerging Telecommunications Technology Act of 1991,6-7,

101

Ericsson, 43

European Community (EC), 65,72

Executive Order 12046,75, 84,89,90-91

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 9,24,75

and private sector, 92-93

Structure, 76-80

WARC preparations, 24-25,80-84

Fiber optics, 46-47

FMAC Subcommittee, 87-88

FPLMTS (Future Public Land Mobile Telecommunication

Service), 21-22,38

France Telecom, 69

Frequency

bands, 4-6,7,29-30,32-34

and radio waves, 28, 29

Frequency Management Advisory Council (FMAC), 86-87

Globalization, 63-64

Groundwave, 32

GTE Mobilnet, 37

Head of delegation, 25,89,91-92

Helman, Gerald, 56,90,92

Hertz (Hz), 28

HFBC-87, 10, 17

Highdefinition television (HDTV), 18-19,35

High frequencies (HF), 16,33-34

broadcasting, 16-17

High Level Committee (HLC), 13, 15,49,56-61

Holmes, Bradley, 90, 100

Hoover, Herbert, 6

Industry Advisory Committee (IAC), 17,24,25,81-83,90,97

Interactive video data service, 42

Inter-American Telecommunications Conference, 2,65,66-68,

69,70,86,87-88

and U.S. private sector, 94

Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), 86,88,97

International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB), 17,52

International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR), 18,22,24,

53-55,61-62,66,68,86, 90

and U.S. private sector, 94

International Telecommunication Union (lTU)

changes in, 56-62,69

Convention, 12,49-50

development activities, 62

history, 49-50

importance, 14, 55-56

structure, 50-55

International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee

(CCITT), 55,66,68,90

Ka-band, 42

Ku-band, 42

L-band, 16, 18, 83

Liberalization, 69-70

Line-of-sight communication, 31

Ire-jack, 42

–133–
134 . WARC-92: Issues for U.S. International Spectrum Policy

Low-Earth orbiting satellites (LEOS), 12,20,22-23,39-40,

80-81,83,84

Maximum usable frequency (MUF), 31

Marshall, Sherrie, 81

MOB-87, 19

Mobile Satellite Service (MSS), 16, 19-23,3940,76

Mobile Services, 36-39

Modulation, 27,30

Motorola, 20,22,40,43,45

NASA, 42

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

NTIA), 9924,47,75,84-89,97

and private sector, 93-94

Structure, 84-88

WARC preparations, 24-25,84,86

NEC, 43

Norris Satellite, 42

Notices of Inquiry, 20,80-81,97

NTIA Organization and Authorization Act, 89

OAS, 66

Obuchowski, Janice, 87, 100

Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), 76-77

Office of International Affairs (OIA), 84,86

Office of International Communications (OIC), 78-80

Office of Spectrum Management (OSM), 84,86

ORB-88, 10,17, 19

Orbcomm, 40

Paging, 38-39

Part 15 devices, 40

Permanent technical committees (PTC), 66,68

Personal Communication Network (PCN), 38

Personal Communication Services (PCS), 14,21,34,37-38,

40-41

Plenipotentiary Conferences, 49,50

general, 49-52

1989 (Nice, France), 10, 12

Post, telegraph, and telephone adminis “ “ trations (PTTs), 69

Private sector, 92-95

Privatization, 69-70

Radiodetermination-Satellite Service (RDSS), 23,39

Radio waves, 4,27-30

Radio Regulations, 8,9,61

Ram Mobile Data, 43

Recognized private operating agency (RPOAs), 53

Reflection, 31

Refraction, 31

Regional Administrative Radio Conference (RARC), 10

Regionalism, 64-68

Robinson, Glenn 0.,98

Satellite CD Radio, 46

Satellite services, 41-42

Scientific and industrial organizations (SIOs), 53

Shortwave, 28,33

Sikes, Alfred C., 76, 100

Single sideband transmission, 17,46

Skywave, 33

Space services and operations, 24

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR), 39,44

spectrum, 4,6,30

as public resource, 6

management, 8-9, 13

scarcity of, 7, 8, 34-35

solutions to congestion of, 43-47

spectrum Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC), see

Frequency Management Advisory Council

Spread spectrum, 45-46

Study Group 12,62

Tarjanne, Pekka, 27

TDMA (time division multiple access), 45

Technological change, 2, 12-13,63

Telecommunications Advisory Committee, 90

Telepoint, 37,38

Teletrac, 42

Troika, 100

Truman, Harry S, 1

Trunking, 44

Urbany, Francis, 81

U. S. S.R., 13,73

VITA, 40

Voluntary Group of Experts (VGE), 61

VSAT (very small aperture terminal), 41

WARC-92

agenda, 10, 12, 19,

background, 10-12

context for, 12-14

implications for policy, 97-105

importance, 14-15

issues, 15-24

preparations, 24-26,75-76

Wavelength, 28,30

Wireless data, 43

World Administrative Radio Conferences, 52

general, 9-10

specialized, 10

1979, 1, 17,77-78

u. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1991 297-945 QL:3