MATERIAL FOR SEPTEMBER 9 MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 39
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 28, 2011
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: September 3, 1987
• Content Type: MEMO

r-STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
#Sew
1?1
Ala ellib0
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Frtit-,,
I
r ct rif
ibh iLit,t
United States Department of State
Bureau of
International Communications
and Information Policy
?
Washington. D.C. 20520
September 3, 1987
TO: SIG Membership on ICIPpi?;
FROM: CIP - Diana Lady Dougari , U.S. Coordinator
SUBJECT: Material for September 9 Meeting
I am providing for your consideration a number of
documents which will serve as the basis for our discussions at
the September 9 meeting.
attachments:
1. Agenda
2. Mobile WARC Scope Paper
3. Mobile WARC Home Team Information
4. Discussion Paper on U.S. Satellite Policy
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Agenda
Senior Interagency Group
on
International Communications and Information Policy
Wednesday, September 9, 1987
Deputy Secretary's Conference Room
Department of State
Opening Remarks Under Secretary Derwinski
Topic I - Mobile WARC
Scope Paper
Home Team
Chairman Markey
Mr. Richards
Topic II - U.S. International Satellite Policy
Introduction of Separate Satellite
and Transborder Satellite Policies Ambassador Dougan
Discussion of Options Paper Messers. Earnest and
Firestone
Topic III - Other Business
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
I
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
SCOPE PAPER
World Administrative Radio Conference
for the Mobile Services
International Telecommunication Union
Geneva, Switzerland
September 14 - October 16, 1987
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
CONTENTS
Introduction and Overview
- Relationship to other International or Regional
Organizations
- General Objectives
- General Strategies to Attain Objectives
- General Preparatory Effort
Positions on Specific Issues
- Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)
- Mobile Satellite Service Frequency Allocations (MSS)
- Radiodetermination Satellite Service Frequency
Allocations (RDSS)
- Revision of the High Frequency Band
- Other
- Operator Certificates
- Political
- Other Allocation Issues
- Future Allocation Conference
- Other Maritime Matters
- Geographical Boundaries in the Aeronautical Route
Plan
- Geographical Country Symbols in the Aeronautical
Off-Route Plan
- Radio ID of Non-Combatants and Neutrals
- Technical Matters
- Land Mobile Matters
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
INTRODUCTION
AND
OVERVIEW OF ITU MOBILE SERVICES
WORLD ADMINISTRATIVE RADIO CONFERENCE
Introduction
The scope of the Conference is broad, consisting of over
150 agenda items. It covers about two-thirds of the ITU Radio
Regulations exclusively reserved to the mobile services and
consists of substantive material covered by both the 1974
Maritime Conference and the 1978 Aeronautical Conference. The
Conference, to be convened on September 14 for five weeks, will
also implement frequency allocation decisions of the 1979
General Conference and carry out resolutions of the 1983 Mobile
Conference which was limited to urgent matters, and develop new
radio regulations to facilitate improvements in international
commerce, open new markets for telecommunications suppliers and
contribute to national security interests.
Ships and aircraft travel worldwide. As a result,
frequencies for communications between mobile stations and land
stations range throughout the frequency spectrum; i.e., high
frequencies for long-range communications, medium-range
frequencies for distances on the order of 100 miles; very high
frequencies for distances on the order of 20-30 miles or less.
Satellite frequencies and systems also play an increasingly
important role in mobile services communications. Positioning
and navigation systems for aircraft and ships also require use
of frequencies worldwide. Increasingly, land mobile
communications such as long distance fleet dispatch, cellular
radio systems and land mobile satellite systems expand beyond
the borders of a country. Detailed provisions concerning the
mobile services are necessary for well-coordinated operational
and technical procedures to assure interoperability among
systems worldwide.
The recent HF Broadcasting Conference and MF Broadcasting
Conference were planning conferences. Each concentrated on a
limited part of the spectrum and on mass communications. The
Mobile WARC deals with many frequency spectrum areas as well as
terrestrial and satellite telecommunications, and positioning
and navigation. For these reasons, Mobile WARC is closer in
scope to the 1979 General WARC than any of the recent
conferences.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Relationships with Other International Organizations
In preparing for this Conference, the United States and
other countries are aware of the relationships which exist with
other intergovernmental organizations whose activities affect
the preparations for this Conference. The International
Maritime Organization (IMO) determines radio equipment carriage
requirements for ships on international voyages. The
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) develops
standards and recommended practices for avionics equipment.
The International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT) is
an operational satellite organization now providing
communications services to ships and, in the future, to
aircraft. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) -
within the NATO Alliance the Allied Radio Frequency Agency
(ARFA) is responsible for the development of mililtary radio
frequency management. Regional telecommunications
organizations include the Inter-American Telecommunications
Conference (CITEL) and the European Conference of Postal and
Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT). These organizations
play a role in coordinating views on matters of common interest.
For example, the CEPT, comprising more than twenty
countries, through the encouragement of the European Economic
Commission (EEC) has, for the first time, found a wide basis
for European common positions. Sixteen common proposals have
been submitted, each sponsored by five to eleven European
countries. These countries comprise a formidable challenge to
the U.S. where our proposals differ from theirs. We have been
successful in adopting some common CITEL views, and we expect
these will serve to offset some of the CEPT common proposals.
General Objectives
The following broad U.S. goals have been identified from
the outset of the preparatory effort more than three years ago:
- to provide up-to-date regulations assuring safety of life
and shipping on the high seas and the smooth flow of world
maritime communications;
- to provide for safety of life and property in
aeronautical services and the smooth flow of aeronautical
communications;
- to provide flexibility in the international regulations
for ensuring that U.S. future needs are met;
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
- to reduce regulatory, technical and operational barriers,
thus permitting introduction of new competitive
technologies and creating markets for U.S. exports, for
example, for new satellite services.
- to protect national security interests.
General Strategies to Attain Objectives
The U.S. draft proposals were distributed widely over a
year ago with the exception of the mobile satellite proposals.
The U.S. document has been examined carefully by other
countries in preparing proposals and positions to the
Conference. As a result, we have identified in advance some
broad areas of agreement. We have also identified some
troublesome areas with implementing the global maritime
distress and safety system (GMDSS) and HF communications but
have determined these to be manageable for the most part.
Bilateral consultations have been held with key Pacific, East
and West European, and American 'countries. Opportunities at
multilateral meetings (IMO, ICAO, ARFA (NATO's Allied Radio
Frequency Agency), INMARSAT, CITEL, CEPT) have been used to
advance U.S. proposals.
