Summary of Radio Regulatory Council Meeting (No. 883)



1. Date and Time
  On May 12, 2004 (Wednesday)
From 16:00 to 17:17
2. Location
  MIC (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications) meeting room
(Meeting room No. 1002 on the 10F)
3. Attendees (Honorifics omitted)
(1) Members of the Radio Regulatory Council
  Yasuhiko Yasuda (Chairperson), Takeo Inokuchi (Vice-Chairperson), Junichi Hamada, Koshiko Kodate, Hatsuko Ukigawa
(2) Radio Regulatory Council Hearing Examiner
  Taku Kiyasu
(3) Secretary
  Masao Okamoto (Deputy Director of General Affairs Division, Telecommunications Bureau)
(4) MIC (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  Aritomi (Director-General of Telecommunications Bureau), Takeda (Director-General of Radio Department), Fujioka (Deputy Director-General), and others

4. Minutes of the Meeting

(1) Draft for MIC ordinance to amend respective portions of Regulations for Enforcement of the Radio Law and Regulations for Operating Radio Stations
(Consultation No. 6 of March 17, 2004)
      This consultation was on the MIC ordinance draft mentioned in the title. The draft pertains to amendment of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention). The council deliberated the case based on the written opinions and written statements submitted by the hearing examiner, who presided over the opinion hearing procedure (cf. No. 391: Written Opinion from Hearing on Opinions from the Radio Regulatory Council). The council judged the case for the draft MIC ordinance to amend portions of Regulations for Enforcement of the Radio Law to be appropriate, and the MIC ordinance to amend portions of Regulations for Operating Radio Stations to be summarily appropriate. The council submitted a report.
 Concerning the MIC ordinance to amend portions of Regulations for Operating Radio Stations, the council added a comment on exceptions to the rule that requires constant Automatic Identification System (AIS) operation. The council judged it appropriate to permit exceptions when the ship captain judges that continuous AIS operation may hinder the safety of the ship based on the applicable regulations of the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention), and the Guideline for AIS Operation resolution of the IMO (International Maritime Organization).

(2) Preliminary license for broadcast satellites of a facility-supporting broadcaster pertaining to CS digital broadcasting at 110 degrees east longitude
(Consultation No. 13)
   This consultation was regarding a preliminary license for broadcast satellites of a facility-supporting broadcaster pertaining to CS digital broadcasting at 110 degrees east longitude. The MIC gave the below explanation and a Q&A session took place. The council deliberated the issue, judged the issue as appropriate, and submitted a report.
a. Explanation by MIC
   This consultation is regarding approval to permit a preliminary license for broadcast satellites of a facility-supporting broadcaster pertaining to CS digital broadcasting at 110 degrees east longitude.
 The applicant is JSAT Corporation. Currently, the N-SAT-110, conducting CS digital broadcasting at 110 degrees east longitude, is a common satellite of JSAT Corporation and Space Communications Corporation. This application concerned the broadcast stations owned by JSAT Corporation. JSAT Corporation applied for the preliminary license for broadcast satellite stations (High Definition Television Broadcasting [digital broadcasting]).
 At present, there are two broadcast satellite stations (Standard television broadcasting and data broadcasting) pertaining to the N-SAT-110 that are owned by JSAT Corporation. The two stations are conducting entrusted domestic broadcasting. Since a program-supporting broadcaster requested High Definition Television Broadcasting, JSAT made the application to meet this need.
 As the same transponder is already used for standard television broadcasting and data broadcasting, and as the application conforms to laws and regulations without any problems, the examination concluded that JSAT Corporation shall be permitted the preliminary license according to its application.
b. Main content of the Q&A session
  - The council asked if the same transponder and frequency would be used. The MIC replied that the same transponder and frequency would be used.

