ITU Myth #3: The ITU Provides Coordination Software

In the space and satellite industry, one myth stubbornly persists: the idea that the ITU provides a magical piece of software that automates or facilitates frequency coordination. It comes up time and again, especially among newer entrants.

 Let’s set the record straight. There is no such thing as ITU coordination software. 

And that’s by design.

 The Truth About ITU Tools

The ITU offers a suite of tools such as SpaceCap, GIMS, GIBC, BR-SIS, and Space Explorer to assist with the preparation, validation, and notification of satellite filings. These tools are invaluable for managing the regulatory lifecycle of filings and ensuring alignment with the Radio Regulations, including provisions specific to certain frequency bands where applicable. However, and this is crucial, these tools are not designed to (and cannot) carry out coordination on your behalf.

Coordination Requires People, Strategy, and Time

Real-world coordination involves:

• Identifying potentially affected networks and systems (based on orbital separation, frequency overlap, or service area geometry)

• Engaging in bilateral (and sometimes multilateral) discussions supporting technical justifications, and at times, political or commercial discussions

• Negotiating the terms of coexistence, which may include azimuth/elevation masks, time-sharing agreements, dynamic power constraints, avoidance strategy, or future flexibility provisions

• Documenting the outcome through letters, e-mails, operational agreements, and formally ratified coordination agreements at government level.

Coordination Is Not a Checkbox Exercise

While there are some ITU Recommendations which provide guidelines, there are no predefined or globally agreed protection criteria that can be universally applied.

Each administration, and often each operator, is entitled to define its own protection thresholds, methodologies, and acceptability standards based on their networks, national policy objectives, service expectations, and technical realities.

In some cases, a few dB of carrier-to-interference ratio (C/I) degradation may be tolerable. In others, even the faintest increase in noise temperature might be grounds for objection. Some administrations demand detailed interference-to-noise (I/N) studies; others want power flux density (PFD) overlays or worst-case orbital conjunction assessments.

There are no "ITU standard" to specify what is universally acceptable; because what’s acceptable is a political and commercial question, not just a technical one.

The Exception

The only partial exception to all of this lies in the planned bands, governed by Appendices 30, 30A, and 30B of the Radio Regulations. In these cases, the ITU has defined explicit coordination criteria, typically in terms of C/I ratios or Equivalent Protection Margins (EPMs) which are built into the ITU’s technical examination tools.

Because the protection thresholds are pre-agreed and codified, the ITU software can, in this very specific context, perform a formal compatibility check that effectively supports coordination. But this is the exception that proves the rule.

These planned bands were originally established to ensure equitable access for developing countries, many of which lacked the technical capacity, budget, or regulatory expertise to engage in complex bilateral negotiations. The standardized protection model was introduced specifically to lower the coordination barrier, not to redefine how coordination works.

Outside of these bands, the process remains bespoke, bilateral, and dependent on criteria defined case-by-case by each administration and operator.

 Final Thought

The myth of an “ITU coordination tool” gives the false impression that coordination is a hurdle that can be crossed with the right button-click rather than the strategic, negotiated process it is.

At River Advisers, we’ve helped clients navigate some extremely complex coordination landscapes, including across incompatible allocations and non-traditional service models. Our clients succeed not because they find the right tool, but because they invest in the right process: one that respects the bilateral, non-standardised nature of real-world coordination.