For several years, there has been an international mission to create a modernized, global satellite navigation and location system distinctly for civilian use.
Such a system could bring massive improvements to the efficiency of global air traffic control, international shipping and agricultural land tracking, among other uses. But the systems in use to date are military-owned, and civilian entities are clamoring for greater access and control.
Those working on this goal have reached a fork in the road, and all parties involved have a decision to make.
The players:
The United States. Its $14 billion global positioning system is considered the best and most robust system currently available, and as such, all others involved want a piece of the action. But is the United States willing to share control?
The European Union. The continent’s organizational body, the European Commission, has demanded its input be included on the design specifications of any next-generation system, with strict conditions regarding European control and market participation. If not, it will create its own system. The question is, does anybody care?
Russia. Its Glonass satellite system remains the only competitor to GPS, although financial and technological bugs make it second-fiddle to the U.S. system. With the appropriate financial and technological partners, Russia could improve Glonass to par with GPS. But is anybody in the market ready for a fixer-upper?
Glen Gibbons, senior editor of GPS World, said there has been an ongoing discussion of modernizing the U.S.’ GPS system for several years, and throughout that time, the EC has requested a hand in facilitating that process, promising a “significant” contribution of funds if allowed to do so.
The problem with the EC’s request, he said, is that while the United States wants GPS to be the global standard, it also wishes to keep GPS as a national technology that it owns and controls, yet gives away for free.
Neil Kinnock, EC transport commissioner, said the European satellite communications industry shouldn’t be excluded from a market he said may reach $50 billion by 2005.
He said the EC said it may consider working with other countries, such as the United States or Russia, on a global system, but insists that such a collaboration must meet certain conditions. These conditions include collective control over the system and a prohibition against withholding service. The European industry also would have to be able to compete in all segments of the market.
“Frankly, my preference would be to develop a single global system with our international partners,” Kinnock said in a speech made to the Fourth World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems in Berlin last October. “If we in Europe are not convinced that such a global system is a realistic and dependable probability, I think that we in Europe will have to press ahead with our own system.”
A European satellite location system, EGNOS, is now under development by the European Space Agency and is scheduled to launch in two years. That system, though, relies on GPS and Glonass signals. Kinnock’s reference is to a completely new and independent system that uses its own signals.
Currently, the United States has made its GPS system available to companies across the globe free of charge, including those in Europe and Russia. But the EC said the current GPS system is not good enough because it is controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense. The EC is concerned America may begin charging for the service in the future or withdraw it in a military emergency.
According to Gibbons, these concerns are just a mask hiding the EC’s true interest. “The strong sub-text is that they (the EC) want to position European companies for competition in the marketplace,” he said.
Europe could instead collaborate with the Russians, who are much more willing to bargain for such a shared resource, but Glonass is not considered as robust a system as GPS. Glonass has some real financial and technical wrinkles that must be ironed out. The EC may choose to partner with Russia to solve those problems or may instead desire to build one from scratch, rather than spending the money to fix another’s mistakes.
Building a completely new system would not be all that difficult, Gibbons said. “It’s possible to put together a system that’s as good if not better and cheaper than the existing GPS system,” he said. Because the United States already spent $14 billion pioneering an effective system, Europe could follow its footsteps and build a similar system for about $4 billion.
But the EC will likely want to charge companies for use of that system, and many European countries already are getting GPS for free from the United States.
“To go from free to a fee, you’ve got to show there’s an added value that’s worth paying for, either in increased security or increased accuracy,” Gibbons said.
This is an interesting point. The American military has included something called Selective Availability to GPS that purposely decreases the accuracy of the location system so hostile forces or terrorists cannot use it to attack the United States with super-accurate weapons. This can be solved with certain radio additions, called Differential GPS, and that does cost money. If Europe were to build a system without SA and make it secure enough so that hostile forces couldn’t use it, then maybe they’d have a service worth paying for to compete with GPS.
Yet there’s still the issue of sovereignty. The European Union consists of 15 countries, and getting this many countries to play nice with a shared $4 billion toy is not going to be easy, Gibbons said.
So the struggle continues to work out an agreeable solution. The U.S. State Department was given a Presidential Decision Directive in March, which in essence was the department’s marching orders to see if a global agreement would be possible. According to Henry Baird, assistant director for space science and multilateral cooperation for the State Departments’ Bureau of Oceans, International, Environmental and Scientific affairs and a member of the International Working Group for GPS, talks include the EC, Russia and Japan.
In order to create these types of agreements with foreign entities, the State Department has to follow a Circular 175 process, which is basically an interagency memo that makes each agency aware of what the other is up to when entering into agreements with foreign entities-one for each foreign entity.
According to Baird, this process has been completed only with Japan and the State Department already has given the Japanese a draft agreement for such a global system. However, things are moving more slowly with the Europeans, because there are so many more countries in the European Union.
Because a C-175 for the EC is not complete, the State Department has not given the authority to draft a GPS agreement with Europe. The IWG for GPS is scheduled to meet with EC officials sometime in May, and Baird said he expects a completed C-175 by then so they can begin working on a draft agreement.
As to the EC’s demands, Baird said they seem a bit high right now, but such is the nature of bartering.
“If you’ve ever bought a used car before, the salesman starts very high and works down. You have to ask for the moon and the stars before you can get down to something practical,” he said. Baird said he was unsure what the State Department might be willing to give up in terms of control of the GPS system, but said every condition of the EC will be difficult to meet.
“What they’re asking for is a bitter pill to swallow. The U.S. taxpayer basically paid for the system,” and now the EC wants full access and equal control of it for free, he said.