Cables have been sent worldwide, to regional areas, and to
specific countries. We have used our posts abroad to explain
our proposals, obtain comments and provide feedback so that
other country thinking is factored into our proposals and
position papers.
There is continuing difficulty around the world for
acceptance of global allocations for mobile satellite service
and radiodetermination satellite service. Jointly with Canada
and its private sector (most recently in Mexico) we have
explained the needs and benefits of MSS, in particular for
Region 2. Consultations will continue through the Conference.
Canada agreed to concentrate on some countries (e.g.,
Venezuela, Colombia), the U.S. on others (e.g., Argentina,
Chile). Brazil, a key country in the Western Hemisphere, and a
major obstacle to general mobile satellite allocations, will
require continued attention.
General Preparatory Effort
U.S. preparations for the Mobile WARC began in 1983. Under
the direction of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, the Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee (IRAC) subcommittee on Mobile WARC (Ad Hoc 194),
whose membership included representatives from all Government
agencies initially reviewed the entirety of the Radio
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
regulations to prepare U.S. views on the scope and agenda of
the Conference. Once the international agenda was agreed, the
Ad Hoc group developed proposals on the conference issues. The
Federal Communications Commission, through its public advisory
committee, was the primary means for determining private sector
needs. This extensive private sector effort consisted of
representatives of users, manufacturers and service providers.
The Coordinator for International Communications and
Information Policy in the Department of State, in early 1986,
designated an Executive Director to coordinate the overall
preparatory efforts for the Conference. Through close
cooperation of private sector and the Government, draft U.S.
proposals were completed in June 1986 and distributed widely at
multilateral and bilateral meetings.
In October 1986, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce
David Markey was named Chairman of the U.S. Delegation with the
rank of Ambassador and has since held regular meetings with key
individuals from State, Commerce, the FCC, NASA, Defense, FAA
and the private sector. In March an initial delegation was
nominated. The delegation has since been working on position
papers addressing issues that will arise at the Conference.
These papers address in detail fallback positions.
Except for the mobile satellite proposals, the U.S.
distributed its draft proposals in June 1986, well in advance
of others, seeking to gain their acceptance before other
countries formalized proposals. The mobile satellite proposals
were late developing because domestic decisions on frequency
re-allocation did not occur until September 1986. The U.S.
proposals, some 250 pages, were sent to the ITU in March 1987.
Beginning in early 1987, Ambassador Markey and members of
the delegation undertook an extensive round of bilateral and
multilateral consultations with developed and developing
countries. Based on experience gained from foreign
consultations, the delegation completed additional technical
information papers to further explain our proposals, in
particular, our satellite proposals.
Positions on Specific Issues
The major part of the agenda is considered to be
straight-forward. Technical and operational provisions for
maritime and aeronautical services are detailed, and in some
respects contentious, but expected to be manageable. The
issues of major importance to the United States are:
implementing the global maritime distress and safety system
(GMDSS), including the treatment of the current distress
system; mobile satellite service (MSS) frequency allocations;
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
radiodetermination satellite service (RDSS) frequency
allocations; and the overall revision of the high frequency
bands which will have a great effect on maritime
radiocommunications.
Other issues which will have greater importance to other
countries include geographical boundaries in the aeronautical
route plan, country symbols in the aeronautical off route plan,
radio identification of non-combatants, land mobile matters and
other allocation issues.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)
General - The development of a GMDSS was initiated within
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1978 for SOLAS
Convention ships. It is a ship-to-shore distress system rather
than a ship-to-ship distress system and will introduce
significant new technology. The U.S. strongly supports the
GMDSS and has been extremely influential in forming IMO
recommendations on the subject. The Mobile WARC will
incorporate the GMDSS within the Radio Regulations (RR) system,
including its technical and operational procedures. Developing
countries are reluctant to give up the current system, which is
still a mandatory part of the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)
Convention, and introduce the new system because of economic,
political and social factors, as well as a perception that the
new equipment needs to be fully tested before its full
implementation. As a result, an issue the U.S. will face is
the period and method of transition from the old system to the
new system; it is unlikely that the Conference will accept the
IMO recommendation in this regard.
Objectives - The U.S. considers that the implementation of
the GMDSS in the ITU Radio Regulations is important for two
reasons. First, it is necessary to provide regulations using
currently available communication techniques which represent a
marked improvement in advanced technology over the current
manual Morse system. This new system will significantly
improve the safety of life and property at sea. Second,
economic benefit will accrue to the U.S. Government and
non-government maritime community by virtue of the use of more
automated communication means which are less labor intensive.
The U.S. goal is to provide the international regulatory
framework which facilitates the introduction of the GMDSS.
Specifically, our proposals were patterned after
recommendations of the IMO. We create a new chapter containing
provisions for the GMDSS, modify the existing Chapter IX to
continue provisions to maintain the current 2182 kHz and
156.8 MHz, maintain an effective distress system during the
transitional period, continue the regulatory framework for the
maritime distress system of non-SOLAS Convention ships, and
provide adequate flexiblity so that administrations will not be
required by the Radio Regulations to operate two parallel
distress sytems (the current 500 kHz system and the GMDSS).
Issues - The main U.S. issue is that, after we have
implemented the GMDSS in the U.S., we do not want to be forced
to additionally operate the current 500 kHz distress system.
Accordingly, we have proposed termination dates in the existing
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Chapter IX and a new Resolution A8 to prevent this. Problems
may be expected from countries which desire to continue with
the current distress system indefinitely for national
purposes. However, objections should abate as these
administrations realize our proposals permit a flexiblity in
distress and safety system choices during and after the
transition period.
Strategies - Proposals to change the current distress
system to remove mandatory provisions from the Radio
Regulations will receive strong opposition. There will be
heated discussions between the countries adopting the IMO
position and those wishing to continue the existing distress
system. The modified position adopted by the U.S. could be an
acceptable alternative. For that reason, we should not be
taking the lead on this matter until both sides decide that a
compromise is in order. That is to say, strategically, our
best chance of having our proposals accepted is for opposing
extremes to adopt them as a compromise to their own positions.
