Technical documents scheduled to accompany the notice of proposed rulemaking were expected to say that the state of the art is such that manufacturers of transmitters and receivers could produce equipment to minimize interference. But according to Lepkowski, the FCC has no solid information on how much it would cost satellite communications user , to adjust to the new spacing requirements. “Nor,” Lepkowski said, “did the FCC have information on how long it would take to convert to such a spacing system.” “We’re predisposed to two degree spacing,” Lepkowski said the day after the commission unanimously voted to seek public comment on the proposal. “But we are not going to force it on the industry if it is not shown to be feasible.” The FCC’s justification for moving ahead with the proposal is to accommodate more satellites to meet expected continuing demand for space communications in the U.S. While the FCC has not stated how many new satellites could be accommodated with such a plan, Lepkowski estimated that no less than 30 satellites in the C band, and 30 in the K band, creating some 1500 new transponders, could be available for users in the next decade. There was no immediate reaction to the proposal. However, it was expected that some users of satellite communications might express opposition to it. The cable TV industry, presently the heaviest user of satellite communications, has previously expressed concern about the cost to cable operators of adjusting to a three degree spacing plan (9). A recent publication draws several conclusions regarding future use of the geostationary orbit. The World in Space, prepared for UNISPACE 1982, in its conclusions, draws upon the following suggestions: First, if radically new systems make large demands on the orbit, in particular very large systems such as solar power satellites, the situation might be altered profoundly, and solutions that would satisfy all demands for geostationary services might be very difficult to find. Second, to avoid this problem, efforts should be made to provide all geostationary satellites with the means to remove themselves from the geostationary orbit at the end of their active lifetimes (10). There is considerable concern among Outer Space specialists in the U.S. with regard to the DBS and the geostationary future, which Drs. Delbert D. Smith and Martin A. Rothblatt comment on, in the Journal of Space Law, Spring 1982 issue, as follows: A great amount of intellectual thought is needed with regard to the legal, economic and engineering implications of severed estates in space. Given current attempts at satellite transponder suctioning, even the casual observer of space affairs must be struck by the presence of a strong trend toward severed ownership of operational and support satellite subsystems. The creation of these severed estates in space marks, in many respects, a new plateau in the growth of space law and policy. For it is now very clear that one should frequently expect more than one entity to acquire a judicially enforceable right to affect the character of a space segment system. Accordingly, space segment legal rights and responsibilities may be associated with different parties and space law may become a critical management concern (11). Finally, it is important to note that with regard to the DBS, the September 1982 issue of Aeronautics and Astronautics magazine reports: In passing on near-term DBS, the FCC evaluated a number of issues, notably whether the start of DBS work before the 1983 Regional Adminisrative Radio Conference (RARC-83) would be detrimental to U.S. interests and its negotiating position at the RARC-83 conference. Scheduled for midsummer 1983 in Geneva, RARC-83 will permanently assign orbits and frequencies for DBS in the Western Hemisphere. Decisions made at RARC-83 will determine critical elements in the operation of any DBS system. Though the United States will try to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==