The Defense Case for C-Band

 

Via Satellite: In your own opinion, how likely is it that satellite players are going to lose some of this C-Band capacity, particularly to the WiMAX industry? While many believe satellite has a strong case, is it likely that despite these strong arguments, that the telecoms players will use their muscle to gain access to this spectrum?

Carrigan: Exactly, muscle. Commerce seems to be playing a major role in selling of spectrum, while commercial markets for WiMAX are feasting on new spectrum for new markets. It a feeding frenzy out there, and WiMAX 'back-haul' is overly hyped. The bandwidth or connect rates of current WiMAX units only provide 1-2 mbps at best for 1 subscriber unit. For more subscriber units connected to the same sector on base unit they will have to share this link. It will be a hard sell for WiMAX, as cell phone industry is ramping up their bandwidth/speeds to surpass current 3G WiMAX. Also the radius for a WiMAX base station is not 30 miles as previously stated. As an example WiMAX base at 23dBm with a sector and receive subscriber antenna of 16dB and receiver set for maximum throughput (64QAM) provides only 3-4 mile radius uninterupted coverage. Hype, and disappointment.
 

Via Satellite: How does the C-Band issue impact an organization such as the Department of Defense (DoD)? What role can you play in this whole debate and lobbying process?

Carrigan: While the U.S.A has a single vote in the 160 member ITU, we hope that our single votes carriers other countries to vote in the same way. The DoD has many radars and weapon systems that operate in this band and are mission critical to our National Defense. We have been slowly giving up spectrum over the years but in this C-Band, radars have nowhere else to move. As this band is also ideal for satellites, it is also ideal for radars. We work hard on host nation frequency coordination for many of our system and operate these system world wide. We have raised this WiMAX issue to top levels of DoD and currently there is a mandate to stop all new acquisitions in the 3.4-3.6 GHz band.
 

Via Satellite: Can you give a timeline of what is going to happen over the rest of the year? Is satellite’s debating position now stronger than it has been over the last few months? Is the message about the strengths of satellite’s argument in C-Band getting through? Or is there still a lot of hard work to be done?

Carrigan: I believe this issue is rising in many different forums and is being discussed at conferences and at the ITU. It is very serious. We are, will be, testing  many of our systems currently using C-Band including radars and satellite terminals and actual impacts are being assessed. ITU studies and modeling efforts were deemed unacceptable or unbelievable and did not do a good job convincing ITU not to sell off this spectrum. More testing will be conducted by the end of this year and following years showing and proving that IMT system are not compatible in this band. More work is being done.
 

• 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
• SUIRG: Satellite Players Must Keep C-Band
• Hartshorn: 'A Matter Of Life Or Death'
• NSR Sees Opportunity For Satellite Players In WiMax