). The letters were chosen at random, so that the enemy wouldn't know what they were talking about. Over the years, some discrepancies crept into the labels, making some of the designations imprecise.
Many of the satellite system vendors cited the regulatory process as a problem. Skybridge's Mark MacGann puts it this way, "Spectrum is a scarce resource. The ITU has always allocated frequency on a first-come, first- served basis. But that cannot continue."
Indeed, the whole regulatory process could drive a neophyte nuts. According to Lockheed's Karl Savatiel, the process in the U.S. is highly iterative. You file with the FCC for authorit
y to construct radio beacons at a particular frequency (and a position in the case of GEOs). If someone asks for the same frequency, the FCC makes its decision based on the greater public good. If there's a conflict, there may be an auction (which is what happened with the Ka-band when it opened up).
Then the FCC takes all the U.S. filers to the ITU -- the international coordinating body. However, because the ITU allocates bandwidth on a first-come, first-served basis, while the FCC is resolving U.S. conflicts, other countries that can resolve conflicts quicker may be getting orbital slots and frequencies that U.S. companies were counting on.
Then it goes back to the FCC's drawing board. "The FCC has teeth in its process," says Savatiel. "If you don't deliver in five years, you lose your slot; the ITU has fewer teeth -- you won't lose it for at least nine years."
Until recently, this arrangement hasn't been a problem. However, if future spectrum allocations are as heated as the Ka-band's, th
e ITU may need to reconsider its process to add more teeth -- perhaps a "greater public good" system.
I'm with the Band
