technologically advanced States. Writing in 1973, following the 1971 World Administrative Radio Conference, Chayes has summarized pre-1971 practices and has offered conclusions relating to radio frequency priorities for the post-1971 era. His comment takes into account the fact that the ITU even prior to 1971 had associated the recordation by the IFRB of radio frequency national assignments with the orbital positions of the satellites that employed such radio frequencies. Chayes writes: Until the WARC of 1971, registration, in the case of satellite-communications systems, required notice of the frequencies to be used, the proposed orbital position and certain other characteristics, notably the effective power at which the satellites would operate, antenna directionality, and other matters relevant to compliance with the criteria established for use of frequencies already in use by terrestrial services in the area of coverage. If these characteristics were in conformity with ITU Regulations, and if there were no likelihood of interference with stations already registered, the applicant would be entitled to have the frequencies registered in the Master Register with a favorable finding. That meant, in effect, that the system was entitled to priority over any later systems that caused interference with it, even though the registered system was not designed so as to economize spectrum use and did not take account of prospective needs of other users in planning. The 1971 WARC ST modified this framework by requiring users of radio frequencies in satellite systems to coordinate their respective uses of the radio spectrum. While the change allows prospective users of the spectrum to object to existing uses, and while it obliges existing users See p. 6 infra for the treaty basis for the linking of radio frequencies with the orbital slots of space objects. A. Chayes and others, Satellite Broadcasting 18 (1973).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==