(3) Approval of program-supporting broadcasting relating to CS digital broadcasting at 110 degrees east longitude
(Consultation No. 14)
   Regarding approval of program-supporting broadcasting relating to CS digital broadcasting at 110 degrees east longitude, the MIC provided the below explanation and a Q&A session took place. The council deliberated the issue, judged the issue as appropriate, and submitted a report.
a. Explanation by MIC
   Some program-supporting broadcasters applied for abolishment of program-supporting broadcasting relating to CS digital broadcasting at 110 degrees east longitude, and the number of broadcasting programs became lower than the target set by the Basic Plan for Broadcast Dissemination. To achieve the said plan's target, the MIC welcomed applications for approval pertaining to the CS digital broadcasting at 110 degrees east longitude from March 12 to April 9 of 2004. Applications were examined based on the accreditation policy pertaining to approval of program-supporting broadcasting in regard to CS digital broadcasting utilizing satellite at 110 degrees east longitude and frequencies other than those used by broadcast satellite services included in the scope of the applications welcomed from March 12 to April 9 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "policy for approval").
 Thirteen companies submitted applications concerning 56 standard television broadcasting programs, 11 High Definition Television broadcasting programs, and 1 data broadcasting program. Nevertheless, since the Basic Plan for Broadcast Dissemination regulates that Hi-Vision broadcasting shall be conducted only when standard television broadcasting is not conducted, the frequencies of the applications are the same. The frequency slots that can be designated number 384. The total number of slots applied for was 396, meaning that 12 of the requested slots could not be designated.
 The examination procedure was as follows. First, individual examination was carried out. All 13 companies complied with Article 52-13-(1)-(i1) to (v5) of the Broadcast Law and Article 7-(i1) to (v5) of the Standard for Examining Broadcast Law Related Issues (hereinafter referred to as "examination standard"). With the data broadcasting frequency being assignable, approval of data broadcasting for CS One Ten, Ltd. was deemed appropriate at this point.
 Second, comparative examination was carried out by comprehensive evaluation of eight items referred to in Article 7-(i1) to (v5) of the examination standard, and Article 4-(i1) to (iv4) of the policy for approval by designating a weight for each item. The result of evaluation was such that the degree of conformance to Article 4-(ii2) of the policy for approval (high-quality functions utilizing the characteristic of digital broadcasting) was relatively low for CS AMUSE, which did not have plans to conduct either Hi-Vision broadcasting or data broadcasting. The MIC thus deemed the application submitted by the said company rejected. Since CS AMUSE was applying for 12 slots, slots were available for all other applicants.
b. Main content of the Q&A session
  - The council asked if the application from Interac TV Co., Ltd. is asking for additional approval for an increased number of slots (different from other companies). The MIC answered that the said company applied for a different form of approval for the existing 52 slots, and new approval for 20 slots. The MIC also explained that Multi Channel Entertainment newly applied for 72 slots in addition to the existing 36 slots.
- The council asked if this was the first time CS AMUSE had submitted an application. The MIC answered that the entity dominating the company is transmitting CS broadcasting from the longitude of 124 degrees east and 128 degrees east, but this its first application for broadcasting from 110 degrees east longitude.
- The council asked the following questions:
Was prioritization of existing operators in accordance to the policy for approval?
Is a standard to evaluate financial foundation commonly applied?
If a standard to evaluate financial foundation is commonly applied, are the standards related to Article 7-(iv4) of the examination standard and Article 4-(ii2) of the policy for approval the characteristic standards applied to these applications in regard to approval?
The MIC answered "yes" to the first and second question. As for the third question, the MIC explained that Article 4-(ii2) of the approval policy was applied to the first examination for approval of broadcasting from 110 degrees east longitude. Therefore, Article 4-(i1) of the said policy is probably a characteristic standard applied for the first time for this examination. However, since the policy has been decided in line with conventional standards, the MIC believes that the standards are reasonable.
- The council asked if the examination policy to pass judgment based on the policy for approval was decided before welcoming applications. The council also questioned the designating of weight for each evaluation item used for comparative examination. The MIC answered "yes" to the first question, and replied that designation of weight was decided upon examination.
- The council questioned the oddness in designating the weight of evaluation items after application and the objectiveness of the examination. The MIC explained that items were weighted in conformance to the idea of "placing priority on existing operators" and "achieving high-quality functions and images" that were clearly defined as important prior to the examination, and that the examination attains reasonableness.
- The council asked if the operator that did not receive approval has been notified of details on the reason for rejection. The MIC answered that a document stating the reason for rejection will be sent.
- The council asked if the operator that did not receive approval is permitted a second chance after carrying out improvements. The MIC answered "yes".
 
(The Radio Regulatory Council Secretariat is responsible for the wording of this document)