Possible Fallback - The goal in our proposals is to
incorporate the operational provisions for the GMDSS in the
Radio Regulations while assuring that the U.S. does not have to
maintain two parallel 500 kHz maritime distress systems. We
can achieve this objective through flexiblity in the Radio
Regulations, recognizing that there is more than one way to
accomplish our goals. Our primary objective is to assure the
implementation of GMDSS and this is vitally important. As a
fallback, we can accept a limited period beyond the end of the
transition date, during which the existing 500 kHz system is
continued. The period of dual system operation should be for
the shortest time acceptable to the Conference.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) Frequency Allocations
General - In the United States and Canada there is a strong
interest in providing domestic satellite communications to
mobile users, in particular to land and aeronautical users.
International maritime users are already served by INMARSAT.
Recent domestic regulatory actions in both Canada and the U.S.
have reallocated spectrum from exclusive aeronautical mobile
satellite services, AMSS(R), to a mobile satellite service
(MSS) allocation which could be used by systems offering
aeronautical, land and maritime services. Licensing of systems
using this spectrum is underway in the United States.
In order to provide for introduction of such systems
worldwide and to protect U.S. systems from interference under
the ITU Radio Regulations, the U.S. is proposing to reallocate
spectrum from the maritime mobile satellite bands (presently
used by INMARSAT) and the aeronautical mobile satellite (R)
bands (presently unused) to mobile satellite. This proposal,
though more encompassing than our domestic allocation, is
consistent with the U.S. domestic decisions.
The U.S. faces significant resistance to the MSS proposal,
particularly from ICAO members because the aeronautical
interests wish to protect their existing exclusive allocation.
ICAO has been organizing its membership worldwide to oppose the
mobile satellite proposals at 1.5/1.6 GHz in order to retain
this spectrum for an aeronautical mobile satellite system.
Opposition is also coming from Europe because the U.S. mobile
satellite proposals are seen to be potentially harmful to
economic interests of INMARSAT. In addition, a low-cost MSS
providing land mobile in Europe is viewed as a potential threat
to a European-wide terrestrial mobile service because of
competition for revenues as well as spectrum. Except for
Canada, we were unable to get significant regional support at
the recent CITEL meeting. Canada, Australia and Japan have
shown the most active interest in the land mobile satellite
services. The CEPT, with INMARSAT's agreement, claims that
only 500 kHz of spectrum is needed for land mobile satellite
service (for low speed data services) in Europe. Voice
requirements would require much greater bandwidth.
Objectives - 1) Provide for the implementation of mobile
satellite service systems worldwide by allocating sufficient
spectrum for this service, so that U.S. entities can provide
services with international protection; 2) ensure ITU
allocation status for the mobile satellite service in order to
obtain international recognition and protection from
intereference; 3) encourage the development of economic and
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
efficient aeronautical mobile satellite services by sharing the
development and operational expense with other MSS user
groups; 4) discourage regulatory encumbrances in implementing
MSS systems; and 5) assure priority access and pre-emptible
capability for aeronautical mobile satellite (R) communications.
Issues -
Overcoming EC opposition based on perceived
difficulties with plans for a terrestrial mobile
system.
Overcoming the organizational opposition by ICAO to
the introduction of mobile satellite systems in
spectrum presently allocated exclusively to the
aeronautical service.
Overcoming the opposition of the CEPT countries which
is based upon potential economic harm to the INMARSAT
system and the lack of requirements in Europe for this
service.
Overcoming many administrations' preference to making
provision for satellite aeronautical public
correspondence in systems using AMSS(R) bands.
Strategies - The U.S. can argue that if land mobile
satellite is not needed in certain areas, the allocation to MSS
is flexible such that other services can be offered. The U.S.
has pushed the flexibility of MSS, particularly the benefits to
INMARSAT, and will continue to do so. We will also assure
other Administrations of our commitment to a strong INMARSAT
and minimum changes to current maritime services. We will
characterize MSS as a long term logical development in most
Administrations' interest, but that at least U.S. and Canada
need immediate allocation recognition. Information papers on
MSS have been prepared for distribution at the Conference.
We will steadfastly oppose proposals that introduce any
communications other than safety and regularity of flight into
the AMSS(R) service. We will stress the point that
aeronautical public correspondence can be accommodated without
diluting the definition of AMSS(R) Service by providing an
appropriate allocation such as a mobile satellite allocation.
Some Administrations may link RDSS and MSS for negotiation
purposes. We will try to avoid this.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Possible Fallbacks - Some fallbacks include a
multi-regional allocation with country exceptions, a Western
Hemisphere-only allocation, the U.S. domestic (split-band)
arrangement for worldwide use, a multi-administration note, a
resolution or other statement encouraging the development of
MSS by Administrations, and flexibility on the maritime band
proposals. There are also other variations and combinations of
these fallbacks that can be considered.
Unacceptable elements would include allocations subject to
agreement or coordination which would in effect give other
Administrations a veto over the U.S.
In any event, dynamics of the Conference will influence
detailed fallback positions. The U.S. delegation will
recommend a course of action and obtain Washington concurrence.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Radiodetermination Satellite Service (RDSS) Allocations
General - Entrepreneurs in the United States have
introduced the concept of a satellite service which provides
the ability to locate a mobile platform which would find broad
application in the transportation industry and to individuals
requiring positioning information. The U.S. table of frequency
allocations has been modified to permit this concept to be
implemented. Licenses were granted to four U.S. companies to
move toward an operational system in the U.S.
Recently, a European consortium has been formed to provide
a service, using the U.S. concept. Support for this type of
service has been expressed in feasibility studies in Australia,
China and India. These countries intend to include this
capability in their next generation of domestic satellites.
The Radio Regulations permit a portion of the band proposed
by the U.S. for RDSS to be used for radio relay links in the
Federal Republic of Germany. Some of this use is by the U.S.
military under the Status of Forces Agreement.
Objectives -
1) To gain recognition in the Radio Regulations for
the Radiodetermination Satellite Service concept by
allocating sufficient spectrum for this service. Such
allocations would permit this service to begin
operation initially in North America and would permit
its orderly expansion globally;
2) Ensure the allocation status for the
Radiodetermination Satellite Service in order to
obtain international recognition and protection from
interference from other systems; and
3) Provide an opportunity for U.S. entities to
compete in the international marketplace to provide
this service.
Issues
1) Overcoming concerns expressed by NATO members
concerning sharing frequency allocations at 1.6 GHz
between the Radiodetermination Satellite Service and
the Fixed Service. The Federal Republic of Germany
has argued that radio relay systems used by NATO under
RR 730 will be adversely affected.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
2) Overcoming concerns expressed by members of the
European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications
Administrations (CEPT) concerning the need for such a
service internationally. INMARSAT claims that it can
provide this service.
