NEW YORK-“If I leave you with nothing else, remember that legal and regulatory issues are the most important, and they pose challenges and obstacles up ahead for the satellite industry,” said Roger J. Rusch, president of TelAstra Inc., a Palos Verdes, Calif., consulting firm.
“We also are sometimes our own worst enemy,” he added, criticizing some in the satellite industry for unrealistic and technically unwarranted demands for exclusive spectrum use.
Rusch made his remarks in a presentation at the recent “Space and Satellite Finance” conference sponsored by the Institute for International Research, New York.
“Vast social and political issues determine if telecommunications get used,” he said. “Often, in areas with the greatest need, there is the greatest resistance to putting telecommunications into place, to give landing rights, access, etc.”
The more than 200 governmental administrations worldwide with authority over satellite communications are inconsistent in how they govern the industry.
“There are very legitimate reasons why it isn’t possible to get a global, blanket license: industrial policy and trade offsets; free-trade agreements; protection of national sovereignty and culture; national security interests; (concerns about) foreign ownership; (restrictions on) trans-border movement of terminals; (protection of) intellectual property rights; (requirements for) compensation for displacement.”
There also are legitimate concerns that governments have over whether the exploding number of satellites will interfere with each other.
The satellite industry possesses the required technical capabilities to execute commercial service. However, it suffers from a shortage of “top quality” engineers who can evaluate for government regulatory agencies “the high potential for interference” as increasing numbers of satellites go into orbit, Rusch said.
He blamed the industry’s top management for this situation because, he said, engineers view this kind of regulatory work as a punishment rather than an essential task for successful commercial service delivery.
Spectrum must be shared, not only among satellite carriers but also between satellite services providers and terrestrial wireless carriers, he said.
“I don’t think the industry puts enough effort into making spectrum sharing happen,” Rusch said.
Frequency Division Multiple Access, Time Division Multiple Access and Code Division Multiple Access technologies make spectrum sharing possible.
“In reaction to (our) longstanding abuses, satellite services now face terrestrial (carrier) opposition because they believe we have been working aggressively to remove spectrum from terrestrial use.”
World Trade Organization policies are fomenting a bitter competitive battle between U.S. and South American satellite carriers, said Tom Tycz, chief of the satellite and communications division of the Federal Communications Commission’s International Bureau.
“Because of WTO, U.S. satellites are trying to serve South America and South American satellites are trying to serve the United States,” Tycz said.
“U.S.-licensed satellites are spaced two degrees apart. In South America, the spacing is one degree. The problem is with the WTO. Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela are trying to get into the United States. They’re having conflicts with us, and it’s getting very political.”
