Broadcasters have been among the earliest users of the radio-frequency spectrum. Broadcasting applications are widespread, one-to-millions, resulting in a highly efficient spectrum usage. Traditionally, telecommunication services (telephony) operating on a one-to-one basis, were fully wired, but have now acquired a newly found love for wireless applications. At some previous world radiocommunication conferences (WRC), telecommunication services sought large chunks of spectrum and successfully received allocations. Demands from several other such services are on the anvil, a few of them at WRC-2000. Broadcasters, among several other spectrum users, are looking at these developments with increasing concern.

Prominent broadcasting issues that were successfully dealt with at previous WRCs include spectrum allocation for both direct satellite high-definition television (HDTV) broadcasting in the 21 GHz band and digital sound broadcasting by satellite, the revision of the direct satellite television broadcasting plan and planning of the shortwave radio bands. WRC-2000 will address several issues of immediate interest to broadcasters. These range from the broadcasting-satellite service or BSS (agenda items 1.19, 1.19bis, 1.20 and 1.21), spectrum sharing, notably, pfd limits for the non-geostationary fixed-satellite service (non-GSO FSS) in the Ku band (1.13.1), IMT-2000 (1.6.1), allocations to the mobile-satellite service (MSS) below 1 GHz (1.11) and agenda items for the next world radiocommunication conference (7.2). This article looks at all of these issues.

The BSS Plan for Regions 1 and 3 was originally adopted at the World Administrative Radio Conference in 1977 (WARC-1977). The plan allocated five (in some cases four) channels to each country in the Ku band for direct-to-home transmission of television services by satellite. A complementary feeder-link plan was adopted at WARC-ORB-1988. The corresponding plan for Region 2 was adopted at the Regional Administrative Radio Conference in 1983 (RARC-1983).

The BSS Plan was a marvel of engineering ingenuity. However, till recently, very little implementation materialized as stringent technological requirements could not be met in an economical manner. Consequently, efforts were directed at making the Regions 1 and 3 plan more amenable to implementation, using economical technologies. This was partially achieved at WRC-97 where the plan was revised and some technical parameters, such as downlink power, were scaled down. However, a need was felt at that conference to bring about more fundamental changes in the Regions 1 and 3 BSS Plan to provide an enhanced number of channels for each country and to introduce further technical refinements. These WRC-97 decisions are enshrined in Resolution 532, which among other things, asked for the setting up of a high-level group, the Inter-conference Representative Group (IRG), to study the feasibility of these measures and submit its findings to WRC-2000.

The IRG, dealing with some extremely complex issues, completed its task by year-end1999. Based on the results of a series of replanning exercises, the IRG recommended that 10 analogue equivalent channels be provided to countries in Region 1 and 12 channels to countries in Region 3. It also identified several technical improvements and country specific requirements to be accommodated in the BSS Plan.

In the meantime, a group of countries proposed that the task of replanning of the Regions 1 and 3 BSS Plan should be taken up and completed at WRC-2000. Indeed, at the 1998 ITU Council meeting, the BSS agenda item 1.19 was modified to make it more pro-active, as far as replanning is concerned.

At the present juncture, when several countries and groups have firmed up their views, there are five main issues which WRC-2000 would have to deal with, as outlined below. It is pertinent to note that on the BSS issues, Regions 1 and 3 countries are divided into two camps, comprising the Arab and the Asia-Pacific countries on the one hand, and the European countries on the other. Region 2 countries are concerned only with preserving what they already have.

There are two opposite views on this crucial issue – the big question being whether or not replanning should be taken up and completed at WRC-2000.

Countries in the Arab group (with the support of some African countries) and in the Asia-Pacific group hold the view that completion of BSS replanning at WRC-2000 would be a good way forward for several reasons. They believe that the BSS planning process has gone on far too long and it is highly desirable to bring it to a successful conclusion at the earliest. At present, all major BSS planning issues have either been resolved or are near resolution. The IRG replanning exercises seem to meet all major requirements enshrined in Resolution 532, including the provision of an enhanced number of channels to all countries. It is their view that WRC-2000 is the most opportune stage to complete the replanning process and finalise the BSS Plan.