3) Overcoming concerns expressed by CEPT members that
Radiodetermination Satellite Service includes
communications services and has safety connotations.
The FRG has stated that it opposes an allocation for
the Radiodetermination Satellite Service since a
significant use is for low data rate communications.
Other CEPT countries feel that RDSS has safety
connotations, and should not be allocated spectrum on
a co-equal basis with a non-safety service.
4) Overcoming concerns expressed by CEPT members as
to why a Radiodetermination Satellite Service could
not operate on a secondary basis.
5) Overcoming concerns expressed by CEPT and others
concerning the competency of the Conference to
suppress allocations for other radio services
presently allocated in the bands.
6) Overcoming concerns expressed by U.S.
Radiodetemination Satellite Service entities that
allocations for Radiodetermination Satellite Service
should not be subject to the coordination and
agreement procedures. These procedures require
agreement of another administration before
notification and recording in the Master International
Frequency Register of frequency assignments.
7) Overcoming concerns expressed by the radio
astronomy community about sharing in the 1610.6-1613.8
MHz band for deep space observations. The U.S.
proposal for sharing between the Radiodetermination
Satellite Service and Radio Astronomy Service may not
be satisfactory for all administrations.
Strategy -
Apart from the U.S. proposals, three additional conference
documents have been developed which cover in detail the
operation, technical aspects and sharing criteria which answer
most questions we expect to face. Our delegation will seek out
experts from the CEPT countries, INMARSAT administrations, and
other delegations which have shown reluctance to support
Radiodetermination Satellite Service allocations to explain in
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
detail our proposals and how they accommodate their stated
concerns. We will cite favorable recognition for
Radiodetermination Satellite Service from the Special Meeting
of CCIR Study Group 8, and from the Resolution adopted by the
CITEL Permanent Technical Committee. IMO and the ICAO have
also indicated that RDSS would be beneficial. An African
resolution favoring RDSS has also been adopted by a regional
civil aviation group.
U.S. delegates will work closely with delegates from India,
China and the administrations represented by the European
Radiodetermination Satellite Service consortium to gain support
from administrations not yet committed on the allocation
issue. The U.S. delegation member from the National Science
Foundation will seek out radioastronomers to discuss potential
sharing arrangements for their particular location. A specific
radio astronomy sharing proposal has been presented to the
Soviets during bilateral discussions and will be followed by
discussions in Geneva.
To answer the concerns expressed by the FRG (acting on
behalf of their guest NATO forces), U.S. delegates representing
DOD agencies will seek out counterparts in the FRG, UK and
other NATO countries to assure them that the U.S. will not
propose suppressing Radio Regulation 730. Working with our
NATO allies, we will attempt to persuade them not to object to
the RDSS allocation.
Possible Fallbacks - The goal is to retain sufficient
recognition in the Radio Regulations to enable U.S. companies
to raise sufficient capital to implement and RDSS Service in
the U.S. We also intend to provide sufficient flexibility in
the international frequency allocation table for future
interational development consistent with our domestic
allocations.
During the Conference an effort will be made to develop as
much recognition of RDSS as possible that can be agreed. There
will be some who will not accept any allocation due to
particular national problems existing in these bands. What is
expected to evolve during discussions is a package for
Radiodetermination Satellite Service implementation which may
introduce fully acceptable allocations in some areas or regions
and less than fully acceptable allocations or no provision in
other areas or regions, or exception footnotes against the
allocation by some Administrations. The delegation will have
to consider other compromises which may evolve. Acceptability
of any compromise would in the end be based on the extent of
any restrictions to be placed on the service.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
For example, unacceptable elements would include
allocations on a secondary basis or allocations subject to
coordination and agreement which would in effect give other
Administrations a veto over the U.S. It would be acceptable
to defer action to suppress allocations for Fixed, Mobile, and
Radiolocation Services in the 2.5 GHz band until a subsequent
competent conference if RDSS allocations can be obtained on a
co-equal basis. In this case, the delegation should work for
the development of a resolution for a future competent
conference to review the desirability of suppressing the
allocations to those services.
In any event, dynamics of the Conference will influence
detailed fallback positions. The U.S. delegation will
recommend a course of action and obtain Washington concurrence.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Revision of the High Frequency Band
General - Since propagation characteristics in the range of
the spectrum between 4 and 27.5 MHz enable long-range
communications, traditionally, communications to ships at sea
have been carried out in these bands. This reliance has not
diminished, and in some respects, is increasing. The 1979
WARC, in recognition of this fact, reallocated certain
frequency bands in this range of spectrum to the maritime
mobile service. The Mobile WARC will rearrange an existing
table of assignable frequencies to take account of the new
spectrum made available in 1979. The U.S. proposals contain a
very detailed plan on how this rearrangement should take
place. Most objectives should be realized without significant
problems except for the 4 and 8 MHz bands. To accomplish goals
in these bands it will be necessary to use maritime mobile
frequency spectrum shared with the fixed service, as provided
by WARC 1979. We have received no support for our approach,
either within the Region, Europe, or the Pacific, except for the
USSR. We will have to take advantage of their support if we are
to achieve success in the 4 and 8 MHz proposals.
The revision of the HF bands represents a major task on the
agenda. Since the last revisions, many problems have risen,
creating a crisis in maritime mobile HF communications.
Technological advances in narrow-band direct printing and in
other services have changed the way mariners communicate.
Outmoded frequency arrangements and a shortage of spectrum are
preventing the desired expansion of maritime communications
services and are creating a severe congestion. To deal with
these deficiencies, the 1983 Conference adopted a resolution as
a guide to the 1987 WARC to revise the HF maritime mobile bands.
Objectives - U.S. objectives are to carry out the revision
of HF maritime frequency spectrum called for by that
resolution, tailored to our specific national needs expressed
by Government and non-government elements in the development of
our proposals. Summarized, our objectives are:
(1) to introduce new spectrum allocated by WARC 1979 and
incorporate the 4 and 8 MHz shared bands into the table of
assignable frequencies;
(2) to revise the HF maritime bands and provide additional
radiotelephone and narrow-band direct-printing (NBDP) channels;
(3) to provide the necessary HF GMDSS frequencies,
continuing, as far as practicable, the same assignments
currently in the Radio Regulations;
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
(4) to begin an orderly phaseout of (nondial) manual Morse
telegraphy channels while still providing adequate spectrum for
continuing use of Morse telegraphy;
(5) to preserve, without reduction, the same amount of
spectrum now sub-allocated for coast station wideband
telegraphy;
(6) to unite and increase, where practicable, the ship
wideband sub-allocations which are now separated in frequency;
(7) to support oceanographic requirements; and
(8) to establish a complement of HF narrowband direct
printing channels for high seas marine safety information
broadasts.
