- Email: [email protected]
Space WARC: The stake of developing countries
Viewpoint
Space WARC: The stake of developing countries A.M. Rutkowski
This article provides an overview of the basic issues on the eve of the WARC-ORB 85 Conference. Professor Rutkowski argues that developing countries have more at stake in achieving a flexible, yet equitable, result than do the industrialized countries. The answers lie in skilfully blending all the processes used by the ITU over the years to assure that all the interests of developing countries are met, and to allow full participation of these countries in the current telecommunications revolution. Mr Rutkowski is Assistant to the Deputy Chief, Office of Science and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554, USA. He has participated first hand in Space WARC meetings since 1979, and been coordinator for the Commission's policy activities for the Conference. His comments are his personal views and not necessarily those of the Commission. He is also assistant adjunct professor, New York Law School, New York City, author of many articles and treatises on international telecommunication matters, and a member of the editorial board of Space Policy.
1See A.J. Rutkowski, The Regulatory Regime of the International Telecommunication Union - New Directions, unpublished report, June 1978.
240
In August 1985 most of the 160 member nations of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will gather in Geneva. They will focus on the formal international arrangements used to achieve recognition and protection against harmful interference for communication satellites that circle 35 000 kms above the earth in the geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO). The meeting is part of a two session conference called Space WARC. The second session is scheduled to convene in 1988 to implement the decisions taken at the first session. Communication satellites have been a popular if not always well understood subject for the past couple of decades. It is not surprising, therefore, that the discussion of this subject in an international context with some North-South dimensions has produced a wealth of different views, both here and abroad, concerning Space WARC. This article conveys an overview of the basic issues on the eve of the Conference, focusing particularly on the interests of developing countries. Contrary to popular notions, I believe that developing countries have more at stake in achieving a flexible - yet equitable - result, than do the industrialized nations.
Origin of the Conference In the late 1970s, the potential for a Space WARC was clearly foreseeable
as one of several long-term trends. 1 What specifically triggered the Conference, however, were the unnecessary difficulties encountered by the governments of India and Indonesia in using the existing ITU arrangements to secure recognition and protection of their domestic communication satellite systems. The major operator of global communication satellites, INTELSAT, as it was wont to do at the time, gave India a particularly hard time. In early 1979, a high Indian official vowed that he was not going to let that happen to another developing country again. Although the ITU arrangements had already been amended in 1971 to minimize several undesirable 'firstcome, first-served' features, the changes were not sufficient to prevent the kind of difficulties encountered by India and Indonesia. At the 1979 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC '79), the ITU member nations called for the Space WARC. D e v e l o p i n g nations, one after another, publicly announced they wanted a recognition of their special needs and an end to 'first-come, firstserved'. During the past six years, nearly constant international and domestic dialogue has occurred among industrial and well as developing countries, aimed at achieving a satisfactory Conference result. For the Commission, this effort culminated in the adoption on 1 March 1985 of the First Report
S P A C E P O L I C Y August 1985
Viewpoint
and Order with appended initial US proposals. 2
The 'resource'
'After nearly ten years, the ITU's 1977 BroadcastingSatellite Plan has yet to see a single satellite put into use under it.'
2See FCC, First Report and Order, FCC 85-94, FCC2d, 1985. 3Although this construct is often rhetorically described as a 'limited natural resource', it is quite obviously neither limited nor natural. Cf Article 33 of the International Telecommunication Convention, Nairobi, 1982.