Regulatory provisions associated with the BSS Plan contain a set of procedures, known as Article 4 procedures, for modifying parameters of an existing assignment in the plan or for seeking a new assignment. These procedures have been applied by a large number of countries. In this context, the groups acknowledge that a major unresolved issue is that of inclusion in the BSS plan of systems filed under Article 4 modification procedures (mostly since WRC-95). However, in view of the developments that have since taken place, the need for such filings may not be justified any longer. For instance, modifications seeking only changes in orbital location or beam footprints need not be considered now since these have already been taken on board by the IRG.

Secondly, having been provided 10 or 12 channels in the new plans for Regions 1 and 3 as against the present 5 and 4 respectively, the groups hold the view that any case for seeking further additional capacity does not stand scrutiny. It is their understanding that once the enhanced capacity is provided at WRC-2000, all reasonable channel requirements of all the countries would have been met. In light of this, filings seeking additional capacity are superfluous at this juncture.

These groups acknowledge that it might not be practicable to resolve all cases of incompatibilities between allocations in the BSS Plan at WRC-2000. They have, therefore, suggested that a methodology for resolving the residuary problems be developed at an ITU conference.

Several countries, mostly from Europe, hold the opposite view. In their opinion, the IRG studies have not examined several related replanning aspects and as such, the feasibility of providing enhanced channel capacity has not been fully demonstrated. The CEPT countries are understood not to be in favour of taking up replanning at WRC-2000, preferring to do so at WRC-2003.

Requirements for a large number of BSS satellite systems have been filed by many countries under the ‘Article 4’ modification procedures. Numbering more than 300, these filings mostly contain requirements for additional channel capacities and orbital slots, over and above the allocations under the BSS Plan. The filings have to undergo a complicated evaluation process and can become a part of the BSS Plan, if found acceptable. So far, only a few such applications have been able to do so.

One of the most complicated, and contentious, issues is how to treat these additional requirements during replanning and beyond. Proponents would like their systems to be included in replanning but others are opposed to any such action. While WRC-97 provided some guidance on how to deal with the matter, this has now been overtaken by subsequent developments. A majority view currently held is that a more liberal consideration should be shown to the ‘Article 4’ systems and that, for replanning, it would be reasonable to consider a limited number of ‘Article 4’ systems which have completed coordination prior to a cut-off date. The cut-off date itself is very significant and is likely to be an issue of vigorous debate at the conference. Another view is that those ‘Article 4’ systems should be given priority where the 1977 national allocations have already been brought into use.

It is generally agreed that a capacity of 10 channels to countries in Region 1 and 12 channels in Region 3 be provided. However, some European countries hold a view that feasibility for doing so was not conclusively established by the IRG.

There is, however, general agreement that technical improvements such as the use of improved antennas, use of wider channel bandwidths and composite beams, and exclusive use of digital emission for replanning should be incorporated.

WRC-2000 is expected to use a BSS baseline plan as a starting point, in case it decides to undertake replanning. While there seems to be widespread support for the plan prepared by the IRG to be used as a baseline plan, several countries are likely to oppose such a move.

Restructuring of BSS regulations

Carried forward from the previous conference, the issue here is whether coordination procedures for non-planned terrestrial services and FSS operating in the BSS bands should continue to be a part of the BSS regulatory provisions (Appendices S30/S30A) or should these be shifted and consolidated with other similar provisions elsewhere. One view, held by most broadcasters, is in favour of retaining the regulations in the current form, effecting improvements wherever necessary. This is based on an apprehension that breaking up the structure of the BSS regulatory provisions might lead to unnecessary complications as far as protection to the BSS is concerned. An opposite view is advocated by some European countries who consider it desirable to have all the provisions for non-planned services in one place, for example, Article S9. This may be another well contested issue at the conference.