Issue - The chief issue is that the Conference may revise
these bands on different principles than the U.S. For example,
the WARC could maintain Morse telegraphy channels in greater
quantity than we would like to see. A large number of
developing countries will push this view, based on economics.
Strategy - Our major problem at the Conference will be
those Administrations, such as within CEPT, which propose an
arrangement which does not use the 4 and 8 MHz shared bands and
which also reduces wideband telegraphy spectrum, either for
ships or coast. Canada and Japan also present problems because
they oppose use of the shared bands. The USSR, so far, is the
only country proposing use of the shared bands. Along with
Canada, it is also the only other country joining us in
preserving unchanged the coast wideband spectrum.
Satisfactory agreements on numbers of channels, format of
sub-allocations, oceanographic channels and phasing out CW over
an extended period appear to be attainable. Use of the shared
bands and retention of coast wideband spectrum will have the
strongest opposition; however, these issues should be treated
as non-negotiable. We will be taking the lead in pressing for
these two objectives. The USSR should support us as they have
made, in priciple, the same proposals. We may have to use as a
bargaining chip the regulatory provisions that affect the
shared bands in order to obtain concessions to gain support for
the use of the shared bands. South American countries and
Canada should be supporting us in proposals to retain the coast
wideband spectrum.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Fallback - Our fallback position will be turned toward
acceTETETTEe USSR proposals because their proposals are the
closest to ours in use of the shared bands and maintenance of
coast station wideband spectrum.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Operator Certificates
Issues - Shipboard Radio Operators.
There are two sub-issues related to shipboard radio
operators under discussion at MWARC:
a) Should radio operators aboard ship in the GMDSS be
dedicated full-time to the radio control's position, or can the
radio operating duties be shared with other shipboard duties
such as the navigating watch? and
b) Should a full-time radio equipment maintenance individual
be mandated aboard any or all SOLAS vessels?
Simply stated, the two above sub-issues can be
rephrased as "What are the acceptable safety requirements
aboard ship for radio operators?"
In today's manual Morse radiotelegraphy distress
system, a radio operator having maintenance knowledge is
mandated by the SOLAS and the Radio Regulations. The U.S. does
not believe that it is necessary, under the agreed framework of
the GMDSS, to require either a full-time radio operator, or a
radio equipment maintenance individual in the future. There
are no circumstances under which a full-time radio operator can
be justified in the GMDSS. There are some circumstances under
which a full-time equipment repair individual could be usefully
employed, but these will vary from vessel to vessel, and from
voyage to voyage. The IMO has tentatively agreed to a number
of available GMDSS operator/maintenance options that would
provide the flexibility necessary for the world's shipping
industry, at the level of safety needed, without over-extension
of requirements. The U.S. strongly supports the tentatively
agreed IMO strategy.
Strategies - It is critical that the administrations at
MWARC not undo what is tentatively agreed by the world's major
shipping countries at IMO. The issue has been long-fought at
IMO. It is in fact, the last major issue of the GMDSS and has
only been recently, albeit tentatively, agreed within IMO. It
will be considered again at the January 1988 and April 1988
sessions of the IMO Radiocommunications Sub-Committee and the
Maritime Safety Committee, respectively. We know that,
unfortunately, certain administrations (i.e., Greece, Spain and
Romania) may try to undermine IMO agreements and try to achieve
at MWARC what has not been possible at the IMO, viz., required
carriage of a full-time radio operator or radio equipment
maintenance person. The United States shipping industry, and
cognizant Government agencies (USCG, FCC, MARAD) have made
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
quite clear that such a result is unacceptable as a requirement
of international law. We will attempt to ensure coordination
with the IMO countries during the WARC.
Possible Fallback - A U.S. reservation with the MWARC final
protocol may be needed to preserve the IMO-identified options
for the U.S. Congress with respect to anticipated amendments to
the Communications Act.
Political
At every ITU Conference since 1981, Cuban delegations have
raised Radio Marti or U.S. interference to Cuban radio systems,
usually in a Protocol Statement but sometimes on the floor of
the Conference. At the 1983 Mobile WARC, the Cubans complained
about harmful interference from stations in the U.S. to the
Cuban coastal network. As on previous occasions when these
extraneous political issues have been raised, the U.S.
delegation will seek instructions from the Home Team with a
view to responding forcefully to any initiative by the Cuban
Delegation.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Other Allocation Issues
In addition to the major allocation proposals made by the
United States described above, other Administrations have
proposed several significant allocation changes. Some of these
may present substantial policy questions as the Conference
progresses.
Feederlinks for Mobile Satellite -
Feederlink frequencies are required for mobile satellites
to communicate between ground gateway stations and the
satellites (the mobile satellite frequencies connect the mobile
station to the satellite). Feederlink requirements have been
satisfied in the Fixed Satellite Service and no special
allocations have been made for this purpose. However, several
Administrations are proposing to make special provision for
feederlinks, particularly for INMARSAT. The U.S. opposes
special recognition for mobile satellite feederlinks and
intends to use FSS band frequencies for our own MSS.
Allocation status for mobile satellite feederlinks would affect
the FSS and possibly other U.S. requirements. If necessary, we
will ask that this item be discussed at WARC ORB 88.
Terrestrial aeronautical public correspondence with aircraft -
Along with public correspondence to aircraft services from
satellites, the U.K. has proposed an allocation for a
terrestrial system which would provide public correspondence
(similar to the U.S. Airfone system). The U.S. opposes the
U.K. proposal because it conflicts with our RDSS allocation
proposal. The U.S. has not identified suitable bands for a
terrestrial air-ground public correspondence system. The U.S.
will attempt to postpone consideration of this topic but, if
necessary, can agree to future consideration of frequency
bands, including the bands around 900 MHz, for this purpose.