SPACE
POLICY August 1985
One of the endemic sources of confusion involves the subject matter of the Conference. Space W A R C is not an exercise in divining property rights to 'slots' in the orbit. This unfortunate notion has no relationship whatsoever to either the basis for international agreements on radiocommunication for the past 80 years, or to the physical reality of satellite transmission systems. The basis for agreement and cooperation is grounded on the very practical necessity of minimizing harmful interference among radio systems through a common set of technical, operational and administrative rules. National sovereignty yields to the extent necessary to achieve this end. No country, developed or developing, is l i k e l y to f u r t h e r r e l i n q u i s h sovereignty over its own means of radiocommunication. Regarding the physical reality of satellite transmission systems, it may be occasionally useful to conceptualize a 'resource' being used. The resource is sometimes simplistically referred to as 'orbit/spectrum'. It is, however, a complex construct describing the physical properties associated with the radio energy used for transmissions. These physical properties are: instantaneous frequency, field strength, time, spatial volume (generally defined by a point in the GSO and a bounded area on the surface of the earth), and wave polarization. The instantaneous relationships between these properties can be very complex, for example, when spread spectrum transmissions are used. In other words, each one of these properties constitutes a kind of dimension of the resource that can be exploited to keep systems from interfering with other systems. Furthermore, each one of these five different dimensions is capable of virtually infinite subdivision and combination. 3 A n y workable common international technical, operational and administrative rules must be able to deal with this reality. For some radio applications, such as
broadcasting or broadcasting-satellite, it is s o m e w h a t easier to devise arrangements that can deal with these complexities. Broadcasting systems by their very nature, use homogeneous technical standards and operational configurations over long periods of time. This has allowed, both domestically and internally, fairly simple and rigid rules for broadcast radio systems. Even here, however, the rapidly changing technology is rendering such approaches undesirable. After nearly ten years, the ITU's 1977 Broadcasting-Satellite Plan has yet to see a single satellite put into use under it, and is likely to be used only for a few systems at best. The technology has simply far outstripped the assumptions imbedded in the Plan. The d o m i n a n t focus of Space W A R C is not, however, on broadcasting. It is on the most dynamic and heterogeneous service of all: FixedSatellite. This is a service where every one of those five dimensions mentioned above can and does change from one microsecond to the next. Simple solutions to the intrinsically complex problems of this Service are simply unworkable. And those investing billions of dollars in satellite systems, especially developing countries whose resources are scarce, cannot afford unworkable international arrangements.
Current developments Space W A R C is not occurring in a vacuum. Any competent analysis concerning the Conference must take cognizance of a number of rapidly unfolding d e v e l o p m e n t s affecting satellite systems and how these systems are likely to be employed in the future. By far the most significant of these developments is the emplacement of fibre optic facilities around the world during the past year at an exceptional pace. In excess of $1.5 billion of fibre are annually being put into place. The outlook for photonic facilities in general is highly favourable. Today and in the future, photonics is the medium of choice. It is clear that the high speed integrated digital systems that will provide most of our com-
241
Viewpoint
'It is foolhardy to freeze communication facility options beyond what is absolutely required.'
munication needs in the future will be largely fibre-based systems. The nature and use of satellite systems will significantly change. They will be used for those applications for which they are best suited: providing thin-route communication to large numbers of highly dispersed users at very low cost. Such systems will predominantly operate using highly dynamic techniques such as spread spectrum or beam switching. You can see the transition even now. By far the fastest growing use of satellite services in the U S A involves the use of spread spectrum techniques. It is worth emphasizing that such applications are precisely those of greatest value to developing countries, whose needs are largely for thin-route communication to large numbers of highly dispersed users at very low cost. However, even the least developed countries are finding fibre optics attractive for many of their communication needs. The point is that telecommunication developments are now occurring so rapidly that it is simply foolhardy to freeze one's communication facility options beyond what is absolutely required. We're not talking about freezing only technology here, but operational options. The ability to choose the telecommunication facilities a nation will use: satellite or terrestrial; those of an international organization, a regional organization, a privately operated facility, a transponder condominium arrangement, a neighbouring country's satellite, or a wholly domestic facility; a switchedbeam facility; high-power or low power; digital or analog; spread or nonspread spectrum. Aren't these choices at least as important to developing countries as to developed? Aren't efficient and cost-effective facilities m o r e important to developing countries because of their scarce resources?
