It is not just that satcom spectrum is not auctioned anywhere in the world or that it is a shared commodity between satcom operators (unlike the case of terrestrial spectrum for mobile operators), and is therefore not an auctionable resource. How can you auction a commodity or resource to anyone to whom you cannot give unique rights? Hence, the world over, satellite spectrum is authorised for \u2018right-to-use\u2019 by all administrations and is allocated only by administrative process, at charges that essentially cover the cost of administration. Moreover, all satcom spectrum is coordinated by the UN agency, ITU, and subject to their Radio Regulations.

Even apart from the above techno-economic facts, why would we expect DoT to trouble the apex Court when it had already given its elaborate Advisory Judgement when the Government sought its opinion through Presidential Reference No.1 of 2012 subsequent to the decision of Supreme Court in what is now well-known as the \u201c2G Case\u201d.

Just a few of the excellent points of clarity and learnings from the ruling of the Hon\u2019ble 5-judge Constitutional Bench which included the CJI, are indicated below to refresh memories:

• The law declared in a judgement, which is binding upon courts, is the \u2018ratio decidendi\u2019 of the judgement - it is the principle culled out on the reading of a judgement as a whole in the light of the questions raised upon which the case is decided.<\/li>
• It is to be noted that in the \u201c2G Case\u201d, the Court was not considering the case of auction in general, but was specifically evaluating the validity of the methods adopted in the distribution of spectrum during the relevant period.<\/li>
• Observation in the 2G Case could not apply beyond a specific case of spectrum, which according to the law declared in the 2G Case, is to be alienated only by auction and no other method.<\/li>
• Auction, as an economic choice of disposal of natural resources, is not a constitutional mandate, but a policy decision and an executive prerogative.<\/li>
• Auction is the best way of maximizing revenue, but revenue maximization may not always be the best way to serve public good. At times it may run counter to public good.<\/li>
• Market price, in economics, is an index of the value that the market prescribed to a good. However, this valuation is a function of several dynamic variables, it is a science and not a law. Auction is just one of the several price discovery mechanisms.<\/li> <\/ul>
  The inference:
  <\/strong>
  In the 2G Case, only the mobile access spectrum of the concerned 18 licenses in a specific period were cancelled, and, not either the microwave spectrum licenses, nor the other mobile spectrum licenses which had not been awarded through auction since 2003. Hence, it is vital to note that there was no blanket ban on non-auction allocation of microwave spectrum, satellite spectrum or Wi-Fi spectrum or even of other mobile access spectrum then available administratively to some licensees.
  
  There cannot be a \u2018one size fits all\u2019 Policy for handling all types of spectrum. Satellite spectrum is as different from terrestrial spectrum as chalk from cheese. A shared commodity like satellite spectrum doesn\u2019t meet the fundamental prerequisite for being auctionable. As stated earlier, no country in the world auctions satellite spectrum. Repeatedly, in the past, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court has declined to intervene in such matters to provide any direction unless while implementing such Policy, there is violation or infringement of the Constitutional or statutory provisions.
  
  In May last year, FM Nirmala Sitharaman announced historic measures for privatising and liberalising the satellite\/space sector. Keeping in mind that Indian satcom is today where Indian mobile communications was 25 years ago, domestic and international investors have been fired with much hope and enthusiasm for the sector. It is fervently hoped that retrograde steps are now not taken on satcom spectrum to set us back again.
  
  ","blog_img":"","posted_date":"2021-09-28 08:27:43","modified_date":"2021-09-28 08:38:17","featured":"0","status":"Y","seo_title":"Satellite spectrum issue getting","seo_url":"satellite-spectrum-issue-getting-curiouser-and-curiouser","url":"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/tele-talk\/satellite-spectrum-issue-getting-curiouser-and-curiouser\/5107","url_seo":"satellite-spectrum-issue-getting-curiouser-and-curiouser"}">
  在激烈的争论关于是否肆虐卫星通信应该被拍卖,媒体报道现在添加更多的“香料”的热主题通过报告部门正在考虑再次去最高法院的意见在这个问题上应该做什么。这样的推测是真正惊人的和令人费解的。
  
  不仅仅是在世界任何地方,卫星通信频谱不是拍卖或它是一个共享卫星通信运营商之间的商品(不像陆地频谱移动运营商的情况下),因此不是一个可拍卖的资源。你怎么能拍卖商品或者资源任何人谁你不能给独特的权利吗?因此,全世界,卫星光谱是所有政府授权的“使用权”和分配只有行政过程,在本质上的费用政府指控。此外,所有卫星通信频谱由联合国机构协调,电联,服从他们的无线电法规。
  
  甚至除了上述技术经济事实,为什么我们期望点麻烦顶点法院已经由于其复杂的咨询时判断当政府寻求通过总统意见参考1号2012后续最高法院的决定在现在著名的“2 g的情况”。
  
  几个好点的清晰和经验的裁决鸿'ble 5-judge宪法台包括CJI,刷新记忆表示如下:
  
  

  • 中声明的法律判决,对法院有约束力的“判决理由”的判断——这是判断的原则扑杀了阅读作为一个整体的问题的决定。
  • 是指出,在“2 g案例”,法院没有考虑拍卖的情况,但具体评估方法的有效性在相关期间采用频谱的分布。
  • 观察在2 g的情况下可能不适用超出特定范围的情况下,根据法律宣布在2 g的情况下,只有拍卖是疏远了,没有其他方法。
  • 拍卖中,作为一个经济的选择自然资源的处理,不是宪法的授权,但政策决定和行政特权。
  • 拍卖收入最大化的最佳方式,但收入最大化可能并不总是最好的方法为公共利益服务。有时它可能与公共利益相悖。
  • 市场价格,在经济学,是一个指数,市场价值的规定好。然而,这种估值是几个动态变量的函数,它是一门科学,而不是法律。拍卖只是一个的价格发现机制。

  
  推理:
  
  在2 g的情况下,只有移动接入频谱的担心18许可证被取消在一个特定的时期,而不是微波频谱许可证,也没有其他移动频谱许可证自2003年以来没有被授予通过拍卖。因此,至关重要的是要注意,没有全面禁止non-auction微波频谱分配,卫星光谱或wi - fi光谱或者其他移动接入频谱,然后可行政许可。
  
  不能有“一刀切”政策来处理所有类型的光谱。卫星光谱不同于地面光谱如粉笔从奶酪。共享的商品像卫星光谱不符合可拍卖的基本先决条件。如前所述,世界上没有一个国家卫星频谱拍卖。反复,在过去,亲爱的'ble最高法院拒绝介入此类事件提供任何方向,除非在实施这些政策,有违反或侵犯宪法或法律规定。
  
  去年5月,FM吧Sitharaman宣布私有化和自由化卫星/历史性措施空间领域。记住,印度今天是卫星通信,移动通信是25年前,国内外投资者已经被解雇的希望和热情。热切地希望,逆行现在不采取措施在卫星通信领域我们回来。
  
  

  免责声明:作者的观点仅和ETTelecom.com不一定订阅它。乐动体育1002乐动体育乐动娱乐招聘乐动娱乐招聘乐动体育1002乐动体育ETTelecom.com不得负责任何损害任何个人/组织直接或间接造成的。

  Tele-Talk

  卫星通信

  空间频谱

  空间频谱拍卖

  频谱拍卖

  电信行业

  卫星通信行业

  卫星通信

  2 g的情况