Continuation of Radiolocation in the bands 3400-3700 MHz -
Japan has proposed to remove the secondary allocation for
radiolocation in the bands 3400-3700 MHz and Note 784
allocating radiolocation on a primary basis in the bands
3400-3600 MHz. The U.S. considers the radiolocation activities
in these bands to be critical and cannot accept a change in
their status. The U.S. has initiated several high level
actions with Japan and other affected Administrations to have
Japan withdraw this proposal. We are hopeful that the proposal
can be disposed of without a confrontation at the MWARC. If
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
necessary, we can object to the Japan proposal because it is
outside the scope of the MWARC agenda. In the event that a
detrimental allocation is made by the WARC, the U.S. will take
a reservation to this aspect.
?
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Future Allocation Conference -
The CEPT and others have proposed that an allocation
conference be held in the early 1990s to consider broad
allocation changes. Possibilities include a new worldwide
allocation for a wideband digital land mobile system,
allocations for public correspondence from aircraft, GMDSS
matters, and allocations for MSS and RDSS (assuming they are
not accommodated at this Conference). The U.S. is opposed to
postponing allocation decisions or making allocations
contingent on the actions of a future conference. However, it
is recognized that calling for a future allocation conference
is an integral part of many Administrations' strategies and it
is necessary for the U.S. to have some flexibility on this
issue. But, any call for a future allocation conference would
need to be considered by the 1989 Plenipotentiary Conference
for decision.
Other Maritime Matters -
Other important maritime issues include improving
coordination procedures among LORAN-C and other users in the
70-130 kHz band, protecting LORAN-C radionavigation, and
revising the VHF channeling plan making port operation and ship
movement channels simplex rather than duplex. Revision will
improve compatibility of operation between the U.S. and other
administrations.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Geographical Boundaries in the Aeronautical Route Plan
General
The high frequency aeronautical route plan was adopted by
the WARC on Aeronautical Mobile (R) Service (Geneva, 1978) and
came into effect on 1 February 1983. This Plan superseded
portions of the ITU Radio Regulations (Geneva, 1959) dealing
with the aeronautical services. Of particular interest with
these Plans is a description of geographical boundaries for
Major World Air Route Areas (MWARA) and the Regional and
Domestic Air-Route Areas (RDARA). Viet Nam, during the
Plenipotentiary Conference in Nairobi, 1982, entered a
statement in the final protocol calling attention to the need
to revise the aeronautical route plan at the next competent
Mobile Conference. The German Democratic Republic has proposed
revisions to portions of the Plan which were superseded by the
WARC on Aeronautical Mobile (R).
Ob'ective
To keep the aeronautical route plan off the agenda of this
Conference, or to forestall any changes to the geographical
boundaries.
Issues
Overcoming a possible desire by Viet Nam and others to
discuss modifications to the Plan when the German Democratic
Republic proposal is addressed.
Strategy
We will object to any attempt to discuss the aeronautical
route plan since it is not on the agenda of the Conference.
The proposal of the German Democratic Republic has been
accommodated by the adoption of the Plan in 1978 and has been
in effect since February 1, 1983.
Fallback Positions
We will attempt to have the WARC Chairman treat any matters
concerning the aeronautical route plan between countries
concerned outside of the open meetings.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Geographical Country Symbols in the Aeronautical
Off-Route Plan
General
The WARC agenda includes the review of the high frequency
aeronautical off-route plan but limited to modification of the
symbols for country and geographical areas. In cases where a
symbol concerns more than one administration, its revision is
subject to agreement by the administrations concerned. Many
geographic symbols are out of date in the plan and can be
expected to be updated at the Conference. Symbols for the
Canal Zone, British West Indies, and British Guyana are symbols
which will need to be updated at some point. A long-standing
request by China to delete the USA country symbol identifying
U.S. use in China has finally been worked out. The U.S. will
propose deletion of the country symbol and China will support
since it is no longer needed. Other countries may feel a need
to propose some further modification during the Conference.
Frequency allotments to the U.S. in this plan in various
parts of the world are crucial to U.S. military operations
including Central America, the Mediterranean, and the Caribbean
areas.
Issue
Avoiding significant deletions of the USA country symbol.
Administrations may feel that if they can delete the symbol
against their area, it would constitute an allotment change and
the frequencies used for aeronautical off-route communications
would become available for their domestic use. This would
deprive our military access to these channels.
Strategy
We will point out that we do not object to updating the
geographical area symbols, provided of course that both parties
agree to the change before a modification to the plan can be
made. We will also point out that the frequencies in the
aeronautical plan are being used extensively and changes will
not necessarily constitute an available frequency for that
geographical area.
Possible Fallbacks
We intend to agree only to deletions of country symbols for
China and the Panama Canal Zone at this Conference. Countries
like Cuba may request deletion of active military uses, which
we will not agree.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Radio Identification of Noncombatants and Neutrals
Background
A portion of Article 40 of the Radio Regulations describes
a signal for use by "Medical Transports", a term defined in the
Geneva Convention 1949 for craft, vessels and aircraft when
assisting the wounded, the sick and the shipwrecked. Specific
requirements for special markings are also called for in that
Convention. The term Medical Transports only exists in time of
armed conflict. Numerous attempts have been made by the
International Red Cross, through proposals from Switzerland, to
identify symbols for lifeboats during an armed conflict within
both the Intergovernmental Maritime Organization (IMO) and
International Civil Aviation Organization without success.
Recently an information note from the International Red Cross
was distributed to the IMO calling for a symbol to identify
rescue craft in Article 40 to afford them some additional
protection when participating in a rescue during an armed
conflict. The document to IMO indicated that they would seek
Swiss support in submitting a proposal for Article 40
modifiation.
Article 40 in its present form represents a delicate
compromise reached from two very divergent viewpoints. A
proposal to modify it duing the Mobile WARC could cause the
U.S. and others to consider a resevation.
Objective
To avoid discussing modifications to Article 40.
Issue
Overcoming support to identify signals for rescue craft
during an armed conflict.
Strategy
We will object to consideration of this subject during the
Conference. The Department of State has already obtained
assurance from Switzerland that no such proposal will be
forthcoming. A follow-up with the Swiss officials will be made
prior to the Conference.
The U.S. delegation will, if the question is raised, state
that this subject is not within the purview of a
technically-based multilateral conference, and involves
numerous issues for which an ITU conference is not competent to
treat.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Additionally, it should be pointed out that some types of
rescue craft, if marked as medical transports, are already
permitted by the Geneva Convention of 1949, and when so marked
and recognized by parties to the conflict, may use the signals
authorized for the medical transports.