Interests of developing countries In light of these developments, how could any country, even the poorest developing country, agree to rigid international satellite arrangements that would give away its own national
242
sovereignty to make these choices for the next ten years? Or even the next three? N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g all the r a p i d changes i n telecommunications and the implications for developed and developing countries alike, there remain some significant concerns regarding the existing ITU arrangements. The entire Space W A R C exercise began because these arrangements can, under some circumstances, place an inequitable burden on the late-comer. All nations, particularly developing ones, have an interest in correcting this. My friends from China express the desired result as a need to place all nations on a 'footing of eqality'. Most developing countries, labouring under g e n e r a t i o n s of p r e v i o u s f o r e i g n domination and a compelling desire to seek n a t i o n a l a d v a n c e m e n t , will stridently oppose any international system that fails to recognize them as equals. F u r t h e r m o r e , d e v e l o p i n g countries argue that equity compels recognition of their impending development. As noted above, however, these issues of parity and equity in the ITU's international process for recognition and protection of satellite facilities are not the only interests of developing countries. The ability to implement cost-effective facilities, of the kind wanted and when wanted, is at least as important as the equity and parity of the international process. And if the international process should deny this ability to implement such facilities, the process is a sham and a cruel trick on those countries who can least afford it.
Meeting all the needs Fortunately, there are ways to meet all the interests of developing countries. The answer, it seems to me, lies in combining the best attributes of all the skills and processes used by the international telecommunication community. First, you remove any possible 'first-come, first-served' attributes by placing all affected nations on a 'footing of equality' in multilateral meetings that are convened sufficiently frequently to be responsive to the
SPACE POLICY August 1985
Viewpoint
'Strict rules must be set up for any newcomer.'
SPACE POLICY August 1985
constantly changing telecommunication environment. You adopt strict rules that require equitable accommodation of any newcomer through a set of technical and operational steps that everyone is required to take. You do this in a periodic consultative forum that results in assignments recognized by the International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB). You use the Board to provide assistance in the process. You minimize the introduction of wholly illusory requirements through submission of detailed system-information no more than five years in advance of implementation. Between meetings, allow affected nations to fashion mutually acceptable changes brought about by some im-
mediate requirement. Then, to provide an additional guarantee of equitable access in practice and also recognize the special situation of many developing countries, an ancillary process is established, for countries who do not have many or any domestic satellite systems, that provides recognition and protection for longer-term satellite requirements. This is the kind of skilful blending of the best features of all the processes used by the ITU over the years to assure that all the interests of developing countries are met, and allows these countries to partake in the fruits of the telecommunication revolution we are now witnessing.
243
Space WARC: The stake of developing countries A.M. Rutkowski
This article provides an overview of the basic issues on the eve of the WARC-ORB 85 Conference. Professor Rutkowski argues that developing countries have more at stake in achieving a flexible, yet equitable, result than do the industrialized countries. The answers lie in skilfully blending all the processes used by the ITU over the years to assure that all the interests of developing countries are met, and to allow full participation of these countries in the current telecommunications revolution. Mr Rutkowski is Assistant to the Deputy Chief, Office of Science and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554, USA. He has participated first hand in Space WARC meetings since 1979, and been coordinator for the Commission's policy activities for the Conference. His comments are his personal views and not necessarily those of the Commission. He is also assistant adjunct professor, New York Law School, New York City, author of many articles and treatises on international telecommunication matters, and a member of the editorial board of Space Policy.
1See A.J. Rutkowski, The Regulatory Regime of the International Telecommunication Union - New Directions, unpublished report, June 1978.
240
In August 1985 most of the 160 member nations of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will gather in Geneva. They will focus on the formal international arrangements used to achieve recognition and protection against harmful interference for communication satellites that circle 35 000 kms above the earth in the geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO). The meeting is part of a two session conference called Space WARC. The second session is scheduled to convene in 1988 to implement the decisions taken at the first session. Communication satellites have been a popular if not always well understood subject for the past couple of decades. It is not surprising, therefore, that the discussion of this subject in an international context with some North-South dimensions has produced a wealth of different views, both here and abroad, concerning Space WARC. This article conveys an overview of the basic issues on the eve of the Conference, focusing particularly on the interests of developing countries. Contrary to popular notions, I believe that developing countries have more at stake in achieving a flexible - yet equitable - result, than do the industrialized nations.
