SUIRG: Satellite Players Must Keep C-Band

 

Via Satellite: One of the arguments of satellite players that is being overshadowed is the importance of C-band in developing countries for providing basic communications. What would be the ramifications for these territories if this C-band capacity was assigned to terrestrial mobile players rather than satellite?

Ames: The problem extends beyond developing countries. C-band service is critical to countries in the equator region where extensive rain fade makes the use of Ku-band impractical. If WiMax services are allowed to fully develop in these regions, satellite services become severely limited.

We can provide a real-life example of the impact. Last year Bolivia rolled out a test WiMax network timed with the start of World Cup soccer. The interference from the WiMax system impacted about 30 percent of households in Bolivia receiving World Cup coverage via satellite. Needless to say, this resulted in an outcry that led to the immediate termination of the WiMax testing.

In a worst-case scenario, the following are examples of services that would be severely impacted: TV broadcast to cable networks, TV broadcast to individual receivers, VSAT networks, Internet providers, point-to-multipoint links, satellite newsgathering, communication for ships, disaster relief, private enterprise networks and government communications services.

Via Satellite: Will the satellite industry be able to retain this spectrum?

Ames: There are approximately 160 geostationary satellites globally providing FSS C-band service. This is obviously a very significant investment in equipment and services. With so much at stake for the satellite community, SUIRG anticipates an aggressive — and successful — lobbying effort by the industry to protect the C-band spectrum.

Via Satellite: Can the two sides reach a compromise to share the spectrum?

Ames: A good example of the case for protecting the C-band spectrum comes in response to the “exclusion zone” in the proposal for WiMax implementation. The proposal suggests a minimum 150-kilometer “exclusion zone” around operational earth stations where WiMax devices would not be allowed to operate so as not to interfere with the earth station. However, if you have an earth station in New York City and another in Washington, DC, both establishing a 300-wide wide exclusion zone, the limitation on WiMax coverage would span the east coast from Connecticut to southern Virginia.

Via Satellite: What are the key talking points for the satellite industry?

Ames: The key points to the satellite argument are the significant investment made by the industry, the reliance for critical communications, and the geographical [and] environmental limitations that make C-band the only viable spectrum in parts of the world. C-band satellite services have been in existence for over 40 years now. The impact of losing spectrum would be disastrous.

It seems that the WiMax issue is driven forward with a focus on the financial rewards without taking into consideration the technical concerns. For the satellite community, however, we have to keep our focus on the technical concerns. That’s the only way to ensure that our industry doesn’t fall into financial disaster.

• Via Satellite Magazine Announces 2011 Satellite Executive of the Year Nominees

• UAVs Unlimited: ISR-Focused Military Looks to More Capable Remotely Piloted Aircraft

• Satellite R&D Landscape Rich with Promise NASA Space Technology Focus, Military Requirements Driving Future Innovations

• EXTENDED INTERVIEW: Satellite Executive of the Year 2010 Petra Mateos, Chairwoman, Hispasat
• Shifting Market Dynamics Forces Content Providers to Explore New Revenue Streams

• Jackson: “I Don’t Know How We Got Into This Position”
• The WiMax Point Of View
• The Defense Case for C-Band
• Hartshorn: 'A Matter Of Life Or Death'
• NSR Sees Opportunity For Satellite Players In WiMax