Fallback Positions
The U.S. delegation will be prepared to consider an
appropriate reservation if the Conference approves a proposal
to identify rescue craft or neutral transports associated with
rescue operations during an armed conflict on the following
basis:
1. No internationally agreed definitions of neutrality exists
applicable to ships and aircraft;
2. No international agreed regime exists to respond to the
perfidious use of neutral status;
3. Rescue craft does not have a generally accepted meaning in
international law, and development of such a definition is
beyond the scope of this radio conference; and
4. Establishing a new set of signals for rescue craft would
create needless confusion.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Technical Matters
The United States has made a number of proposals of a
technical nature that can be dealt with at the Conference in
the Technical Working Group of the Plenary. Many of the issues
previously were considered at the CCIR Special Preparatory
Meeting of Study Group 8 held in July 1986. Also, many of the
issues have been considered in the IMO. A number of the
administrations that participate in the CCIR and in the IMO, as
does the U.S., have submitted proposals generally in alignment
with the conclusions of those organizations. Differences
exist, however, but generally in areas where acceptable
compromise should emerge from the negotiations at the
Conference in the Technical Working Group. Differences relate
to technical parameters, whether technical details of systems
should be included in the Appendices to the Radio Regulations,
or whether it is sufficient that they be incorporated by
reference to relevant CCIR Recommendations, and difference in
proposed dates for compliance with changes or new requirements.
The U.S. has proposed the introduction of satellite EPIRBs
at 406 MHz and technical improvements for 121.5/243 MHz EPIRBs
to enhance their detection by satellite systems. Also,
technical proposals have been made to accommodate the Global
Maritime Distress and Safety System with regard to single
sideband transmitters, digital selective calling transmitter
frequency tolerance, addition of the most recent CCIR
Recommendation on narrow-band direct-printing systems,
technical changes for VHF transmitters and UHF on-board
transmitters. Deletion of the technical provisions for the
obsolete lincompex system is proposed.
Comprehensive U.S. Information Papers have been submitted
to the Conference with considerable technical content,
pertaining to the Radiodetermination Satellite Service and the
Mobile Satellite Service in support of major U.S. proposals for
frequency allocation, regulatory and operational provisions for
these systems. New and controversial concepts as viewed by
other administrations are expected to require substantial
deliberation by the Conference. The Technical Working Group
most likely will be designated to deal with the technical
considerations of frequency sharing for RDSS and MSS, and
system interoperability with priority pre-emption for safety
services proposed for MSS, which are essential technical
considerations to achieve a satisfactory level of compatibility
between the aeronautical, maritime and land mobile satellite
services proposed to share the same frequency spectrum.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
i
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
I
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Land Mobile Matters
The impact on terrestrial land mobile communications is not
expected to be significant. However, there is great interest
for the U.S. in preserving provisions which allow continued use
of land mobile systems in the U.S. and concern that nothing
adverse happens which would affect, in particular, use of
frequencies by railroads at VHF. These same frequencies are
used in many parts of the world for maritime mobile
communications.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
TO: SIG Membership on ICIP
United States Department of State
Bureau of
International Communications
and Information Policy
Washington. D.C. 20520
September 3, 1987
FROM:
CIP - Diana Lady Doug n, .S. Coordinator
SUBJECT: Mobile WARC Home Team
The World Administrative Radio Conference for the Mobile
Services will be convened on September 14, 1987 in Geneva.
This office is now in the process of organizing the home team
to guide and support the U.S. Delegation as well as to maintain
liaison with all branches of the Government and the private
sector on the progress of the Conference.
It is requested that each SIG member indicate (1) whether
they should be considered to have a primary or secondary
interest in the issues related to this activity and (2) the
name and telephone numbers (both office and home) of a Staff
Contact person. It would be appreciated if their information
was provided to Warren Richards, 647-2592 on or before
September 9.
. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
August 31, 1987
Senior Interagency Group - September 9, 1987
Agenda Item #1: U.S. International Satellite Policy -
"Separate Systems" and "Transborder"
ISSUE:
To clarify U.S. policy regarding two areas of activity - use of
U.S. domestic satellites for "transborder" service to
neighboring countries and use of U.S. international satellite
systems separate from the INTELSAT system.
BACKGROUND:
Our "transborder" satellite policy stems from a 1981 letter from
Undersecretary Buckley to the Chairman of the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) (see attachment A). The letter
notes that "certain exceptional circumstances may exist where it
would be in the interest of the United States to use domestic
satellites for public international telecommunications with
nearby countries." Such cases would be where INTELSAT could not
provide the required service or where it would be clearly
uneconomical or impractical for INTELSAT to do so.
Nevertheless, the burden of demonstrating the reasons warranting
reliance on domestic satellites for international purposes would
rest on the proponents.
The letter contemplated consultation pursuant to Article XIV (d)
of the INTELSAT Agreement and the concurrence of the foreign
governments concerned. In closing, the letter identified
pending applications where no national or foreign policy
interest prevented FCC consideration of whether the public
convenience and necessity would be served by international use
of domestic space segment, while acknowledging that future
proposals could vary considerably and could require a de novo
review.
This letter has become known as the "Buckley letter", and is
generally viewed as allowing use of U.S. domestic satellite
systems to provide communications to nearby countries covered by
the spillover "footprint" of U.S. satellites (and vice-versa).
No general review of the policies of the Buckley letter has been
conducted to date. It is appropriate to do so at present: while
the Buckley letter does not address service restrictions, the
Tab 2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24 : CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
'
-2-
prohibition of interconnection with the public-switched network
is a key element in the later polcy statements conveyed to the
FCC by Secretaries Shultz and Baldrige.
In 1984, a Presidential policy governing U.S. international
satellite systems separate from INTELSAT was established.
Secretary of State Shultz and Secretary of Commerce Baldrige
informed the FCC that any such systems were restricted to
providing services not connected with public switched networks;
that the services must be provided through sale or long term
lease; that they must be consulted with INTELSAT under Article
XIV of the INTELSAT agreement; and they must be authorized by
foreign authorities in the country(s) of operation (see
attachment B).
DISCUSSION
There are presently petitions before the FCC which are viewed by
some as leading to an expansion of:the application of the
Buckley letter (and its lack of service restrictions) at the
expense of the criteria given in the Shultz-Baldrige letter.