Origin of the Conference In the late 1970s, the potential for a Space WARC was clearly foreseeable
as one of several long-term trends. 1 What specifically triggered the Conference, however, were the unnecessary difficulties encountered by the governments of India and Indonesia in using the existing ITU arrangements to secure recognition and protection of their domestic communication satellite systems. The major operator of global communication satellites, INTELSAT, as it was wont to do at the time, gave India a particularly hard time. In early 1979, a high Indian official vowed that he was not going to let that happen to another developing country again. Although the ITU arrangements had already been amended in 1971 to minimize several undesirable 'firstcome, first-served' features, the changes were not sufficient to prevent the kind of difficulties encountered by India and Indonesia. At the 1979 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC '79), the ITU member nations called for the Space WARC. D e v e l o p i n g nations, one after another, publicly announced they wanted a recognition of their special needs and an end to 'first-come, firstserved'. During the past six years, nearly constant international and domestic dialogue has occurred among industrial and well as developing countries, aimed at achieving a satisfactory Conference result. For the Commission, this effort culminated in the adoption on 1 March 1985 of the First Report
S P A C E P O L I C Y August 1985
Viewpoint
and Order with appended initial US proposals. 2
The 'resource'
'After nearly ten years, the ITU's 1977 BroadcastingSatellite Plan has yet to see a single satellite put into use under it.'
2See FCC, First Report and Order, FCC 85-94, FCC2d, 1985. 3Although this construct is often rhetorically described as a 'limited natural resource', it is quite obviously neither limited nor natural. Cf Article 33 of the International Telecommunication Convention, Nairobi, 1982.
SPACE
POLICY August 1985
One of the endemic sources of confusion involves the subject matter of the Conference. Space W A R C is not an exercise in divining property rights to 'slots' in the orbit. This unfortunate notion has no relationship whatsoever to either the basis for international agreements on radiocommunication for the past 80 years, or to the physical reality of satellite transmission systems. The basis for agreement and cooperation is grounded on the very practical necessity of minimizing harmful interference among radio systems through a common set of technical, operational and administrative rules. National sovereignty yields to the extent necessary to achieve this end. No country, developed or developing, is l i k e l y to f u r t h e r r e l i n q u i s h sovereignty over its own means of radiocommunication. Regarding the physical reality of satellite transmission systems, it may be occasionally useful to conceptualize a 'resource' being used. The resource is sometimes simplistically referred to as 'orbit/spectrum'. It is, however, a complex construct describing the physical properties associated with the radio energy used for transmissions. These physical properties are: instantaneous frequency, field strength, time, spatial volume (generally defined by a point in the GSO and a bounded area on the surface of the earth), and wave polarization. The instantaneous relationships between these properties can be very complex, for example, when spread spectrum transmissions are used. In other words, each one of these properties constitutes a kind of dimension of the resource that can be exploited to keep systems from interfering with other systems. Furthermore, each one of these five different dimensions is capable of virtually infinite subdivision and combination. 3 A n y workable common international technical, operational and administrative rules must be able to deal with this reality. For some radio applications, such as
broadcasting or broadcasting-satellite, it is s o m e w h a t easier to devise arrangements that can deal with these complexities. Broadcasting systems by their very nature, use homogeneous technical standards and operational configurations over long periods of time. This has allowed, both domestically and internally, fairly simple and rigid rules for broadcast radio systems. Even here, however, the rapidly changing technology is rendering such approaches undesirable. After nearly ten years, the ITU's 1977 Broadcasting-Satellite Plan has yet to see a single satellite put into use under it, and is likely to be used only for a few systems at best. The technology has simply far outstripped the assumptions imbedded in the Plan. The d o m i n a n t focus of Space W A R C is not, however, on broadcasting. It is on the most dynamic and heterogeneous service of all: FixedSatellite. This is a service where every one of those five dimensions mentioned above can and does change from one microsecond to the next. Simple solutions to the intrinsically complex problems of this Service are simply unworkable. And those investing billions of dollars in satellite systems, especially developing countries whose resources are scarce, cannot afford unworkable international arrangements.