Spectrum sharing

Terrestrially delivered broadcasting services currently operate in a number of frequency bands. Claims are being made in several quarters on spectrum saving that would accrue with the introduction of digital technologies in broadcasting. The reality is far from that. While the introduction of digital technology in broadcasting is expected to result in more efficient spectrum usage in the long term, several factors preclude any possibility of spectrum saving in the short term. During the transitional period (up to about 15 years), simultaneous broadcast of analogue and digital services is required, which might need additional spectrum. New types of services, made possible by digital technology, would require additional spectrum. In view of this, existing broadcasters have given no indications that they would be in a position to surrender any spectrum. This aspect has to be taken into account when dealing with several WRC-2000 issues which aim at spectrum sharing with broadcasting services, as explained below.

Sharing criteria (pfd limits) for non-GSO FSS in BSS bands

WRC-97 decided that the BSS frequency spectrum (around 11, 14.5 and 18 GHz) should be shared with non-geostationary satellite services, also known as non-GSO FSS. Most importantly, it was decided that the non-GSO FSS should be able to operate without going through any coordination process with the BSS, as long as emission levels (and resultant pfd) of the former remained below certain limits. However, that conference was unable to agree upon the pfd limits. Since then, ITU-R studies have made considerable progress. At the Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM), a complex set of pfd limits was agreed upon, in the region of –158 to –186 dBW/m sq, for various antenna sizes used for BSS. It was expected that the contribution of non-GSO FSS systems would account for 10 per cent of total interference to BSS.

As a consequence, the BSS is expected to face several constraints, not the least being additional planning constraints. The impact of sync loss in the BSS due to interference is a matter of serious concern. The CPM Report does not offer any safeguards on this account. Broadcasters and those dealing with BSS planning would certainly watch with caution developments at WRC-2000.

IMT-2000

The principal issue here is to identify a frequency band(s) for this service application. Among the candidate bands under discussion (according to the CPM Report) are three bands, 470-960 MHz, 2520-2670 MHz and 1452-1492 MHz, used for broadcasting services. While the first two bands accommodate a host of terrestrial television, satellite television, fixed/mobile linking services, implementation of sound broadcasting by satellite and terrestrial modes is under way in the latter frequency band. Again, infusion of digital technology in these services may not result in spectrum saving in the near term. Thus, no spare spectrum can be offered for use by IMT-2000.

Additionally, operation of IMT-2000 systems is incompatible with the broadcasting services. The broadcasting services are widespread and it would be impossible to protect the former, and vice-versa, unless there is adequate geographical separation. These aspects have been brought out with utmost clarity in the CPM Report. Nevertheless, the broadcasters will watch the flow of discussions on the issue at the conference with considerable interest and concern.

Non-GSO MSS allocations below 1 GHz

Bands under consideration are heavily used for television broadcasting. The ITU-R has already determined the protection requirements for broadcasting services from potential interference by the mobile-satellite services. The CPM Report does not give any indication that additional frequency spectrum would be needed by non-GSO MSS in the 470-960 MHz band. It is also to be expected that there will be few, if any, proposals on use of this band for non-GSO FSS at the conference. However, this being a matter of considerable importance, the broadcasters will closely follow this issue at the conference.

Several issues of immediate interest to the broadcasters are listed on the preliminary agenda of the next WRC, to be held presumably in 2003. Among these are an evaluation of spectrum needed for shortwave (HF) broadcasting and an associated issue of re-aligning spectrum for the amateur service near 7 MHz; the planning of the frequency bands allocated to the broadcasting-satellite service (sound); and additional worldwide allocations for non-GSO MSS below 1 GHz.

Currently, there is considerable congestion in the shortwave broadcasting bands, since the requirement of spectrum is much more than the capacity of the current spectrum allocations. This is more so in the lower frequency range from 4 to 10 MHz. WRC-2003 would present an excellent opportunity for broadcasters to project their realistic requirements. Discussions on inclusion of these items on the final agenda of WRC-2003 would be of interest to broadcasters.

A sub-band, around 1.5 GHz (in some countries also around 2.3 and 2.6 GHz) is allocated for digital sound broadcasting by satellite and complementary terrestrial broadcasting in a large number of countries. WRC-2003 is to address the issues related to the planning of these bands. This is of considerable interest, given that in some regions the planning of these bands has already been accomplished.