The Shultz-Baldrige letter criteria were premised on the issues
prompted by the then-pending applications before the FCC
(largely service across the North Atlantic). The
Shultz-Baldrige letter contemplated later review if
substantially different proposals were forthcoming. Not
withstanding this review language, the U.S.G. drew upon the
interconnection restrictions in the Shultz-Baldrige letter to
lessen international concern about the U.S. separate systems
policy.
Presently, those satellite systems designed for international
use and those designed for domestic use have been relatively
easy to distinguish. However, instances will certainly arise in
which the two policies overlap into a gray area where it is not
clear which policy would apply. Even in those cases where the
designated use of a satellite system is clearly discernable, the
rationalization for having different criteria apply to
potentially identical satellites, providing identical technical
capabilities to the same locations is subject to challenge
(e.g., a "separate system" and a "transborder system" may
currently face different service restrictions on their
operations between the.United States and the Caribbean).
Several recent developments have increased the necessity for the
government to resolve or at least justify the apparent
differences between our two U.S. satellite policies. In early
1967, the Federal Communications Commission determined that U.S.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90C;On1s9PnnmnmanrmA A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
- 3
domestic satellite service to Jamaica fell within the 1981
transborder satellite policy as defined in the Buckley letter.
The Commission noted that this policy did not restrict satellite
service interconnection with the public network. In statements
made at INTELSAT's Eleventh Assembly of Parties, the
representative of U.S. Party noted that this decision was made
in the context of a satellite which was primarily designed for
domestic service and met our stated policy goal of promotimg
efficent use of the orbit. She also noted that other regions
have developed satellite systems which provide more than
domestic services but which face no restrictions on
interconnecting with the public switched network.
COMSAT, the U.S. Signatory to INTELSAT, has challenged the
Commission's action in court - as being contrary to the U.S.
separate systems policy. Moreover, AT&T has filed with the FCC
to provide U.S. domestic satellite services to the Caribbean
region. PanAmSat, whose international satellite system covers
the Carribean, has formally commented that AT&T should not be
authorized to interconnect with the public network in this.
region while PanAmSat, operating under the "separate systems"
constraints, would be prohibited from such interconnection.
Such a result could be considered to be inequitable treatment.
While the FCC may determine to apply the less restrictive
"transborder" approach from a U.S. regulatory standpoint, the
Executive Branch must consider the'matter in the context of
statute as well as foreign and national policy since the
President, under the terms of the 1962 Satellite Act, shall
determine whether a proposed communications satellite system
outside INTELSAT is required in the national interest. The
current application of the policies is not sufficiently clear to
provide the necessary certainty for either commercial or foreign
policy purposes.
In summary, the issue is not to reconsider these established
policies but rather to clarify the issue of which policy applies
to a given specific satellite system serving a given
geographical region.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
-- A U.S. domestic satellite system has a cove
VhfCh extends deeply into South Ameriea. Will thi
:----'
.2.__, 04-. ? transborder or separate system policy?
__'-=-4-? =eitt&H(-
.
:?,????? .? 1:-_,---?-
---4-, . --_- - -
---1.2.-----...?-_,-
-----_-....---;---------,
_ _ ...
/?,--_--.1:. +---:-;: F--, _
...-f- ...-..."---- :I
,
-4r,
,
?
- ?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
rage sons, ,,Tto-41
s systom
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
-4-
-- The satellite systems can be easily distinguished as
either "domestic transborder" or "separate international",
however, common countries could be served by both systems.
Would a different policy apply to each system?
POLICY OPTIONS:
o A U.S. international communications satellite policy that
would apply the "separate systems" and "transborder"
criteria on a geographical basis, rather than on a satellite
system basis (i.e., all systems serving a given geographic
region would face the same criteria).
In practice, this would formally expand the "transborder"
policy to a "regional" policy as is the case in Europe and
elsewhere. That is, for hemispheric regional satellite
systems analogous to EUTELSAT,.ARABSAT and PALAPA,
INTELSAT's Article XIV procedures would be considered
sufficient to guard against significant economic harm.
However, for "trans-regional" separate systems an extra
measure of protection for INTELSAT, over and above Article
XIV consultation, would be provided: i.e., restriction
against interconnection with public switched networks.
Clearly, under this option other significant issues, such as
definitions of regions, must be determined.
o Allow satellite systems, whether U.S. "separate systems" or
U.S. "transborder", to interconnect with public networks in
each country at the request of that country.
If the system elects to restrict itself to customized
non-public network services, then this could be considered
prima facia evidence of insignificant economic harm to
INTELSAT. A greatly simplified and expedited Article XIV
process might then apply. If the system elects to
interconnect with the public network, then the normal
in-depth Article XIV process would be necessary to deal with
the issue of significant economic harm. .
The SIG Working Group will address the commercial and foreign
policy implications of either of the above policy options, or
any other options presented to the working group.
?
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4
????
????
?11111?41Mk.
4=0.11,
SCENARIO FOR SEPTEMBER 9, SIG MEETING
Under Secretary Derwinski opens the meeting with brief
remarks noting: the importance and proven effectiveness of
the SIG process in resolving differences and arriving at
agreed USG positions; his intention to see that the
International Communications SIG plays an active role; and,
his willingness to do what is necesary to ensure its smooth
functioning.
The Under Secretary asks the SIG participants to identify
themselves and any accompanying members of their staffs.
The Under Secretary introduces the two agenda items and
asks if all participants have copies of the relevant
documents. (Additional copies will be available for
distribution as necessary.)
The Under Secretary introduces Mobile WARC delegation
chairman David Markey and asks that he briefly discuss the
Scope paper.
The Under Secretary notes the .acceptance of the document by
the members of the SIG.
The Under Secretary introduces Warren Richards of CIP who
will serve as staff level chairman of the "home team" and
asks that he give a brief description of the home team
process in backstopping the Mobile WARC delegation.
The Under Secretary asks Ambassador Dougan briefly to
outline the issues involved in the question of "separate
systems" and "transborder" satellite policies.
The Under Secretary asks Richard Firestone of NTIA and
Randolph Earnest of CIP/REG to give additional details of
the satellite policy issue contained in the distributed
discussion paper.
The Under Secretary requests comments and questions from
the SIG members.
The Undersecretary designates Messrs. Firestone and Earnest
as co-chairmen of a SIG working group to study ways of
resolving the problems related to the current situation of
different policies for the two catagories of satellites.
The Under Secretary asks that this issue be considered by
the working group and that the co'-chairmen report back to
the SIG in December.
Tab 3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90G00152R000300360004-4