Current developments Space W A R C is not occurring in a vacuum. Any competent analysis concerning the Conference must take cognizance of a number of rapidly unfolding d e v e l o p m e n t s affecting satellite systems and how these systems are likely to be employed in the future. By far the most significant of these developments is the emplacement of fibre optic facilities around the world during the past year at an exceptional pace. In excess of $1.5 billion of fibre are annually being put into place. The outlook for photonic facilities in general is highly favourable. Today and in the future, photonics is the medium of choice. It is clear that the high speed integrated digital systems that will provide most of our com-
241
Viewpoint
'It is foolhardy to freeze communication facility options beyond what is absolutely required.'
munication needs in the future will be largely fibre-based systems. The nature and use of satellite systems will significantly change. They will be used for those applications for which they are best suited: providing thin-route communication to large numbers of highly dispersed users at very low cost. Such systems will predominantly operate using highly dynamic techniques such as spread spectrum or beam switching. You can see the transition even now. By far the fastest growing use of satellite services in the U S A involves the use of spread spectrum techniques. It is worth emphasizing that such applications are precisely those of greatest value to developing countries, whose needs are largely for thin-route communication to large numbers of highly dispersed users at very low cost. However, even the least developed countries are finding fibre optics attractive for many of their communication needs. The point is that telecommunication developments are now occurring so rapidly that it is simply foolhardy to freeze one's communication facility options beyond what is absolutely required. We're not talking about freezing only technology here, but operational options. The ability to choose the telecommunication facilities a nation will use: satellite or terrestrial; those of an international organization, a regional organization, a privately operated facility, a transponder condominium arrangement, a neighbouring country's satellite, or a wholly domestic facility; a switchedbeam facility; high-power or low power; digital or analog; spread or nonspread spectrum. Aren't these choices at least as important to developing countries as to developed? Aren't efficient and cost-effective facilities m o r e important to developing countries because of their scarce resources?
Interests of developing countries In light of these developments, how could any country, even the poorest developing country, agree to rigid international satellite arrangements that would give away its own national
242
sovereignty to make these choices for the next ten years? Or even the next three? N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g all the r a p i d changes i n telecommunications and the implications for developed and developing countries alike, there remain some significant concerns regarding the existing ITU arrangements. The entire Space W A R C exercise began because these arrangements can, under some circumstances, place an inequitable burden on the late-comer. All nations, particularly developing ones, have an interest in correcting this. My friends from China express the desired result as a need to place all nations on a 'footing of eqality'. Most developing countries, labouring under g e n e r a t i o n s of p r e v i o u s f o r e i g n domination and a compelling desire to seek n a t i o n a l a d v a n c e m e n t , will stridently oppose any international system that fails to recognize them as equals. F u r t h e r m o r e , d e v e l o p i n g countries argue that equity compels recognition of their impending development. As noted above, however, these issues of parity and equity in the ITU's international process for recognition and protection of satellite facilities are not the only interests of developing countries. The ability to implement cost-effective facilities, of the kind wanted and when wanted, is at least as important as the equity and parity of the international process. And if the international process should deny this ability to implement such facilities, the process is a sham and a cruel trick on those countries who can least afford it.
Meeting all the needs Fortunately, there are ways to meet all the interests of developing countries. The answer, it seems to me, lies in combining the best attributes of all the skills and processes used by the international telecommunication community. First, you remove any possible 'first-come, first-served' attributes by placing all affected nations on a 'footing of equality' in multilateral meetings that are convened sufficiently frequently to be responsive to the
SPACE POLICY August 1985
Viewpoint
'Strict rules must be set up for any newcomer.'
SPACE POLICY August 1985
constantly changing telecommunication environment. You adopt strict rules that require equitable accommodation of any newcomer through a set of technical and operational steps that everyone is required to take. You do this in a periodic consultative forum that results in assignments recognized by the International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB). You use the Board to provide assistance in the process. You minimize the introduction of wholly illusory requirements through submission of detailed system-information no more than five years in advance of implementation. Between meetings, allow affected nations to fashion mutually acceptable changes brought about by some im-
mediate requirement. Then, to provide an additional guarantee of equitable access in practice and also recognize the special situation of many developing countries, an ancillary process is established, for countries who do not have many or any domestic satellite systems, that provides recognition and protection for longer-term satellite requirements. This is the kind of skilful blending of the best features of all the processes used by the ITU over the years to assure that all the interests of developing countries are met, and allows these countries to partake in the fruits of the telecommunication revolution we are now witnessing.
243