Thank you for the letter of Dr. Pekka Tarjanne on 13 November 1996 to invite us to comment on the draft Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate the free circulation of Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite user terminals.
It is very pleasure for us to send you "KDD's comments on the draft Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate the free circulation of Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite user terminals (GMPCS-MoU)". I would be very glad if these comments would make us easier to finalize and sign this GMPCS-MoU.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. If you have some
inquiries or comments, please don't hesitate to contact us.
16 December 1996
Kokusai Denshin Denwa Co. Ltd (KDD)
We would like to provide the following comments on GMPCS-MoU.
It would be desirable that every country would adopt the same kind of policy principles in accordance with the opinions which WTPF-96 developed. However, it is difficult in fact that every country would take the same approach to the development of GMPCS, as each country has her particularity in technical and/or market perspective and the development of satellite services much differs in each country.
In this sense, GMPCS-MoU in Opinion 4 shall not have legal binding force so that GMPCSMoU can accommodate as many signatories as possible, which everyone including the honourable Secretary-General desires heartily.
The existing and planned fixed-satellite systems (FSS) have no substantial operational problems which WTPF-96 or GMPCS-MoU should tackle with. Therefore, we consider it unnecessary to apply GMPCS-MoU to the FSS. (Reference to the revision item 2.1 below.)
that in this Memorandum of Understanding, GMPCS should be defined as satellite systems which offer mobile services, primarily for personal user terminals, on a global or regional basis and operate in the geostationary or non-geostationary orbits (i.e. GEO and NGEO MSS), taking into account that this Memorandum of Understanding can accommodate as many signatories as practically possible. We should remind that electricity power of mobile or handset terminals of FSS is astronomically so vast that the probability of interference with other means of communication may increase.
The original definition of GMPCS in WTPF-96 was, at least at the beginning of the meeting, limited to NGEO MSS, because the acronym "GMPCS" in the reports of the third ITU Regulatory Colloquium was used to refer to big LEOs. While the expansion of GMPCS definition to GEO MSS is acceptable because of similar nature of its service, the FSS terminal is considered of different nature so that we consider it unnecessary to apply to FSS the policy principles which GMPCSMoU developed. The FSS terminal, in general, has much higher capability of power transmission than the MSS terminal, hence we consider that free circulation of FSS terminal may cause radio interference with other radio stations. We recommend that careful study should be carried out by the experts, for example at ITU-R, before free circulation of FSS terminals is agreed.
GMPCS-MoU should not use words or expressions of obligation in order to accommodate as many signatories as possible. These words or expressions cannot be in line with the essence of the resolution that "WTPF-96 shall not produce prescriptive regulatory outcomes or outputs with binding force" in Resolution 2 of the Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference and Resolution 1083 of the 1995 session of the ITU Council.
The Parties should develop arrangements on the means by which licensing should be granted based on general licences (e.g. class licences or blanket approvals). That such arrangements should be drawn up to develop to facilitate international circulation of terminals, recognizing the complexity of the licensing of terminal equipment.
In the corrigendum of PRESS NOTE "World Telecommunication Policy Forum works towards telecommunications revolution" on 21 October 1996, "Ms. Valerie D'Costa of the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore stressed the complexity of certain issues - for example, that equipment type approvals and the licensing of that equipment were two separate issues and should be dealt with separately. She also stressed the complexity of terminal equipment licensing and urged operators to understand the concerns and priorities of regulators, and to work with them in developing appropriate ...".
We agree with her statement in that licensing of terminal equipment
is more closely related to the national sovereignty than type
approvals of terminal equipment. You can easily understand that
mutual recognition of licensing amounts to mutual market-entry
of satellite business itself apart from the streamlining of licensing
procedures. This kind of critical issues of policy and economy
should not be dealt with in GMPCS-MoU which cannot have legal